Bob in Mich

I could be wrong but I think his reference to GW was George Washington.

NBC did a segment on pregnancy and medical cannabis use. Before you jump all over me, I am not promoting it, just posting the NBC video. This video is about 15 minutes long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkw7LmfNJ6o

There is a post on the Stadium Wall discussing this topic....but the Dallas game is an away game in Dallas, right? https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/topic/215048-because-many-have-asked-individual-game-tickets-go-on-sale-may-14th/ I have already bought some seats on http://vividseats.com I am not affiliated but have found them pretty good. Tickets for Buffalo or Dallas are available there.

Trump is just a guy. He does have his unique talents and without doubt he has hypnotized his base. My point though was that historically I think we will look back and see that the real issue with his rise wasn't necessarily Trump himself but was in fact the political enablers. The environment is currently so toxic that the expected checks on his power are MIA or just willing to 'go along' with Trump as long as he is accomplishing generally what they want to do. I am reminded of a passage from an Ann Arbor writer, Robert Faber, though he was referring to the rise of another. ‘We shall always have our fools and ideologues in positions of power, but our system of laws and logic, of checks and balances, is designed to guard against the abuses of ..power, to protect the weakest from the more powerful... If the elected of our democracy, for reasons of greed or power or cowardice, fail in that task, that is the more troubling threat. It was McCarthy’s colleagues who let us down, by failing in their obligation to uphold the spirit and intent and integrity of our democratic system.’

If Trump is forced out of office it will be because of his deeds. Blaming the investigations over the crime is a fascinating take. Should investigations farmed out or spun off by Mueller continue or not? You well know that there are quite a few of those ongoing. I say they should be allowed to play out. You seemingly want to shut those down to protect Trump because he should now be above the law. I maintain your attitude is a worse threat to our country. You UnAmerican dick!

How ironic. My view of you and your partisan toadies is exactly the same. Isn't this about where you state that you are looking forward to shooting me in the coming war?

