Impeachment? [Archive] - Page 2 - Simple Living Forums

gimmethesimplelife

10-9-19, 4:20pm

Obstruction of justice, conspiring with our enemies to influence an election (hell, conspiring with anyone who will cooperate to influence an election)...Trump makes Nixon look like an amateur. Russia is running the show--from Trump shunning the G7, to holding up aid to Ukraine, to allowing Erdogan to slaughter our Allies in Syria, and probably some s*** I've forgot.

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress and he became the judge and jurty." --Lindsey Graham, 1998Thank You, Jane. I had forgotten about the obstruction of justice. Rob

Alan

10-9-19, 4:24pm

OK, Alan, I'll bite. How does taking a stance against the 85006 qualify as participating in mob rule? Do you require proof or will an accusation of wrong doing suffice? Mobs don't require proof and so far, in all your odd rants, neither do you.

JaneV2.0

10-9-19, 4:55pm

The impeachment inquiry is underway, preliminary to a trial. Of course, with all the obstruction going on, it may take awhile. This is all being done in the manner prescribed in the Constitution, just as it was during Watergate. I don't remember all these objections from Republicans during Clinton's impeachment for lying about a sexual encounter.

Alan

10-9-19, 5:15pm

This is all being done in the manner prescribed in the Constitution, just as it was during Watergate.
The difference being this time there has been no floor vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry. There was a floor vote leading up to the Watergate inquiry and there was for the Clinton impeachment inquiry. The current approach seems to be crafted more to influence an upcoming election than make a concerted effort to remove a President for high crimes or misdemeanors.

JaneV2.0

10-9-19, 5:25pm

Congress certainly would vote in favor of the inquiry; no reason--that I can see--not to.

Trump is doing damage daily to his re-election chances, but Putin knows a good thing when he sees one. I'm sure he and his bots and troll farms and hackers will come through again.

frugal-one

10-9-19, 5:34pm

Do you require proof or will an accusation of wrong doing suffice? Mobs don't require proof and so far, in all your odd rants, neither do you.

The whistleblowers (note plural) have proof. Also, trump admitted to the world that he conspired with foreign governments to get dirt on Biden. He even (while being recorded on tv) asked China and Ukraine to get info on Biden. Again, where is your head?

frugal-one

10-9-19, 5:50pm

Clean.

Absolutely nowhere.

bae

10-9-19, 6:16pm

The difference being this time there has been no floor vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry. There was a floor vote leading up to the Watergate inquiry and there was for the Clinton impeachment inquiry.

My understanding is that the US Constitution does not specify the procedures used by the House to investigate possible impeachment. The text seems to clearly indicate a vote *would* be required to move forward any articles of impeachment the House drafts to the Senate for a trial.

My further understanding is that the House's current rules allow committees to investigate things as they wish, without need for a full vote.

I believe that in the Nixon and Clinton area, the House hadn't delegated such powers to committees, but that those rules have changed since then.

Glancing at the news the past few days, it appears that the whole nation is putting the cart in front of the horse here, and trying to engage in the trial part of the process before we've even seen any articles of impeachment.

Alan

10-9-19, 6:46pm

My further understanding is that the House's current rules allow committees to investigate things as they wish, without need for a full vote.

I believe that in the Nixon and Clinton area, the House hadn't delegated such powers to committees, but that those rules have changed since then.

That's my understanding as well. I believe they've even recently delegated subpoena power to committee's without the need for floor approval, eliminating several centuries of tradition designed to ensure all representatives of the people have a voice in this sort of thing. People are bothersome though, best to ignore them as much as possible. Small cabals working for their own interests seem to be the future role of governance .

Glancing at the news the past few days, it appears that the whole nation is putting the cart in front of the horse here, and trying to engage in the trial part of the process before we've even seen any articles of impeachment.
The trial has been ongoing in the press since 2017 and there have been at least 3 formal requests in the house to initiate impeachment inquiries, one in 2017, one in 2018 and one in 2019, all based on nothing more than a desire to reverse the outcome of a particularly troublesome election.

The sad part of the whole thing is the vehemence with which a large part of our citizenry embrace this sort of thing, going so far as to treat anyone cautioning against self-inflicted wounds as if they were Ellen DeGeneres attending a football game with George Bush.

gimmethesimplelife

10-9-19, 6:48pm

The whistleblowers (note plural) have proof. Also, trump admitted to the world that he conspired with foreign governments to get dirt on Biden. He even (while being recorded on tv) asked China and Ukraine to get info on Biden. Again, where is your head?I don't want to be a jerk here. Alan keeps this site up and running, and he is entitled to his opinion. That said, Thank You for your last sentence, Frugal One. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

10-9-19, 6:54pm

I will admit word of my change of heart (I now still with misgivings support impeachment) got around the neighborhood fast. SO is happy too, and I have made sure my impeachment outfit is ready should that day arrive. You know, though, I still don't feel guilty having once dropped the wish for impeachment. Beyond economic consequences, I worry that his more rabid supporters may engage in scattered impeachment violence. But I do now mostly support Yrump's being kicked to the curb. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

10-9-19, 6:55pm

Should be Trump in the last sentence. Rob

Alan

10-9-19, 6:59pm

I don't want to be a jerk here. Alan keeps this site up and running, and he is entitled to his opinion. That said, Thank You for your last sentence, Frugal One. Rob
Ha ha Rob, don't worry, I'm inclined towards conservatism so there's no danger I'll hold yours and Frugal-one's hostility against you. That's a progressive trait. :+1:

bae

10-9-19, 7:03pm

That's my understanding as well. I believe they've even recently delegated subpoena power to committee's without the need for floor approval, eliminating several centuries of tradition designed to ensure all representatives of the people have a voice in this sort of thing. [/COLOR]

That must be sort of handy, to be able to set up dozens of little Star Chambers!

It's weird, when I was an elected official, we had to formally memorialize by vote any delegation of powers to committees we formed. And the state-level regulations would not allow us to evade that.

bae

10-9-19, 7:04pm

I have made sure my impeachment outfit is ready should that day arrive.

Are you going to wear it when the articles of impeachment are handed to the Senate? Or are you going to wait for an actual conviction?

gimmethesimplelife

10-9-19, 7:09pm

Are you going to wear it when the articles of impeachment are handed to the Senate? Or are you going to wait for an actual conviction?I was thinking of wearing it the day Trump is kicked to the curb and there is a neighborhood celebration I will once again be welcome at. Though I will admit I'm not totally up on impeachment etiquette (sp?) Is it appropriate to dress up on the days the articles of impeachment are handed to the Senate? I really don't know - does that tend to be a big deal day, too? Rob

Alan

10-9-19, 7:20pm

I was thinking of wearing it the day Trump is kicked to the curb and there is a neighborhood celebration I will once again be welcome at. Though I will admit I'm not totally up on impeachment etiquette (sp?) Is it appropriate to dress up on the days the articles of impeachment are handed to the Senate? I really don't know - does that tend to be a big deal day, too? Rob
I think it would be fun if you put it on now and wore it every day till he's removed from office, men's styles don't change much so you should be fine.

gimmethesimplelife

10-9-19, 7:30pm

I think it would be fun if you put it on now and wore it every day till he's removed from office, men's styles don't change much so you should be fine.No, I can't do that. To do so.would be being disrespectful. No can do. Rob

Alan

10-9-19, 7:44pm

No, I can't do that. To do so.would be being disrespectful. No can do. Rob
I agree that procuring an impeachment outfit several years ago was a disrespectful thing to do, but I'm confused on why you think committing to wearing it until your dreams are fulfilled would be. Can you explain?

Rogar

10-9-19, 8:21pm

gimmethesimplelife

10-9-19, 8:33pm

Question for one and all here as I just don't get this? What does Trump hope to achieve by having his White House refuse to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry? Has The Orange One Of Evil never heard the following three words: Obstruction of justice? Does he believe such concepts don't apply to him?

Gotta admit his non cooperation with the Impeachment Inquiry makes me feel justified in the supporting an impeachment. I was wrong to be so radical and stop supporting him being ousted. To one and all, I'm sorry and more than a bit embarrassed. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

10-9-19, 9:31pm

I agree that procuring an impeachment outfit several years ago was a disrespectful thing to do, but I'm confused on why you think committing to wearing it until your dreams are fulfilled would be. Can you explain?Buying the outfit in the first place was a very respectful thing to do - what would be disrespectful is to wear it for any non-extremely-special occasion as the outfit is above my station in life. That was my meaning. Rob

Alan

10-9-19, 9:58pm

Buying the outfit in the first place was a very respectful thing to do - what would be disrespectful is to wear it for any non-extremely-special occasion as the outfit is above my station in life. That was my meaning. RobYou know the Oxford Circus station in London is probably the most run-down I've ever encountered but people using it were still pretty well dressed. You can rise above your self-imposed shoddiness and be Paddington. No one will blame you.

gimmethesimplelife

10-9-19, 10:03pm

You know the Oxford Circus station in London is probably the most run-down I've ever encountered but people using it were still pretty well dressed. You can rise above your self-imposed shoddiness and be Paddington. No one will blame you.Dressing above my station in life for no special reason goes against how I was raised and is also disrespectful to the Austrian flag - a point I've made here before. But I have a solution. Why don't you dress above your station in life you are so motivated - you don't operate with the constraints that I do. Rob

iris lilies

10-9-19, 10:40pm

Rogar

10-9-19, 10:46pm

Relax Rob no one mistook you for anyone other than a “ dump
Trump by any means necessary” person.

I don't necessarily see that as a problem.

LDAHL

10-10-19, 7:49am

I was told that once there is a formal vote to proceed with impeachment, documents or witnesses that have been requested by Congress but held up in the cumbersome legal process could be expedited (or denied) through the Supreme Court, which is what happened with Nixon? I'm not sure how to fact check this, but it would sure stream line the road blocks that the White House has put in place.

Then why would Pelosi not want to initiate the process with the usual vote rather than a press conference? Are there members in close districts fearful of going on the record?

gimmethesimplelife

10-10-19, 9:08am

iris lilies

10-10-19, 9:15am

I don't necessarily see that as a problem.
It’s not.

It is Rob’s endless contortions to make himself the Center Of Attention by creating imaginary conflicting positions that is a problem in lucidity and, well, honesty.

Being anti Trump is reasonable.

JaneV2.0

10-10-19, 9:16am

I was told that once there is a formal vote to proceed with impeachment, documents or witnesses that have been requested by Congress but held up in the cumbersome legal process could be expedited (or denied) through the Supreme Court, which is what happened with Nixon? I'm not sure how to fact check this, but it would sure stream line the road blocks that the White House has put in place.

You're right--the vote isn't necessary, per the Constitution. Personally, I see no reason not to take one, but I trust Nancy Pelosi's judgment on this.

LDAHL

10-10-19, 9:26am

I see some historic protest marches coming up due to Trump's obstruction of justice via White House non-cooperation in the impeachment inquiry. US society being what it is, likely the police will break the law, being filmed while doing so, and generating negative or and large settlements for some.

Would it not have been saner and easier to elect Hillary Clinton? Rob

So you feel it would have been saner and safer to elect Mrs. Clinton because the police will overreact to protests? Should the imagined threat of violence determine how we vote?

gimmethesimplelife

10-10-19, 9:33am

It’s not.

It is Rob’s endless contortions to make himself the Center Of Attention by creating imaginary conflicting positions that is a problem in lucidity and, well, honesty.

