View Full Version : Impeach Donald Trump?
gimmethesimplelife
4-22-19, 2:24pm
Or not? What do you think? I'm all for getting the Orange Goon Traveling Through Life With Money But No Clue out of office, the sooner the better. It will take years to undo the damage he has done with (former?) allies and to repair this country's reputation globally. My family in Austria would worry less if Trump were out of office too. Rob
iris lilies
4-22-19, 2:50pm
Ummm, the charges? According to that pesky Constitution and The Law?
Or capture, draw and quarter him and just be done with it?
I am not sure you are capable of seeing the irony in your posts, but consider this: you hyperventilate on another thread about vigilante justice at the border, yet in this thread about impeaching Donald Trump you don’t even give a reason for this legal action.
I guess some mobs ruling are better than other mobs ruling.
I would prefer that energy, time and money be spent on finding some strong competitors from all parties for 2020 so that the possibility of Trump being re-elected is minimized.
He hasn't been found guilty of any impeachable offense, so I'm with Nancy Pelosi--and pinkytoe--let's save our energy to defeat him in 2020. The next Election Day will be here before we know it.
Rob you should be careful with your wishes, if the Democrats initiate impeachment proceedings and/or the ultra progressive wing of the Democratic Party ascend to a General Election position, I'm afraid a 2nd term for Mr Trump are inevitable.
Ummm, the charges?
My question as well.
I dislike Trump, but we can't just wish him away.
Rob you should be careful with your wishes, if the Democrats initiate impeachment proceedings and/or the ultra progressive wing of the Democratic Party ascend to a General Election position, I'm afraid a 2nd term for Mr Trump are inevitable.
With only a small change to the Constitution, a 3rd and 4th term would be possible as well....
Trying to impeach is pointless and will end up with him getting another term.
Teacher Terry
4-22-19, 4:21pm
Agree that it’s pointless and we need to vote him out.
At this point, I'm wondering how many of the candidates, politicians, and news talking heads who are busy calling for "impeachment" are under the influence of the Russians or other foes.
Our system has been compromised.
Interesting outlook in the NYTimes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opinion/theres-a-bigger-prize-than-impeachment.html
With the long-awaited special prosecutor’s report amounting to little more than a $34 million op-ed, I think Pelosi is smart not listening to the junior revolutionaries from the most recent intake. I think most of the posters here are correct: you can talk darkly about conspiracies, rigged systems, the need to please the Viennese, or the deficiencies of the Constitution, or you can work to win elections.
Interesting outlook in the NYTimes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opinion/theres-a-bigger-prize-than-impeachment.html
Yup, I read that... they have a point.
Impeachment would take so long it would be election time anyways before proceedings were done.
While the constitution doesn't require that a law be broken for an impeachment to occur, and Mueller seems to have left it up to congress to make the determination if obstruction of justice occurred, which reasonably appears to potentially have been the case, I agree with the others on this thread that don't think an impeachment is the right strategy politically for the democrats. I'm intrigued by Warren's statement this weekend that she thinks the house needs to start the impeachment process. She's a savvy political thinker so I'm sure she's thought this through, but I don't understand what her motivation is for that. Polling I've seen doesn't indicate that the public is in favor of it.
Generally I think the democrats would do better to focus on their policy proposals, as they successfully did in 2018, and let trump speak for himself in reminding voters why they don't want to vote for him.
ToomuchStuff
4-23-19, 12:38pm
Ummm, the charges? According to that pesky Constitution and The Law?
I am not sure you are capable of seeing the irony in your posts, but consider this: you hyperventilate on another thread about vigilante justice at the border, yet in this thread about impeaching Donald Trump you don’t even give a reason for this legal action.
+1
And then someone will have to explain to Rob, impeachment, doesn't mean he will be found guilty or automatic removal (see the impeachment of Bill Clinton, for obstruction of Justice and perjury)
Still awaiting a logical and not emotional reply from the OP.
Still awaiting a logical and not emotional reply from the OP.
Good Luck!
gimmethesimplelife
4-23-19, 2:22pm
Good Luck!Exactly. I live in the 85006 - not that this is anything special, mind you - numerous other such zip codes/communities exist throughout America....enclaves where America doesn't work especially well and areas where the Trump message (how do I put this civilly?) doesn't resonate well, if at all. Trump and his henchmen's collective take on minorities overall is dated and time stamped in such places - even by aware Caucasians in such areas - and the kinder of us wish him alive and out of office, isolated somewhere where he can cause no further harm.
