Should Hillary, or Obama be imprisoned?

I seriously doubt it. After all, if the combined weight of a Republican House, Senate and President is unable to mount an effective prosecution of either villain, who are we to point fingers or indulge the concocted fantasies of our conservative friends here. Our conservative brethren have my sympathy for their shared delusion with Mr. Trump that the vacuous argument “Hillary is worse than me” is exculpatory evidence absolving Trump and his crew. Well good luck with that one. It’s one solid demonstration regarding paucity of intellect sauntering hand in hand with that other gem of deduction as the indictments roll out before our eyes. You know the one about “If he were guilty, he would be charged by now.”

Only if they have committed some crime for which imprisonment is the recognised punishment. We are all subject to the laws of the land, even Trump.

Why? At least currently, we are a nation of laws.

If the prosecutors and develop a case and a court and jury agree, then prison may be called for.

But as of now, we not only don’t have a crime, we don’t have a conviction.

What we do have is a lunatic dictator as president.

Obama, yes. For his drone terrorism and keeping the Guantanamo Concentration Camp open.
Hillary, not so much. Has not done anything, really.

Won’t be room enough in jail, what with all the Trump fan boys in there.

I agree that it is the entire kettle of fish that is simmering toward a boil. These people clearly are NOT “the sharpest knives in the drawer”, and the carnage promises to be monumental. I have lost track of just how many High echelon Trump people have denied knowledge of collusion with the Russians, as the evidence unfolds daily contradicting each of them individually. And this is not an investigation that is going to require 2 years to to yield results. The Senate has all but declared Sessions a liar to his face, and the question is no longer about whether or not the mass resignations are coming. The question is more about “who, if anyone, will escape prosecution?”

Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman ain’t ever around when you need ‘em.

Neither. Everyone is assumed to be innocent before trial, if a trial is to take place pending reasonable cause.

No, why would/should they?

@MrGrimm888 Why choose when you can have both?

For what?

Hey, I’m sure that Golden Boy and (Ras) Putin would be happy together. In a Platonic way, that is.

What crime have ether of them been tried and convicted of?

@Darth_Algar – apparently Trump feels that crime and judgments don’t need to exist in order to imprison someone. See his Tweets from the other day.

Anyone who claims to be a “friend of Trumps” should be afraid. Very afraid.

I don’t know of any crimes either committed. This thread is meant for those who lean right can give their evidence, or opinions. Instead of polluting the Trump impeachment thread, with what I see as deflection. Now, that thread can focus on Trump. Not be derailed by “look over here” tactics…

Similarly, it would be nice if our Trump haters would stick to the point of this thread.

Unfortunately, I have not seen a response from at least two jellies, I hoped could use this platform for their Obama/Hillary opinions.

Only if convicted of something. I’m not aware of Obama being accused of anything criminal.

They are not saints. If they have done something illegal they should be prosecuted for it.

It really doesn’t matter.
The Clintons are Teflon. You can’t get anything to stick on them.
They shed everything by playing dumb.
Huh? Whitewater? Where’s… ummm, what’s that?
Oh, I didn’t know that counts as sex.
What is the definition of is?
Emails? What emails?
Oh, those emails. That was wrong? Really?
Payouts? What payouts?
Geez, the whole thing gives me a headache.

Still waiting on three jelly’s responses. Not sure why they don’t have the courage, to crow their agendas here….

@Patty_Melt

Oh maybe nothing sticks because there’s not actually anything criminal there. If criminals got away with simply by playing dumb then our prisons would be empty.

That’s the thing of it.
The proof is there. They keep getting away with, oops, didn’t know it was wrong.
Honest to gawd, how do you get away with saying you didn’t know oral sex counted as sex, when one of the words describing it IS sex?

Oh shit, my bad. I didn’t realize that oral sex or haggling over wording (as lawyers are prone to do) were criminal acts.

Who are you waiting for, and what answer to what question @MrGrimm888?

The criminality of it depends on who they have oral sex with @Darth_Algar.

@Dutchess_III

We’re talking about Bill Clinton here, who got a blowjob from another consenting adult. Not a criminal act, nor is haggling over what constitutes sex.

Oh. Well, that was just stupid on his part. Not the same as grabbing pussies and trying to have sex with underage girls.

Today Sessions gave a statement about some uranium transfer deal involving Clinton. His response was surprisingly reasonable. I really don’t understand Trump’s obsession with Clinton.