Strikingly insightful. Thanks for sharing

FU FU FU I cannot believe what a fukstick you have become. Put down the toot, dude. Hell, it is before noon out there. That stuff is already eating your brain alive. I consistently pushed to let the Mueller probe run its course in the face of near universal opposition here. That was my position. Let the damn investigation proceed. I never declared Trump a traitor or you a Putin supporter, you ***** moron. That doesn't fit your narrative though does it, #######? Strain a bit and try using your coked up brain. I know it hurts but you can't let reality completely run away from you. When the Barr report came out, I stated that I was surprised Trump didn't screw with the probe and that I was surprised and incorrect in that there weren't further Mueller indictments. Remember that, you idiot? Now, we should all ignore the obstruction of justice and focus on the fact that Mueller said insufficient evidence to bring charges for conspiracy? And Barr is fair and balanced too? Gawd, what a ***** fool you have become. Here is my new position. You are a colossal POS and a Putin supporter. Feel free to claim I said that going forward. And once more for luck....FU (Back to ignore, fukstick) Ok, here ya go..... > I think I'm finally starting to put together some clues on this ... > > Many Clinton supporters view all of the Republicans as the Religious > Right Wing, therefor the enemy. They feel that for many years the > Religious Right has been trying to take away more and more personal > freedoms in the name of morality. They want the government to stay out of > their personal lives. That feeling is at the root of this Clinton > support. They see Ken Starr as one who has pried into the President's > personal life. They feel that the Republicans (aka Christian Coalition) > now are trying to throw him out of office because of 'immoral behavior in > his private life'. Many have decided that regardless of the facts, they > are not giving any more ground to this morality craze. > > Also, most people that liked Bill (before all of this) knew he had > told lies in the past and they accepted him anyway. Many of us that > didn't like him because of his lying felt that his backers just couldn't > see how dishonest the guy was. In reality the backers saw the dishonesty > and liked him for his other fine leadership qualities. When he is finally > caught red handed in these lies, his detractors say 'See, we told he was > dishonest. Look at the evidence we have on him.' While his supporters > say, 'What's the big deal? He told a lie about sex. The economy is > great. Get over it.' > > This is the backstepping I've seen in protecting our buddy Bill. It > seems so many points have been conceded, yet there's always another > position to fall back to ... > > 1. The story breaks... He did not have an affair with this > 'gold-digger'. She is just trying to smear the President or just out to > get a book deal for her self. The Whitehouse says that she was stalking > the President and that the FBI is investigating her. > 2. Talk of the stained dress surfaces. Now the stance is 'I > doubt he had any affair, but even if he did, so what if he committed > adultery, it's strictly a personal matter between himself, his family, and > his God. The damn Republicans probably planted this woman in there to try > to get Clinton'. > 3. He lied about sex, so what, everybody lies about sex. Who > hasn't lied about sex? Obstruction of Justice! Get real. > 4. He didn't have any obligation to do the job of the Jones' > attorneys. He wasn't forthcoming and he was evasive. He can be > misleading without committing perjury. There's nothing illegal just > because he didn't offer up answers to questions he wasn't asked. Besides > he had to protect Hillary. > 5. OK, maybe he lied, but it was a civil matter and the case > was eventually thrown out. Everybody lies in civil cases. It's not a > serious matter to commit perjury in a civil case. Besides, that Ken > Starr spent how many millions of dollars? He was appointed to investigate > Whitewater and then it became Travelgate and blah, blah, blah ... That > Betty Curry thing? He was just helping to refresh his memory, that's all. > 6. Well, he had to lie to the Grand Jury. What was he going to > do, admit to perjury in the Jones case - that would have been stupid. He > had to deny that he lied earlier or Ken Starr, that no good, rotten, > bastard .... would be able to indict him for perjury when he leaves > office. He has to maintain that he never lied now, or Starr will get him. > > 7. Look, perjury is just not that serious of a matter. It's > certainly not a 'high crime or misdemeanor like treason or bribery'. > There's no way they could make any case for Obstruction of Justice. The > obstruction case is purely speculation. He says- She says case - could > never be proven. Even if, for the purposes of argument, you suppose all > allegations are true, these are not 'high crimes or misdemeanors'. > 8. The House prosecutors show that a few Federal Judges have > been removed by the Senate for just such deeds (The Senate labeling the > perjury a 'high crime or misdemeanor'). Ok, in some cases perjury could > be grounds for removal, but not in this case. This case is only about sex > and lying about it and if that pervert Starr wasn't peeping into > everybody's bedroom... Would you want to be asked sexual questions under > oath? > 9. The Senators are not just jurors, you know. They are trying > the case. They need to consider more than just the facts, the rule of > law, and the Constitution. They also need to consider what's in the best > interests of this country. The House managers may have made a pretty good > case, but it is not in our best interests to remove the president even if > he committed perjury and obstruction of justice. > 10. And then the latest to my ears ... They had no business > asking him personal, private questions in a grand jury setting where he > couldn't plead the fifth (the protection from self incrimination). That > f***er Ken Starr. It was a witch hunt. Any evidence against Clinton has > to be discounted because of the 'illegitimate' means that were used in > acquiring it. It doesn't really matter what they found out because of the > way they went about it.

Look, trust of the other party is in very short supply...both ways, right? It is obvious to many that Atty Gen Barr has not been acting impartially. To say that Barr not criminally charging the sitting President after the Mueller report proves that there is nothing there, is disingenuous and is pure partisanship on your part. The other day I found a 1999 email I wrote to a friend expressing frustration with the Dems and their constant backpedaling with respect to Bill Clinton's impeachment. I recall too at that time my golf partner calling me the Raging Republican. You may think I am now a Raging Democrat but I view myself as Independent and have voted for plenty of Dems and Repubs and will likely continue that pattern. I wouldn't want anyone convicted of non-existent crimes but I also don't think we should ignore misdeeds just because of our party affiliation. I think we citizens should be more like jurors and less like the lawyers I see around here. There was an outcry of Mueller overreach during his investigation. So to avoid widening that probe, he spun off several investigations. Those should proceed as should any Congressional investigations deemed appropriate by the various committee leaders. Again, you may be rightfully sick and tired of investigations but that in no way means that Trump should be above all future oversight. You are essentially advocating for that.

