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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
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. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by jp1
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
https://news.gallup.com/poll/283958/...time-2005.aspx
Attachment 3111
Attachment 3112
Attachment 3113
49 Yay's, 51 Nay's. Looks like the Republicans provided twice as many votes to allow witnesses than the Democrats did last time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
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?
They did, there were four. The Democrats voted unanimously (excepting Russ Feingold) to disallow, but they lost 56-44.Quote:
Originally Posted by mamalatte
That seems kind of quick, it takes time to groom an anonymous whistleblower.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Or wait for Bolton to leak the next chapter of his book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Does double jeopardy apply to articles of impeachment?
Jp, the whole thing is disgraceful.
I was thinking that surely they have a laundry list of other offenses, and they could just go with those.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
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?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
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_c...ature=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?Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
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
"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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
It is also interesting watching the Democratic Party try to marginalize Buttigieg.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
It absolutely did. There was the whole Wasserman-Schultz/Hillary thing that undermined Bernie's campaign. Donna Brazile has corroborated that.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
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'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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
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.
I have had such a yen for cashmere pajamas.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
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.
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. :~)Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
haha! YesQuote:
Originally Posted by Tybee
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.”