@Dutchess_III . This thread was started to give our right minded jellies a platform for discussion about Barry and Hillary. Instead of using it as deflection in your Trump impeachment thread.

I was waiting for their contributions to a subject that is very important, to them. I wanted to remove the irrelevant acts of other politicians, and let them simply address Trump’s actions.

Apparently it was just distraction tactics, or the would be talking about it here…

Or they don’t want to talk about it. Or maybe they haven’t seen it. Or maybe they’re secretly embarrassed about the things their illustrious dictator is doing.

^Who knows…

Should Hillary or Obama be imprisoned? No, not at this time. There was a time for impeaching Obama but the Dems ensured he could violate the Constitution at will. Those were crimes that were worthy of impeachment, but not imprisonment. And since he is no longer POTUS, they sort of fall by the wayside and we are all left trying to undo the damage he caused.
As for Hillary, she has not been convicted of any crimes, so she isn’t worthy of imprisonment at this time either.
However I strongly believe that there is enough shady dealings with both of them that HONEST, in depth, investigations need to be conducted into some of their dealings. There are far more of these shady dealings with Obama and especially Hillary, than there are for Trump, yet this group of liberal jellies cannot stand non-liberals so they are willing to say that if you dig long enough and deep enough you will find something you could pin on Trump. That is the justification for investigating Trump. Not that he has done anything wrong or that there is even strong evidence of wrongdoing, but just dig until you find something. Question to one and all (not that I expect any coherent answers): Why don’t you have the same view about Dems? Hillary and Obama lied about Benghazi, yet you don’t want to look at it. Guns that were used in Fast and Furious have been used to kill hundreds and the AG was found to be in contempt of Congress, yet you don’t want to dig into that. The list goes on and on. The only obvious answer, obvious to any honest person, is hypocrisy. You don’t care about wrongdoing, you care about ideology above the law.

Happy now, @MrGrimm?

Obama never came close to impeachment.

@seawulf575 “Hillary and Obama lied about Benghazi, yet you don’t want to look at it.”

You’re right, there should be an investigation into Benghazi…

@seawulf though Hillary has been investigated ad nauseum by her enemies, and the Republican Congress grasped for each and every feeble straw to place her in the docks, there was just plain nothing there. Obama wasn’t subjected to a Trump level investigation because the “charges” against him were laughable, and certain embarrassment for any fool proceeding on assumption of their validity. But here’s the REAL reason why Trump is not being martyred while Democratic crimes go ignored. The difference is simply that Trump FORCED his own investigation. The arrogant visibility of his crimes are IMPOSSIBLE for even a solidly Republican Congress to ignore. To put it plainly, there is no way to avoid an investigation of Trump for the simple reason that even bending over backwards to do so would avail his allies nothing. Sooner than later Trump can be depended on to talk (lie) himself into jail.

@seawulf575 . I am confident that if a similar “witch hunt” was conducted on Hillary, they would find something. I reluctantly admit that the same is probably true about Obama.

I thought the Benghazi situation was a no win. I’m not sure why America puts embassies in some of these countries. They are lightning rods for civilian populations unhappy with the US. Defending them, in some cases, means killing large amounts of civilians. Many unarmed. I think if Hillary called in the cavalry, it would have been a far worse catastrophe. I’m not saying that I have all the information that she had, or that she made the “right” decision. I am saying that I don’t perceive that situation as black and white. It was very complicated, and the options were all bad…

Thank you for your contribution.

@Dutchess_III You are correct…he never came close. Because the Dems protected him. He committed enough violations of the Constitution to be impeached 8 times over. But impeachment requires a certain percentage of the House and Senate to make it work and the Dems had enough to ensure it didn’t. If you want to believe that a president that violates the Constitution at will is a good president, you are entitled to that opinion. Me? I choose to go the other way with my opinion.

