View Full Version : Impeachment?
Radical actors of today just punch their keyboard rather than blowing up buildings. Maybe that’s a good thing?
I'd like to believe that, but tell it to all the victims of church and synagogue shootings, and other victims of politically-motivated terrorists.
I'd like to believe that, but tell it to all the victims of church and synagogue shootings, and other victims of politically-motivated terrorists.
That’s true, but we don’t see the bombings, riots and burning cities to the extent we did when the Beatles were still together.
Man, republicans really do want to make this impeachment trial as shammy as possible. I guess when a coverup is the only way to succeed you have to be all in on the coverup.
https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1222176642988236806
Man, republicans really do want to make this impeachment trial as shammy as possible. I guess when a coverup is the only way to succeed you have to be all in on the coverup.
https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1222176642988236806I believe that's how witness depositions were handled in the Clinton trial as well. It's also how the House impeachment team took statements from key players. What makes this a coverup?
I believe that's how witness depositions were handled in the Clinton trial as well. It's also how the House impeachment team took statements from key players. What makes this a coverup?
According to Rep Schiff, “the evidence is already overwhelming”. If that is the case, would additional witnesses serve any purpose other than theatrical?
According to Rep Schiff, “the evidence is already overwhelming”. If that is the case, would additional witnesses serve any purpose other than theatrical?
Sure. Because you got people who are saying "there's no firsthand evidence". Not that that's actually true, but having Bolton testify would end that silly argument.
I believe that's how witness depositions were handled in the Clinton trial as well. It's also how the House impeachment team took statements from key players. What makes this a coverup?
Reading a book is the same as taking a witness deposition? And are the senators going to then be able to read parts of the book in public at the trial the way the videotaped depositions were played at the clinton trial? If not, then no, this isn't really the same at all.
Reading a book is the same as taking a witness deposition? And are the senators going to then be able to read parts of the book in public at the trial the way the videotaped depositions were played at the clinton trial? If not, then no, this isn't really the same at all.I don't believe the book has been published yet so my assumption is they'll be reviewing an unedited manuscript. If I'm not mistaken, when key government figures become authors of commercial works there is an obligation for the publisher to vett the contents with relevant government agencies to ensure no potentially confidential information is disclosed. I'm assuming the manuscript has not completed that process.
Considering that the book has a release date of mid-March I'd assume that that review is finished. But neither here nor there, reading a book or manuscript and keeping it secret doesn't seem quite the same as doing a videotaped deposition and making it public. The republicans in the senate should surely know that this too will become public and yet again make them look like fools.
The republicans in the senate should surely know that this too will become public and yet again make them look like fools.Believe it or not, lots of Democrats believe Republicans always look like fools. As hard as that might be to believe, I think I could show enough examples to make the point, so why should Republicans be concerned if even the most reasoned jurisprudence would achieve the same result?
Believe it or not, lots of Democrats believe Republicans always look like fools.
It’s sort of their default setting. You get used to it.
The time to worry is when they start praising some Republican (who isn’t safely dead).
gimmethesimplelife
1-29-20, 3:31pm
It’s sort of their default setting. You get used to it.
The time to worry is when they start praising some Republican (who isn’t safely dead).I beg to differ, Sir. I have nothing but kind words to say for former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a hard core Republican who nonetheless stood up to the GOP and agitated for Medicaid expansion in Arizona for the working poor. There was no incentive for me to do this - I am a human being who believes in giving credit when credit is due - even for Republicans. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-29-20, 3:35pm
According to Rep Schiff, “the evidence is already overwhelming”. If that is the case, would additional witnesses serve any purpose other than theatrical?I believe America has earned the right to see Trump squirm, and he certainly deserves such, if only for the harrassment of innocent foreign nationals legitimately presenting themselves for admission to the United States. Karma is not always pleasant and Trump sure has a heavy duty dose of it coming to him. I wait with anticipation for the delivery of such - how it is to be delivered who knows, I don't read the future. But being kicked to the curb (rejected from office) would at least be a start. And would destroy him, given that he is a narcissist. Rob
Teacher Terry
1-29-20, 3:37pm
I have liked many Republicans through the years while they were alive. Nevada has had 2 excellent Republican governors since I moved here.
gimmethesimplelife
1-29-20, 3:39pm
What sort of Trumpageddon perfect storm are you worried about, exactly? Some kind of uprising by MAGA-hatted armed militias? Crazy people with guns driven over the edge by their twitter feeds? Democratic Socialists striving for equality by liquidating the rich?
Personally, I think we are a long way from Bosnia.I worry about scattered violence resulting in deaths of US citizens - completely carried out internally in the US - should Trump indeed be ejected from office. Certainly not all - but some of his followers - especially the more rabid Second Amendment radicals - could be pushed over the edge enough to engage in illegal violent behavior against those celebrating a Trump heave-ho from office. Some - but not all Trump supporters I have run across in (Thank God) becoming more and more purple every day Arizona truly strike me as unstable. I just don't have faith that ejecting Trump from office wouldn't push some subset of such people into violent behavior. Rob
I believe America has earned the right to see Trump squirm, Rob
I don’t see how that would work. How do you shame the shameless? He would simply think he had been handed another victim card to play.
Considering that the book has a release date of mid-March I'd assume that that review is finished.
As part of the question and answer in today's impeachment trial it was revealed that the NSC is now finishing up review of the manuscript and had flagged multiple confidential and top secret details which must be resolved before authorization to publish. Their letter to that affect was dated today.
The republicans in the senate should surely know that this too will become public and yet again make them look like fools.
It would appear that Senator Graham was correct in suggesting use of the SCIF, otherwise they would have looked foolish allowing the Democrats to reveal top secret information for political gain.
Certainly not all - but some of his followers ...
Some - but not all Trump supporters I have run across ...
That is a sophomoric bit of rhetoric.
It would appear that Senator Graham was correct in suggesting use of the SCIF.
I thought Republicans weren't allowed in the SCIF.
I thought Republicans weren't allowed in the SCIF.Even if that had ever been true the House doesn't control the process anymore.
frugal-one
1-29-20, 6:38pm
I don’t see how that would work. How do you shame the shameless? He would simply think he had been handed another victim card to play.
Very true!
frugal-one
1-29-20, 6:41pm
As part of the question and answer in today's impeachment trial it was revealed that the NSC is now finishing up review of the manuscript and had flagged multiple confidential and top secret details which must be resolved before authorization to publish. Their letter to that affect was dated today.
It would appear that Senator Graham was correct in suggesting use of the SCIF, otherwise they would have looked foolish allowing the Democrats to reveal top secret information for political gain.
The point is not for political gain but to show how corrupt the current president is. He has lied about the issue. Grounds for impeachment!
The point is not for political gain but to show how corrupt the current president is. He has lied about the issue. Grounds for impeachment!Review of top secret information in a public venue would be for political gain. JP1 protested Lindsey Graham's suggestion that it be done in a secure environment as a "coverup". I think it's responsible, unfulfilling for some, but ultimately responsible.