Being anti Trump is reasonable.To start with, IL, kudos to you for getting that being anti Trump is reasonable. And I was never pro Trump, ever. The only reason I was honestly for a couple of months against impeachment was due to whatever fallout an impeachment might cause. Another fallout issue I have yet to address? The potential for violence if Trump is impeached.

About being the center of attention? Hardly. My posts are not noticed as they once were.
Beyond that, I believe that America is sitting on a powder keg just waiting to go off - we are primed for a social climate resembling Hong Kong. And if large protests start, American police will not show the restraint in using lethal force that the Hong Kong police have. If Trump and his insanity are not handled well, and an impeachment goes awry, we could become just like Hong Kong - never to be the same again (and not in s good way).

Posting this is not trolling for attention. It's a genuine take. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

10-10-19, 9:38am

So you feel it would have been saner and safer to elect Mrs. Clinton because the police will overreact to protests? Should the imagined threat of violence determine how we vote?Unfortunately, given the unpleasant realities of 45....the answer to your question is yes. My take is that America is now sitting on a powder keg just waiting to go off. Trump is adding to combustability daily.at this point and I don't see him trying to diffuse the mess. I vote for stability - scary thing is screaming for impeachment. Which I now once again support, may lead to the opposite. Rob

Rogar

10-10-19, 10:05am

Then why would Pelosi not want to initiate the process with the usual vote rather than a press conference? Are there members in close districts fearful of going on the record?

I had to do a history review. The Supreme Court ruling was during the Nixon investigation and occurred before the formal vote for impeachment. It involved the release of the famous Nixon tapes, where the President's counsel argued that the subpoenas were a violation of privacy. Of course we know that the court ruled otherwise. The current issues seems very similar, though I don't know quite how the expedited Supreme Court ruling was initiated to by pass the otherwise slow legal process. It's probably complicated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/10/03/inside-supreme-court-ruling-that-made-nixon-turn-over-his-watergate-tapes/

LDAHL

10-10-19, 10:12am

Unfortunately, given the unpleasant realities of 45....the answer to your question is yes. My take is that America is now sitting on a powder keg just waiting to go off. Trump is adding to combustability daily.at this point and I don't see him trying to diffuse the mess. I vote for stability - scary thing is screaming for impeachment. Which I now once again support, may lead to the opposite. Rob

So in the end it all comes down to your belief that the police are just itching to hurt people, and that the masses are just a short fuse away from rising up and giving them the excuse they need to start shooting. You long for the stability they enjoy in Red China.

I don’t think you need to worry about any future blood baths. I think we only have a year or so of Trump left. Either through the impeachment route or the 2020 election. Unless the Democrats display a level of political idiocy that would be historical even for them, he will be gone. I don’t see anybody outside the usual lunatic fringe fighting on either side of the barricades.

gimmethesimplelife

10-10-19, 10:30am

So you feel it would have been saner and safer to elect Mrs. Clinton because the police will overreact to protests? Should the imagined threat of violence determine how we vote?

So in the end it all comes down to your belief that the police are just itching to hurt people, and that the masses are just a short fuse away from rising up and giving them the excuse they need to start shooting. You long for the stability they enjoy in Red China.

I don’t think you need to worry about any future blood baths. I think we only have a year or so of Trump left. Either through the impeachment route or the 2020 election. Unless the Democrats display a level of political idiocy that would be historical even for them, he will be gone. I don’t see anybody outside the usual lunatic fringe fighting on either side of the barricades.You read me partly wrong. I don't long for anything having to.do with Communism - I see Communism as less viable even than the American way.

I believe that there is a lot anger out there coupled with a lot of disillusionment about America - disillusionment that Trump is helping to spread via his actions. His behavior of being above the law via non cooperation in the impeachment inquiry does not bode well for the future methinks. With law enforcement and US CBP increasingly over the top (Google how US CBP is now harrassing US born journalists returning to the United States) and this much anger floating about......it's not hard to visualize things progressing to the streets.

Some of the problems facing the young in Hong Kong are already here. Shaky job market for the young, expensive housing, s feeling of no real future.......one dramatic misstep by the Trump regime could set the key off.

That all said, I hope you are right and he's voted out in 2020 or impeached with minimal drama. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

10-10-19, 10:32am

Should be keg above.

Gardnr

10-10-19, 10:37am

Graham has finally spoken out AGAINST Trump! Maybe Republican support will increase and they can get the job done?

gimmethesimplelife

10-10-19, 10:52am

Gardnr, I read that online and I'm amazed. Even Graham has had his fill. Maybe there can be a non-violent and non-economically crippling end to the evil Trump Regime. Who knows? Rob

gimmethesimplelife

10-10-19, 10:56am

Now that impeachment does indeed seem possible, and now that I am on board with it again, I'm back to planning a Middle Eastern buffet to celebrate any impeachment/Trump kicked to the curb day. Rob

Teacher Terry

10-10-19, 12:15pm

gimmethesimplelife

10-10-19, 12:34pm

No one has a station in life and are told how to dress. That’s silly. I think trump is becoming totally unhinged and too bad that the Kurds will now pay with their lives. Hopefully, this circus will end in a year.TT.....I'm not thrashing you here. All I'm going to say is that this is American thinking - which you are certainly free to engage in, don't get me wrong. In Austria dressing over your place in life is looked down on and considered an indicator of perhaps questionable character. U do believe among the young though this us changing. Anyhow, this is how I was raised. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

10-10-19, 12:34pm

Should be I do believe among the young.

LDAHL

10-10-19, 1:02pm

gimmethesimplelife

10-10-19, 1:28pm

Who gets to decree what your station is?To some degree it's based on social class of origin, but also education and where you end out - at what level - in the workplace. Reputation has something to do with it, too. I tend to dress under my station these days, personally. It's good for the character.....especially in the times of bombastic buffoons such as Donald J Trump. But I will dress well over my station for any Impeachment Day Proceedings/Gatherings/Celebrations/Festivities. I'm losing my misgivings regarding his being impeached due to his non-cooperation with the impeachment inquiry. And I have several yet unworn button down shirts to wear with Jean's and a brand new pair of Docker's boat shoes I bought at a thrift shop for $7.....appropriate for any televised impeachment proceedings on a day off. Like a good Austrian I've got the outfits preplanned. I want to look my best for any images sent off to family across Austria. Rob

herbgeek

10-10-19, 1:58pm

In Austria dressing over your place in life is looked down on and considered an indicator of perhaps questionable character.

Your family sure has instilled a number of self limiting and self sabotaging beliefs. For what its worth, my mom is "off the boat" from Germany and I never heard of any such rules. If anything, it was the opposite (dress up even when those around you are in jeans/casual clothes).

LDAHL

10-10-19, 2:02pm

To some degree it's based on social class of origin, but also education and where you end out - at what level - in the workplace. Reputation has something to do with it, too. I tend to dress under my station these days, personally. It's good for the character.....especially in the times of bombastic buffoons such as Donald J Trump. But I will dress well over my station for any Impeachment Day Proceedings/Gatherings/Celebrations/Festivities. I'm losing my misgivings regarding his being impeached due to his non-cooperation with the impeachment inquiry. And I have several yet unworn button down shirts to wear with Jean's and a brand new pair of Docker's boat shoes I bought at a thrift shop for $7.....appropriate for any televised impeachment proceedings on a day off. Like a good Austrian I've got the outfits preplanned. I want to look my best for any images sent off to family across Austria. Rob

But why put yourself in a sort of uniform based on what you think somebody else thinks? If someone wants to make judgments about my education or bank account or parentage based on whether I have a button-down collar, doesn’t that say more about them than me? Such self-imposed sumptuary codes seems like a massive waste of energy.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed under the weight of that kind of caste-ridden foolishness. Why make any effort to impress any part of the remnants? Declare your sartorial independence and wear the shoes if you like the shoes.

bae

10-10-19, 2:31pm

TT.....I'm not thrashing you here. All I'm going to say is that this is American thinking - which you are certainly free to engage in, don't get me wrong. In Austria dressing over your place in life is looked down on and considered an indicator of perhaps questionable character.

This is the line of thinking that led to the Jewish population of Austria, which had a vibrant culture, dropping from 250,000 people in 1933 to an effective population of about 0 by 1944 (*).

Maybe if they'd stayed in their place, things would have worked out better for them.

(*)Österreichische Historikerkommission: Schlussbericht der Historikerkommission der Republik Österreich. Band 1. Oldenbourg Verlag, Wien 2003, S. 291–293

catherine

10-10-19, 5:19pm

JaneV2.0

10-10-19, 5:33pm

I've always dressed like Maynard G Krebs, and I share his work ethic, so...

I'd be an outcast in Austria, I'm sure. I look hippo-rific in a dirndl.

catherine

10-10-19, 5:39pm

I've always dressed like Maynard G Krebs, and I share his work ethic

Jane, if you move to Portland, you have to wear thrift store vintage rock band shirts, you know that, right? :)

catherine

10-10-19, 6:00pm

DH is still a MAGA guy... and he makes me think about how we are all living in a bubble if we think it's obvious Trump is not fit to be president.

My own dearly beloved praised the withdrawal from Syria; he told me that he's the only president that has fulfilled all his campaign promises; and the only reason I hate Trump is because I'm still upset about Hillary losing (not so--I'm still mad at Hillary for sabotaging Bernie, so I have no love affair with the Clintons).

I read an article about Why People Love Trump. The article was posted on FB by a friend of mine who is conservative, but I think he deleted it, because I can't find it. The article said that basically people love Trump because they are tired of the "liberal elite calling the shots" and they LIKE the attitude of a Ulysses S. Grant renegade, breaking all the rules of engagement.

It's OK to break the rules, but to what end? That's the question. I'm not against a New Guard by any means, but not one that destroys all the safeguards of earth, air, water; betrays allies; divides the country and pays homage only the image of the Commander Himself. At least Grant was committed to the Union.

iris lilies

10-10-19, 6:08pm

Teacher Terry

10-10-19, 6:18pm

catherine

10-10-19, 6:23pm

I noticed that people in Europe dress up more than we do. One explanation was that in bigger cities everyone lives in apartments so the only way to show your wealth was through your clothes. Clothes were important to my mom not so much for my dad. I am not talking designer. I come from a blue collar family that wanted better for their kids. However, many blue collar jobs pay better.

I find it interesting to sit on a plane and see what the people boarding are wearing. In the days even before my time people dressed up for such an occasion like flying in an airplane and now people basically get on in their pajamas.

I agree that if you have no other way to show status, clothes is a great way to do it, which explains why people in low-income areas wear expensive sneakers. You may not be able to afford a Lexus or a McMansion, but you can afford $300 sneakers. The fact that the more affluent will disparage that spending choice shows a lack of understanding of human nature.

Gardnr

10-10-19, 6:38pm

JaneV2.0

10-10-19, 7:01pm

Jane, if you move to Portland, you have to wear thrift store vintage rock band shirts, you know that, right? :)

Yikes! What happened to jeans and flannel? I have a Portland friend who pretty much dresses in tie-dye and Grateful Dead tribute shirts, but I didn't realize it was a requirement. I've got the thrift store part down pat already. (And though I'm definitely pro-facial hair, I'm not looking to date anyone with a hipster beard. :cool:)

Gardnr

10-10-19, 8:34pm

I noticed that people in Europe dress up more than we do. .