Good post Not that you need to be aware of my positions but I have consistently stated that if there were abuses of the FISA process we should investigate, improve the process going forward, and if appropriate, punish wrongdoers. If that leads to Obama, Hillary, and Abe Lincoln, fine. There really needs to be no decision about which to investigate. Why make these separate investigations an either/or issue? All of us, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, would hopefully be in favor of uncovering any wrongdoing, regardless of the party of the wrongdoer. I get the impression that a whole lot of Trump lawyer wannabe's here think that Donnie should not be investigated any further chiefly because they fear that they will have to ignore even more misdeeds and that would be more uncomfortable for them. The boiling frog however cares not about another degree or two, eh?

This is a stupid post . Full stop! This is shocking since you are the smartest guy here, even if only self proclaimed. Sheeesh....still unbelievable! Sans Evidence????!!! Seriously? This is the root of your stupid I think. A stretch perhaps but if capable, try to imagine President Hillary....if there were similar questions about her charity, taxes, businesses, bank loans, etc, etc, would you want Congress to investigate ? In general terms, Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.[1] Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. Oversight also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff. Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

Len.....Lenny.... Lenny Slimfast....no, no, no. Lenny doesn't get it this time. That is my point, in this toxic environment and with the Republican enablers in the Senate, there is currently insufficient check on this president. Ignoring the individuals currently in the offices, do you think that Congress should have any oversight of the Executive branch, aside from impeachment? In other words, should Congress be able to look into possible misdeeds of the President? Subpoena witnesses or documents? No? Ok, thanks. We are done discussing this. Enjoy the kingdom. The king appreciates your support. Yes? Ok, thanks. So if they have oversight duty, how can they do that job if Trump has decided that the Executive branch no longer has to comply with Congressional requests? I understand most everyone is sick of investigations after the Mueller report, but to say you support no oversight will effectively lead to King Donnie. Also, of course after Donnie dies and Ivanka tires of the job, you will desire no check on future Democratic presidents, right?

If I were you I would hold off on being so shocked. Meuller certainly didn't claim Trump was very clean, as you have apparently read but failed to believe. Given time, if those other investigations into Trump's activities are allowed to proceed, I strongly believe that you will see that he is not all that clean. Do I know that for certain? No, I don't. Let's wait and see what is found.... but please don't overlook or discount Trump's interference into the investigations if it occurs. With respect to the Meuller report, it sort of seems like you are saying the parts clearing Trump are solid but the parts pointing out his misdeeds are not. I think it would be more fair to either trust the report or not, rather than trusting the parts you like.

Funny. But the real question is, who will check Trump going forward if all of his previous obstructive behavior is deemed OK ? Do you think that without further sanction, he will change his ways and stop interfering? Are you OK with future actions that are similar to the 11 incidents described in the Meuller report?

Well, you may be right that it is a bad idea for the Dems. Then again, the Dems taking advice from you may not be the best idea either. Without any further sanction, what will prevent Trump from claiming that his actions were just fine with the American people? We have seen this before. If he feels cleared, do you really think he will stop interfering with the remaining investigations? He is still shouting 'No obstruction', essentially claiming he did nothing improper.