@stanleybmanly Hillary was investigated, it is true. But they were not honest, in depth, investigations. And even when they were, there were so many others protecting her that nothing would ever come of the investigations. Look at the email scandal for example. Investigated. What was found? That she mishandled classified materials. What was done about it? Comey created a new twist to the law…the intent. The law doesn’t allow for intent other than determining severity of punishment. But for the investigator to come out and say that she didn’t break the law because she didn’t mean to is laughable. Can you imagine if they found some smoking gun that tied Trump to working with Russia to win the election and Mueller came out and said “Yes, we found that they colluded, but Mr. Trump didn’t mean to so no charges will be brought.”? Same exact thing. Think about that while you are defending Hillary and trashing Trump.
And if you want to get to the bottom of the situation, the reason there is an investigation into Russia at all is indeed because of Trump…he told Sessions to appoint a special prosecutor. How many times during Obama’s reign were people asking for a special prosecutor to be appointed and he absolutely refused? Lots. If you don’t investigate you don’t have to worry about trying to deal with the findings, do you? So please, do yourself a favor…think before you speak. Special prosecutors do not get appointed out of thin air. They get appointed by the AG, usually with agreement from the President. So mull that one around. Lots of scandal during Obama = no special counsel. No real scandal during Trump = Special Prosecutor. Who is more forthcoming?

Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email account for official business has been thoroughly investigated by the FBI and has nothing to do with the far more serious charge being levelled at Trump’s team that it colluded with a potentially hostile power to win an election. It is surely in everyone’s interest that this is thoroughly investigated.

The special counsel investigating the Russia connection was appointed by Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general on 17 May, not by Trump. The special counsel was appointed because Trump fired James Comey the man previously leading the investigation.

So. I don’t get the intent part of your argument @seawulf575 . I don’t feel that your analogy is valid.
Hillary’s camp claims ignorance of technology, as an excuse for the emails. I don’t think that is a good excuse. If you don’t understand the technologies involved in your profession, you better figure it out. But I also agree that it wasn’t her intent to screw that up.

As far as Trump. How could there not be malicious intent, when colluding with a foreign government, for his own advantage?

Let’s say I got a friend to let my dog out twice a day, whilst I’m out of town.
In one scenario, the friend has issues with the gate, so they accidentally let my dog run away.

In another scenario, the friend deliberately leaves the gate open, and the dog runs away.

Aren’t the two scenarios different, but with the same outcome? Shouldn’t the friend be judged differently, in each case?

As far as Obama, I simply disagree that he did anything (that I heard of/believe ) illegal. (Yes, I remember your list. I didn’t find it credible though.)

Should the fact that Hillary, and Obama aren’t currently holding office, make a difference? I don’t think so. I also think that if there was something to jail Hillary, or Obama for, it would have happened already.

Again, @seawulf575 I do wish you’d provide proof of your allegation that Obama violated the Constitution even one time, much less multiple times. Why do you refuse to do that? Is it because you can’t find any?

From this site
There’s a statistic floating around that says the Supreme Court has overturned Obama’s Executive Orders 13 times. Here are a few problems with that statistic:

Nine of the thirteen cases referenced actually started under the administration of George W. Bush, but the Obama Justice Department handled the appellate process for those cases.
Three of the cases had nothing to do with Obama’s Executive Orders. In fact, in one case, the Obama administration wasn’t even a plaintiff or defendant. Rather the Justice Department simply filed a brief supporting the Massachusetts law being challenged.

I know of one Executive Order in which the courts blocked the implementation of the orders, ending in a 4–4 tie at the Supreme Court. That was regarding Obama’s orders regarding immigration.

I want to compare that to how many of Trump’s have been overturned in his first year! This wasn’t a great source, not at all sure of it’s accuracy, but it’s a starting point. I’ll get some more information and links for you. In fact, I will start a whole new question about it.

Considering that for most of his presidency Obama had to deal with a hostile Republican-controlled Congress that would have done anything to they could have to get him out of office, you can bet your goddamn bottom dollar that if he really had done something that egregious they would have nailed his nuts to a tree for it.

No kidding. They couldn’t find a single thing on him. Not a thing. His was a truly scandal free presidency. And he had a woman who could hold up her end superbly.

@seawulf575 Comey didn’t “invent” anything. And intent always matters. Otherwise there would be no difference between tripping over a dog or kicking it. Clinton wasn’t prosecuted because the idea that she deliberately flaunted security protocols would never stand up.

Dutch. @seawulf575 did provide a list of Obama’s “crimes.” I can’t remember which thread, it was on though. Maybe he can remember, so he doesn’t have to repost it…

I guess I could go to Snopes and find the same list…

To those that are questioning the “intent” statement. Here you go: Comey made the statement “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”” The law that was being violated says (From 18 USC 793) ”(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Please note that NOWHERE in this federal statute does it mention intent. Quite the opposite. Gross negligence (Comey called it “extremely careless”) is still punishable.