How I dress for a flight depends on my mood. If I don't feel chatty, I wear a tie-dye T-shirt and jeans. No one ever tries to strike up a conversation regardless of how they are dressed. If I'm open to chatting I'll wear slacks and a nice shirt/shoes.

frugal-one

10-10-19, 8:51pm

Relax Rob no one mistook you for anyone other than a “ dump
Trump by any means necessary” person.

With good reason!

catherine

10-10-19, 8:55pm

How I dress for a flight depends on my mood. If I don't feel chatty, I wear a tie-dye T-shirt and jeans. No one ever tries to strike up a conversation regardless of how they are dressed. If I'm open to chatting I'll wear slacks and a nice shirt/shoes.

I'm wondering why the expectation of chatter matters? People can see you without talking with you (no judgement on the outfit, just the rationale?)

And you're right. I, personally, very rarely want to talk to people on the flight, but that has no influence at all on how I dress. I usually dress "business casual" because a) I've usually taken a shower before getting on the plane to avoid offending anyone and I want to follow up with a "nice" outfit, and b) I just feel there is a level above beach or TV loungewear that I think is appropriate for travel. I'm probably old-fashioned in that regard.

frugal-one

10-10-19, 9:00pm

Gardnr

10-10-19, 10:05pm

I'm wondering why the expectation of chatter matters? People can see you without talking with you (no judgement on the outfit, just the rationale?)

And you're right. I, personally, very rarely want to talk to people on the flight, but that has no influence at all on how I dress. I usually dress "business casual" because a) I've usually taken a shower before getting on the plane to avoid offending anyone and I want to follow up with a "nice" outfit, and b) I just feel there is a level above beach or TV loungewear that I think is appropriate for travel. I'm probably old-fashioned in that regard.

When I don't feel like chatting, I've learned to not dress nicely. So when others want to engage in conversation for the entire flight you just do it? I've had people talk over me doing work on my laptop, having earbuds in listening to music or watching a movie. Clothing seemed to be the only solution.

I can't believe I'm the only person that happens to when dressed nicely.

And I don't think a t-shirt and jeans is on the level of TV loungewear or beachwear.

jp1

10-11-19, 9:12am

I find it interesting to sit on a plane and see what the people boarding are wearing. In the days even before my time people dressed up for such an occasion like flying in an airplane and now people basically get on in their pajamas.

.

It’s not really a surprise that people don’t view flying as an event anymore because it’s not. It’s a gruelling experience that lots of people endure for the sake of getting where they need to go, quickly. Even i am old enough to remember when all passengers got what today passes as a first class meal. Amd coach seats were further apart than the premium coach seats today.

Personally i dress to fly the same way i do the rest of my life. In business clothes if it’s work and comfortable clothes if it is not for work.

JaneV2.0

10-11-19, 9:37am

Tell your husband that Trump has not fulfilled all of his campaign from promises because he promised to balance the budget and then some, and he hasn’t even come close. Not that any of them in the White House ever will do it, but yeah Donald. Do this one thing and I will vote for you.

Bill Clinton shone at budget issues:

"President Clinton oversaw a very robust economy during his tenure. The U.S. had strong economic growth (around 4% annually) and record job creation (22.7 million). He raised taxes on higher income taxpayers early in his first term and cut defense spending and welfare, which contributed to a rise in revenue and decline in spending relative to the size of the economy. These factors helped bring the United States federal budget into surplus from the fiscal year 1998 to 2001, the only surplus years after 1969. Debt held by the public, a primary measure of the national debt, fell relative to GDP throughout his two terms, from 47.8% in 1993 to 31.4% in 2001.[1]" Wikipedia

Alan

10-11-19, 10:03am

Bill Clinton shone at budget issues:

"President Clinton oversaw a very robust economy during his tenure. The U.S. had strong economic growth (around 4% annually) and record job creation (22.7 million). He raised taxes on higher income taxpayers early in his first term and cut defense spending and welfare, which contributed to a rise in revenue and decline in spending relative to the size of the economy. These factors helped bring the United States federal budget into surplus from the fiscal year 1998 to 2001, the only surplus years after 1969. Debt held by the public, a primary measure of the national debt, fell relative to GDP throughout his two terms, from 47.8% in 1993 to 31.4% in 2001.[1]" Wikipedia
That was during the days when Congress prepared, debated and passed an annual budget for the President to sign. I've never understood why Newt Gingrich and crew didn't get more credit for forcing President Clinton to look fiscally responsible during those years.

Rogar

10-11-19, 10:07am

If we are talking Trump and campaign promises, it seems like a big one was to make America safe again. Not exactly a stellar few years for mass shootings. I don't think he has done much for the rust belt economies, bringing manufacturing back to the US, and the farmers seem to be having problems as a result of trade wars. And I've not seen anything about infrastructure, although the debt has risen so much it might not be such a good idea to add even more.

Air travel used to be a special experience and a little exciting. Anymore, reducing airport hassle and crowds and cramped stuffy planes is an advantage of retirement.

LDAHL

10-11-19, 10:54am

Bill Clinton shone at budget issues:

"President Clinton oversaw a very robust economy during his tenure. The U.S. had strong economic growth (around 4% annually) and record job creation (22.7 million). He raised taxes on higher income taxpayers early in his first term and cut defense spending and welfare, which contributed to a rise in revenue and decline in spending relative to the size of the economy. These factors helped bring the United States federal budget into surplus from the fiscal year 1998 to 2001, the only surplus years after 1969. Debt held by the public, a primary measure of the national debt, fell relative to GDP throughout his two terms, from 47.8% in 1993 to 31.4% in 2001.[1]" Wikipedia

President Clinton “oversaw” the economy? Did he make the sun rise every morning too?

gimmethesimplelife

10-11-19, 1:10pm

About flying.....the few times I flew when I was young I did indeed dress over my station in life. I was able to justify such by being surrounded by middle class people likely not living in fear of America, meaning people who didn't live in the same America I did. It truly was once a special experience. Now it's morphed into stress, stress, and more stress. I don't envy those who must fly for business and I'm glad I don't have to. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

10-11-19, 1:12pm

President Clinton “oversaw” the economy? Did he make the sun rise every morning too?I miss the Clinton economy - average people did have some power over employers in the latter Clinton years, even at my level, and I certainly enjoyed knowing I could easily replace any unbearable employer quickly. Rob

Alan

10-11-19, 1:15pm

About flying.....the few times I flew when I was young I did indeed dress over my station in life. I was able to justify such by being surrounded by middle class people likely not living in fear of America, meaning people who didn't live in the same America I did. Just out of curiosity, if you think dressing in a button up shirt, jeans and boat shoes is dressing above your station, how do you ususally dress?

gimmethesimplelife

10-11-19, 1:18pm

Rob, I have to admit, that I'm surprised you subscribe to a "dress according to your class" protocol. What does that even mean? It honestly doesn't compute for me. So, am I doomed to a life of Ann Taylor (befitting my class as a middle-class, college educated, descendant of a Blue Blood), or can I indulge in Versace, or conversely, Converse?

I was reading the book ReWild or Die by Peter Michael Bauer, aka Urban Scout, who is a forager, rewilder, and activist, but he gets bashed for dressing like a Portland hipster. He actually has a great chapter on dressing according to your subculture, and how the comments he gets about the apparent disconnect between his dress and his life are off the mark and irrelevant.

So what subculture are you aspiring to represent with your costume prepared for the impeachment?Basically, much of Austria - Other than it's involvement in the Holocaust - works for me. Much of America does not. Other than my Mother, the family I do have that speaks to me is all in Austria. It's not as far out there as some think that I would adopt Austrian thinking over American. But I will say that Austria's role in the Holocaust I have issues with and this puts it too mildly. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

10-11-19, 1:21pm

Just out of curiosity, if you think dressing in a button up shirt, jeans and boat shoes is dressing above your station, how do you ususally dress?Secondhand Jean's, very faded, t shirts, secondhand shoes. Clean shaven and bathed but downscale. One piece of men's Mexican silver jewelry for a statement. Rob

Alan

10-11-19, 1:24pm

Secondhand Jean's, very faded, t shirts, secondhand shoes. Clean shaven and bathed but downscale. One piece of men's Mexican silver jewelry for a statement. Rob
OK, thanks. But honestly, I don't see the difference.

gimmethesimplelife

10-11-19, 1:27pm

OK, thanks. Buthonestly, I don't see the difference.Basically downscale casual as opposed to upscale. Now for work I dress differently - I'm talking about time off here. Rob

LDAHL

10-11-19, 1:27pm

Affectation takes many forms.

gimmethesimplelife

10-11-19, 1:30pm

Affectation takes many forms.? Rob

iris lilies

10-11-19, 1:35pm

Seriously??? All the other stuff does not matter?

If you’ve been following my posts over the nearly two decades I’ve been here, you will know that I am wired for fiscal conservatism. Yes frugal-one, I get to choose the political issue that is most important to me just as you may choose the one that’s most important to you.

gimmethesimplelife

10-11-19, 1:57pm

There seems to be cautious joy in the air of the neighborhood today. I had a nice chat with the Day Lead Cashier at Food City today who was excited about Trump's hole he keeps digging deeper. I stopped on the way to Food City to talk to two neighbors who say they feel relief that this long ordeal likely will soon end. It's nice to see life and animation in people.....the potential heaven ho of a wanna be dictator can do this for some people. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

10-11-19, 1:58pm

Should be potential heave ho above.....annoying auto correct.

iris lilies

10-11-19, 2:01pm

Should be potential heave ho above.....annoying auto correct.Do you not have the Edit Post function available to you on the devices you use?

gimmethesimplelife

10-11-19, 3:42pm

Do you not have the Edit Post function available to you on the devices you use?On my phone when I try to edit, the software deletes the whole post. It's very annoying so I post my corrections below my posts. Rob

frugal-one

10-11-19, 4:08pm

If you’ve been following my posts over the nearly two decades I’ve been here, you will know that I am wired for fiscal conservatism. Yes frugal-one, I get to choose the political issue that is most important to me just as you may choose the one that’s most important to you.

I truly don't think you can vote by choosing only one issue.

LDAHL

10-11-19, 4:57pm

I truly don't think you can vote by choosing only one issue.

I think fiscal conservatism is a sort of meta-issue that covers a lot of ground. Requiring government to live within it’s means forces an overall level of constraint on the degree to which it can control the individual in all kinds of areas.

If you have to pick one thing as your criteria, that’s a pretty good one.

jp1

10-11-19, 9:05pm

Alan

10-11-19, 9:09pm

I suppose if fiscal conservatism was my key top issue and neither of the candidates who could win the election were fiscally conservative i’d probably pick a secondarily important issue. Not helping to elect a man who actively sh*ts on the constitution would probably be that secondary priority for me.
Remember when many of our members used to complain about that document a small group of evil white males who owned slaves wrote and called a constitution, and how it was out-dated and needed to be replaced? Something about it not restraining individuals the way they'd like because it was too busy restraining government. I know that was when we had the greatest President ever running roughshod over it, but still, good times huh?

frugal-one

10-11-19, 10:15pm

Remember when many of our members used to complain about that document a small group of evil white males who owned slaves wrote and called a constitution, and how it was out-dated and needed to be replaced? Something about it not restraining individuals the way they'd like because it was too busy restraining government. I know that was when we had the greatest President ever running roughshod over it, but still, good times huh?

Who are you referring to?

frugal-one

10-11-19, 10:17pm

I think fiscal conservatism is a sort of meta-issue that covers a lot of ground. Requiring government to live within it’s means forces an overall level of constraint on the degree to which it can control the individual in all kinds of areas.