Given the White House’s history of classifying stuff not for security’s sake but for the purpose of hiding inconvenient information I’m not surprised to learn that Bolton’s lawyer has accused the White House of corrupting the vetting process of the book by sharing it with people outside the NSC’s records management division.
If I were a betting man I’d put my money on Bolton in this fight and that the book will be available, with minimal if any changes, well before the November election.
If I were a betting man I’d put my money on Bolton in this fight and that the book will be available, with minimal if any changes, well before the November election.
I'm not aware of any reason it can't be available by it's original March publishing date, the editing process shouldn't take long. If the House had held the impeachment material for two months instead of one they probably could have had a manuscript, if not an advance copy of the book, to review on camera.
I'm not aware of any reason it can't be available by it's original March publishing date, the editing process shouldn't take long. If the House had held the impeachment material for two months instead of one they probably could have had a manuscript, if not an advance copy of the book, to review on camera.
Or the senate could just call a witness to their "trial" and ask him what happened. But that would involve actually being interested in getting to the truth which would kind of defeat their efforts at a coverup.
Or the senate could just call a witness to their "trial" and ask him what happened. But that would involve actually being interested in getting to the truth which would kind of defeat their efforts at a coverup.I guess you'll have to wait till Friday or so to see if witnesses will be called. I think the real question is whether potential witnesses will be limited to those already introduced in the House impeachment inquiry, which was the case in the Clinton impeachment trial, or whether new witnesses will be allowed. I'm guessing Republicans will be accused of a "coverup" either way.
If I were to guess, I'd say that the statistic of 70-75% of American voters wanting witnesses in the impeachment trial shows that 1) voters are capable of understanding the difference between an impeachment based on someone lying about an extramarital sexual event vs. an impeachment of someone accused of using the power of the presidency to go after a political opponent and rig the upcoming election and 2) only hard-core forever-republicans give a crap about following the random, not constitutionally-required precedent of the Clinton impeachment structure to the letter. Considering that even the most judgey of other people's sex lives, Evangelical Christians, clearly aren't concerned about presidential sexual indiscretion (they did, after all, happily vote for the "grab em by the p.... guy) I'm not particularly surprised.
At this point the republicans in the senate have painted themselves into a corner. They don't really have any good options. Probably their best option is to have Bolton testify so that the perception of a blatant coverup is significantly reduced. But the risk is that moscow mitch loses control of everything, because heaven only knows what else will come out into the open once he starts talking.
And now we know The Dersh's grand, mind blowing legal theory. It's that the president can do absolutely anything in pursuit of reelection and should not be impeached for those actions. I wonder how much money one has to be paid to be able to say something like that without laughing?
Will voters rise up in righteous anger over which witnesses the Senate chooses to call? That might depend on the numbers of the righteously angry who vote in any given Senator’s state.
Will impeachment be a big issue in any given voter’s mind come November, to the extent it might be a deciding factor in their vote? Will we have “moved on” by then?
The sort of people who say “Moscow Mitch” made up their minds years ago. Will the needle be much moved by the Ukraine phone call? I have trouble believing that.
gimmethesimplelife
1-30-20, 11:45am
I have been busy so I have not keeping up with the trail, relying on family and neighbors I run across to keep me filled in. That said, this Bolton thing - his book verifying quid pro quo - has renewed faith in a chance of A Trump Free Nation. Time will tell. And of course if Trump is ejected it won't be right away - once April gets here I'll have more time as bookings sliw down a bit - I'll be more able to help plan a block party to celebrate. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-30-20, 11:48am
Should be trial above and as bookings slow down above.
And now we know The Dersh's grand, mind blowing legal theory. It's that the president can do absolutely anything in pursuit of reelection and should not be impeached for those actions. I wonder how much money one has to be paid to be able to say something like that without laughing?I think the general idea was that a president shouldn't be impeached for doing things to help the re-election effort. If you reject that and, oh I don't know, let's say a President Warren promises to give everyone with student loans a $50,000 credit the year before her next election, should she be impeached for using the power of her office to enhance her chances?
That's just a thought experiment, you don't have to answer if you don't want to because off hand I can think of lots of scenarios that might trigger future impeachment efforts.
The news today had a short blurb on the Federal Election Commission defining what is illegal. It seems to contradict the defense that no crime has been committed and therefore no grounds for impeachment. There must be a reason why this hasn't come up, at least that I've run across. Quote from the FEC chair, “the law is pretty clear. ... It is absolutely illegal for anyone to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with any election in the United States.” The law doesn’t just apply to money — investigations or political dirt that benefit a particular campaign counts as “things of value” too.
According to Alan, Dershowitz must’ve just chosen his words poorly. This is from his testimony. Lawyers are careful with words. If he had intended any caveats he would have said them.
“ ’I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was. And if I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly.’ That cannot be an impeachable offense.”
According to Alan, Dershowitz must’ve just chosen his words poorly. This is from his testimony. Lawyers are careful with words. If he had intended any caveats he would have said them.
“ ’I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was. And if I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly.’ That cannot be an impeachable offense.”
I don't think he chose his words poorly, he just included too many of them, his entire answer on the subject was much more broad. I think you got the soundbite but missed the message.
The message was plain and clear. It is the same message that Nixon gave to us a long time ago.
If Dersh had intended a different message he would have provided a counter example of when his message doesn’t apply. Perhaps over the coming days he’ll be asked by a reporter for one and clear it up.
I see it could end in acquittal as early as today. Just in time for Iowa.
Shout out to Sen Collins.
Shout out to Sen Collins.
I’m sure she’s wringing her hands as I type this. Guaranteed the only way she votes for witnesses is if she’s one of 3 who do so.
If Mitch manages to end this without an actual trial it’s going to be hilarious watching Bolton lob more bombs at the republicans every few days. Although it’s going to be tough to outdo today’s bomb. I mean seriously, trump’s defense attorney is a co-conspirator in the crime?
I’m sure she’s wringing her hands as I type this. Guaranteed the only way she votes for witnesses is if she’s one of 3 who do so.
Oh I don't know, she may want to make sure the Democrats get the same number of Republican votes for witnesses that the Republicans got from the Democrats during the last one.
gimmethesimplelife
1-31-20, 4:09pm
I’m sure she’s wringing her hands as I type this. Guaranteed the only way she votes for witnesses is if she’s one of 3 who do so.