Sorry folks, if it weren’t for a corrupt AG (Loretta Lynch) and a cover up by the FBI (Comey), Hillary would be wearing an orange jumpsuit, or would at least have to pay a stiff fine. And her entire political career would be kaput.

@Dutchess_III You want a freebie on the Obama violating the Constitution? Fine. Look up Noel Canning v. NLRB. It is the recess appointments Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board. The problem was that Congress wasn’t in recess. And this went to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS ruled in a 9–0 ruling against Obama. He violated the Constitution. Care to retract your sneery comments now?

@Darth_Algar For the first two years of Obama’s time in office, he had a Dem majority in both the House and the Senate. In the next several years, the Repubs held the House and the Dems held the Senate. It wasn’t until the 2014 elections (which went into effect in January of 2015) that the Repubs controlled both the House and the Senate. Even then, for impeachment, it would require 218 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate. The Repubs didn’t have that many seats, so they knew no impeachment actions would succeed.
It was more to their benefit, at that time, to just bide their time until the criminal was out of office. So your claim that “for most of his presidency Obama had to deal with hostile Republican-controlled Congress” is entirely false.

Comey’s statement on Clinton’s intent is not about some sort of invention. He is stating that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that Clinton DELIBERATELY put classified information at risk. He is saying that anyone attempting such a prosecution faces the insurmountable burden of coming up with a motive. How would she benefit? Comey drew the sensible and almost certainly correct conclusion that the security of Clinton’s servers and email regime was the responsibility of people several pay grades below the Secretary of State.

^Well. Hillary’s technological ignorance, shouldn’t be a factor. She was at/near the top of national security. I totally agree that she probably didn’t do it on purpose. But she did it. So maybe she should have been disciplined (maybe she was, behind closed doors?) Or fired…

I suppose the severity of the punishment, would have been where intent should have been considered. Not, in determining guilt.

@seawulf575

They investigate Hillary, Benghazi, emails for the billionth time, but they wouldn’t go after Obama’s supposed clear violations of the Constitution and criminal activities because thst would have been a waste of time?

Good lord, you’re even more laughably deluded than some of the old crop of GOPers here were.

@Darth_Algar I understand you have to drop to personal attacks…it’s the liberal way. Think about it: They never had enough support to get an impeachment because the Dems would always block it. It’s partisan politics. What else can you do to Obama? You can impeach a president…that’s it. Without the votes to do that it would clearly be a waste of time and would be used against you politically. Hillary, on the other hand, continued to be a political threat. And pursuing her illicit activities makes political sense. Unfortunately, all the investigations were undermined by…you guessed it…DEMS! Even the e-mail, as I have pointed out, was scammed by a corrupt Obama administration…having to create the “intent” aspect to let her off what was obviously wrongdoing.
But if it makes you feel better to avoid logic and make personal attacks, please…carry on. Your opinion of me means so much.

@MrGrimm888 the part about the entire email scam that bothers me when people start making excuses for Hillary is that they forget the times she swore she had not handled classified materials, the times she swore she turned over all the emails, HER determining what was pertinent to the investigation, the tens of thousands of emails that suddenly appear showing wrongdoing, more promises that is it, more emails appear….the entire thing read like a complete cover-up. Yet no one really wants to look at the whole picture like that. THAT is what disturbs me. Hillary is a toad…I expect that from a toad. But the Dems that defended her, the media that helped, and the public that jumped on the bandwagon speaks to a lot deeper issues than the loss of classified materials.

The never ending evaporation of ginned up silly Clinton hunts has nothing to do with Democratic resistance. It isn’t Democrats blocking her dreamed for prosecution, but rather the silliness of the so called underlying facts. While there is no denying the partisan aspects involved with investigating politicians, there is no reasonable equating of Clinton’s unwitting email bungling with treason, and everybody knows it.

Meanwhile, there is no longer any question regarding the substantial involvement of the entire upper echelon of the current administration in straight up criminal conspiracies with Russian kleptocrats.

@seawulf575

Hardly a personal attack. It’s rather a statement on the stance you’ve taken here. Were there anything, any little thing at all, of even remote substance to the those claims about Obama the GOP would have latched onto it and “investigated” the everloving fuck out of it. It would not have mattered whether they could actually remove him or not, all they would have had to have done is put on the show of “investigating”. That kind of shit’s red meat for their base.

@seawulf575 It isn’t Congress that needs to be in session for such an appointment. It’s the Senate. Link..
It was hardly a treasonous act.