Want an emotionless reply? Have your President behave like an actual world leader capable of sane leadership, educated language/communication styles, and civil discourse. Eradicate the anti minority sentiment sweeping the nation - or at least publicly admit this is happening and launch a nationwide discussion as to what to do about this issue. Right now for those who believe in America, your President is not working well, if at all, for those in areas such as mine. And it's not something that can be ignored or swept under any rug. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
4-23-19, 2:27pm
+1
And then someone will have to explain to Rob, impeachment, doesn't mean he will be found guilty or automatic removal (see the impeachment of Bill Clinton, for obstruction of Justice and perjury)
Still awaiting a logical and not emotional reply from the OP.I can't give you an emotionless reply. I live in an area where too many people are vulnerable to Donald J Trump and being a human being, I am incapable of not taking a stance against such or of pretending such away. No can do. Sorry to disappoint.
I will however agree with you on one point......impeachment a la Bill Clinton as you stated does not guarantee a guilty finding nor automatic removal. Perhaps the best we can wish for is to appear as if to the rest of the world that we are aware of our status as the developed world's reputational pinata, and that even though our system doesn't work for many of us, we are trying to do something about this unfortunate 2016 Election result. Such would at least help lower income people who work in hospitality dependent on international tourism......and at least we could save 1/250th of face at this late date....better than nothing, no? Rob
So, no responsive answer. Got it.
iris lilies
4-23-19, 3:49pm
So, no responsive answer. Got it.
But there are a lot of words! Remember when teachers gave us some points for words on paper even if we didn’t address the points we are supposed to address?
But there are a lot of words!
"I'm very highly educated. I know words. I have the best words!"
Many in the legal community have characterized this chapter as "worse than Watergate" because it involves a hostile foreign government. I want it taken just as seriously, and not just swept under Mitch McConnell's rug. Otherwise, we should just do away with the concept of impeachment, if we're not willing to let go of party politics long enough to consider the facts as they stand.
At least one former Trump staffer is willing to go there:
“Politics is a team sport, and if you actively work within a political party, there is some expectation that you will follow orders and rally behind the leader, even when you disagree,” Verret said. “There is a point, though, at which that expectation turns from a mix of loyalty and pragmatism into something more sinister, a blind devotion that serves to enable criminal conduct.” (Bolding mine)
(J.W.)Verret said there are “roughly a dozen separate instances of obstruction of justice” included in Mueller’s report and argued that the “elaborate pattern of obstruction may have successfully impeded the Mueller investigation.”
“Republicans who stand up to Trump today may face some friendly fire,” Verret concluded. “Today’s Republican electorate seems spellbound by the sound bites of Twitter and cable news, for which Trump is a born wizard. Yet, in time, we can help rebuild the Republican Party, enabling it to rise from the ashes of the post-Trump apocalypse into a party with renewed commitment to principles of liberty, opportunity, and the rule of law.”
(from the Washington Examiner)
ToomuchStuff
4-24-19, 12:58am
Exactly.
Want an emotionless reply? Have your President behave like an actual world leader capable of sane leadership, educated language/communication styles, and civil discourse. Eradicate the anti minority sentiment sweeping the nation - or at least publicly admit this is happening and launch a nationwide discussion as to what to do about this issue. Right now for those who believe in America, your President is not working well, if at all, for those in areas such as mine. And it's not something that can be ignored or swept under any rug. RobSo you can't use reason and logic and don't care to learn to. Instead you wish to behave like a man you think of yourself as better then?
Many in the legal community have characterized this chapter as "worse than Watergate" because it involves a hostile foreign government. I want it taken just as seriously,
I don't think it hasn't been taken seriously, or would we have had an investigation? After all, we ourselves have done it multiple times in other countries:
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html
I think it would be unwise to think they (Russians, Chinese, North Korea, any foreign power), would not be attempting to manipulate for their benefit, while planning on how to react if the other direction happens.
...
I don't think it hasn't been taken seriously, or would we have had an investigation? After all, we ourselves have done it multiple times in other countries:
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html
I think it would be unwise to think they (Russians, Chinese, North Korea, any foreign power), would not be attempting to manipulate for their benefit, while planning on how to react if the other direction happens.
I'm sure all kinds of foreign meddling, espionage, dirty dealing go on in various countries every day, but not with the eager participation and encouragement of those in the highest levels of the target government, I fervently hope.
ApatheticNoMore
4-24-19, 11:21am
Don't care, because our politicians are already corrupt and do the bidding of corporations. So foreign entity, corporations (trans national entities), hair meet split. Remember when Cheney had a secret meeting with the oil companies? Especially as that type of corruption seems most closely analogous to what actually went on, and the rest is increasingly just paranoid conspiracy theory. The election was lost for all sorts of reasons, if some trolls on facebook, or knowing the truth of how electoral politics in the U.S. works contributed so be it. I mean the former is just pathetic gullibility in the electorate (with all the millions spent, a few trolls worked better?), and the later worth pause.