I don't think an impeachment would remove the president because of the enablers in the Senate. So, should the Dems move toward impeaching in the House? It may not be best for the Democratic party but I would vote 'yes' as I think it is necessary for the country moving forward. Why? Because otherwise Trump will claim, like he has done with his taxes and his affairs, that the American people now know everything that he has done and that they are just fine with it all. He will continue to try to interfere in investigations of himself, his family, and his businesses and will continue to appoint political stooges to protect himself. Going forward Trump will claim that Mueller says that this type of interference is not an issue. I imagine here, most are just fine with that

Yes, Trump is trying to blame our problems and his failures on others. Not a leap at all. Trump is now blaming our opiate problem on drugs pouring over the southern border. Well, just to refresh, this is where the discussion with you began. Jim asked: 1. What majority of Americans does Trump hate? 2. Why does he hate them? 3. What are you basing that statement on?

Did you quote me by mistake? Day drinking can be fun. I think it is time enough here too. Thanks for the idea. BRB If you are in any way saying that Trump is not divisive, you have been drinking for a long time already, haven't you ?

I did provide an example. The opioid crisis remains unaddressed and is now supposedly because 'drugs are pouring over the southern border'. Certainly much supply is coming in there but the problem of hooking new users belongs squarely here. Trump has vilified immigrants for this problem. Demand is what needs to be addressed, imo. Trump's administration has failed here. Yes, I agree Trump is all about business succeeding. While businesses drive our economy and their success is hugely important for all of us, in the minds of many of us, business concerns should not always rise above all other concerns. Many Americans think that climate change should be a concern, the environment should be a concern, our moral high ground should be a concern, caring for the elderly, refugees, and the less fortunate should be a concern, etc. 'Run like a business', yes to an extent though cutting the dead wood is essentially cutting Americans or their causes that are slowing us down. This has resulted in many Americans thinking that Trump does not care about them or their wishes. The president needs to take care of all Americans. He should cast no Americans overboard in the name of streamlining.

A big problem is that when attempting discussion, people get saddled with all sorts of positions that are not really their own. I agree with some things Trump is attempting. Trying to limit endless wars is an excellent goal. On the other hand, he has not yet accomplished much that has helped me in any way. My taxes did not fall this year. My income is generally fixed so no wage impact He has accomplished nothing in North Korea. Been played like the others. The China trade agreement has done nothing for me. It may yet or it may not NAFTA changes have not helped me. Corporations may eventually see gains. Not sure NATO shake-up has not helped me. Again, weapons producers may benefit but not average Americans He goosed economy with business tax cut. That is fading. Deficits and debt still climbing.

That is an opinion, genius. Nevermind.

A whole lot of us know what we see.

Shove the lance and your rattle right up your ass. I don't know why I thought you might have a reasonable response. I was obviously wrong. Jim had asked why many Americans think that Trump does not care about them. I made an attempt at an explanation. How does your response add anything to that discussion?

Think of the president as the ship's captain in sort of a race against other nations. Previous presidents wanted to win but they wanted all of us to win - Americans and her traditional allies. Perhaps it was political skill, but the majority of the people felt we were in it together. Not today. Trump constantly demonizes and divides. He needs to blame someone else when he fails be it Mexicans, or Puerto Ricans, or other foreigners, or Muslims. As an example, look at his fight on the opioid crisis. What has he accomplished aside from shifting the perceived blame to immigrants? Trump wants to win the race too. He wants to win even if it means we have to cast off a good number of our people and their wishes into life boats so that the remaining can go faster. If a group or a cause slows our ship (economy), it needs to be cast aside. Examples are the Paris climate change agreement, CPB destruction, Great Lakes funding, coal love seemingly over environmental concerns, National Park land opening to business, health care cuts (ACA), proposed social security cuts, proposed medicare cuts, proposed medicaid cuts, Saudi love because of weapons contracts, immigration/asylum fiasco, tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy, etc Please watch the PBS video. It may better explain the concern many of us have with the relationship

Seriously? Are you claiming that Fox News is not 'affiliated' with the Trump administration? C'mon, neither party even denies that they support each other. If you feel the press should be a check on political power, this should be troubling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGde1ZXPi10 PBS did a 13 minute segment on the association.