@Darth_Algar “You are even more laughably deluded than….” cannot be read any other way than a personal attack. You can try back-pedaling all day, but that is how you are. I have seen you do it time and again. If someone doesn’t fully agree with you, you drop right into snide, personal attacks on that person. I get it….but please understand it tells others far more about your own character.
As for the GOP, please go back and think. Every time something went wrong in the government, Obama and the Dems blamed the GOP. The times the GOP DID try to investigate things, Obama and the Dems, with the help of their propaganda department (MSM) would go after the GOP by branding them racists, being on witch hunts, wasting taxpayer money, etc. All bogus claims, but presented over and over again so that John Q. Public, in their sheepy way, would believe it, or at least have a doubt in their minds. So why, with only a year to go until the presidential election to replace the criminal, would they give the Dems ammo? The only thing they could gain is to start an investigation that would not be done before the end of the term in office. And if it was, even if it was a solid case of criminal activity by Obama, the only action they would have is to impeach him and the Dems would prevent that. So what would be gained and what could be lost? It makes no sense. Besides, we all saw how the investigations went. Fast and Furious…no special counsel appointed by the Administration and the AG was found in contempt of Congress by refusing to cooperate with the administration. Hillary’s emails…evidence destroyed, lies told, evidence withheld, Dems on the investigating team blocking progress. The list goes on and on. It all points to one thing…the Dems don’t care about the law and will do ANYTHING to block ANY investigation into one of their own.

@Dutchess_III Okay, the Senate. But in the end, he still violated the Constitution. And that was your challenge to me…to show one time where he violated the Constitution. I did that. You didn’t ask for treasonous acts. And treason is not required for impeachment, by the way. All that is required is High Crimes and Misdemeanors. When the president willfully violates the one document he is sworn to uphold, that might just fit that description.
I will say that Obama knew how to play the game. He would do whatever he wanted and make anyone that wanted to challenge him in court. You can get an awful lot done for your agenda that way. Any challenge can be held up in court for a long time and if you lose, you can appeal. And if you lose that, you can appeal again. By the time it gets to the SCOTUS for them to tell you that you are out of line, your time in office might be done. And the worst case is that you have to retract your original act that was found to be illegal and put forth another to let the process start again. And if the original issue was bad enough that it could get you impeached, you know that your buddies in congress won’t let that happen so there is no down side. It is a smart way of doing business, but it shows the character of the person. He comes off looking like the most lawless president we have ever had.

Explain how he violated the constitution @seawulf575. Why do I feel one of these “figure it out for yourself (because I have no clue) moments coming on?

@seawulf575

I am, admittedly, blunt and often abrasive. But trust me, if I go to personal attacks they’d be a hell of a lot more scalding than merely saying that you’re deluded.

@Dutchess_III Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 states:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

When Obama made appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, he did so while the Senate was in a Pro Forma session. They were not fully staffed, but had not declared themselves to be in recess. Obama, in his arrogance, decided that wasn’t good enough, that they really were in recess, and made the appointments. Per Article I, Section 5, Clause 4, only Congress can determine when they are in recess. It was this basis that created a 9–0 ruling against Obama in the SCOTUS.
As a side note, Harry Reid did the same thing during the Bush administration, but Bush wasn’t as arrogant as Obama…he accepted the game presented.

And, @Dutchess_III , while you should be able to look it up for yourself, I also know that liberals don’t like doing that. They may find facts that don’t match the fantasy they live in. And, if you challenge me, I fully believe I should be able to support my side of the conversation. However that, too, seems to be one sided.
I will go a little further in pointing out the unconstitutionality of Obama. You challenged me to name even one, but there are far, far more. These I will not go into as much depth as above, but you can look them up for yourself, if you like:
1. The Chrysler Bailout where he changed the rules of bankruptcy to give a crony kickback to the unions. This violated bankruptcy laws, obviously, but also violated the 5th amendment under the Takings and Due Process Clauses.
2. Obamacare implementation. This one has multiple hits. He kept changing the law without actually going back to Congress. When the ACA said something had to be done by a certain date, he would just defer it. His implementation has a certain amount of freedom…unless it is specified in the law. To defer at that point, the POTUS needs to get agreement from Congress. He didn’t feel he was bound by this rule, though. This happened many times during the roll out of Obamacare.
3. DACA and DAPA. Obama, in 2015, directed DHS to create the DACA programs. This was challenged in court and an injunction was put in place to stop the implementation. He appealed this ruling…twice…and the ruling of the lower court was upheld…twice. He took it to the SCOTUS and they ruled along ideological lines to a 4–4 tie. In the case of a tie in the SCOTUS, the lower court ruling stands.
4. EPA Cap and Trade. Congress ruled against Cap and Trade in 2009. Obama didn’t like that so he directed, in 2015, the EPA to create new regulations implementing it. They claimed it was covered under Article 111 of the Clean Air Act, which it isn’t. So he effectively tried making new laws, which went in direct contradiction to the will of Congress. The President doesn’t make the laws, he enforces them. Congress makes the laws.