If Mitch manages to end this without an actual trial it’s going to be hilarious watching Bolton lob more bombs at the republicans every few days. Although it’s going to be tough to outdo today’s bomb. I mean seriously, trump’s defense attorney is a co-conspirator in the crime?I had not heard this, that Trump's defense attorney is a co-conspirator in the crime? And people are seriously going to vote for Donald Trump in 2020? Beam me up, I'm seeing a lack of intelligent life here - at least amongst those who would continue to vote for Trump after all the givens the past three years have featured. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-31-20, 4:13pm
It would appear as if the system has failed America once again....after Bolton's shocker how can the GOP senators actually acquit Trump without lasting damage to both the United States and the GOP brand? And how could anyone actually have any faith in the United States again in this lifetime? Clearly the rule of law does not apply to all equally in the US - what does America hope to gain by making such brutally clear to it's citizens/legal residents, and to the entire remainder of the world? I just don't get it but I'm not one bit surprised. Rob
iris lilies
1-31-20, 6:46pm
It would appear as if the system has failed America once again....after Bolton's shocker how can the GOP senators actually acquit Trump without lasting damage to both the United States and the GOP brand? And how could anyone actually have any faith in the United States again in this lifetime? Clearly the rule of law does not apply to all equally in the US - what does America hope to gain by making such brutally clear to it's citizens/legal residents, and to the entire remainder of the world? I just don't get it but I'm not one bit surprised. Rob
Monday’s Gallup poll shows that quite a lot of people have quite a lot of “faith in America “. Gallup reports quite a lot of satisfied customers in this US of A. For those who don’t want to read the article, just look at the slides below. 84% say they are happy with life in America.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/283958/satisfaction-surpasses-first-time-2005.aspx
3111
3112
3113
Oh I don't know, she may want to make sure the Democrats get the same number of Republican votes for witnesses that the Republicans got from the Democrats during the last one.
49 Yay's, 51 Nay's. Looks like the Republicans provided twice as many votes to allow witnesses than the Democrats did last time.
I consider the failure of the impeachment in the Senate a foregone conclusion -- partly because of the Republican numbers there but I also feel like the Democrats mishandled the impeachment effort in a number of ways. At this point, I am just hoping that the failure to allow witnesses will convince the few Democrats who are on the fence not to vote for acquittal. I don't want Trump to be able to characterize his acquittal as "bipartisan."
Also, I thought that the Clinton impeachment did have witnesses, although they "testified" via excerpts of sworn video depositions that were conducted during the Senate proceedings.
This time around, maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought that in the House Managers' opening statement, they said that every single impeachment to date (including officers other than presidents) had included witnesses and at least several had included numerous "new" witnesses, meaning witnesses who had not testified in the House. But they did not seem to be emphasizing in recent days that this would be the first time in history a Senate impeachment trial did not have witnesses, so perhaps I misunderstood . . .
Can the House just reopen an impeachment effort next Monday?
Also, I thought that the Clinton impeachment did have witnesses, although they "testified" via excerpts of sworn video depositions that were conducted during the Senate proceedings.
They did, there were four. The Democrats voted unanimously (excepting Russ Feingold) to disallow, but they lost 56-44.
Can the House just reopen an impeachment effort next Monday?
That seems kind of quick, it takes time to groom an anonymous whistleblower.
That seems kind of quick, it takes time to groom an anonymous whistleblower.
Or wait for Bolton to leak the next chapter of his book.
So apparently Marco Rubio thinks trump should be removed but admits he’s too spineless to actually do it. Perhaps Rubio should be removed and replaced by someone who isn’t so much of a coward.
Can the House just reopen an impeachment effort next Monday?
That's a fun thought to entertain. Speculatively, if Trump wins the next election and the dems gain seats in the Senate, we could at least hear some of the covered up evidence and witnesses.
Does double jeopardy apply to articles of impeachment?
Teacher Terry
2-1-20, 1:09pm
Jp, the whole thing is disgraceful.
Does double jeopardy apply to articles of impeachment?
I was thinking that surely they have a laundry list of other offenses, and they could just go with those.
Monica Lewinsky tweeted that she's willing to take one for the team by erm, performing fellatio on Trump, if her doing so would result in the Senate calling witnesses...I'm pretty sure that was a bluff...:|(
ETA: Per Snopes, this was a fake tweet. I usually check there first, so mea culpa. I also should have known it wasn't Lewinsky's brand of humor, if she has one--sounds more like Chrissy Teigen to me.
iris lilies
2-1-20, 6:30pm
I was thinking that surely they have a laundry list of other offenses, and they could just go with those.
CNN could start a new station that covers gavel-to-gavel Impeachment hearings 25/7. “All the impeachment all the time” could be a tagline.
CNN could start a new station that covers gavel-to-gavel Impeachment hearings 25/7. “All the impeachment all the time” could be a tagline.
Rather than pursuing the conspiracy of the month, I think the Democrats would be better served by winning elections. Trump and the GOP not necessarily in the best odor, there would seem to be opportunities there.
There are definitely opportunities. Assuming the republicans don’t cheat too much.
There are definitely opportunities. Assuming the republicans don’t cheat too much.
I think if the Democrats spent less time searching for someone to blame for their failures and more time working to win elections, they would do better.
If I were a Democratic Poobah, I would take the more traditional tack of claiming Trump wanted to gut Social Security out of pure cruelty. That might undermine his base support, which skews older, as well as energize the entitlements-are-rights crowd without sounding too dangerously socialist.
The identity politics stuff doesn’t seem to have much mass appeal outside Brooklyn and Berkeley, and despite the best efforts of the media the class war stuff doesn’t seem to have gained that much traction. Why not go back to the formula that helped the party dominate the 30s through the 70s?
If I were a Democratic Poobah, I would take the more traditional tack of claiming Trump wanted to gut Social Security out of pure cruelty. That might undermine his base support, which skews older, as well as energize the entitlements-are-rights crowd without sounding too dangerously socialist.
This is an election for our future, not an AARP meeting. You think the younger voters are going to scramble for Social Security protection like silver foxes scrambling for baguettes to stuff in their purses at a Boca Raton buffet?
The issues that the New Democrats are passionate about are issues that will help everybody, not just themselves--Medicare for all, protection of the environment, support for working families. As Bernie's slogan says, "Not me--US." So far, it looks like that message is working across demographics.
I love this video from 2016--still applies in 2020:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=JACq7Tg-J3M&feature=emb_logo
This is an election for our future, not an AARP meeting. You think the younger voters are going to scramble for Social Security protection like silver foxes scrambling for baguettes to stuff in their purses at a Boca Raton buffet?
The issues that the New Democrats are passionate about are issues that will help everybody, not just themselves--Medicare for all, protection of the environment, support for working families. As Bernie's slogan says, "Not me--US." So far, it looks like that message is working across demographics.
I love this video from 2016--still applies in 2020:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=JACq7Tg-J3M&feature=emb_logo
If that’s true, why does the DNC seem to be acting on the assumption that Bernie would be electoral poison? Are they simply too corrupt or stupid to see his potential appeal?
If that’s true, why does the DNC seem to be acting on the assumption that Bernie would be electoral poison? Are they simply too corrupt or stupid to see his potential appeal?
Yes.
And I already have my speech for them ready the next time they call me to ask for a donation. I'm pretty much going to use your words.