If you have to pick one thing as your criteria, that’s a pretty good one.

Not a good way to decide IMO. I do also think there should be some laws enforceable or else we have the wild west. (like now)

Alan

10-12-19, 10:05am

Who are you referring to?
Primarily the requirement to purchase a product you may not want, but also the military intervention in Libya, violation of the Takings and Due Processes clauses during the Chrysler bailout along with a host of others, take your pick.

gimmethesimplelife

10-12-19, 10:39am

Primarily the requirement to purchase a product you may not want, but also the military intervention in Libya, violation of the Takings and Due Processes clauses during the Chrysler bailout along with a host of others, take your pick.Obama? Not a day goes by that I don't miss the Obama years. Rob

Alan

10-12-19, 11:18am

Obama? Not a day goes by that I don't miss the Obama years. Rob
Really, what's different in your secluded zip code now that he's no longer President? Were you less prepared to abandon the US for greener pastures or hate the police less during his administration? Did the government provide you with more gifts to show the value of your citizenship?

frugal-one

10-12-19, 6:48pm

frugal-one

10-12-19, 6:52pm

Really, what's different in your secluded zip code now that he's no longer President? Were you less prepared to abandon the US for greener pastures or hate the police less during his administration? Did the government provide you with more gifts to show the value of your citizenship?

Yes, there were laws in place to pay people properly.. not allow big business to run roughshod over employees. Laws that trump has eliminated or lowered. There are MANY more instances. This one, speaks volumes however. Ask me how I know, .... I enforced those rules!

Alan

10-12-19, 7:03pm

Yes, there were laws in place to pay people properly.. not allow big business to run roughshod over employees. Laws that trump has eliminated or lowered. There are MANY more instances. This one, speaks volumes however. Ask me how I know, .... I enforced those rules!
Please elaborate. Are you talking laws, duly crafted, voted upon by both houses of congress and signed by a chief executive or are you talking about regulations created by governmental entities not accountable to the people?

It's important to know the difference because a President cannot unilaterally change a law, but a President may use executive authority to change the influence governmental entities may try to exert upon you or I.

gimmethesimplelife

10-18-19, 3:57pm

Impeachment......it'd a joyous thing where I live as it seems Mulvaney's testimony is going to divide this society like nothing since the Civil War. (Once any impeachment proceedings start to be clear). Perhaps there is long term hope that this country will split and divide into separate parts that are more harmonious. It's possible there could be possible long term positive consequences here......though after a very chaotic period. Rob

bae

10-18-19, 4:10pm

Impeachment......it'd a joyous thing where I live as it seems Mulvaney's testimony is going to divide this society like nothing since the Civil War.

1) In front of which House Committee or Court did Mulvaney testify? Did they drag him in recently?

2) Why would it be a joyous thing to divide our society "like nothing since the Civil War"? I mean, WTF dude.

gimmethesimplelife

10-18-19, 8:08pm

1) In front of which House Committee or Court did Mulvaney testify? Did they drag him in recently?

2) Why would it be a joyous thing to divide our society "like nothing since the Civil War"? I mean, WTF dude.I don't believe America is fundamentally strong enough to withstand this level of division long term. Perhaps it would be for the best if Ametica split into more homogeneous parts. Rob

bae

10-18-19, 8:11pm

Perhaps it would be for the best if Ametica split into more homogeneous parts. Rob

How would you do this? Some sort of ethnic cleansing?

Have you looked at the precinct-by-precinct maps of the USA? It's not like there are really huge red and huge blue areas.... We all live side by side with people who are different from us.

LDAHL

10-19-19, 1:18am

I don't believe America is fundamentally strong enough to withstand this level of division long term. Perhaps it would be for the best if Ametica split into more homogeneous parts. Rob

This statement betrays a certain innocence of historical perspective. Where are the riots, the strikes, the bombings and lynchings and political killings of yesteryear? People anonymously insulting each other on the internet hardly compares to some of the more rigorous intramural conflicts this country has endured in the past.

Most people in every part of this country go through their daily lives without giving all that much thought to politics. The chance of some great separatist conflict breaking America up into so many Bosnias and Montenegros seems pretty remote to me.

Teacher Terry

10-19-19, 7:44pm

Splitting up this country would be a disaster. Look at how horrible the civil war was. On a related note trump now wants to hold the G7 summit at his resort. Shockingly it was picked from a pool of 20 places. He is getting more brazen about breaking the law.

iris lilies

10-19-19, 7:52pm

Yppej

10-19-19, 8:12pm

Hunh?Is there a law against holding a G7 summit in the United States? And at a Trump property?

The emoluments clause addresses your second question.

iris lilies

10-19-19, 8:39pm

The emoluments clause addresses your second question.

I thought that was it that People assume he’s going to make a killing on this. Did he offer to do it at cost? Or did I just dream that headline. Anyway whatever, it doesn’t matter.

bae

10-19-19, 9:43pm

I thought that was it that People assume he’s going to make a killing on this. Did he offer to do it at cost? Or did I just dream that headline. Anyway whatever, it doesn’t matter.

I don't think he skates even at cost.

jp1

10-20-19, 12:27am

At cost would mean rooms at $70-80 per night (says the guy whose SO works in hospitality and knows what the employee rate for hotels is). That ain’t going to happen and anyone that thinks that it will is naive.

ToomuchStuff

10-20-19, 10:42am

I don't think he skates even at cost.

Wonder if he was trying to just have us, the taxpayers, plan on footing the whole bill, bypassing the foreign enrichment thing?

JaneV2.0

10-20-19, 11:43am

Luckily he doesn't expect federal monies to pay for his Hitleresque hate rallies--he usually just stiffs the cities involved, I understand.

LDAHL

10-20-19, 11:46am

Why couldn’t he just rent out the Lincoln bedroom like one of his predecessors?

JaneV2.0

10-20-19, 11:53am

Why couldn’t he just rent out the Lincoln bedroom like one of his predecessors?

Melania's sleeping in it.

gimmethesimplelife

10-20-19, 12:00pm

Melania's sleeping in it.LOL. Where has Melania been lately, anyhow? It's like she's in hiding, living on the hope of the day in which she can divorce for top dollar. Rob

LDAHL

10-20-19, 1:41pm

LOL. Where has Melania been lately, anyhow?

Hiding out from lowlife cowards who attack public figures through their families.

bae

10-20-19, 1:56pm

Where has Melania been lately, anyhow? It's like she's in hiding, living on the hope of the day in which she can divorce for top dollar. Rob

"Top dollar". "Wine dark sea". "No quid pro quo". "Only the best people".

Poetry.

JaneV2.0

10-20-19, 4:55pm

Hiding out from lowlife cowards who attack public figures through their families.

Sanctimonious high dudgeon noted.

Also, Melania is a public figure. See "First Lady."

LDAHL

10-20-19, 5:07pm

Sanctimonious high dudgeon noted.

Also, Melania is a public figure. See "First Lady."

Well, we all have different standards of conduct. I guess some of us have stronger stomachs than others.

Teacher Terry

10-20-19, 6:14pm

Considering her past I don’t think we have to worry about ruining her good name:))

iris lilies

10-20-19, 8:13pm

Considering her past I don’t think we have to worry about ruining her good name:))
Womyn hating.

In reality I have no idea if Melania Trump is out of the media limelight because I don’t pay attention to secondary headline news. But I was happy when The Donald first took office that she stayed in New York to finish out her child’s school year because that seems to set a precedent of low involvement for a President’s spouse. She is not an elected official. Of course, I hated it when it seem to cost tons of money for security and her New York abode.

Alan

10-20-19, 8:59pm

Considering her past I don’t think we have to worry about ruining her good name:))What about her past causes you to look down on her?

Teacher Terry

10-20-19, 9:01pm

LDAHL

10-20-19, 9:30pm

I always thought of slut-shaming as a particularly low form of polemic. What argument does it advance? What policy does it support? It is simply aimed at hurting or humiliating someone you don’t like or someone close to them. It is petty spite pretending to be something more than it is.

Teacher Terry

10-20-19, 9:44pm

You look at all the other First Lady’s and they all had legitimate causes and worked for them. She chose bullying because she lives with it and hasn’t done a thing. Yea, she is awesome ��

Alan

10-20-19, 9:47pm

You look at all the other First Lady’s and they all had legitimate causes and worked for them. She chose bullying because she lives with it and hasn’t done a thing. Yea, she is awesome ��
Maybe she should take away school children's lunches, then she'd be awesome!

iris lilies

10-20-19, 9:51pm

I am not hating. She was a soft porn star, married for money and brought her family here. I was trying to give her a break until she wore that jacket saying she doesn’t care when visiting the kids. It then occurred to me that she cares about only her own and probably as vile as Trump.

Melania Trump said about the jacket

“It's obvious I didn't wear the jacket for the children. I wore the jacket to go on the plane and off the plane," the First Lady told (https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/politics/melania-trump-immigration-policies/index.html) ABC News on Friday Night. "And it was for the people and for the left-wing media who are criticizing me."

I think it’s a dumb thing to wear but if you think that message was directed towards the children or their situation, you are wrong.

Teacher Terry

10-20-19, 9:58pm

I think she is soulless and a embarrassment like her husband. She worships money.

gimmethesimplelife

10-20-19, 10:11pm

I think she is soulless and a embarrassment like her husband. She worships money.Hear ye, Hear ye. I'm about to do a 180 from my Men's Rights Group stance. I say she's earned every penny she will get in the divorce. I can not blame her one bit considering who she married for money and what she has had to put up with for money. Rob

jp1

10-21-19, 12:15am

I think it’s a dumb thing to wear but if you think that message was directed towards the children or their situation, you are wrong. [/FONT][/COLOR]

You're very confident in your assertion about this. Do you have something to back up your assertion or are you just going all beery mckavanaugh on the assumption that if you're bitchy/aggressive enough people will let you slide?

iris lilies

10-21-19, 12:22am

You're very confident in your assertion about this. Do you have something to back up your assertion or are you just going all beery mckavanaugh on the assumption that if you're bitchy/aggressive enough people will let you slide?
This is what she said. Makes sense to me.

bae

10-21-19, 12:33am

Considering her past I don’t think we have to worry about ruining her good name:))

Slut shame much?

LDAHL

10-21-19, 7:05am

From the beginning, we have had this odd First Lady social construct that really has no practical relevance beyond the seeming urge some of us have for some sort of aristocracy. Sometimes the occasion for pearl-clutching moral posturing and sometimes the occasion for sycophancy. I wonder why we feel the need to do that?

jp1

10-21-19, 8:26am

This is what she said. Makes sense to me.

In that case i guess she’s just either really stupid, really insensitive or both. Alternatively, I suppose, she could just be dishonest.

Rogar

10-21-19, 8:43am

In the current role the present first lady plays, I find her irrelevant to most all things that matter.

catherine

10-21-19, 8:51am

She didn't want this to happen. The last thing she wanted was to be First Lady. According to Michael Wolfe's book, when the media announced that Trump won, Trump himself was shocked and Melania was crying. This was a big publicity stunt that went haywire. She was never positioned to be First Lady. I don't blame her for wanting to hole herself away with her son and wake up when it's all over.

LDAHL

10-21-19, 9:15am

In the current role the present first lady plays, I find her irrelevant to most all things that matter.

I would argue that all First Ladies are no more relevant than the Poet Laureate. Unless perhaps they serve a need for malicious gossip.

Rogar

10-21-19, 9:49am

I would argue that all First Ladies are no more relevant than the Poet Laureate. Unless perhaps they serve a need for malicious gossip.

