politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Aaaaand I stopped reading.
The Mueller Report absolutely found credible evidence of collusion, despite heavy-handled interference by Trump, Barr, and the rest of the GOP. It unfortunately failed to result in any prosecution (in no small part due to Barr), and failed to pressure Republicans to vote to remove Trump when he was impeached.
That is exactly where I bowed out. I have my own criticisms of NPR (as a contributor for decades), but this guys opinion is trash.
Literally every source says there was insufficient evidence to prove collusion, from the Mueller report specifically.
Insufficient evidence to prove a crime? Maybe. I disagree, but I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge.
But "collusion" itself isn't a crime, and the evidence clearly showed evidence of collusion between the GOP and Russia.
The number of connections between the GOP and Russia, financially and ideologically, and Russia's proven interference in 2016 and since (not to mention the GOP visit to Moscow on July 4th) are evidence enough to show there is "collusion".
The problem is our laws on campaign finance and foreign political influence are Swiss cheese.
And then they turn around and act like, "Well, he didn't get convicted of a crime, so clearly it was all a hoax."
No. It wasn't a hoax. There was evidence. Just not enough to do anythong about it, apparently. (And I still argue only because of the amount of interference run on the investigation.)
EDIT: And just in case you want to come back and obtusely repeat your argument, here's the report in full. After 181 pages of evidence, here's the conclusion.
Its in black and white: they had already determined that they would not make a "prosecutorial judgment" (recommendation to charge Trump with a crime), since Barr said that should be left to the Impeachment process. But despite that, the report makes clear, in no unclear terms...
"It also does not exonerate him."
Obstruction of justice is a different accusation than collusion with Russians. The report states that there is insufficient evidence to prove collusion, but there may be a case to prove obstruction of justice if they decided to pursue it. But they aren't going to. Which means absolutely nothing, at the end of the day. You can't work with it, can't assume anything or draw any conclusions. It's not even a hypothesis let alone one that can be proven or not proven.
Hmm, I see, I see... But, pray tell...
WHAT JUSTICE WAS HE OBSTRUCTING?!
The GOP logic seems to go like this.
So, obstruction of justice is legal now, so long as you succeed. Got it. Thanks.
Also, fuck off. I'm not reading another reply. You are unwilling to discuss this topic in good faith, or you lack the brain cells to do so.
Lol ok
Read the thing.
Uhh.. no u?
I did when it came out.
So what did it conclude about trump colluding with Russians? And what actions have come from that conclusion?
Why are you asking these questions now after asserting falsehoods before and refusing to read the report?
Just curious what exactly you got from it, and how you reconcile that against what all of the news reported and concluded. Mueller report states that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities". What does that mean to you?
Read the report and listen to what Mueller said he thought were the appropriate boundaries of his job. He refused to make judgments and focused on putting facts and evidence in the report. Fox and Republicans twisted that into the narrative that you are repeating. Mueller didn't find collusion because he refused to take that role, supposedly believing that the elected representatives were the ones that would take an honest look at the report and make that judgement. But you are asking those questions because you want to deflect away from you making claims about without having read it. All news didn't reach the same conclusion. All right-wing propaganda did though.
PBS, NPR, American Bar Association, etc are not what I would call right wing propaganda, but I guess it's relative. If I understand correctly though, your stance is that Mueller was simply getting the information out there for others to act on if they chose to. In that case, why have they not acted? My impression from legal summaries, including from the American bar association, is that they are not pursuing it because the Mueller report couldn't find enough evidence to build a case. I trust their assessment and summary of the report more than what I can get out of reading it myself in it's entirety.
So what really happened? Nobody knows for sure and there is not enough evidence to do anything about it. It's a non-topic.
How long until he gets jail time? How many continuous years of lawsuits and investigations before they get him? Is the system really that broken that he keeps getting away with it or are the charges simply weak to begin with? Tbh I don't really know, but I have serious Trump fatigue.
I think that an honest assessment of Trump's handling by the legal system shows that there is plenty to go after him for and that he has been given far too much leeway. The system is broken in the sense that it relies on being populated by good faith actors instead of loyalists to a demagogue.
I think that the motivation and the handling was different but I wonder if you feel that the decades a legal pursuit of the Clinton's similarly shows that it was unfounded?