Now do Trump's policies, his appointments, etc. really suck, represent massive destruction, and I wouldn't mind getting rid of him for that reason? I mean he is almost uniquely bad on the policy front (yes W had his wars, and they were horrible, but he wasn't as bad on everything else). And if legalistic reasons are used to get rid of him, I don't care and will shed no tears. Sure Pence is nothing good, but he would never get reelected.
I understand not wanting to quietly sit on our hands through 2 more years of destruction nicely bidding our time like nice polite schoolchildren. But as far as the Fed government goes there is literally no choice (at least the Dems got the house), there is pretty much no scenario by which someone even remotely decent gets in there until the next election.
gimmethesimplelife
4-24-19, 9:02pm
Orange man bad.For the most part you are dead on, yes. I do appreciate his signing the Right To Try Bill, however. That was humane of him and I don't have a problem admitting that. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
4-24-19, 10:16pm
I just got a call from the 86001 (a friend of mine in Flagstaff, AZ) informing me that Senator Lindsay Graham supposedly told Trump to expect impeachment proceedings......I googled before posting here as I am aware that there has been a flood of fake news for some time but this does seem legit. I realize that it's no guarantee of proceedings or an impeachment but it does give some hope to those desperately seeking some - at least as for the trajectory of this country. Rob
I just got a call from the 86001 (a friend of mine in Flagstaff, AZ) informing me that Senator Lindsay Graham supposedly told Trump to expect impeachment proceedings......
Odd. Perhaps your friend, or the Senator, need to read the Constitution again.
If we could impeach someone for lying about a blowjob certainly we could impeach someone for multiple cases of obstruction.
The thing that occured to me today was that if trump had been behaving like a normal person for the last three years, and if 2/3 of his senior campaign staff hadn’t been indicted during the last 18 months and this report just came out of the blue it would have been a HUGE bombshell. But instead it was pretty unremarkable because lying and cheating and criminal activity by the president and everyone around him are completely normalized. Not to mention the debasement of our law enforcement agencies. A while back Ldahl expressed confidence that our government could withstand this. Yet now we have a man running the DOJ who acts more like trump’s defense attorney than an attorney general. We seem to be well on the way to banana republicanism.
I don't understand what her motivation is for that. Polling I've seen doesn't indicate that the public is in favor of it.
Seems like the 2019 version of Lock Her Up, meant for consumption by motivated primary voters.
I find it fascinating how his base completely overlooks the pathological dishonesty. Rather than seeing how devious and megalomaniacal he is, they talk about how great a president he is because "He's checked off all his campaign promises." (Even if he hasn't).
I think there's something weirdly "American" about this attraction to ignoring all the "no trespassing" signs he runs over on his way to "checking off the boxes." I think about that famous scene in Gone With the Wind where Scarlett, utterly exhausted, famished, and emotionally spent, makes it to Tara and vomits her attempt at eating a puny potato she finds in the dirt. She stands up and delivers that famous oath: "As God is my witness, they're not going to lick me. I'm going to live through this and when it's all over, I'll never be hungry again. No, nor any of my folk. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill. As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again."
Those who are hungry and tired project this O'Hara character onto Trump--this character who will lie and cheat for them and do whatever it takes, honest or ethical or not, and that seems to be OK. Even though they're still hungry.
gimmethesimplelife
4-25-19, 6:16pm
I find it fascinating how his base completely overlooks the pathological dishonesty. Rather than seeing how devious and megalomaniacal he is, they talk about how great a president he is because "He's checked off all his campaign promises." (Even if he hasn't).
I think there's something weirdly "American" about this attraction to ignoring all the "no trespassing" signs he runs over on his way to "checking off the boxes." I think about that famous scene in Gone With the Wind where Scarlett, utterly exhausted, famished, and emotionally spent, makes it to Tara and vomits her attempt at eating a puny potato she finds in the dirt. She stands up and delivers that famous oath: "As God is my witness, they're not going to lick me. I'm going to live through this and when it's all over, I'll never be hungry again. No, nor any of my folk. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill. As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again."
Those who are hungry and tired project this O'Hara character onto Trump--this character who will lie and cheat for them and do whatever it takes, honest or ethical or not, and that seems to be OK. Even though they're still hungry.Catherine, very interesting take here likening Trump to the character of Scarlett O'hara, or at least as you say hi supporters projecting Scarlett O'Hara's character onto Trump. It fits in a way - they're both selfish as hell and are both tough survivors. And not especially likeable people, either. The problem with his supporters taking things to this level? It's not the Deep South at the near end of the Civil War. Most all have some access to food if not adequate access to food and society still has not collapsed as the Confederacy had by this point. Rob
I'm not in favor of impeachment proceedings at this point, mainly because a) it would fail in the Senate and b) would take time and resources away from what I think are more critical matters. However, pursuing someone for criminal behavior after they leave office is another matter.