From the Guardian:
Bernie Sanders' real obstacle is not Trump. It's the Democratic establishment (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/31/bernie-sanders-election-trump-democratic-establishment?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=fb_us&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3Jg6kky0N5W_K2hwS4ymnFMPd2HAvLw5VEzG_5w CYuzeU8tw_gzifwO0E#Echobox=1580480543)
"The fact that Sanders can succeed without the party machine enrages those who sacrificed their idealism to play the game"
"Trump represents the dark path of racism, nationalism and division; Bernie represents the other path, of socialism, multiculturalism and solidarity. The Democratic establishment, left over from a political era they don’t know has already disappeared, imagines that a Biden or a Bloomberg or a Buttigieg might be able to keep the whole structure from falling apart. But they’re wrong. America has already started down a path away from what got us here. The only question is which path that will be.
"Any sane and moral political party should want to do everything possible to make Sanders’ vision become a reality. The alternative is not a fresh flowering of centrism. It is something much, much worse."
Yes, the Democrats are corrupt, short-sighted, and living in their own bubble--a bubble that's going to burst when Trump gets re-elected.
And for the very first time I agree with Pat Buchanan:
“If… Bernie’s last chance at the nomination is aborted by an establishment piling on, party super PACs running attack ads against him, and major media taking time out from trashing Trump to break Sanders, the Democratic Party will have the devil’s time of it bringing Bernie’s backers home in the fall. Bernie’s believers might just conclude that the real obstacle to their dream of remaking America is neither the radical right nor Donald Trump, but the elites within their own party.”
Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative
Touché
And for the very first time I agree with Pat Buchanan:
“If… Bernie’s last chance at the nomination is aborted by an establishment piling on, party super PACs running attack ads against him, and major media taking time out from trashing Trump to break Sanders, the Democratic Party will have the devil’s time of it bringing Bernie’s backers home in the fall. Bernie’s believers might just conclude that the real obstacle to their dream of remaking America is neither the radical right nor Donald Trump, but the elites within their own party.”
Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative
Touché
Didn’t that happen to some degree in 2016? Maybe enough to make a difference in some of the closer-run states even though he himself campaigned for Hillary? I heard mentioning her got booed at a Bernie rally.
From the Guardian:
"The Democratic establishment, left over from a political era they don’t know has already disappeared, imagines that a Biden or a Bloomberg or a Buttigieg might be able to keep the whole structure from falling apart. "
It is also interesting watching the Democratic Party try to marginalize Buttigieg.
Didn’t that happen to some degree in 2016? Maybe enough to make a difference in some of the closer-run states even though he himself campaigned for Hillary? I heard mentioning her got booed at a Bernie rally.
It absolutely did. There was the whole Wasserman-Schultz/Hillary thing that undermined Bernie's campaign. Donna Brazile has corroborated that.
The booing took place recently--Bernie wasn't there, but I believe many Bernie supporters believe that Hillary threw him under the bus and then expected him to campaign for her, and to give up his delegates at the Convention.
It is also interesting watching the Democratic Party try to marginalize Buttigieg.
It's frustrating. They're not good at listening. It's just like when my market research clients pay me a lot of money to find out what people want and then they stand there and argue with what people want instead of just giving it to them.
ETA: If I were running a poll (I've never worked as a market researcher in polling so I don't know how political polls are done, frankly), I would take into account three variables: 1) who would they vote for given a choice between A&B, 2) how likely are they to vote and what would be the barriers to voting, and 3) and how strong are their feelings about voting?
I've heard it said that while the "rational" approach is Biden, what will make a difference is how many people actually vote. I would count on the Highly Motivateds to steer the election.
Well, so much for the festive impeachment outfits.
Well he was impeached.
I'll stick to funereal black for the duration...
iris lilies
2-5-20, 6:58pm
Well he was impeached.
I'll stick to funereal black for the duration...
According to Rob, the festive outfit wearer, it doesnt count unless Trump is convicted.Personally, I think we could wear outfits above our station anytime and if we wanted to recognize what happened to Donald Trump which was in fact impeachment, we could do that.
Jury? Anyone?
I'll put my carrot cap away until the next impeachment.
The pageantry may be over but I suspect the details will drag on for some time. Time will tell if any of it really mattered. I have the feeling that Donald has other legal problems like his financial documents that are still in the courts.
I'm all for wearing outfits above one's station in any case, if that's what the heart desires.
For me, that's one notch above pajamas.
iris lilies
2-5-20, 8:15pm
I'm all for wearing outfits above one's station in any case, if that's what the heart desires.
For me, that's one notch above pajamas.
I have had such a yen for cashmere pajamas.
has anyone here tried them? I wouldn't dream of sending them to the dry cleaners, and would wash them in cool water with woolite. It that doable?
Don't do it! Too comfortable, you will never get out of bed again; you'll be living like Howard Hughes.
I have had such a yen for cashmere pajamas.
has anyone here tried them? I wouldn't dream of sending them to the dry cleaners, and would wash them in cool water with woolite. It that doable?
On a textile FB group, they were saying that it's hard to shrink cashmere, because of the length of the fiber or something (in a discussion of felting). I guess cashmere PJs and silk sheets would be a winning combination. Report back. :~)
iris lilies
2-6-20, 10:04am
Don't do it! Too comfortable, you will never get out of bed again; you'll be living like Howard Hughes.
haha! Yes
At the end of the day the only surprise was that it was a bipartisan group of senators that voted to convict. Romney summed up my thoughts pretty well: “Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.”
At the end of the day the only surprise was that it was a bipartisan group of senators that voted to convict. Romney summed up my thoughts pretty well: “Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.”
I've never been a Romney fan, and I'll never get over his dismissal of those who didn't vote for him as a bunch of moochers, but by Jove he nailed it in that speech. Maybe there's only one Republican with a spine, but that's a start. (The rest might very well have surmised that "your head on a pike" was not hyperbole, given the coven in charge. Vlad the Impaler would fit right in.)
Teacher Terry
2-6-20, 5:41pm
I really admire Romney!
I really admire Romney!7 years ago he was an evil, animal abusing, women hating, car elevator owning one percenter in odd underwear. Funny how he was able to redeem himself as easily as he did.
gimmethesimplelife
2-6-20, 6:50pm
I really admire Romney!I do, too. What Romney did took some courage and some backbone and I take back some of the less than kind comments I made in regards to him and his Presidential aspirations in the past. I just wish more Republicans were equal to Mitt Romney. But at least one did the right thing. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
2-6-20, 6:52pm
7 years ago he was an evil, animal abusing, women hating, car elevator owning one percenter in odd underwear. Funny how he was able to redeem himself as easily as he did.Justification behind this about face? Trump really is that horrible of a human being and as a leader. Really. I know you are a conservative, Alan, and such is your right, certainly. My point is that I'm not the only one out there who has done an about face in regards to Romney as Trump really is that despised by roughly 1/2 of the US population. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
2-6-20, 7:04pm
Well, so much for the festive impeachment outfits.Not so fast, bae. In my neighborhood folks are taking the long term tack - for the most part, anyway, and are putting energy into supporting Dems with the hope of Trump losing in November - at which date there would be parties along with real block parties when a Democrat rightly assumes the Oval Office and begins the arduous task of repairing America from Trump's reign of destruction. We'll see how this plays out but one nice thing? Arizona at least is no longer reliably red due to liberal money moving into the state from California and the Northeast and Illinois and scattered Pacific NW folks who have sold a house and have moved to Arizona and paid cash for a house here with their real estate winnings. Rob
Teacher Terry
2-6-20, 7:23pm
I have never hated Romney. Sometimes I wasn’t thrilled with what he did but I wouldn’t have been upset if he had won the presidency. I haven’t always been thrilled with what the democrats have done.
