Democrats Are Living In Fantasy Land

I can see it everywhere from the testimony by Robert Mueller today to the Democratic candidates running for president but especially to the comments by Democratic/liberal/progressive persons on line.

Democrats have this fantasy that Donald Trump is going to be beaten when he runs for reelection. That might happen. But even if he loses. And the Republicans take a fearsome beating in the general election. The Dems have this idea that as soon as Biden/Harris or Harris/Booker or Warren/Harris are sworn in that former President Trump is going to be arrested, indicted, prosecuted, and hopefully convicted and imprisoned for whatever crimes. Collusion most likely.

That is not going to happen. Even if Donald J. Trump is 100% guilty of crime and his conviction is an absolute guarantee it will never happen. Why?

1) It would be politically undoable. Prosecuting the former president after you've won big would be widely seen as "winner's justice" and "piling on". An incoming president would be basically throwing away their honeymoon period (when their policy proposals are given serious consideration) in favor of revenge/payback on a man who has already been humiliated. No remotely sane new presidential administration would do that. The same way the Obama Admin. made no effort whatsoever to prosecute George W. Bush or Dick Cheney for matters related to the Iraq War.

2) Any incoming Democratic administration coming in knows full well they might be out of power in at most 8 years. And quite potentially the next administration might be a Republican one which now that the precedent of "winners justice" has been established quite reasonably might try to prosecute the Democratic former president for something.

3) Even overseas when old dictators get overthrown, there is very little stomach for prosecuting 70 or 80 year old guys and throwing them in prison

While many long for Donald Trump to be marched into prison. It isn't going to happen. They should get over it.

In a way it would be nice to see an ex-president get arrested because maybe it would then give future presidents some pause

Of course @Dayton3 , Wordforge's biggest government bootlicker, would disagree that a president guilty of a crime should be arrested

You’re just now realizing that Democrats live in a fantasy world?

And libertarians can't see or are just unwilling to see that Mexico is their Libertarian Paradise

Just out of curiosity, would @Dayton3 be okay with Clinton being arrested if he were conclusively proven to have raped someone like the GOP insists has happened?

I live close enough to Mexico that I can see it from my backyard on a clear day and I've heard so many stories of people paying off cops when caught speeding.

And speed signs are a recommended guideline.

Depends.

...on the definition of "is"?

Statute of Limitations for one. I think the rapes that GOPers claim Clinton committed all occurred before he was elected president which would've made it too long ago.

At this point his impeachment is not an issue. However, whether or not he is indicted after he is no longer president is only up to you if you get to be AG with your mail order business management degree. Also, congress has more of a purpose now of exposing his actions through their investigation. You know, something for election day. They should also remind the public that a dem president could have the justice department bring charges, and that the people can remove the corrupt president through voting.

As for your trip and opinion, it is sort of like your asshole, full of shit.

Depends are the underwear oldfellah wears. Could you answer the question?

I do agree with the sentiment that a Trump defeat is not guaranteed. Trump has never been popular, even within his own base, but he knows how to bait his voter base and get them excited. The Dems in my lifetime have mostly failed miserably at this. I'm too young to remember the Clinton elections, but Obama got a lot of votes by focusing little on being Not Bush or bashing McCain and Palin the walking punchline but by discussing what he can do. We've got to support someone we can actually have a beer with and not just the person who many beat Trump on paper. We all thought Lurch John Kerry was a shoo-in too.

Post #10.

You might very well be right, @Dayton3. But where does that leave us? Trump getting away with his crimes also sets a precedent, after all. Why would the next guy, from either party, hesitate to leverage populism against constitutional principles and break as many laws as he likes? If there is no accountability, can there be any chance for rebuilding or recovery? Or does this mean that once you get one truly corrupt President, the game is just over?

Ooo, look who just changed his username and his avatar, as if that's going to make his decades of past history go away.

Someone does not understand how internet history works.

You might not realized it but we've had plenty of corrupt (some highly so) presidents in the past. Those corrupt presidencies did not have that much impact one way or the other.

But this brings to mind a saying:

"In a democracy, it must be safe to lose an election."

Now normally this refers to physical safety. As in even in a democracy you cannot have people worried that if their side loses they're going to be rounded up and killed.

But it could also refer to "legal safety". Can you imagine what would happen if each American president was terrified that if they lost that they would be thrown in prison.?

Now I know some of you will advance the idea of "Good! It will keep them on the straight and narrow". Perhaps you're right. But I see a far more likely and much darker outcome. One where the person in office and his people fight like hell to stay in office by any means possible. Fair or foul. Have that happen a couple of times and then every election cycle you'll have hundreds of thousands of people fighting it out in the streets for weeks on end.

No matter how corrupt Trump might be, is that an outcome we really want to see?

Oh really? This on the same board where half the regular members have been "notDaytoned" at one point or the other...

Lock Him Up!
Lock Him Up!

Send Him Back!
Send Him Back!

How about "Send Him Up!"?

Same meaning isn't it? Not sure "Lock Him Back" would mean quite the same thing.

FTFY

we call that Montreal here

So what you are basically saying is that every president should be immune from the law so that they can act outside of it without fear? This goes directly against their oath to uphold the constitution and makes absolutely no sense. You also don't agree with it. Let us say someone discovered Obama raped little kids while in office, to remove your statute of limitation cop out, should he not be prosecuted for those crimes because that would lead to fears from other presidents that they could be prosecuted for their illegal activities while president? You would bust a nut in excitement if Obama was arrested and convicted for crimes he committed in office. You just don't like it because it is your hero trump.

it is the same old @Dayton3 shit different name.

I wouldn't be okay with it. Waking up next to Hillary is punishment enough for any crime.

I used to enjoy the clubs on Crescent St. Ah, to be single in Montreal...

You probably got passed around by some Quebec Hell’s Angels until your asshole looked like a juiced orange

Nope, but I did meet Mike Bossy at his restaurant and he couldn't have been nicer. Also happens to be the greatest sniper the NHL has ever seen. Boom!

Just admit you confused the zepplin lyrics about squeezing a lemon with squeezing an orange.