Most other recent First Ladies have been leaders in social causes. The first that comes to mind is Lady Bird's beautification America projects. However the Poet Laureate has not held much meaning for me ever since Ted Kooser.

Melania is apparently filling the desire for gossip, though.

LDAHL

10-21-19, 10:46am

Most other recent First Ladies have been leaders in social causes. The first that comes to mind is Lady Bird's beautification America projects. However the Poet Laureate has not held much meaning for me ever since Ted Kooser.

Melania is apparently filling the desire for gossip, though.

They are just political props, with no more real power than the Princess of Wales.

catherine

10-21-19, 11:18am

They are just political props, with no more real power than the Princess of Wales.

I suppose that will be your belief until there's a First Gentleman.

LDAHL

10-21-19, 11:55am

I suppose that will be your belief until there's a First Gentleman.

Your supposition is incorrect. There’s no reason a man can’t serve as a political prop with the same useless frivolity as any woman.

catherine

10-21-19, 12:16pm

Your supposition is incorrect. There’s no reason a man can’t serve as a political prop with the same useless frivolity as any woman.

First Ladies of the recent past have advocated and spoken up for Beauty, Nature, Health, Literacy, Human Rights--hardly frivolous pursuits. If Melania came out with pole dancing as her platform, I might agree with you, but your opinion that First Ladies have supported their husbands with nothing more than frivolous activity is as demeaning as those old-fashioned, out-of-date, condescending notions about the 50s "little lady in the kitchen."

ETA: https://www.thoughtco.com/top-most-influential-first-ladies-105458

Rogar

10-21-19, 12:28pm

The concept of President Buttigieg might require a new attitude about first "other"? I noticed he is up in the polls and is my current favorite.

bae

10-21-19, 12:35pm

The concept of President Buttigieg might require a new attitude about first "other"? I noticed he is up in the polls and is my current favorite.

"Other"?

Isn't he married? Wouldn't his spouse simply be First Husband?

Rogar

10-21-19, 12:37pm

"Other"?

Isn't he married? Wouldn't his spouse simply be First Husband?

I assume a more fitting title would be first gentleman.

LDAHL

10-21-19, 12:40pm

First Ladies of the recent past have advocated and spoken up for Beauty, Nature, Health, Literacy, Human Rights--hardly frivolous pursuits. If Melania came out with pole dancing as her platform, I might agree with you, but your opinion that First Ladies have supported their husbands with nothing more than frivolous activity is as demeaning as those old-fashioned, out-of-date, condescending notions about the 50s "little lady in the kitchen."

Once again, you’re imposing attitudes on me to fit some kind of narrative. It’s not a feminist or anti-feminist thing. It is the fact that it’s s psuedo position on the fringes of politics for which the only qualification is to be somebody’s spouse. But the beauty of a pseudo position on the fringes of politics is that it can be filled by virtually anybody of any gender.

It has no more credibility than you or I or anyone else in support of any given issue. If people wish to honor the pretense that they are in some way important, I guess that’s just show biz.

Alan

10-21-19, 12:40pm

I assume a more fitting title would be first gentleman.
What would the gender neutral equivalent be?

iris lilies

10-21-19, 12:44pm

What would the gender neutral equivalent be?

First partner.

You can’t use “first spouse” because they may not be married.

catherine

10-21-19, 12:46pm

It is the fact that it’s s psuedo position on the fringes of politics for which the only qualification is to be somebody’s spouse.

The problem is, there have only been "First Ladies" so far, and women are used to being characterized as superfluous appendages to so forgive my sensitivity if I was wrong about your attitude... but I still maintain that women like Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton have stepped way outside of their "supremely more important" spouses's shadows. Your comments seem to discount that.

LDAHL

10-21-19, 1:14pm

The problem is, there have only been "First Ladies" so far, and women are used to being characterized as superfluous appendages to so forgive my sensitivity if I was wrong about your attitude... but I still maintain that women like Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton have stepped way outside of their "supremely more important" spouses's shadows. Your comments seem to discount that.

There have always been celebrities who parlay their status as entertainers, socialites, or spouses into real influence. Some even become president. That doesn’t mean the spouse of a president occupies some sort of office we are to take seriously. It just means they get a jolt of celebrity by association.

jp1

10-21-19, 2:53pm

What would the gender neutral equivalent be?

The First Person?

Alan

10-21-19, 3:10pm

The First Person?
Would a first person account of something then become an ordinary person account?

LDAHL

10-21-19, 3:28pm

Could we borrow from royalty and call it “Executive Consort”? That would capture the flavor of appointment-by-relationship without respect to gender.

Alan

10-21-19, 3:51pm

"Executive Consort”
I like it!

frugal-one

10-21-19, 3:55pm

Hear ye, Hear ye. I'm about to do a 180 from my Men's Rights Group stance. I say she's earned every penny she will get in the divorce. I can not blame her one bit considering who she married for money and what she has had to put up with for money. Rob

Unlike other immigrants, her parents were given a fast-track admittance as citizens. That is a double standard! Others cannot bring their family here.

Alan

10-21-19, 4:15pm

Unlike other immigrants, her parents were given a fast-track admittance as citizens. That is a double standard! Others cannot bring their family here.
Except for the 800,000 or so chain migration immigrants we welcome each year.

JaneV2.0

10-21-19, 4:22pm

I'm wondering what she did to get classified as a "genius."

"To obtain an EB-1 for extraordinary ability, an immigrant has to provide evidence of a major award or meet three of 10 criteria proving excellence in their field. The criteria include coverage of the applicant in major publications, original and significant contributions to a field, and work displayed at artistic exhibitions."

JaneV2.0

10-21-19, 4:23pm

Except for the 800,000 or so chain migration immigrants we welcome each year.

Oh, the horrors. And our population is still tanking...

gimmethesimplelife

10-21-19, 4:25pm

The concept of President Buttigieg might require a new attitude about first "other"? I noticed he is up in the polls and is my current favorite.I would be so proud of America if he won.....just like the very first time I was ever proud of Anerica was in December 2008 the first time Obama won. Who knows, he is up in the polls. I think Elizabeth Warren is the one to beat at this point. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

10-21-19, 4:27pm

Oh, the horrors. And our population is still tanking...Even with Hispanic immigrants who tend to want to have kids the population is not growing much.......Rob

iris lilies

10-21-19, 4:28pm

I would be so proud of America if he won.....just like the very first time I was ever proud of Anerica was in December 2008 the first time Obama won. Who knows, he is up in the polls. I think Elizabeth Warren is the one to beat at this point. Rob
I’m sad to think that Trump will probably beat her.

You people need to do better.

gimmethesimplelife

10-21-19, 4:52pm

I’m sad to think that Trump will probably beat her.

You people need to do better.I just can't see Trump winning again. Women and independents will turn on him. And he can forget the vast majority of the LGBT and the Hispanic vote. Plus if the House does impeach him and the Senate doesn't it's not going to be an attractive novelty to have him running even though technically impeached. Rob

JaneV2.0

10-21-19, 5:13pm

I just can't see Trump winning again. Women and independents will turn on him. And he can forget the vast majority of the LGBT and the Hispanic vote. Plus if the House does impeach him and the Senate doesn't it's not going to be an attractive novelty to have him running even though technically impeached. Rob

Don't forget he has voter suppression, gerrymandering, voting machine hacking, and the Russians on his side.

Alan

10-21-19, 5:22pm

Don't forget he has voter suppression, gerrymandering, voting machine hacking, and the Russians on his side.
But Republicans are only allowed to vote once, they must be alive and they're not known to pull completed ballots out of their trunk with it's time to count them. Shouldn't that equal things out?

LDAHL

10-21-19, 5:28pm

But Republicans are only allowed to vote once, they must be alive and they're not known to pull completed ballots out of their trunk with it's time to count them. Shouldn't that equal things out?

Not when you factor in the squadrons of flying monkies.

catherine

10-21-19, 5:37pm

Quote Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife View Post
I just can't see Trump winning again. Women and independents will turn on him. And he can forget the vast majority of the LGBT and the Hispanic vote. Plus if the House does impeach him and the Senate doesn't it's not going to be an attractive novelty to have him running even though technically impeached. Rob

Don't forget he has voter suppression, gerrymandering, voting machine hacking, and the Russians on his side.

I would not underestimate him.

I’m sad to think that Trump will probably beat her.

I share my sadness with IL.

Alan

10-21-19, 5:50pm

I’m sad to think that Trump will probably beat her.

You'd think that a Trump loss would be inevitable, and yet I honestly believe if the Democrats nominate Warren or Sanders they're effectively sealing the deal on another 4 years of liberals in agony. I'll have a hard time not reminding some here that "I told you so".

catherine

10-21-19, 6:05pm

You'd think that a Trump loss would be inevitable, and yet I honestly believe if the Democrats nominate Warren or Sanders they're effectively sealing the deal on another 4 years of liberals in agony. I'll have a hard time not reminding some here that "I told you so".

Who? Biden? I don't think so. Then you have some good potential candidates in the lower tier, but their numbers are in the single digit. No one has risen above in that second tier.

Now, in RealClearPolitics, the polls show that in Iowa, Bernie is the only one that shows a positive win vs Trump. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_trump_vs_sanders-6788.html

So, I also would not underestimate the power of the more progressive arm of the Democratic Party to fare better than the "middlin'" Democrats. People want change. That's how Trump got elected.

Alan

10-21-19, 6:28pm

Who? Biden? I don't think so. Then you have some good potential candidates in the lower tier, but their numbers are in the single digit. No one has risen above in that second tier.

I agree with you on Biden, but as of today Buttigieg has passed Sanders in Iowa according to the latest Suffolk University/USA Today poll. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/10/21/iowa-caucuses-pete-buttigieg-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-top-poll/4025797002/

JaneV2.0

10-21-19, 6:32pm

...
So, I also would not underestimate the power of the more progressive arm of the Democratic Party to fare better than the "middlin'" Democrats. People want change. That's how Trump got elected.

Oh God, yes. For years I voted for anyone but the "anointed" of either party. Finally, the Democrats are showing actual progressive ideas, and I hope this is a move away from the Fascist and Republican Lite choices we've been stuck with for decades now. As Warren Buffet famously said “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” I'm too old to emigrate; I'd like to actually see "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" realized in my lifetime.

Rogar

10-21-19, 9:11pm

Campaign promises are notoriously over ambitious. I'm undecided on how realistic the Democratic progressives are, as much as I like or dislike them. We've gone through Obama, Hillary and Trump backlashes that have divided politics, like maybe at least since Nixon. I'd like to see a candidate that runs on the bring America together again platform, with BATA hats even. So far the moderates are in a better position for that than the progressives. And that means a higher probability of getting more done.

ApatheticNoMore

10-22-19, 2:19am

I'd like to see a candidate that runs on the bring America together again platform, with BATA hats even. So far the moderates are in a better position for that than the progressives. And that means a higher probability of getting more done.

