Trump the Autocrat.

[JimL]

I'm not sure if he actually believes that or is merely attempting to provoke an angry response.

Interesting how you only see the (impunery) on one side. Your blind bias never fails to expose you as a one not to be taken too seriously.

[JimL]

It would make a world of difference, Jimmy. It's exactly why, in spycraft, you always want to cover your tracks.

So, explain then, what difference would it make if we found that the Russians changed the vote after the election was over?

You get this way when you get backed into a corner, Jimmy.

No, I get this way when I see such cognitive dissonance (or plain stupidity) in the face of an attack on our system of governance by a foriegn adversary.

It's like an act of war, Jimmy -- if they actually change votes and leave proof they did it, it's a major problem.

Duh! No kidding, CP? How about when we know they have the capability to do it due to our knowledge of their probing? What then?

[Cow Poke]

So, explain then, what difference would it make if we found that the Russians changed the vote after the election was over?

How bout let's focus on why YOUR guy didn't do anything about this when he was in office, and this was a big issue?

[Sparko]

He put two conservatives on the SCOTUS, except that one was stolen from Obama. I forgot, with the right, it's "might makes right." The ends justify the means.

If Mussolini had appointed conservative judges (and I'm sure he would would because he was as astute a political opportunist as Trump), he would have filled all your criteria also. Arenas all around the country would be filed right now with rednecks proudly wearing "Il Duce" caps.

ScreenHunter_.jpg

[One Bad Pig]

Interesting how you only see the (impunery) on one side.

I don't. You're a lazy jackass. That's me impugning you. I fervently wish you weren't either of those things; you'd be much more interesting to talk to.

Your blind bias never fails to expose you as a one not to be taken too seriously.

CEPG0BtWoAAlovd.jpg

[JimL]

How bout let's focus on why YOUR guy didn't do anything about this when he was in office, and this was a big issue?

He did, but Moscow Mitch McConnell threatened to make a spectical of it, claiming it was just some sort of tactic on Obama's part in order to help the Democrats in the upcoming election. Moscow Mitch is at it again btw, refusing to bring to the floor for a vote two bills aimed at protecting the electoral process from outside interference. Now why on earth, do you think, that Moscow Mitch would want to not do anything to protect the election process from outside interference after what we know the Russians already accomplished and what we know they are even more capable of doing now?

[Cow Poke]

He did, but Moscow Mitch McConnell threatened to make a spectical of it, claiming it was just some sort of tactic on Obama's part in order to help the Democrats in the upcoming election. Moscow Mitch is at it again btw, refusing to bring to the floor for a vote two bills aimed at protecting the electoral process from outside interference. Now why on earth, do you think, that Moscow Mitch would want to not do anything to protect the election process from outside interference after what we know the Russians already accomplished and what we know they are even more capable of doing now?

Jimmy, your track record at stating matters in a truthful manner is highly suspect. Besides your LiberalTalkingPointsForDummies, or Mother Jones, do you actually have a cite for any of this?

And, don't forget, if Obama REALLY wanted to do something about Russian interference....

Pen-and-Phone-590-LI.jpg

[rogue06]

How bout let's focus on why YOUR guy didn't do anything about this when he was in office, and this was a big issue?

He actually mocked the idea that anyone could interfere with the election.

[Cow Poke]

He actually mocked the idea that anyone could interfere with the election.

Moscow Mitch must have been pulling his strings. OR --- Obama was working for the RUSSIANS!!!!

[Jim B.]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38636[/ATTACH]

You got me there!

[Jim B.]

OK, Buster, but that's only a PRELIMINARY finding --- any day now, they're going to produce evidence that the Russians actually elected Trump. You just wait, young man!!!!

No votes were physically changed and no machines were manipulated. But that's never been the contention anyway. That's a straw man argument. The contention was that people were swayed and people were motivated to vote who would not otherwise have been swayed or motivated.

[Cow Poke]

No votes were physically changed and no machines were manipulated. But that's never been the contention anyway. That's a straw man argument. The contention was that people were swayed and people were motivated to vote who would not otherwise have been swayed or motivated.

Wow.... POLITICS!!!!

[Teallaura]

No votes were physically changed and no machines were manipulated. But that's never been the contention anyway. That's a straw man argument. The contention was that people were swayed and people were motivated to vote who would not otherwise have been swayed or motivated.

The problem is that it's nearly impossible to prove an actual effect - were voters actually influenced to change their voter behavior? Because of the insular way we tend to use social media (looking at things that we already agree with) it's not at all clear that there was any effect at all. People already set to vote a given way being more likely to click on things that might influence them to vote that way - at best, it might make them more likely to vote (which should have benefited the democrats) and at worse, just inflamed already irate people. Centrists and Conservatives have a tendency to investigate media they don't necessarily agree with where Liberals tend to only stay in agreement territory - making it even less likely to have swayed any votes away from Clinton, assuming there was any effect at all, which we can't demonstrate.

Trump as a Manchurian style candidate is laughable. Clinton didn't need help losing - her campaign was insanely over confident. The mainstream media inadvertently did far more damage to Clinton (hint: do NOT make the lack luster Democrat the front runner if you can possibly help it - it dampens turnout and Democrats live or die on turnout) than they did Trump - and they seemed determined to damage Trump! The Russians couldn't have done more damage to Clinton's campaign unless she let them run it. Actually, given the way it was run, she might have been better off if they had.

In short, where's the beef?

[Mountain Man]

Wow.... POLITICS!!!!

And the irony is that all the Russians (allegedly) did was tell the truth about Hillary and the Democrat party. To put it another way, they did the job that the liberal media refused to do.

[Jim B.]

So the debate among Dems now is whether or not to proceed with at least an impeachment inquiry.

One argument for it is that if you don't do it you're tacitly setting a precedent for future Presidents that it's okay to act the way Trump has acted, and that you can do it with impunity, and that even if it's a political loser for Dems, it has to be done as a check on the growth of the imperial Presidency going forward.

Another argument in favor is the assumption that enough of the public will 'go along' with impeachment once Trump's abuses are aired publicly in an impeachment inquiry.

The argument against is that even if impeachment clears the House, conviction will almost certainly fail in the Senate, and that Trump will trumpet his acquittal as "total exoneration" and it will only strengthen his hand politically in 2020. This assumption is not at all certain, however. In 1998, the Republicans held onto majorities in Congress and they won the White House, albeit under dubious circumstances, in 2000. They did all this under Clinton whose approval ratings were north of 60%, and with a robust economy and peace. Trump is a far less popular and far more divisive President. But Trump's offenses don't involve sex, and Americans have 'sex on the brain.'

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process, but that doesn't mean Congress can impeach for just anything.