My guess is that initiating impeachment proceedings would serve the Democrats about as well as they served the Republicans back in the day. But the urge for virtue signaling and striking heroic poses is hard to resist.
My guess is that initiating impeachment proceedings would serve the Democrats about as well as they served the Republicans back in the day. But the urge for virtue signaling and striking heroic poses is hard to resist.
What some consider virtue signaling others call upholding the rule of law.
gimmethesimplelife
4-26-19, 11:35am
What some consider virtue signaling others call upholding the rule of law.I agree with you completely, jp1. I find it amazing, no bashing at all here intended, that what some would consider upholding the law, others consider mere virtue signaling. Truly I don't have much hope for the future of this society when confronted with such. But whatever, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out regardless. Rob
What some consider virtue signaling others call upholding the rule of law.
Or at least so far, the rule of unsubstantiated innuendo. Personally, I have little use for Mr Trump. But I have even less for those who think a rage-besotted show trial is in the best interest of either the country or their own party.
Personally I wouldn't describe the Mueller report as unsubstantiated innuendo. It seems pretty clear that the president lied and cheated and accepted help from an adversarial foreign power to get elected and has been attempting to obstruct, and get others to obstruct, the investigation into this or anything else, ever since. Mueller made clear in his report that the only reason he didn't indict the president is that the justice department currently has rules against indicting a sitting president.
But you're probably right that an impeachment, which most certainly wouldn't result in a conviction, is probably not the solution. The house continuing to do it's oversight function is probably the best we can hope for until the next election.
"Virtue signalling" is just name calling by those who resent other people having any. IMO
"Virtue signalling" is just name calling by those who resent other people having any. IMOThe term "virtue signalling" is fairly new, I believe it was popularized in The Spectator by a fellow named James Bartholomew who said this about it:
"It’s noticeable how often virtue-signalling consists of saying you hate things. It is camouflage. The emphasis on hate distracts from the fact you are really saying how good you are. If you were frank and said, ‘I care about the environment more than most people do’ or ‘I care about the poor more than others’, your vanity and self-aggrandisement would be obvious.”
I think he's right.
I don't see the point of mocking people ("social justice warriors." "virtue signalling") for trying to right the wrongs they see in the world. I'm glad there are people who do; wish there were more of them. And I don't give a damn if they take credit for the good they do. either.
gimmethesimplelife
4-26-19, 4:18pm
I don't see the point of mocking people ("social justice warriors." "virtue signalling") for tying to right the wrongs they see in the world. I'm glad there are people who do; wish there were more of them. And I don't give a damn if they take credit for the good they do. either.Thank You, Jane. Your post here gives me some hope. Rob
Teacher Terry
4-26-19, 6:35pm
Totally agree Jane.
iris lilies
4-26-19, 10:17pm
I don't see the point of mocking people ("social justice warriors." "virtue signalling") for trying to right the wrongs they see in the world. I'm glad there are people who do; wish there were more of them. And I don't give a damn if they take credit for the good they do. either.
But I don’t think that blathering on the Internet is doing much of anything to right any kind of wrong. I think it’s mental masturbation.
ApatheticNoMore
4-26-19, 10:55pm
talking about virtue signaling mostly seems to be saying: I have a problem with people having moral values at all.
ok well that's *a* position I guess ...
I suppose some real phenomena that is describes might exist, but it's pretty rare I'd suspect, uncommon.
But I don’t think that blathering on the Internet is doing much of anything to write any kind of wrong. I think it’s mental masturbation.
The original allusion to virtue signaling on this thread was LDAHL mocking the dem reps. And in this case we're talking about those same reps doing something. Or at least trying to. Hopefully they'll have the balls to drag people like Dan McGann into the house chamber to talk using their inherent contempt powers. So you are correct, Jane and I aren't doing anything personally, but we're both talking about the house of reps actually doing something.
ApatheticNoMore
4-27-19, 1:12am
I have never heard the term used coherently. Some people just act like they have a problem with virtue as such, or have a problem with framing arguments in moral terms - their beef must be with the whole of western culture and then some then though, because talk about nothing new under the sun! Making a legal argument isn't even framing an argument in moral terms though.
I once think I encountered a situation where the phrase "virtue signaling" actually applied, and I was like "oh yea there it applies", but I can't remember what it was though.