What decent bills does ANYONE realistically see Dem candidate x and Republicans working together on? Because I see almost none where it would realistically happen. An infrastructure bill maybe. And they could probably do that under Trump, if they wanted to (I do understand not wanting to help Trump, Republicans can play that game too though and have). Perhaps they could do something about opiates (but really again, even the Trump admin has passed some laws there). But even "moderate" Dems who want to expand the ACA would not get a compromise with Republicans who want to get rid of the ACA (it passed without a single Republican vote - so this shows how popular their positions will NOT be with Republican lawmakers - they will go nowhere there). And Obama wanted to compromise as much as anyone possibly could, but what came of it? So what exactly is going to get done with Dems and Republicans working together? You can't get anything done via compromising if only one side is willing to compromise, because compromise implies working together, not just giving one party everything they want and getting nothing. Better to just pick someone who won't win over the Republican lawmakers (none of them will), but if they don't have congress will do what they can with administrative staffing, executive orders etc. etc.. Afterall Trump does. And that can do some real good, whereas the capacity to achieve much through compromise seems quite limited.

For winning there is some case to be made a moderate might be better, it might be the over 65 vote that is needed to win (they are most likely to vote) and Biden and Buttigieg pull in older voters (Warren pulls some too). Most under 40 will yawn to the polls but they aren't as reliable voters anyway.

jp1

10-22-19, 7:01am

As long as the mitch mcconnell wing of the republican party is in charge the chances of bipartisan anything are precisely zero. Any democrat who tries will be as successful as obama was.

Rogar

10-22-19, 8:18am

What decent bills does ANYONE realistically see Dem candidate x and Republicans working together on...

It sounds to me like you are saying any proposal requiring legislation, or at least the big progressive ones like health care, global warming, college education assistance, etc. are bound to fail regardless of the campaign promises and the candidate. I'm more hopeful.

gimmethesimplelife

10-22-19, 8:25am

Though at this point I still support impeachment and my.plans for a Middle Eastern Buffet to celebrate- seriously, I worry. I just read the latest article on The Economic Collapse Blog - admittedly a Conservative gloom pirn site - that did mention the possibility of instability - economic and violence, should Trump be impeached.

I can have my Buffet, dress temporarily above my station, mingle at the neighborhood block party - that's all great but it doesn't address issues of violence or of economic decline. Rob

ApatheticNoMore

10-22-19, 10:53am

It sounds to me like you are saying any proposal requiring legislation, or at least the big progressive ones like health care, global warming, college education assistance, etc. are bound to fail regardless of the campaign promises and the candidate.

If Republicans control part of congress yes. I don't think progressives would actually be unwilling to sign on to a bill improving things that they see as moving in a good directions even if it isn't everything they want, anymore than moderates will (in fact someone like Sanders has a record of precisely that). I just don't see such bills happening in a divided congress.

Now is someone is able to flip congress with coattails etc. ... Also some have plans kinda sorta, Bernie Sanders said his plan would be to have rallies for Medicare for All to try to get enough citizens to pressure congress. It may not work, but it's more probable than expecting Republicans to cooperate just because whoever wins seems like a nice guy/gal.

I mean we have records here. healthcare, Republican lawmakers oppose the ACA, medicaid expansion etc.. This isn't big single payer dreams. In fact the INSURANCE COMPANIES, favor the ACA, they favor it very much over it's repeal, not just over an obvious threat like single payer. They do not like the Trump changes, at all. And still ... corporate money doesn't even win there, hard as it is to believe. Global warming, it's nearly impossible to even get Dems to do the right thing in any significant way. Dem states talk a good talk and do some good things, and yet move ahead with new fossil fuel projects (it's not that Republicans would be better, they wouldn't). So when it's so hard to move the needle with your average Dem politician, and this state is deep blue and new fossil fuel projects are planned, maybe it's possible R lawmakers have a great conversion moment (I have no idea what it would take), but it hasn't happened yet.

ToomuchStuff

10-22-19, 3:30pm

What decent bills does ANYONE realistically see Dem candidate x and Republicans working together on? Because I see almost none where it would realistically happen.

Until everyone in both houses and the oval office, is voted out of office, for failing to do their jobs, focusing on what they said they would do, and not running for the next office, for (my guess) four consecutive election cycles, I expect none, as it is politics as usual.

that did mention the possibility of instability - economic and violence, should Trump be impeached.
Rob
The possibility is there if he isn't as well.

dado potato

10-23-19, 2:17am

seriously, I worry. I just read the latest article on The Economic Collapse Blog - admittedly a Conservative gloom pirn site - that did mention the possibility of instability - economic and violence, should Trump be impeached.

The opinion piece in the blog written by Michael Snyder included a prediction that if Trump were removed from office by a Senate vote, then "there would be widespread civil unrest in the streets." Snyder referred to an observation by Mike Murphy that in the Senate there were 30 Republicans who would vote to convict Trump on impeachment, if the vote were a secret ballot. It would not be a secret ballot, though. But 47 Democratic Senators plus 30 Republicans would be more than enough votes to convict Trump.

I may be naïve, but I was under the impression that while Trump's supporters may be emotional at times, they are overwhelmingly "law and order types". So, perhaps Snyder is overestimating the potential for instability/violence.

JaneV2.0

10-23-19, 9:27am

Until everyone in both houses and the oval office, is voted out of office, for failing to do their jobs, focusing on what they said they would do, and not running for the next office, for (my guess) four consecutive election cycles, I expect none, as it is politics as usual.

The possibility is there if he isn't as well.

I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Congress has passed over a hundred bills that Mitch McConnell is not allowing to come to a vote, including ones addressing election security.

LDAHL

10-23-19, 9:40am

Oh God, yes. For years I voted for anyone but the "anointed" of either party. Finally, the Democrats are showing actual progressive ideas, and I hope this is a move away from the Fascist and Republican Lite choices we've been stuck with for decades now. As Warren Buffet famously said “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” I'm too old to emigrate; I'd like to actually see "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" realized in my lifetime.

It’s a two-part risk proposition in raising the red banner in 2020. How representative of the general run of Democrats are the candidates brought forth through the primary system? If the answer is “not much”, will that result in another “enthusiasm gap”? And how interested will the general election voters be in “making America work for them” when it dawns that Nordic welfare programs carry Nordic taxes on more just than the disgustingly wealthy? That truck drivers will be commanded to pay the college debts of aspiring filmmakers?

In a year where I would have thought a fence post could beat Trump at the polls, they seem to be making a big bet that massive top-down transformation is what the voters want. If it isn’t, then we could well see another historical embarrassment for the party if Americans refuse to buy into the class struggle narrative.

Rogar

10-23-19, 2:22pm

If it can be verified somehow, I don't know how much more incriminating things can be after the William Taylor's testimony.

gimmethesimplelife

10-23-19, 2:26pm

If it can be verified somehow, I don't know how much more incriminating things can be after the William Taylor's testimony.It was very damning testimony, wasn't it? How any Trump supporter could still support the Crook of Orange and Bad Hair is beyond me....
Rob

LDAHL

10-23-19, 2:38pm

If it can be verified somehow, I don't know how much more incriminating things can be after the William Taylor's testimony.

If it can, it may be time for a draft Romney or draft Haley movement.

flowerseverywhere

10-24-19, 8:24pm

It’s a two-part risk proposition in raising the red banner in 2020. How representative of the general run of Democrats are the candidates brought forth through the primary system? If the answer is “not much”, will that result in another “enthusiasm gap”? And how interested will the general election voters be in “making America work for them” when it dawns that Nordic welfare programs carry Nordic taxes on more just than the disgustingly wealthy? That truck drivers will be commanded to pay the college debts of aspiring filmmakers?

In a year where I would have thought a fence post could beat Trump at the polls, they seem to be making a big bet that massive top-down transformation is what the voters want. If it isn’t, then we could well see another historical embarrassment for the party if Americans refuse to buy into the class struggle narrative.

I so agree. So many people clap with glee at taxes going down, yet want their potholes fixed, good schools and strong police and fire fighter teams. Services from the every level of the government don’t come cheap.

Funny story, my county is raising taxes 25% this year. People are all upset, storming county meetings and so on. We are in the lowest taxed county in our state and the county has not asked for an increase in 14 years. Our taxes will still be low but people are going insane over this. I hope they make small increments every few years from now on instead of this stupidity. It cost money to run things.

flowerseverywhere

10-24-19, 8:32pm

It was very damning testimony, wasn't it? How any Trump supporter could still support the Crook of Orange and Bad Hair is beyond me....
Rob
Some people have a lot of hate in their hearts for non whites, LGBQT, Jews, Atheists and so on However the Evangelical support floors me. Even if he is against abortion, or is just pandering to his base, his violation of so many commandments (lie, adultery and so on) surely must be against their teachings.

JaneV2.0

10-25-19, 12:20pm

Some people have a lot of hate in their hearts for non whites, LGBQT, Jews, Atheists and so on However the Evangelical support floors me. Even if he is against abortion, or is just pandering to his base, his violation of so many commandments (lie, adultery and so on) surely must be against their teachings.

I guess he's a "useful idiot" or "Evangelical asset" for them, too.

iris lilies

11-14-19, 2:45pm

Weeks after this thread started, the circus continues but are we closer to knowing if there will be impeachment? Do I need to get out my boat shoes and be prepared to dress above my station? Should my group og garden club ladies cancel the upcoming flower show next week and prepare to party with a potluck?

Alan

11-14-19, 2:52pm

I don't know, they had some pretty damning testimony yesterday. It sounded a lot like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIduL2QY7AA

LDAHL

11-14-19, 5:51pm

Why would they lead off with two guys who only heard about the call second or third hand? Why not start with the LTC we heard so much about?

Alan

11-14-19, 6:07pm

frugal-one

11-14-19, 7:17pm

Why would they lead off with two guys who only heard about the call second or third hand? Why not start with the LTC we heard so much about?

The guys that spoke were the "bosses". Their direct subordinates reported to them.

The best thing I heard was... "We want to talk to the guy who started this!" The response was "Sure, put Trump right there, front and center!"

Rogar

11-14-19, 10:08pm

Why would they lead off with two guys who only heard about the call second or third hand? Why not start with the LTC we heard so much about?

The lines of he said she said are a little difficult to follow, but it seems to me the ones with more direct knowledge have been blocked by the White House from testifying. I've wondered where the line is drawn for obstruction of justice.

jp1

11-14-19, 10:10pm

There were therapy dogs stationed in sections of the House and Senate yesterday for the benefit of stressed out staffers. I wonder what to make of that?
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/470179-therapy-dogs-slated-to-visit-capitol-hill-today

The charitable answer would probably be that impeachment is a really serious thing so I can imagine why someone might think staffers would benefit from therapy dogs. A snarkier answer would be that republican staffers know, or at least are afraid they might know, how this is going to progress.

LDAHL

11-14-19, 11:54pm

I thought Elise Stefanik was pretty impressive. We may be hearing more from her in the future.

Alan

11-15-19, 9:39am

I thought Elise Stefanik was pretty impressive. We may be hearing more from her in the future.I liked her too, her questioning was concise and effective. But I liked her even more once I saw how some of the media reacted to her. Matthew Dowd tweeted that she was a perfect example of how simply voting for a woman or millennial was no guarantee you'll get what you need. Also, when she was allowed a question in the closed, top secret hearings held in a Sensitive, Compartmented, Information Facility, the witness turned to Adam Schiff and said "I thought staffers weren't allowed to ask questions".

I think people will learn not to under-estimate or scorn her before this drama is over.

LDAHL

11-15-19, 9:46am

The charitable answer would probably be that impeachment is a really serious thing so I can imagine why someone might think staffers would benefit from therapy dogs.

How serious can it really be? Isn’t it pretty much a given that the House will indict but the Senate won’t convict? It all seems pretty scripted to me. Is the suspense so excruciating that the participants need to pet dogs and interns to function?