7 years ago he was an evil, animal abusing, women hating, car elevator owning one percenter in odd underwear. Funny how he was able to redeem himself as easily as he did.
He still is all those things in my eyes; but apparently he learned something from his father, seemingly a decent man.
iris lilies
2-7-20, 11:12am
7 years ago he was an evil, animal abusing, women hating, car elevator owning one percenter in odd underwear. Funny how he was able to redeem himself as easily as he did.
Agreed. And from the other side, my conservative friends were singing the praises of Mitt years ago and now he is the evil ogre.
come now folks. But I guess a politician is only as good as his current opinion on trend of the day.
At the end of the day the only surprise was that it was a bipartisan group of senators that voted to convict. Romney summed up my thoughts pretty well: “Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.”
I wouldn’t mind seeing him run again.
ApatheticNoMore
2-7-20, 12:00pm
The thing about Romney is he does not really belong in the current Trump-Republican party in some ways. However noone actually seriously believes he belongs in the Dem party either. He's kind of nowheresville on the current political landscape, but he holds office.
iris lilies
2-7-20, 12:37pm
The thing about Romney is he does not really belong in the current Trump-Republican party in some ways. However noone actually seriously believes he belongs in the Dem party either. He's kind of nowheresville on the current political landscape, but he holds office.yes, Mitt belongs in the Republican party as did John McCain. As does Rand Paul.And Susan Collins.
yes, Mitt belongs in the Republican party as did John McCain. As does Rand Paul.And Susan Collins.I agree, I've been a Mitt fan for quite some time. He's a little bland in our fairly recent media and political landscape, but I've always thought of him as a good, solid executive, someone who could do well if allowed.
I agree, I've been a Mitt fan for quite some time. He's a little bland in our fairly recent media and political landscape, but I've always thought of him as a good, solid executive, someone who could do well if allowed.
I agree, too. I don't agree with his politics but I definitely admire anyone of either party with the courage to stand up to the herd.
It's frustrating. They're not good at listening. It's just like when my market research clients pay me a lot of money to find out what people want and then they stand there and argue with what people want instead of just giving it to them.
ETA: If I were running a poll (I've never worked as a market researcher in polling so I don't know how political polls are done, frankly), I would take into account three variables: 1) who would they vote for given a choice between A&B, 2) how likely are they to vote and what would be the barriers to voting, and 3) and how strong are their feelings about voting?
I've heard it said that while the "rational" approach is Biden, what will make a difference is how many people actually vote. I would count on the Highly Motivateds to steer the election.
Just saw a noted Political Scientist on CNN say exactly this--that it won't even matter much who the candidate is, it's all about getting out the vote.
"Bitecofer’s theory, when you boil it down, is that modern American elections are rarely shaped by voters changing their minds, but rather by shifts in who decides to vote in the first place."
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944
Just saw a noted Political Scientist on CNN say exactly this--that it won't even matter much who the candidate is, it's all about getting out the vote.
"Bitecofer’s theory, when you boil it down, is that modern American elections are rarely shaped by voters changing their minds, but rather by shifts in who decides to vote in the first place."
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944
But right now the highly motivated opposition to Trump appears to be divided into a half dozen or so mutually antagonistic camps. Might we see something like 2016, where some Sanders supporters were so embittered at what they thought was game-rigging against their man that they stayed home or voted for other parties?
Could a nasty 2020 primary cycle create such a situation writ large, or will anti-Trump sentiment outweigh internecine feuds?
I hope the anti -Trump brings the Dems all together, but I don't have much faith that it will. Keeping the House, gaining the Senate may stop this madness....but I don't have much faith there either. The number of judges already installed is frightening to me as well. So I just try not to think about any of it and live in the moment.
Might we see something like 2016, where some Sanders supporters were so embittered at what they thought was game-rigging against their man that they stayed home or voted for other parties?
I think the Bernie Bros will re-elect Trump.
Observing the local ones, they are pretty forceful about driving non-believers out of the fold, which I have to think will discourage those folks from participation.
I think the Bernie Bros will re-elect Trump.
Observing the local ones, they are pretty forceful about driving non-believers out of the fold, which I have to think will discourage those folks from participation.
I think a lot of those "Bernie Bros" are wittingly or unwittingly working for Russia. I like Bernie, but there are others I prefer.
I think the Bernie Bros will re-elect Trump.
Observing the local ones, they are pretty forceful about driving non-believers out of the fold, which I have to think will discourage those folks from participation.
Didn’t James Carville say something recently about the choice between being a major political party or an “ideological cult”? Are the Democrats in danger of repeating the Republicans’ RINO nonsense, except in a sort of self-purging manner?
I think a lot of those "Bernie Bros" are wittingly or unwittingly working for Russia.
Do we really neomccarthyite theories to explain the present situation? Can’t the BBs simply be angry at the DNC?
Do we really neomccarthyite theories to explain the present situation? Can’t the BBs simply be angry at the DNC?
I'm sure some of them are, but the Russian government under Putin has made a cottage industry out of interfering in Western politics.
"Destroying the links that bind and strengthen Europe’s many nations individually and collectively is the Kremlin’s tried-and-tested strategy. The Russian leadership seeks to do what it accuses the Americans of wanting to do in Russia. The west has yet to show it has a plan to counteract the solvents that the Russians have injected into its democratic processes."
From the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/15/russia-meddle-western-politics-putin-superpower
Do we really neomccarthyite theories to explain the present situation? Can’t the BBs simply be angry at the DNC?
The situation does seem to have some parallels to the early days of the Communist revolution, and the immediate aftermath, where the biggest crime was not being one of the evil capitalists, but rather being a member of the Party with slightly different beliefs. Purges are needed.
This is the energy I observe in the Bernie-ites. Worse than Trump, or the GOP, are members of the Democratic Party who aren't on Bernie's side wholeheartedly. Non-believers must be marginalized, attacked, and pushed out to sea.
The situation does seem to have some parallels to the early days of the Communist revolution, and the immediate aftermath, where the biggest crime was not being one of the evil capitalists, but rather being a member of the Party with slightly different beliefs. Purges are needed.
This is the energy I observe in the Bernie-ites. Worse than Trump, or the GOP, are members of the Democratic Party who aren't on Bernie's side wholeheartedly. Non-believers must be marginalized, attacked, and pushed out to sea.
I hope you're wrong...