I can understand people being offended being called out on their virtue signalling as it's just a newer way of referring to hypocrisy. It's even called out in the Bible by Jesus his-own-self:
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
— Matthew 6:1–4 (NIV) (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6)
I think a better term for what we see on social media and other public venues is a form of "slactivism", where it's easier to show public support to something than to engage in real activism.
Upon reflection, I'm not sure what to call the sentiment behind this thread. It seems to me that the popularity of calling for impeachment, without regard to the consequences, is just a way of letting the cool kids know that you're down with them. It may hurt you in the end, but you get to be part of the 'in' group for a short while. That's why it's popular with politicians whose only real interest is the short-term need to be seen doing something, or at least thinking the popular thought of the moment. I guess once said, that brings me back to favoring the term "virtue-signalling" with a twist, that being that virtue isn't actually what's being signalled.
But I don’t think that blathering on the Internet is doing much of anything to write any kind of wrong. I think it’s mental masturbation.
In many cases, it's just discourse or a way to influence others--a pretty common Internet phenomenon. You can work on causes you believe in in many ways.
And how could we forget those virtue signalers of old--the Moral Majority, those "family values" folks. If there are any of them left, they're reduced to bleating about abortion and Pete Buttigieg's marriage, if they're not in prison. Matthew also had it right in 7:3, where he said "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
I think Matthew had the right idea about charity in general, but it's difficult to round up volunteers for, say, Fences for Fido (an excellent charity, BTW) without talking about the process.
And how could we forget those virtue signaler of old--the Moral Majority, those "family values" folks. If there are any of them left, they're reduced to bleating about abortion and Pete Buttigieg's marriage, if they're not in prison.
Oh they're still around, just not as vocal. After a generation or so of being the only remaining special interest group the social progressives and their toady media have refused to embrace or at least tolerate has probably made them a little more circumspect.
Oh they're still around, just not as vocal. After a generation or so of being the only remaining special interest group the social progressives and their toady media have refused to embrace or at least tolerate has probably made them a little more circumspect.
And now those other virtue signalers, the all-American (snort!) NRA is faltering, too. Sad day.
And now those other virtue signalers, the all-American (snort!) NRA is faltering, too. Sad day.Yeah, I'm not entirely clear how the only private organization tasked with protecting your rights can be so universally hated, but such is the power of populist propaganda. Scary stuff!
Yeah, I'm not entirely clear how the only private organization tasked with protecting your rights can be so universally hated, but such is the power of populist propaganda. Scary stuff!
Aside from being infiltrated by Russian agents--probably a fairly recent occurrence--they've long been just an aggressive marketing arm of weapons manufacturers. There are probably more praiseworthy 2nd Amendment advocates out there, but I'm blissfully unaware of them. I'm one of those who believes that "a well-regulated militia" means the National Guard, after all.
I'm one of those who believes that "a well-regulated militia" means the National Guard, after all.I guess you're in good company, even the ACLU seems to believe that despite Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, the right to bear arms is a collective right rather than an individual one. I've never understood that line of thought since it seems that denying the individual the right to an effective self defense in favor of whatever defense the government allows is antithetical to a free society. I think it's based more on the underlying liberal belief that the country was founded as a democracy where 51% of the populace may dominate the remaining 49% and the populist belief that anyone wishing to own a firearm is a threat to their ability to dominate.
I guess you're in good company, even the ACLU seems to believe that despite Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, the right to bear arms is a collective right rather than an individual one. I've never understood that line of thought since it seems that denying the individual the right to an effective self defense in favor of whatever defense the government allows is antithetical to a free society. I think it's based more on the underlying liberal belief that the country was founded as a democracy where 51% of the populace may dominate the remaining 49% and the populist belief that anyone wishing to own a firearm is a threat to their ability to dominate.
It seems the tippy-top one percent is the dominant faction today, firearms or not. They've got all the power.
It seems the tippy-top one percent is the dominant faction today, firearms or not. They've got all the power.If I look out my window it seems likely to rain, but I'm open to the possibility that the single cloud hovering overhead may be skewing my perception.
If I look out my window it seems likely to rain, but I'm open to the possibility that the single cloud hovering overhead may be skewing my perception.
Haiku-like and inscrutable.
My translation: billions, and billions, and hundreds of billions of dollars in the hands of a bunch of industrialists busy buying representatives and judges with the help of a president who has no moral compass whatsoever (and is unapologetically in bed with a foreign adversary), is nothing to concern yourself about. Even as they destroy the environment and make housing, college education and necessary drugs like insulin only a distant dream for many. Robber barons on steroids. Or did I miss the mark?
Teacher Terry
4-27-19, 3:07pm
You didn’t miss anything Jane.
Haiku-like and inscrutable.