Rogar

11-15-19, 10:39am

Relative to the other issues, the pet dogs seem about as important as what the democrats had for lunch.

LDAHL

11-15-19, 11:37am

Relative to the other issues, the pet dogs seem about as important as what the democrats had for lunch.

The canine comfort companions seem about as important as which apparatchik passed a note in study hall about who said what to who, and then set the media to vaporing away about bombshells and walls closing in. Let’s hear some of the good stuff they’ve been leaking about from the double secret hearings under the cone of silence. Otherwise isn’t it just so much political theater?

I suspect the Republicans, most of but not all of whom seem to think making a coherent defense is unnecessary, will retaliate by holding lengthy Senate hearings when various Democratic candidates would prefer to be campaigning. This whole thing doesn’t strike me as a pivotal moment in history.

Rogar

11-15-19, 12:07pm

Regardless of the so called pre-determined outcome that a Senate vote may hold, I think the public needs to know the facts that are being presented. Otherwise the president or his minions will continue obfuscate the information, intimidate witnesses, and do the same thing again with different circumstances. I don't think the impeachment process is so important as a legal proceeding, but what ever is being presented needs to be a consideration in the next election. It would be interesting if Giuliani or Perry or Pompao or who ever was involved in the secret side channels were allowed to testify. Like other instances like Donald's taxes one has to wonder what he is hiding.

jp1

11-15-19, 12:10pm

How serious can it really be? Isn’t it pretty much a given that the House will indict but the Senate won’t convict? It all seems pretty scripted to me. Is the suspense so excruciating that the participants need to pet dogs and interns to function?

I guess my snarky answer was more on the money then.

Alan

11-15-19, 12:15pm

I don't think the impeachment process is so important as a legal proceeding, but what ever is being presented needs to be a consideration in the next election.
I think that's the point, removing the President from office through impeachment is not the goal, it's influencing the public ahead of the next election. I can't decide whether or not it hurts or enhances his chances at re-election but I'm pretty certain its setting a dangerous precedent for future office holders.

jp1

11-15-19, 12:38pm

The canine comfort companions seem about as important as which apparatchik passed a note in study hall about who said what to who, and then set the media to vaporing away about bombshells and walls closing in. Let’s hear some of the good stuff they’ve been leaking about from the double secret hearings under the cone of silence. Otherwise isn’t it just so much political theater?

I suspect the Republicans, most of but not all of whom seem to think making a coherent defense is unnecessary, will retaliate by holding lengthy Senate hearings when various Democratic candidates would prefer to be campaigning. This whole thing doesn’t strike me as a pivotal moment in history.

Indeed. Lets get Mulvaney and Pompeo and Gates to testify. Obviously that isn't going to happen if trump can at all help it because it would lay waste to the smear campaign defense that republicans are currently using to defend the indefensible.

If setting as precedent the idea that a president can withhold duly appropriated aid to an ally based on his desire to influence his upcoming reelection is not a pivotal moment in history I don't know what is.

jp1

11-15-19, 12:40pm

but I'm pretty certain its setting a dangerous precedent for future office holders.

Absolutely. Just imagine what an actual intelligent president would be able to do to influence his or her reelection chances.

LDAHL

11-15-19, 12:53pm

If setting as precedent the idea that a president can withhold duly appropriated aid to an ally based on his desire to influence his upcoming reelection is not a pivotal moment in history I don't know what is.

Suspending aid previously authorized by Congress is hardly unprecedented. Obama suspended aid to Egypt ( for real, not hinted at) and nobody proclaimed a constitutional crisis.

Alan

11-15-19, 1:06pm

Suspending aid previously authorized by Congress is hardly unprecedented. Obama suspended aid to Egypt ( for real, not hinted at) and nobody proclaimed a constitutional crisis.
Nor was it considered particularly troublesome for the Obama administration to fund an anti-Netanyahu campaign in 2015. Using government funding to influence elections seems to have a long and illustrious history. It's our approval that seems to be conditional, and in this case it seems to be conditioned on the prospect of removing a duly elected President from office after other efforts failed to gain traction.

Alan

11-15-19, 1:29pm

I liked her too, her questioning was concise and effective. But I liked her even more once I saw how some of the media reacted to her. Matthew Dowd tweeted that she was a perfect example of how simply voting for a woman or millennial was no guarantee you'll get what you need. Also, when she was allowed a question in the closed, top secret hearings held in a Sensitive, Compartmented, Information Facility, the witness turned to Adam Schiff and said "I thought staffers weren't allowed to ask questions".

I think people will learn not to under-estimate or scorn her before this drama is over.And maybe they already have. Watching the hearing today and Adam Schiff refuses to allow the ranking member to yield his time to her for questioning, making the 5th time so far she, as a duly elected member of Congress, has been forbidden to speak. I'm not sure if they're afraid of her effectiveness or maybe they're annoyed because she may have said "OK Boomer" to the committee chairman.

I've found watching the hearings to be very informative. I've always thought the city, Kiev, was pronounced Key-ev but now know that it's properly pronounced Keeve. I hope I'm not the only one who didn't know that.

jp1

11-15-19, 2:30pm

Suspending aid previously authorized by Congress is hardly unprecedented. Obama suspended aid to Egypt ( for real, not hinted at) and nobody proclaimed a constitutional crisis.

If you can’t see the difference between why obama suspended that aid and why trump suspended the ukraine aid then future conversation on this topic is pointless.

LDAHL

11-15-19, 2:41pm

If you can’t see the difference between why obama suspended that aid and why trump suspended the ukraine aid then future conversation on this topic is pointless.

Because attributed motives trump actions?

LDAHL

11-15-19, 2:45pm

I've found watching the hearings to be very informative. I've always thought the city, Kiev, was pronounced Key-ev but now know that it's properly pronounced Keeve. I hope I'm not the only one who didn't know that.

I didn’t know that either. So I embarrassed myself every time I ordered Chicken Kiev the same way I did so over Peking Duck?

Alan

11-15-19, 2:52pm

I didn’t know that either. So I embarrassed myself every time I ordered Chicken Kiev the same way I did so over Peking Duck?
After a little research, I believe you're probably safe on the Chicken Kiev since the difference between pronunciations is based on either a Russian or Ukranian dialect. The Peking Duck is probably the bigger issue in that Beijing is the current politically correct way to pronounce the European Colonial word Peking, although I have no idea what effect it may have on the taste of a duck.

jp1

11-16-19, 9:34am

Because attributed motives trump actions?

Do you actually believe that trump’s actions regarding ukraine were motivated for different reasons than what everyone, including mick mulvaney, has said?

LDAHL

11-16-19, 12:20pm

Do you actually believe that trumpÂ’s actions regarding ukraine were motivated for different reasons than what everyone, including mick mulvaney, has said?

What I believe is that attempting to punish the motivation rather than the act is where the rule of law dissolves into mob mentality. Every recent president has used aid to leverage recipients. ThatÂ’s partly what itÂ’s there for. Every recent president has dispensed funds consistent with agendas of their own without regard to congressional intent. Some have even boasted about it.

I think what we are seeing now is more emotional catharsis than forensic process. More frantic style than substance. From the beginning, TrumpÂ’s election under rules aimed at mitigating a tyrannical majority has been a source of cognitive dissonance and emotional pain for many who need to believe in their intellectual and moral superiority. Three years of secreting angry political pheromones has primed them for something, anything to make their world make sense again.

Russian conspiracy theories failed. The field of candidates for next year has yielded no clear champion to slay the beast. That great mass of rage has to go somewhere, so it focused on one nasty if fairly common piece of diplomatic sausage-making for an outlet. With virtually no hope of succeeding in the constitutional purpose of the process, all the sound and fury amounts to little more than primal scream therapy.

jp1

11-16-19, 12:48pm

So a president using the power of his office for direct personal gain is ok?

Ultralight

11-16-19, 1:01pm

You will never change the mind of the Forever Trumpers.

early morning

11-16-19, 1:03pm

Wow. Just - wow. You truly believe that it is fine for a president to collude with a foreign government to further his chances for re-election? You're ok with that? that motive has no place in any investigative process? You're happy to turn a blind eye to the large amount of factual evidence (unmanufactured by faux-news or white supremacists, etc...) that Russia did indeed interfere in our election process, and is likely to do so again? You're pleased to have a commander in chief who sucks up to tyrants and praises them and their governments? The hypocrisy of many of today's right-leaning "Patriots" and "Christians" is, frankly, stomach-turning.

iris lilies

11-16-19, 1:07pm

You will never change the mind of the Forever Trumpers.

you dont read much around here, eh? LDahl is a prime representation of a Never Trumper. I think his words have great value for that reason.

But to answer jp’s question, NO, the Prez may not use my resources for personal gain. I am the one who owns all of those goodies called “foreign aid” not him.

jp1

11-16-19, 1:09pm

On some other thread a while back I had commented that after we get that s***stain out of the oval office democrats will need to codify into law many of the things that were just considered political norms before. I didn't think we would need to include making it illegal for the president to extort a foreign ally to obtain political gain, but here we are.

Ultralight

11-16-19, 1:11pm

you dont read much around here, eh? LDahl is a prime representation of a Never Trumper. I think his words have great value for that reason.

What does LDAHL have to do with my comment?

jp1

11-16-19, 1:14pm

you dont read much around here, eh? LDahl is a prime representation of a Never Trumper. I think his words have great value for that reason.

Which is what makes his statement all the more shocking. I get it that the forever trumpers of the world will keep moving the goalposts of what is deserving of impeachment/removal as the facts come out and make goalpost movement necessary. But I had hoped rational republicans would actually care that a president should act with at least a vague sense of integrity.

iris lilies

11-16-19, 1:18pm

What does LDAHL have to do with my comment?

Specifically then, who are you referring to in your Forever Trumper comment?

iris lilies

11-16-19, 1:19pm

Ultralight

11-16-19, 1:19pm

Which is what makes his statement all the more shocking. I get it that the forever trumpers of the world will keep moving the goalposts of what is deserving of impeachment/removal as the facts come out and make goalpost movement necessary. But I had hoped rational republicans would actually care that a president should act with at least a vague sense of integrity.

I think many never Trumpers are happy with much of Trump's actions. And they also know that an impeachment that actually held the Prez accountable would damage Repubs across the board. So they toe the line, defending and deflecting for Trump, but in the background they have a low level disdain for him.

frugal-one

11-16-19, 1:24pm

What I believe is that attempting to punish the motivation rather than the act is where the rule of law dissolves into mob mentality.

Then why do we punish those who are armed when contemplating doing dastardly acts.... such as school shootings where they have not yet shot anyone? Just an example of punishing for motivation. The president admitted on tv in front of the world that he is guilty of such.

LDAHL

11-16-19, 1:28pm

So a president using the power of his office for direct personal gain is ok?

No. But it is a common enough practice that I don’t see it rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. I think that there is a strong sense in which almost everything a president does is with an eye to personal gain. Did Obama push DACA out of kind regard for illegal immigrants or because it would play well with Hispanic voters? Did Trump push for a corruption investigation to resume because he thought Biden might become an electoral threat or because combating corruption was an ongoing policy? While I grant you Trump’s case is especially brazen, I think prosecuting motivations and character is more appropriate through an election process than a legal one.

LDAHL

11-16-19, 1:33pm

Which is what makes his statement all the more shocking. I get it that the forever trumpers of the world will keep moving the goalposts of what is deserving of impeachment/removal as the facts come out and make goalpost movement necessary. But I had hoped rational republicans would actually care that a president should act with at least a vague sense of integrity.