I'm a Bernie fan, and not happy with the DNC, but I certainly am not fundamentalist about it, and I'm sad if there are those factions rising up--I agree that it can only hurt Bernie and any efforts to keep Trump from being re-elected. I just hope they get the vote out. But a part of me also wonders how widespread it is, and whether some of it isn't being manufactured by the media (or Russia) into a bigger issue than it really is. I really don't see Bernie as a cult leader.
On Russian troll farms, from ABC news https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43093390:
But the work was round-the-clock. When the operatives - they called themselves "specialists" - weren't posting, they were learning and getting feedback on writing style. They were said to be constantly monitoring the viral success of their approach, tweaking and adjusting to maximise retweets and the spread of the message. The team is also said to have had a list of US public holidays, and appropriate content ready to go so they would blend in.
"According to court documents, the IRA took several measures to hide its tracks, duping the technology companies who were unaware, or unable, to stop what was filtering through their systems.
The key - and obvious - move was to hide the fact that these posts were coming from Russia. For that, the IRA is said to have used several Virtual Private Networks - VPNs - to route their operations through computers in the US. The operatives allegedly used stolen identities to set up PayPal accounts using real American names."
And I see Republicans are increasingly embracing Putin from https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/18/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-putin-215387:
"What I never expected was that the Republican Party—which once stood for a muscular, moralistic approach to the world, and which helped bring down the Soviet Union—would become a willing accomplice of what the previous Republican presidential nominee rightly called our No. 1 geopolitical foe: Vladimir Putin’s Russia. My message for today’s GOP is to paraphrase Barack Obama when he mocked Romney for saying precisely that: 2012 called—it wants its foreign policy back."
I wish Obama would step up and run as a Republican :-)
ToomuchStuff
2-8-20, 2:46pm
I wish Obama would step up and run as a Republican :-)
Under what basis could he get voted in? I don't seem to remember term limits covering the party, but the person.
If anything is McCarthyesque it's the characterization as European-style social Democrats as "commies." Realistically, how many people these days identify as Communists? Very few.
Viewing Putin--a former KGB Lt. Colonel who regularly has his rivals killed in colorful ways--as a threat is merely prudent
I'm sure some of them are, but the Russian government under Putin has made a cottage industry out of interfering in Western politics.
"Destroying the links that bind and strengthen Europe’s many nations individually and collectively is the Kremlin’s tried-and-tested strategy. The Russian leadership seeks to do what it accuses the Americans of wanting to do in Russia. The west has yet to show it has a plan to counteract the solvents that the Russians have injected into its democratic processes."
From the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/15/russia-meddle-western-politics-putin-superpower
Maybe, but the Russians have been weaponizing balderdash since the days of John Reed, and the Republic has endured. In my view, the only way they win is if we begin thinking everything that happens is masterminded from the Kremlin. That’s just one step up from believing in evil spirits.
Under what basis could he get voted in? I don't seem to remember term limits covering the party, but the person.
Well, once Trump rewrites the 22nd Amendment, we're set.
Trump feels he has a holy mandate to get elected "for the good of the country." My God.
Maybe, but the Russians have been weaponizing balderdash since the days of John Reed, and the Republic has endured. In my view, the only way they win is if we begin thinking everything that happens is masterminded from the Kremlin. That’s just one step up from believing in evil spirits.
It's not hard to believe in evil spirits when you have the likes of Trump and Putin working together.
Teacher Terry
2-8-20, 6:25pm
He is trying so hard to get re-elected because once he is out of office he can be prosecuted for his crimes.
I'd like to mention there's a new super-pac composed of Never Trumpers who have banded together to oppose his re-election:
https://lincolnproject.us/
He is trying so hard to get re-elected because once he is out of office he can be prosecuted for his crimes.If there were evidence of crimes wouldn't they have been included in the impeachment charges?
If there were evidence of crimes wouldn't they have been included in the impeachment charges?
Actually the GAO concluded they were.
Actually the GAO concluded they were.
They made the same conclusion several times during the Obama administration.
They made the same conclusion several times during the Obama administration.
About things that the house had impeached him for? I don’t remember that part of his presidency.
About things that the house had impeached him for? I don’t remember that part of his presidency.Impeachment hadn't yet become the preferred way to nullify an election. Maybe next time?
Impeachment hadn't yet become the preferred way to nullify an election. Maybe next time?
Good job regurgitating the silly fox talking point.
https://www.thewrap.com/internal-fox-news-document-warns-that-pro-trump-guests-are-amplifying-disinformation-report/
Even Fox is warning of their own propensity for fake news:
"A lengthy Fox News research document warns its employees to be wary of “disinformation” spread by several Pro-Trump guests, including the president’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani and network contributor John Solomon, according to a Thursday report from The Daily Beast.
The document, dubbed “Ukraine, Disinformation, & the Trump Administration,” is 162 pages long. It’s “especially critical of Solomon,” The Daily Beast reports, after he made several unsubstantiated claims the Ukrainian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Solomon is a former opinion columnist at “The Hill,” where his work “fueled” Giuliani to “dig up dirt in Ukraine,” according to the report."
Good job regurgitating the silly fox talking point.
Oh, did they get it right too?
I suppose one could make the argument that a president illegally using the power of his office to cheat in his re-election is not impeachable. Making the argument that no reasonable person could think it was impeachable, and therefore could only be an attempt to nullify an election is silly.
Not to say the GOP had similar intentions with Obama from the start, including impeachment on the birther issue. They just couldn't pull it off, maybe thanks to McCain and Boehner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama#Preventing_Obama_f rom_%22pushing_his_agenda%22
Not to say the GOP had similar intentions with Obama from the start, including impeachment on the birther issue. They just couldn't pull it off, maybe thanks to McCain and Boehner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama#Preventing_Obama_f rom_%22pushing_his_agenda%22The difference being, the Republicans never tried, they did not set up an Impeach Obama Super PAC during the first month of his presidency as the Democrats did for Trump, nor did they formally introduce a resolution to impeach during his first year in office, which was just the first of several as I recall.
Citing a dozen or so Republicans who either mentioned the possible impeachment of Obama or responded to outside questions on the subject over the course of 8 years as an indicaton that they're just as bad as the Democrats doesn't change the fact that the Dems have crossed a border they'll eventually regret.
There were differences and there were similarities. A similarity was that they were looking early on to impeach Obama under several groundless charges such as he birther issue, basically to negate the election.
It remains to be seen whether Trump's impeachment will weigh against the dems. I don't recall any great GOP backlash after the Clinton trials?
It remains to be seen whether Trump's impeachment will weigh against the dems. I don't recall any great GOP backlash after the Clinton trials?I guess we'll see in November.
In the 98 mid-terms the President's party actually gained seats in the House, the first time that happened during a President's 6th year in office since 1822. Instead of gaining the expected 20 to 40 seats, the Republicans lost 5. Most folks think Clinton's pending impeachment had something to do with that.