The deeper you look, the more you find. It is an ugly search, but I highly recommend everyone does it.

Regarding points 2, 3 and 4, Obama’s heart was in the right place. Obama may have been frustrated by the inaction of Congress and, rightly or wrongly, took matters in his own hands. I think that executive actions taken by Trump, whether legal or illegal, are damaging to our country – turning environmentally protected lands to mining companies, imposing a travel ban on Muslim nations, naming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, banning transgender people from the military, terminating DACA.

@LostInParadise So what you are saying is that the law doesn’t matter, that the Constitution doesn’t matter, as long as the politician breaking them does so in support of an agenda you agree with? I’m really struggling with that one. If you are saying the laws can be ignored for ideology, you are suggesting you would like a dictatorship.
And you continue to try trashing Trump for things without true facts. Trump has taken no action to turn environmentally protected lands over to mining companies. He only shrank the size of some of the national parks and asked for an evaluation of the ban on uranium mining in the Grand Canyon. Not the same thing. He did not propose a travel ban on Muslim countries. That is the liberal narrative. He proposed a travel ban on several countries that were known hotspots of terrorists or that supported terrorists. There were 7 or 9 countries (I don’t remember off the top of my head and don’t feel like looking it up right now) on the ban. But there are about 27 Muslim-majority nations in the world. If it was a Muslim travel ban, they would have all been included. I’m not sure if naming Jerusalem the capital of Israel or banning transgenders from enlisting in the military are harmful to the country or not. The jury is still out on those, so to speak. Terminating DACA…this one amazes me. I already pointed out that DACA was deemed to be unconstitutional. So terminating it would only make sense to get back in line with the law. Yet you are saying that is the wrong thing. amazing.

I am making a distinction between policies that I think are correct and what is strictly legal. A person can do something that is beneficial but is illegal.

Since national parks and monuments are environmentally protected, shrinking their size opens up to degradation lands that were previously protected.

100% of the countries that Trump originally wanted blocked from immigration were Muslim. He added one or two non-Muslim countries to cover his intentions.

Banning transgenders from the military cuts down on the number of people who can serve in the military, and is therefore detrimental to the national interest.

DACA was obviously not considered illegal. Otherwise Trump would not have had to officially terminate it. Most of those covered by DACA, who are now scheduled for deportation, are decent tax paying citizens. Tossing them out not only hurts people who have lived here for almost their entire life, but also the communities that they are part of.

Saying Jerusalem is the capital as Israel will almost certainly make the U.S. unacceptable to the Palestinians as a peace negotiator. This makes the chances of a peaceable two state solution even less than they are now, to the detriment of everyone.

The Israelis and all their neighbors have been at war for as long as I can remember. Even without naming Jerusalem the capital. In the end, it might become just another excuse for the two sides to hate each other. On the other hand, it might give credence to one side over the other and start the process of finding some solution. I don’t have the crystal ball. Personally, I don’t know that our suggesting Jerusalem is the capital of Israel will make any difference to the violence in the Middle East, one way or the other.

^It’s been a historical quagmire, of constant war, and infighting (the middle east. ) Just because something is on fire, doesn’t mean it’s OK to throw gas on it.

Several are already dead, thanks to Trump. According to BBC, Israel has conducted multiple attacks on regions in Palestinian territory, in response to missiles fired in protest to Trump’s announcement. That blood is on HIS hands. Any further bloodshed cannot be blamed on mere historical hatred. If there’s one thing, that unites the middle east, it’s hatred of Israel. We’ll see just how careless, and reckless this decision was in the following days. The death toll has already begun.

The “solution” you speak of,will be simply to destroy Israel, with united armies of several countries, and ethnic groups.

I feel sorry for all those who have spent decades, trying to bring peace to the region. Peace was dealt a heavy blow by this thoughtless action.