Can’t I have as little use for Trump abusing his office for political gain as I do House Democrats abusing theirs for political gain?

jp1

11-16-19, 1:39pm

Did Trump push for a corruption investigation to resume because he thought Biden might become an electoral threat or because combating corruption was an ongoing policy?

LOLOL. You had me believing you were serious until this sentence. Thanks for the best belly laugh I've had in days.

LDAHL

11-16-19, 1:40pm

jp1

11-16-19, 1:41pm

But on the off chance that the rest of your post was serious, if you don't see a difference between doing something positive to court voters and attempting to extort a foreign country into opening a sham investigation then I stick by my belief that republicans lack a moral compass.

bae

11-16-19, 1:54pm

I find it incredible how people are now living in very different factual universes.

Ultralight

11-16-19, 1:56pm

I find it incredible how people are now living in very different factual universes.

Get a room, bae.

bae

11-16-19, 2:19pm

Get a room, bae.

You're using that wrong, troll.

iris lilies

11-16-19, 2:29pm

Then why do we punish those who are armed when contemplating doing dastardly acts.... such as school shootings where they have not yet shot anyone? Just an example of punishing for motivation. The president admitted on tv in front of the world that he is guilty of such.

I dont see when would be school shooters have been “punished “ for thought crimes.

Bad actors with access to guns might be hauled into law enforcement offices to talk to police, they might be hauled into school guidance counselor’s offices to talk to school personnel, they might be flagged for their parents to know their thoughts. I don’t consider that “punishment. “

Is this the kind of thing you are talking about?

Ultralight

11-16-19, 2:31pm

You're using that wrong, troll.

Thanks for your input, bae. It is always appreciated!

Rogar

11-16-19, 2:35pm

One thing I don't get, beyond even Trump, is the effort to out the whistle blower. It was brought up several times in the impeachment hearings. After Donald himself implied he/she was guilty of treason, punishable by death, and another time something along the lines that in other times he/she/them would be executed. First of all, all that he/she/they have said has been collaborated, secondly it would seem illegal under whistle blower protection, but most importantly I can only imagine the danger it would pose to the whistle blower and family(s).

I can almost see a stronger case for witness intimidation and obstruction of justice over abuse of power. His tweet in the middle of the last testimony was downright shameful if not illegal.

JaneV2.0

11-16-19, 2:46pm

The whistle blower has done his/her job. It's not up to him/her to provide backup to the investigators. There's plenty of corroborating evidence without exposing him/her to the real dangers (death penalty, Trump, really?) inherent in being outed.

Alan

11-16-19, 3:03pm

One thing I don't get, beyond even Trump, is the effort to out the whistle blower.

The whistle blower has done his/her job. It's not up to him/her to provide backup to the investigators.

I think the request to interview the whistleblower comes from the desire to see how much involvement Mr Schiff's office had in identifying and encouraging a person willing to initiate an official inquiry based upon things they heard from a friend who heard from a friend, for the continuing purpose of invalidating an election.

All they needed was someone willing to say they heard something through the grapevine and then they could manipulate public opinion through a willing press and a large percentage of the population willing to believe gossip as proof. Public opinion is not enough to secure a victory in the impeachment process but it will be invaluable in the next election. That is the point. The question is will it succeed?

Edited to add: I see the Washington Post has gotten ahead of this question by publishing a whistleblower timeline (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/how-a-cia-analyst-alarmed-by-trumps-shadow-foreign-policy-triggered-an-impeachment-inquiry/2019/11/15/042684a8-03c3-11ea-8292-c46ee8cb3dce_story.html) detailing his/her thought processes, motivations, conversations with friends and steps taken to complete the process of blowing the whistle. It occurs to me that if the whistleblower has provided interviews to the press, he/she should also be available for questioning under oath.

Unfortunately, the story I linked is behind a paywall and I could only read another sources highlights.

Rogar

11-16-19, 4:07pm

That might have been the case early on in the investigation, but now all of the information has pretty been verified. Unfortunately some of the first hand witnesses are being blocked from testifying. I think it's just a diversion for the real issues and one that might endanger the life of the whistle blower, not legally but from some right wing whacko.

herbgeek

11-16-19, 4:19pm

All they needed was someone willing to say they heard something through the grapevine and then they could manipulate public opinion through a willing press and a large percentage of the population willing to believe gossip as proof

Alan, is it possible in your universe, that what the whistleblower heard was just so outrageous and over the line, that they felt they had to speak up? And they had to speak up because the others closer to the events are intimidated (for good reason, look at Trump's tweets on Friday during the proceedings)?

Its possible that there was political motivation, but its also possible that there wasn't.

Edited to add: and even IF bias exists, facts could also be true. Its not necessarily one or the other.

JaneV2.0

11-16-19, 4:22pm

When I hear "whistle blower" I think of Karen Silkwood. It's obvious to me why protections exist for these brave souls. Naturally, there are always powerful people who want to continue their dirty deeds unmolested.

Deep Throat's identity wasn't revealed for years after he passed information along to intrepid reporters Woodward and Bernstein, who pursued the lead. IMO, Republicans are just spewing their usual obfuscatory fog. It works a treat on their base.

And of course none of the principals are responding to subpoenas*, so it may take some time to get the whole truth.

*How they get away with that is a mystery to me.

jp1

11-16-19, 5:16pm

JaneV2.0

11-16-19, 5:37pm

I think prominent Republicans are so blinded by greed that the end always justifies the means. I knew people in school like that--they'd cheat even when they didn't need to, just to keep their edge. They think Democrats are suspect because they don't believe honorable people exist--and they don't, in their world.

I believe there are honorable Republicans, but they've been marginalized. I hope they make a comeback when this is all over.

Alan

11-16-19, 5:42pm

So are you saying that if the whistleblower was some sort of democratic plant, and that's a big if considering that everything he alleged has now been corroborated by multiple other people, that we should ignore all the evidence that's turned up in the meantime? .No, I guess I'm saying that the long awaited Mueller investigation didn't provide the goods and Mr Schiff had to look elsewhere and that all the corroboration is based on 2nd and 3rd hand reports. I would hope that anyone accused of anything would deserve better than that.

Honestly I'm not surprised that you doubt their, or any/all of the other witnesses, integrity. The republicans have basically come to the conclusion that no democrat can be an honorable american and that anyone who disagrees with them must be a democrat even if they claim not to be. I suppose its sort of like being accused of being a Trump supporter (and using that term as a pejorative) if you'd rather see hard and fast facts rather than speculation and third hand accounts.

JaneV2.0

11-16-19, 6:00pm

Unless you had actually read the Mueller report, which lists some ten examples of Russian involvement with Trump's campaign--if you only went by the sound bites provided by Fox and others--I can see where you'd think there was no meat in that sandwich. I trust the investigation is ongoing, and that it will all be spelled out with clarity that can't be denied. Mueller did us a great disservice in not testifying fully, and foolishly trusting that Americans would actually read his report.

Alan

11-16-19, 6:31pm

Unless you had actually read the Mueller report, which lists some ten examples of Russian involvement with Trump's campaign--if you only went by the sound bites provided by Fox and others--I can see where you'd think there was no meat in that sandwich.
Ha ha, I see what you did there, we deplorables aren't as dense as you might assume but I do appreciate the effort. It may pay off in some circles but overall it does more good by bolstering others.

I know it's disappointing but not even Adam Schiff could find anything helpful in the report since not being exonerated of obstruction doesn't equal being guilty of obstruction. Using it's findings as a basis for impeachment would be a waste of time and effort. Those two years of work and the buildup to an unsatisfying conclusion make it the Warren Commission report for this generation, and believe me, there are still people convinced JFK was killed by his own government.

jp1

11-16-19, 7:07pm

No, I guess I'm saying that the long awaited Mueller investigation didn't provide the goods and Mr Schiff had to look elsewhere and that all the corroboration is based on 2nd and 3rd hand reports. I would hope that anyone accused of anything would deserve better than that.

So in other words you're just upset that trump got caught? Because otherwise I still don't understand why it matters that we learn who the whistleblower is when at this point it's clear that he or she knew what the eff they were talking about.

Personally I care way more about having a criminal president be brought to justice then I do about the political leanings of the person that brought attention of his wrongdoing to light. If trump hadn't done anything wrong the whistleblower's allegations would have been found to be false and we would all be going on with our lives.

Alan

11-16-19, 7:10pm

So in other words you're just upset that trump got caught? No, but thanks for playing, you guys crack me up.

JaneV2.0

11-16-19, 7:10pm

The Mueller Report was hampered by the united front Trump and his stonewalling henchmen presented, even though--is it six of them?--have been convicted now. It really is like a crime family.

frugal-one

11-16-19, 7:12pm

you dont read much around here, eh? LDahl is a prime representation of a Never Trumper. I think his words have great value for that reason.

But to answer jp’s question, NO, the Prez may not use my resources for personal gain. I am the one who owns all of those goodies called “foreign aid” not him.

LDAHL says he is not a trump fan but his words jive with trump most of the time.

frugal-one

11-16-19, 7:15pm

And there you go, wanting to “codify “integrity with laws. good luck with that.

Integrity and law should be synonymous. Obviously, not by the current adminstration's standards, however.

frugal-one

11-16-19, 7:21pm

Can’t I have as little use for Trump abusing his office for political gain as I do House Democrats abusing theirs for political gain?

trump is not just abusing his office just for political gain but personal gain (wealth) as well. It will be interesting to see his tax returns. And, yes, I believe this will rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors ... see Hatch Act.

frugal-one

11-16-19, 7:22pm

As did Joe Biden. I think when we become so selective in our outrage we ultimately erode respect for the law.

Explain. When did Biden do a dastardly act?

frugal-one

11-16-19, 7:28pm

I think the request to interview the whistleblower comes from the desire to see how much involvement Mr Schiff's office had in identifying and encouraging a person willing to initiate an official inquiry based upon things they heard from a friend who heard from a friend, for the continuing purpose of invalidating an election.

All they needed was someone willing to say they heard something through the grapevine and then they could manipulate public opinion through a willing press and a large percentage of the population willing to believe gossip as proof. Public opinion is not enough to secure a victory in the impeachment process but it will be invaluable in the next election. That is the point. The question is will it succeed?

Edited to add: I see the Washington Post has gotten ahead of this question by publishing a whistleblower timeline (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/how-a-cia-analyst-alarmed-by-trumps-shadow-foreign-policy-triggered-an-impeachment-inquiry/2019/11/15/042684a8-03c3-11ea-8292-c46ee8cb3dce_story.html) detailing his/her thought processes, motivations, conversations with friends and steps taken to complete the process of blowing the whistle. It occurs to me that if the whistleblower has provided interviews to the press, he/she should also be available for questioning under oath.

Unfortunately, the story I linked is behind a paywall and I could only read another sources highlights.

Now an "ear witness" so the whistleblower is a mute point.

frugal-one

11-16-19, 7:30pm

jp1

11-16-19, 8:00pm

No, but thanks for playing, you guys crack me up.

Feel free to clarify or not but right now your reasons for wanting to out the whistleblower aren’t particularly clear. Although i’m starting to think that i hit the nail on the head when i said that republicans dont believe democrats can be honorable americans. Looked at through that absurd prism it’s impossible to see how the congressional democrats might be impeaching trump because it happens to be the right thing to do given his actions.

But by all means keep whining about how it is all just politics and ignoring the fact that trump behaved heinously to a level that reasonable people can think deserves impeachment and removal.