The difference being, the Republicans never tried, they did not set up an Impeach Obama Super PAC during the first month of his presidency as the Democrats did for Trump, nor did they formally introduce a resolution to impeach during his first year in office, which was just the first of several as I recall.
Citing a dozen or so Republicans who either mentioned the possible impeachment of Obama or responded to outside questions on the subject over the course of 8 years as an indicaton that they're just as bad as the Democrats doesn't change the fact that the Dems have crossed a border they'll eventually regret.
And the republicans didn’t also cross a border this time around? If using the power of the presidency’s foreign policy prerogative to try and scammily improve your re-election chances doesn’t qualify as impeachable to republicans what exactly will? They’ve basically set the bar that no president can be impeached and removed for anything. Except lying about a blowjob. And the next president that gets accused of that will be smart enough to just say eff you when the subpeona to testify arrives. After all we’ve also learned that there are now no consequences for ignoring subpeonas. And we’ve also learned that the definition of executive privilege has been expanded to ‘if the president claims it, it exists. Period.’
They’ve basically set the bar that no president can be impeached and removed for anything. Except lying about a blowjob.
And not even then if memory serves.
And the next president that gets accused of that will be smart enough to just say eff you when the subpeona to testify arrives. After all we’ve also learned that there are now no consequences for ignoring subpeonas. And we’ve also learned that the definition of executive privilege has been expanded to ‘if the president claims it, it exists. Period.
We don't have reason to believe that. That issue could have been settled in the courts but for some reason no one tried. Maybe next time.
I guess we'll see in November.
In the 98 mid-terms the President's party actually gained seats in the House, the first time that happened during an incumbents 6th year in office since 1822. Instead of gaining the expected 20 to 40 seats, the Republicans lost 5. Most folks think Clinton's impeachment had something to do with that.
And then Bush won the the 2000 election. Some think this was due to in part the impeachment trial. If the polls are something to believe, it doesn't seem like Trump's trial did much to alter public opinion. Something like half of Americans supported his removal from office. It could well go against Trump, or maybe nothing has changed.
We don't have reason to believe that. That issue could have been settled in the courts but for some reason no one tried. Maybe next time.
Or, since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was running the trial it could have been settled this time around if the republicans had actually wanted to hold a trial like every other impeachment. You know, with crazy stuff like witnesses and evidence the way every other impeachment trial in our history has had. Instead all we got was sad sack Susan wringing her hands and doing nothing but wishing upon a Star that they could have called witnesses.
You know, I was very disappointed that Collins did not push through to do the right thing, and so happy that Romney did. I don't think name-calling does much good.
I am trying in my own life to rise above some of the cynicism and pettiness that seems to comprise our national discourse. I think we are better than that.
Or, since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was running the trial it could have been settled this time around if the republicans had actually wanted to hold a trial like every other impeachment. You know, with crazy stuff like witnesses and evidence the way every other impeachment trial in our history has had. Instead all we got was sad sack Susan wringing her hands and doing nothing but wishing upon a Star that they could have called witnesses.
I guess her Democratic tendencies came into play since they have a history of never providing a single vote for witnesses or conviction of impeachment charges when their party holds the Presidency. That hasn't seemed to hurt the Dems much so I suppose Collins' reputation won't suffer for more than a minute or two.
Every other of the 14 impeachments in our history has had witnesses.
But hey, at least susan is confident that trump has learned a lesson. Based on her statement about that I'm guessing she's also confident that voters are complete morons.
Every other of the 14 impeachments in our history has had witnesses.
Next time the Dems should wait until they have a majority so they can get their way. They tried to prevent witnesses in the Clinton trial but just weren't popular enough. Maybe if they were a little less partisan?
I think in the end, everyone got what they needed from the process. The Democratic leadership got to make a display, that while futile in terms of practical consequences, could appease their critics on the left. The Republican leadership got to flex their political muscle and make a show of their solidarity. The punditocracy got something to opine about far more interesting than the presidential candidates arguing over who said what to who in 2018. Outrage addicts in both camps got a cathartic thrill: the believers in both a domestic deep state and a far reaching Kremlin conspiracy got fuel for their fantasies. Trump got yet another chance to feel aggrieved and do some staff purging. More than one book deal will no doubt be signed. Eric Ciaramella may even get input into who plays him in the movie. Google got a ton of traffic from people looking for ammunition for their arguments.
The only real losers I see in all this are the Bidens and diehard fans of “The Young and the Restless”.
The only real losers I see in all this are the Bidens and diehard fans of “The Young and the Restless”.
And everyone that testified against trump or is related to someone who testified against trump.
The biggest winner, at least for now, is trump. Who undoubtedly learned quite a different lesson from the one that Sad Sack Susan hinted at.
And everyone that testified against trump or is related to someone who testified against trump.
It’s not like they’ll be packed off to some gulag. This isn’t Russia or Cuba or one of those other countries Bernie admires. They get to be heroes to the anti-Trump crowd, which will probably help their careers in the long run. Maybe even a book deal and speaking fee here and there.
Not yet anyway. But supposedly Barr has set up a batphone or something for guiliani to fast-track conspiracy theories to the justice department.
It’s not like they’ll be packed off to some gulag. This isn’t Russia or Cuba or one of those other countries Bernie admires. They get to be heroes to the anti-Trump crowd, which will probably help their careers in the long run. Maybe even a book deal and speaking fee here and there.
I thought Russia was Trumps pal.
Speaking of gulag, the news today said the DOJ is recommending an 8 to 9 year sentence for T's associate, Roger Stone. I've lost track of how many of his circle have been charged or sentenced. At least all of the witch hunts have flushed a few crooks out of the system.
frugal-one
2-11-20, 5:06pm
I think in the end, everyone got what they needed from the process. The Democratic leadership got to make a display, that while futile in terms of practical consequences, could appease their critics on the left. The Republican leadership got to flex their political muscle and make a show of their solidarity. The punditocracy got something to opine about far more interesting than the presidential candidates arguing over who said what to who in 2018. Outrage addicts in both camps got a cathartic thrill: the believers in both a domestic deep state and a far reaching Kremlin conspiracy got fuel for their fantasies. Trump got yet another chance to feel aggrieved and do some staff purging. More than one book deal will no doubt be signed. Eric Ciaramella may even get input into who plays him in the movie. Google got a ton of traffic from people looking for ammunition for their arguments.
The only real losers I see in all this are the Bidens and diehard fans of “The Young and the Restless”.
You are wrong! Enuf said!
frugal-one
2-11-20, 5:08pm
I thought Russia was Trumps pal.
Speaking of gulag, the news today said the DOJ is recommending an 8 to 9 year sentence for T's associate, Roger Stone. I've lost track of how many of his circle have been charged or sentenced. At least all of the witch hunts have flushed a few crooks out of the system.
And now, trump is saying Stone should get no sentence.... he did nothing wrong! ..... sound familiar?
And three (so far) DOJ prosecutors have resigned in protest.
I'm sure Trump will pardon Stone if Barr's team can't get him a slap on the hand sentence.