I think they didn't take action against Trump because of a combination of cowardice, party loyalty, and overt obstruction from prominent Republican leadership.
I think it's the same as for the Clintons or Biden. There are probably shady things that they did, but we will never actually know or be able to prove anything. Their enemies certainly tried hard enough without success. Going after them was a political move for them as much as it is/was for Trump, and if you can't prove anything over years of investigation and legal actions then you need to let it go, even if you believe that they are probably guilty.
Just to reiterate, I personally think Trump easily could have colluded with Russians in their interference. I believe that he would do it if he knew he could get away with it, and maybe he did. but apparently nothing can be proven ("insufficient evidence" and all that) so we need to drop it and move on, effectively assuming innocence.
I disagree with the need to drop it and move on part. Conservatives thrive on that. They lie and deny until fatigue sets in and then are never held accountable. Then when we've all moved on they either rewrite history as needed or just act like nothing ever happened. Not dropping it makes their pattern of lies more obvious.
But that just turns the legal system into a weapon for driving public sentiment, another political tool instead of a means to bring justice to criminals. If it never leads to a conviction, at some point you should wonder why. Also you are giving too much credit/blame to conservatives. That might be true if they were always in power, but the they aren't, and haven't been. So why do the Democrats keep letting them get away with it?
Dropping it and moving on is letting them get away with it. Democrats try but the balance between Democrats and Republicans had been too close with a few notable Democrats reliably acting in lockstep with Republicans at critical moments. It is not giving too much blame or credit to conservatives. If you've been paying attention at all during the last 40 years it's what they've been doing.
That's a little too vague and conspiratorial for my liking, and it's hard for me to give it too much credibility.
That's fine but your take is a little too much head in the sand for me. Ignoring their decades long pattern of behavior and insisting on moving on from the things that expose them or attempt to hold them accountable is exactly what they want.
If you mean all politicians, then I agree with you. It's a little naive to think that good and evil is separated along party lines.
I wouldn't classify Democrats as good. They are a mixed bag. Republicans though I feel comfortable classifying as evil. Because of their policy of loyalty to the party above all else and the unity with which they vote even the "not so bad" ones are complicit and aid the worst of them. The parties are not the same. Republicans are objectively worse. They have been for decades.
Republicans are more unified because their base is more homogeneous compared to Democrats. Republicans basically make up the single biggest demographic in the country, and Democrats are everyone else. Imagine if half of the country were LGBT? They would be able to have their own political party, and would be able to focus on issues specific to their demographic with little concern for other demographics. Democrats biggest challenge is in somehow catering to such a wide variety of interests that don't necessarily align. They have to become more tolerant and accepting of different interests, but there is also a tendency to focus on the one thing they all have in common, which is their political enemy. In that way, Republicans are the only acceptable "bad guys", and everyone on their team is "good". It's tribalism. Republicans do it as well in a slightly different way, more outwardly focused. It's part of human nature and the only way to fight it is to be aware. Of course politicians eagerly embrace and use this dark aspect of humanity as much as they can get away with.
No that's not the case. Republicans are the bad guys on account of what they do. Democrats cast other Democrats as bad guys plenty so your assessment doesn't match reality. Additionally Democrats regularly compromise and work with Republicans while the reverse hardly ever happens so it's not that Republicans are just the default political enemy, it is based on the specific issues. It just so happens that most things republicans want span from dumb to evil. Republican unity is not a demographic thing, at least not in the framing that you are talking. It's a philosophy of blind loyalty.
I guess I don't know what to say then, besides that I strongly disagree. I find it strange that it's so easy for people to dismiss others as "bad" people and don't feel any obligation to try to understand them. For me, the world isn't so black and white as that.
That's ok. Take some comfort in that my take has developed over a long period of time and that I originally counted myself as a centrist/moderate Republican. Also don't mistake my view as not allowing for many shades of gray. My honest assessment of the modern Republican party is that they had flown past every gradient in a race to be as extreme and partisan as possible. McCain was the last decent Republican and even he compromised his integrity for the sake of the party. Also I have tried to understand republicans but they have always failed to coherently reconcile what they claim to believe in with what they do politically.