My translation: billions, and billions, and hundreds of billions of dollars in the hands of a bunch of industrialists busy buying representatives and judges with the help of a president who has no moral compass whatsoever (and is unapologetically in bed with a foreign adversary), is nothing to concern yourself about.
Look on the bright side, when the redistributionists take over just think of the payday they can award themselves and their loyal minions, and it will be all the sweeter because it actually takes someone creating great wealth to make it worthwhile to confiscate.
Teacher Terry
4-27-19, 6:47pm
Alan, no one wants to take others wealth. I don’t know why you keep saying this.
Alan, no one wants to take others wealth. I don’t know why you keep saying this.
Senator Warren has a proposed wealth tax as a key element of her policies.
Teacher Terry
4-27-19, 6:53pm
Many things get proposed and go nowhere.
Many things get proposed and go nowhere.
You said "no one wants to take others wealth".
A major presidential candidate, Warren, is stumping the idea strongly. Some of the other candidates have their own versions of similar or related ideas.
So "no one" is incorrect.
I have no problems with progressive taxation (if that's what you mean by "take another's wealth"), an end to loopholes and offshoring of wealth, licenses, etc. I'd also like to see serious election finance reform. Our federal tax rates are historically low, and need to be returned to sane levels. And then we can turn to the bloated "defense" budget.
Alan, no one wants to take others wealth. I don’t know why you keep saying this.
It's interesting to me that when you look at global economies we see differences between the haves and the have nots, yet in this country we lament the differences between the haves and the have mores, and we really, really resent it. All the Democrats are ginning up outrage at the 1% or the millionaires and billionaires as if they were the most evil creatures imaginable. I think it would be foolish even for progressives to think you could eliminate the difference between all the haves and the much fewer have mores by making everyone a have more, so the only remaining course of action to achieve parity is to attack the smallest group and use the proceeds to finance a few months of free stuff for the already haves. Otherwise, what's the point?
"Free stuff" is another one of those Republican talking points that means nothing. All of us, save the very poor and the very rich, pay federal taxes.
iris lilies
4-27-19, 7:28pm
"Free stuff" is another one of those Republican talking points that means nothing. All of us, save the very poor and the very rich, pay federal taxes.
And yet none of us are paying enough to achieve a balanced budget.
To me, tjat seems like a lot of free or reduced rate stuff that this country cannot afford.
"Free stuff" is another one of those Republican talking points that means nothing. All of us, save the very poor and the very rich, pay federal taxes.You'll have to take that up with all the prospective candidates promising "free" stuff if only we can see our way clear to elect them. Free college, free universal income, free healthcare, etc. You know, "free" stuff. I have to giggle a little at the idea those are Republican talking points, don't tell all the BernieBros.
You'll have to take that up with all the prospective candidates promising "free" stuff if only we can see our way clear to elect them. Free college, free universal income, free healthcare, etc. You know, "free" stuff.
Those would all be covered--health care, for example would be a benefit covered by taxes, as it is in other countries. And once we got the grift factor/insurance companies out of it, it would cost about half as much.
Those would all be covered--health care, for example would be a benefit covered by taxes, as it is in other countries.
That's why most of us get a kick out of hearing progressive politicians go with the "free" angle when it would be much more honest to say "We'll take 50% or more of your income and give you the VA medical system in return." They know that the dishonest approach gives more bang for the buck.
And yet none of us are paying enough to achieve a balanced budget.
To me, tjat seems like a lot of free or reduced rate stuff that this country cannot afford.
The deficit doesn't matter. At least that's what the republicans say.
They know that the dishonest approach gives more bang for the buck.
You mean like when the republicans said their tax scam was mainly a middle class tax cut?
Teacher Terry
4-27-19, 8:08pm
IL, what we cannot afford is all the massive tax cuts that the Republicans gave to people and corporations that need it the least. Then they start talking about cutting SS, etc. The height of hypocrisy. We are destroying our middle class. There will always be poor people.
You mean like when the republicans said their tax scam was mainly a middle class tax cut?
No, I'm middle class and did get a tax cut, as I suspect you did as well. It's more like "If you like your current plan and doctor, you can keep your plan and doctor." Ha, ha, what a kidder. :D
Teacher Terry
4-27-19, 8:19pm
The ACA has provided HI to millions of people who didn’t have it. The HI through my DIL’s employer is so inadequate it doesn’t meet basic ACA standards. She needed brain surgery that could only be done in a few places by certain doctors. No one in our state could do it. Thankfully they had ACA insurance because the hospital wouldn’t even give them a appointment until she could prove she had decent insurance or a million in the bank. That insurance saved her life.