And now, trump is saying Stone should get no sentence.... he did nothing wrong! ..... sound familiar?
How could anyone with a. Nixon tattoo possibly do anything wrong? 😜
So now trump defense attorney barr is pissing off prosecutors enough that they are resigning over dirtbag Stone. I suppose republicans will be surprised by this. The big question is will republicans actually ever actually act honorably or are they just done. A member here questioned my comment that he was part of a failed party. Now that all non-republicans can clearly see the failure I wonder if he’ll acknowledge it or pretend that the party isnt dead.
And now, trump is saying Stone should get no sentence.... he did nothing wrong! ..... sound familiar?
I'd almost expect a "perfect" phone call to come up if there were any investigation. Although any potential witnesses are probably too intimidated to say anything.
gimmethesimplelife
2-12-20, 9:04pm
I feel these days as if I am living at work as it's season for me and it's hard for me to keep up. What is getting back to me is that where I live, it's all about seeing Trump kicked to the curb. Candidate doesn't seem to.matter to many people, just getting rid of Trump. I am more specific and want Buttigieg to win. If nothing else, he can debate and speak intelligently and he can mind his manners. He's also not repulsive to either look at or listen to. Or both. Rob
He's also not repulsive to either look at or listen to. Or both. Rob Voting for the cutest guy/girl makes the process easy doesn't it?
gimmethesimplelife
2-12-20, 9:25pm
Voting for the cutest guy/girl makes the process easy doesn't it?Nope, that's not it. And it's not because he's openly gay. Seriously, originally I was all about Elizabeth Warren. Buttigieg is more moderate and also well behaved. And seemingly sane unlike 45. Rob
Voting for the cutest guy/girl makes the process easy doesn't it?
I remember reading years ago that when the Nixon/Kennedy debate happened at the relative dawn of the tv age people who had listened to it on the radio thought that Nixon had won, but people who watched it on tv thought that Kennedy had won because Nixon was tired looking/sweaty/getting over a cold or something. How someone looks definitely affects people's reaction to the person.
All that said, like Rob, Pete is actually my third choice. My first choice, Harris, has already dropped out and my second choice, Warren, appears to be on a downward trajectory. Although my ballot has already arrived I won't likely make a decision until Sunday before super tuesday, but unless Warren has somehow rebounded bigly I will probably be voting for Pete.
Before TV and maybe radio, when promotion of candidates depended on newspapers, whistle stops, and I suppose leaflets, voting must have been a much different process. We may not have had presidents like "silent Cal" Coolidge.
I just voted for Pete on my mail in ballot. It wasn't an easy choice, with Bernie and Klobuchar the other close choices. I don't know if any of them can end the bitter bipartisanship, but I was favoring a moderate and a younger person less connected to old school politics. It always seems like Bernie is yelling at me, too. I'm not sure out country is ready for a gay president but we have a gay governor here it it hasn't caused problems. I think Pete has an edge over Trump on a few things and could probably play on Trumps supposed draft evasion, represents middle American to a degree, and is well spoken enough to do good in a debate.
I’m struck by how the definition of “moderate” has changed over the last five years.
I’m struck by how the definition of “moderate” has changed over the last five years.
Indeed. The republican ability to push it far to the right seems to be over.
Indeed. The republican ability to push it far to the right seems to be over.
Too true. I deplore the leftward drift in the GOP. It seems like anyone who didn’t honeymoon in the USSR can call themself a moderate now. I’m going to miss the good old days.
I’m going to miss the good old days.Me too! Chris Matthews says he's convinced if we hadn't won the Cold War back in the 80's there'd have been executions in Central Park, much like Fidel and Che arranged in Cuba. When I hear Bernie talk about Millionaires and Billionaires I get chills. And when Warren talks about taking half of a poor college student's last $6, I'm thinking the future looks bleak.
It probably depends on the measures used to define moderate and extreme. For examples, I think massive tax reductions along side big spending increases, especially military, is right wing that may have had roots in the tea party, or the growing expressions of white nationalism. My take is that each party has pushed the other to the extreme and indeed what we've thought of as the middle ground or moderate is rare or different.
Me too! Chris Matthews says he's convinced if we hadn't won the Cold War back in the 80's there'd have been executions in Central Park, much like Fidel and Che arranged in Cuba. When I hear Bernie talk about Millionaires and Billionaires I get chills. And when Warren talks about taking half of a poor college student's last $6, I'm thinking the future looks bleak.
The best purges this decadent generation can manage are twitter campaigns and shouting down college speakers. I miss the forthrightness of my Cold War youth.
Too true. I deplore the leftward drift in the GOP. It seems like anyone who didn’t honeymoon in the USSR can call themself a moderate now. I’m going to miss the good old days.
I remember when they lost it - they let some Hollywood actors' union leader/labor organizer switch from Democrat to Republican, and even ran him for President a couple of times.
When I hear Bernie talk about Millionaires and Billionaires I get chills.
They say "millionaires and billionaires" with such gusto, like they are talking about serial killers.
I remember when they lost it - they let some Hollywood actors' union leader/labor organizer switch from Democrat to Republican, and even ran him for President a couple of times.
Yeah. Where’s Coolidge when we need him?
Yeah. Where’s Coolidge when we need him?
The old story or myth about Silent Cal is from a dinner party where an attractive young lady seated next to him said, "My friends have bet me that I couldn't get you to speak more than three words." His response was, "You lose." The good old days.
The old story or myth about Silent Cal is from a dinner party where an attractive young lady seated next to him said, "My friends have bet me that I couldn't get you to speak more than three words." His response was, "You lose." The good old days.
There is a great story of him holding a press conference and replying “no comment” to every single question. As the meeting ended and the reporters began to leave, he shouted “And don’t quote me!”
We will not see his like again. Which is too bad.
frugal-one
2-14-20, 5:47am
Me too! Chris Matthews says he's convinced if we hadn't won the Cold War back in the 80's there'd have been executions in Central Park, much like Fidel and Che arranged in Cuba. When I hear Bernie talk about Millionaires and Billionaires I get chills. And when Warren talks about taking half of a poor college student's last $6, I'm thinking the future looks bleak.
I agree the future looks bleak. trump is now trying to get that none of his phone calls be monitored. he wants unlimited power... 25% increase so far this year in gov spending, billions taken from military defense to build a stupid wall that Mexico was to pay for, wasting justice department resources to check out perceived enemies (ie Obama, Biden), tax cuts for the already wealthy, republicans who disagree not speaking up for fear of retribution. The list goes on and on.
I like the bit about the Justice Department/Stone sentencing transparency.
frugal-one
2-15-20, 8:29am
I like the bit about the Justice Department/Stone sentencing transparency.
Now other cronies as well.
I get the feeling that Donald is having an adolescence "I'll show them I can do anything I want" hissy fit after his impeachment. At least McCabe is off the hook. He was probably a victim of Trump's imaginary conspiracy theories or just someone who didn't fit in and needed a vindictive lesson. It would be nice to have an adult back in the White House some day.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.