What it does is eliminate the United States for any future consideration as neutral arbitrator in arrangements between Israelis & Palestinians. It was a dimwitted giveaway of a negotiating card achieving nothing beyond further evaporating the credibility of the United States. It was stupid beyond belief.

^Unless someone wants all out war…

@Stanleybmanly how has the USA succeeded in bringing peace so far? Nixon/Kissinger didn’t do it, Carter certainly didn’t do it. Reagan didn’t get it done, neither of the Bushes did a thing, Clinton didn’t get it done and even with his apology tour, Obama didn’t get it done. So what has actually been lost by Trump? You call Jerusalem a negotiating card, but you miss that it is part of the core of the issues. Israel believes they are in their promised land and are willing to fight to keep it. They have already been pressured to give up part of their land and don’t want to give any more.

@MrGrimm888 I guess the question I have is: why would it have to be the destruction of Israel to end the warfare? Why not get rid of Palestine? Israel was declared a nation in 1948. In 1947, in an effort to support the declaration, created the idea of the Palestinian zone which was split up for 3 Jewish sections and 4 Arab sections. This zone was to be a buffer between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Immediately upon declaring a nation of Israel, the Arabs attacked and Israel kicked their butts. Palestine, on the other hand, wasn’t declared a nation until 1988. So I guess my question would be Why not get rid of Palestine since the Arabs never acknowledged the zone in the first place?
And all this is really meaningless since if you paved over Israel, the Arab nations would continue to battle one another. They’ve done it for centuries…long before Israel was founded.

Pardon me. I didn’t mean that no Israel = peace in the middle east. Oh no… That region seems doomed to meaningless bloodshed forever.

“Why not ‘get rid’ of Palestine? ” This can’t be a serious question.

@seawulf575 “pressured to give up part of THEIR land” or pressured to give BACK lands they continue to appropriate? The truth is that Israel receives no genuine pressure from any of our Presidents, and in fact has walked away with hundreds of billions in subsidies, without which the West Bank land grab would be impossible. The United States could force a
sincere and earnest resolution of this issue through merely turning off the tap.

I can’t see how the two state solution can survive this latest blow from Trump. We have a one state solution and what is to be the nature of that state? It can either be Jewish and undemocratic or secular and democratic. The demographics say it must be one or the other.

Not if all the Palestinians are dead.

@MrGrimm888 actually it was a serious question. What makes Palestine so wonderful that they deserve to exist while Israel is wiped out? They are responsible for at least half the violence in the territory. Yet you made the comment that the problems would continue until Israel is wiped off the map. We both agree that if Israel disappeared, the violence in the ME would continue. So what is the difference between an Arab state and an Israeli state?

@stanleybmanly Israel does add an ally to us in the ME. Without them, we would be dealing with nations that will tell us they love us one day and be plotting our demise the next. How many Israeli terrorists have carried out terrorist acts against our nation? So I guess you are a fan of terrorism since that is a lot of what you get with nations like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the rovers (ISIS).

@flutherother Wow…talk about a loaded choice! Jewish and undemocratic or secular and democratic. Really? Israel has a parlimentary form of government. They hold elections. They are democratic. So if the one state solution is Israel, why would it suddenly have to change? But your only other choice is secular and democratic? You understand that socialist states are not always democratic, yet are quite secular? You understand that China, is not democratic yet is communist (sort of). You understand that all the surrounding nations to Israel are either Kingdoms (non-democratic) or Theocracies (non-democratic). And here’s a thought…if it weren’t for a democratic form of government being in place, the secular cults couldn’t exist. They would be banned. It is only in democracies where secularism truly flourishes.

Palestine has a right to exist. To deny that is racism.

Israel has a right to exist. To deny that is anti-semitism.

@seawulf575 . The Palestinians, are people too. To be so numb in your rhetoric about their oppression, and genocide is disturbing. Just because you have more in common with the Israelis, doesn’t justify any of their behavior. I don’t agree that the Palestinians, deserve half of the blame either. Unless you’re lumping them all in with Hammas.

Would you want the world to judge the US population, by the actions of our domestic terrorists?