The ACA has provided HI to millions of people who didn’t have it. The HI through my DIL’s employer is so inadequate it doesn’t meet basic ACA standards. She needed brain surgery that could only be done in a few places by certain doctors. No one in our state could do it. Thankfully they had ACA insurance because the hospital wouldn’t even give them a appointment until she could prove she had decent insurance or a million in the bank. That insurance saved her life.It's a shame some of the Social Democrats are pledging to take even that forced through punitive fines product away and make us all settle for Medicare. How would your DIL have fared under that?
Teacher Terry
4-27-19, 8:58pm
I think she would have fared fine under Medicare for all. You just need to buy the supplements. She was from Poland and that surgery can’t be done there. It was lucky she met my son. A little boy in Poland is facing the same situation and there is a go fund me for him to come here for the surgery. My friends on Medicare are very happy and once my husband is 65 we will lose my retiree insurance.
I think she would have fared fine under Medicare for all. Really? It's heartening to hear that you think our Medicare for all will be better than other socialized systems throughout the world. Maybe everyone else can still come here for treatments and care they can't get under socialized systems elsewhere, at least in the short term.
Teacher Terry
4-27-19, 9:15pm
Poland is a tiny country just like I live in a state without a ton of population. No surprise they cannot do the surgery. None of my friends are unhappy with Medicare so I am not concerned at all.
Teacher Terry
4-27-19, 9:25pm
Gold star survivor benefits for children is now being taxed at 37%. So the family gets 15k/year and pay 5 in taxes. Does this seem fair to anyone?
No, I'm middle class and did get a tax cut, as I suspect you did as well. It's more like "If you like your current plan and doctor, you can keep your plan and doctor." Ha, ha, what a kidder. :D
I did. But the vast majority of that budget buster didn't go to people like you or me.
And if the republicans expected me to do anything to boost the economy they will be disappointed. I don't live paycheck to paycheck so all I did with the extra money was stick it in my money market account.
Gold star survivor benefits for children is now being taxed at 37%. So the family gets 15k/year and pay 5 in taxes. Does this seem fair to anyone?
Trump has a grudge against Gold Star families. He likes families where the soldiers came home. Besides, Khizr Khan stood up to him, bigly.
ToomuchStuff
4-28-19, 10:33am
Senator Warren has a proposed wealth tax as a key element of her policies.
On Colbert the other night (just caught this after checking Netflix for a show), 2% of the 75,000 families with $50,000,000.00 or more in the bank, to cover all American's for health care, reduce student loans (didn't say eliminate), build new housing and I think I am missing something because:
And yet none of us are paying enough to achieve a balanced budget.
To me, tjat seems like a lot of free or reduced rate stuff that this country cannot afford.
I was thinking they must have fixed Social Security and balanced the budget, after all how long has she been in office? (2013 and she is not currently focused on her current, representation position)
It is awful easy for a lot of people to be careless with other peoples money. Do you trust your next door neighbors with yours?
catherine
4-28-19, 10:44am
It's a shame some of the Social Democrats are pledging to take even that forced through punitive fines product away and make us all settle for Medicare. How would your DIL have fared under that?
DH and I are on Medicare, and we do pay for a Medicare supplement as well, and we are so much better off than we were on commercial healthcare. My husband has been to specialists and hospitals all winter and I shudder to think about where we would have been if he had gotten sick just two weeks earlier, when he was 64.
iris lilies
4-28-19, 11:01am
On Colbert the other night (just caught this after checking Netflix for a show), 2% of the 75,000 families with $50,000,000.00 or more in the bank, to cover all American's for health care, reduce student loans (didn't say eliminate), build new housing and I think I am missing something because:
I was thinking they must have fixed Social Security and balanced the budget, after all how long has she been in office? (2013 and she is not currently focused on her current, representation position)
It is awful easy for a lot of people to be careless with other peoples money. Do you trust your next door neighbors with yours?
I dont even want to own real estate with other people as in condominiums. They make stupid decisions about maintenance. I have seen far too many condo associations blow money on dumb stuff when major structural repairs and roofs HVAC systems etc. need to be considered.
So no, I do not trust other people with my money to Spend on my general well-being.
"Virtue signalling" is just name calling by those who resent other people having any. IMO
When a Senator has a “Spartacus Moment” when he claims to have risked expulsion by leaking previously cleared documents, I think that’s virtue signaling.
When an actor defies the threat of violence after staging an attack on himself, I think that’s virtue signaling.
Dismissal of the idea as mere resentment of one’s virtue would seem to be similar.
flowerseverywhere
4-29-19, 12:10pm
It's a shame some of the Social Democrats are pledging to take even that forced through punitive fines product away and make us all settle for Medicare. How would your DIL have fared under that?
I am on Medicare. I have excellent coverage with my supplement. Less than $3,000 per year (including Medicare premiums) for insurance with an excellent vision and drug plan. Routine teeth cleanings. I can see any MD that accepts Medicare. If you have a lot of medical problems you might have to pay more to reach your out of pocket maximum, but it is way less than I’ve paid pre Medicare.
Anyone would be crazy not to think that was a great deal.
I do think that Medicare for all could be phased in gradually. Say first include any citizen 62-65 who has worked x amount of credits, and maybe for a slightly higher premium until they reach age 65. Then a few years later down to age 59. And so on. After ten years or so you would have a lot of younger healthy people on the plan so the cost would be spread out.
This would be a form of taxation, but you could take your chances and go without. Medical care is expensive, so paying premiums of some sort, whether by taxation or premiums is to be expected.
One of the bigger problems we have is people being brainwashed that Medicare is free. It is not by a long stretch. However, the more people who are eligible who are covered, the less stress on our urgent cares and emergency rooms. Getting preventative care, like diabetes, cancer and hypertension screenings will nip many very expensive problems in the bud.
Expect great resistance, though, from drug, equipment, and insurance companies. They are becoming very rich hiking prices for insulin (discovered 100 years ago), epipens and so on. And don’t forget those CEO and executive bonuses and salaries. And big shiny buildings.
flowerseverywhere
4-29-19, 12:16pm
Gold star survivor benefits for children is now being taxed at 37%. So the family gets 15k/year and pay 5 in taxes. Does this seem fair to anyone?
we should be ashamed that this issue is not a top priority of every elected official. Instead we will investigate Trump and/or Hillary. And pay for Trumps flights to golf at his own resorts we are subsidizing. And so on.
Surely we can attempt to reverse the "gold star" tax without sweeping the investigation of Trump and his henchmen under Mitch McConnell's rug. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
flowerseverywhere
4-29-19, 5:12pm
Surely we can attempt to reverse the "gold star" tax without sweeping the investigation of Trump and his henchmen under Mitch McConnell's rug. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I think the most important point we sometimes miss is what the point is. Do you really think Trump will be drummed out of office? Will he go to jail? Will Hillary go to jail? All that money to impeach Bill Clinton, for what?
i can think of many things that could be the top headlines day after day.
Gun violence
infrastructure plans
immigration reform.
deficit reduction.
getting our young women and men home from wars
improving care for veterans.
We are so busy being partisan little is changing. We are fiddling while Rome burns.
I think the American people deserve to see the details of Trump's actions laid out and discussed. Otherwise, he just skates, as he has all his life. No consequences for him!
Watergate was a necessary and cathartic exercise, and Nixon was much less dangerous than Trump et al. 2750 (from the Mueller Report)
I think the American people deserve to see the details of Trump's actions laid out and discussed. Otherwise, he just skates, as he has all his life. No consequences for him!
Watergate was a necessary and cathartic exercise, and Nixon was much less dangerous than Trump et al. 2750 (from the Mueller Report)
What a wonderfully weaselly parting shot. “We can’t prove he did it; but that doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.” Do we know for a certainty that Trump isn’t guilty of cannibalism?
What a wonderfully weaselly parting shot. “We can’t prove he did it; but that doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.” Do we know for a certainty that Trump isn’t guilty of cannibalism?
Well to be fair, Mueller is a life-long Republican, appointed by a Republican...
I agree with you--very mealy-mouthed.
I feel confident that if cannibalism could benefit Trump in any way, he'd be "on it like a bitch."
What a wonderfully weaselly parting shot. “We can’t prove he did it; but that doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.” Do we know for a certainty that Trump isn’t guilty of cannibalism?
The Mueller report specifically stated that they didn't exonerate him not because he was not guilty, but because they didn't feel that the justice department could make that decision based on current justice department rules against indicting a sitting president. It seems that they intended that congress, being the only part of the government that can make a determination of guilt, should be the body of government to make that determination. And at this point they haven't seen the whole report, at least as far as one can tell.
Teacher Terry
4-29-19, 9:52pm
Too funny Jane!
ApatheticNoMore
4-30-19, 11:42am
Surely we can attempt to reverse the "gold star" tax without sweeping the investigation of Trump and his henchmen under Mitch McConnell's rug. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
no not really, people have limited amounts of their attention to devote to politics and won't/can't focus on everything. And then if what is focused on turns out not to be what voters care about much, one doesn't even win elections.
ToomuchStuff
4-30-19, 12:09pm
So no, I do not trust other people with my money to Spend on my general well-being.
I should have written that last question different, as it was directed at everybody in general, not just you. (been long hours)
I feel confident that if cannibalism could benefit Trump in any way, he'd be "on it like a bitch."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyONt_ZH_aw A Soylent Green company.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.