@seawulf575 I notice that you exhibit no hesitation when it comes to drawing conclusions on the mindset of your fellows here from “evidence unseen” Let’s take the accusation that the statement “Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territories” entitles you to the conclusion that “you are a fan of terrorism”. Let’s consider for a moment the consequences to a nation whose ally is busy illegally snatching up land. Then think about the implications for you when the world can plainly see that YOU are financing the theft. Then look at your statement “without them we would have to deal with…..” Are you saying that due to our alliance with a socialist country where everyone is entitled to universal government funded healthcare, childcare, etc, – the very model of democratic socialism that the uninsured HERE finance to the tune of some 3 billion dollars a year—-are you saying that due to this alliance we don’t have to deal with Israel’s pesky neighbors?

@seawulf575 Israel has a right to exist and to deny it is also to oppose the United Nations of which it is a member.

I don’t think any of us are saying that Israel doesn’t have the right to exist. We are condemning their actions. Specifically, their treatment of Palestinians. At least I am.

@MrGrimm888 Numb in MY rhetoric? You are the one that said, and I quote: “The “solution” you speak of,will be simply to destroy Israel, with united armies of several countries, and ethnic groups.” That is about as callous as it gets. THAT is why I countered with the equally ignorant statement, Why not get rid of Palestine? I say this to point out how silly your statement was. Then, what happens? Everyone thinks this is my feelings, that I love Israel and hate Palestine. Here’s the clue: They hate each other. Then @ragingloli pops off with the equally ignorant “Palestine has the right to exist. To deny that is racism” Really???? And no one sees that is foolishness? But when I counter with the equally idiotic “Israel has the right to exist. To deny that is anti-semitism.” Same exact thing, just changed the countries, and everyone acts like I said I want to play nursemaid to satan. This is what drives me crazy with you people. You say the most hateful, foolish things and no one cares, as long as it is in line with the liberal talking points. If I say the EXACT SAME THINGS, but not in the liberal talking points, you suddenly recognize how hateful they are. Does that kool-aid really taste that good? ‘Cause it really doesn’t help open your minds.
And no, @MrGrimm888, by your own words, the answer is to wipe them off the map. You can’t backtrack that now. You have stated that is the answer to the problems in the ME so to claim you aren’t saying they don’t have a right to exist is b.s. That is exactly what you are saying. Man up…own it. If it bothers you, then maybe you need to do some soul searching to see where it comes from.

@seawulf575 .

My “solution” statement, was a prediction of what this reckless diplomacy will produce, not a suggestion.
Trump essentially picked a side, and infuriated many surrounding countries, and groups. Many people, in the region, are calling this a Muslim issue. They are calling for all Islamic people to unite, and destroy Israel. If they get stirred up enough, that’s exactly what might happen.

You have made yet another false analogy. In the case of Palestine, you have a terrorist group that is preventing peace. In Israel, it’s the actual government. So when you make broad statements about wiping out Palestine, you aren’t talking about holding the right people responsible.

Loli’s statement was just flame bait. Our favorite troll makes inflammatory statements, but with some real life elements. You can argue with loli if you want, but that jelly isn’t always pushing serious debate.

I’m not sure where you saw me say that the destruction of Israel, would be a solution to peace in the middle east. I tried to clarify, that that was not my opinion. The most obvious post on this matter, is right bellow one of your posts. It starts with “Pardon me…..”

Israel’s existence is not what I have an issue with. But see me in whatever light you wish, I don’t care. I’ve explained my position there to my satisfaction…

Da, law and order have collapsed when they are exempt from prosecutions for real crimes while Trump has been falsely accused. The FBI has too many key perdonnel who are too strongly biased for Democrats and refuse to prosecute them. It is an outlaw state when law enforcement agents refuse to prosecute certain criminals while trying to manufacture flase charges against others of different type politically!

Greetings comrade! Good to see you again.

Tovarich, kak dela?

Isn’t is “komrad” @Darth_Algar?

Do not lie and claim I am Russian. I speak several languages. I have lived in several nations, e.g. France, Italy, the USA, etc. Call me Amie in French! call me Tomodachi in Japanese. call me Freunde in German.

and Иосиф Сталин in your native language.

What ever that was @ragingloli, it wasn’t very nice! I just know these things.

Kak dela!

yo קאק דילה

You still haven’t said what you supposed home country is.

It’s da mudderland.

My personal life is not to be shared with rude savages who will try to find fault with it. My native nation is none of anyone’s business. Theree is a group of cyberbullies who behave toward me exacty as the liberal media does toward Trump. I do not need trolls ridiculing my homeland and manufacturing faults for it tgo spite me for disagreeing with their misinformed beliefs.

Russia then. Got it.