Discussion:
[OT] A Canadian View of the Impeachment Proceedings
Add Reply
Quadibloc
2020-02-01 06:41:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
This column

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/america-in-2020-king-george-gets-his-revenge/

shows what one Canadian, at least, thinks that the vote against calling witnesses
in the Senate means for America's future.

John Savard
Kevrob
2020-02-01 07:38:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
This column
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/america-in-2020-king-george-gets-his-revenge/
shows what one Canadian, at least, thinks that the vote against
calling witnesses in the Senate means for America's future.
Way off-topic.

I didn't vote for Trump. I could give you a reason why every
president since Nixon could have also faced impeachment and a
trial in the Senate, essentially for exceeding his constitutional
authority. The term "Imperial Presidency" is decades old.


I won't bother explaining what the Dems did to screw
this up, but screw it up they did.

Maybe you should mind your own knitting?

[quote]

List of scandals and missteps involving Canada's Trudeau

[/quote] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-election-missteps-factbox/list-of-scandals-and-missteps-involving-canadas-trudeau-idUSKBN1W422D

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2020-02-01 14:08:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:41:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
This column
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/america-in-2020-king-george-gets-his-revenge/
shows what one Canadian, at least, thinks that the vote against calling witnesses
in the Senate means for America's future.
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling."
Paul S Person
2020-02-01 18:19:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:41:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
This column
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/america-in-2020-king-george-gets-his-revenge/
shows what one Canadian, at least, thinks that the vote against calling witnesses
in the Senate means for America's future.
Hardly unexpected.

The only /real/ question is:
how many coats of whitewash will the Republicans apply?

A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were said to
favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take this event?

BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest it,
passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.

This show isn't over yet.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Quadibloc
2020-02-01 18:42:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest it,
passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it to be likely, I would
have thought. Unless something truly outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake
by the Democrats, I would think, it would be easy for the Republicans to use the
spin that they just want to change the election and they're just being vindictive.

Since Trump concluded a trade deal with China as it became apparent his trade
war with China might hurt the economy, if one imagines the Illuminati made the
stock market crash in 2008 so Obama would be elected, will they also be blamed
for the Coronavirus?

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-01 20:23:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest it,
passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it to be likely, I would
have thought. Unless something truly outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake
by the Democrats, I would think, it would be easy for the Republicans to use the
spin that they just want to change the election and they're just being vindictive.
Since Trump concluded a trade deal with China as it became apparent his trade
war with China might hurt the economy, if one imagines the Illuminati made the
stock market crash in 2008 so Obama would be elected, will they also be blamed
for the Coronavirus?
The Democrats should be concentrating on winning the election, not
shouting defiance at the sky.
o***@gmail.com
2020-02-02 19:23:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
The Democrats should be concentrating on winning the election, not
shouting defiance at the sky.
....sshhhhhhh.....
Ninapenda Jibini
2020-02-03 01:44:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
The Democrats should be concentrating on winning the election,
That would involve finding a candidate that *could* win.

Good luck with that. They have no one. The Republicans could run
Charles Manson's rotting corpose, and the Democrats couldn't beat it
this year.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-03 06:54:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by J. Clarke
The Democrats should be concentrating on winning the election,
That would involve finding a candidate that *could* win.
Good luck with that. They have no one. The Republicans could run
Charles Manson's rotting corpose, and the Democrats couldn't beat it
this year.
Welcome back !

Lynn
Ninapenda Jibini
2020-02-03 07:53:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by J. Clarke
The Democrats should be concentrating on winning the election,
That would involve finding a candidate that *could* win.
Good luck with that. They have no one. The Republicans could
run Charles Manson's rotting corpose, and the Democrats
couldn't beat it this year.
Welcome back !
Don't get used to it. Work is still insanely busy, even if there
was a brief respite.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Paul S Person
2020-02-03 18:27:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:44:59 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by J. Clarke
The Democrats should be concentrating on winning the election,
That would involve finding a candidate that *could* win.
Good luck with that. They have no one. The Republicans could run
Charles Manson's rotting corpose, and the Democrats couldn't beat it
this year.
I don't think that's true. If, for some reason, Trump doesn't run, I
think the Dems would win.

Or, more properly, the Republicans would lose.

That's really how it works, you know. The Dems don't actually /win/,
they merely get elected when the Republicans do something so awful
that they lose.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-03 20:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:44:59 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by J. Clarke
The Democrats should be concentrating on winning the election,
That would involve finding a candidate that *could* win.
Good luck with that. They have no one. The Republicans could run
Charles Manson's rotting corpose, and the Democrats couldn't
beat it this year.
I don't think that's true. If, for some reason, Trump doesn't
run, I think the Dems would win.
Or, more properly, the Republicans would lose.
Depends on who they run.
Post by Paul S Person
That's really how it works, you know. The Dems don't actually
/win/, they merely get elected when the Republicans do something
so awful that they lose.
All of which is irrelevant, since Trump is running.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Paul S Person
2020-02-04 18:19:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 13:56:37 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:44:59 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by J. Clarke
The Democrats should be concentrating on winning the election,
That would involve finding a candidate that *could* win.
Good luck with that. They have no one. The Republicans could run
Charles Manson's rotting corpose, and the Democrats couldn't
beat it this year.
I don't think that's true. If, for some reason, Trump doesn't
run, I think the Dems would win.
Or, more properly, the Republicans would lose.
Depends on who they run.
Nope. In 1992, they could have run the mummified corpses of Marx and
Lenin and /still/ run. The economy had gone to pot.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
That's really how it works, you know. The Dems don't actually
/win/, they merely get elected when the Republicans do something
so awful that they lose.
All of which is irrelevant, since Trump is running.
But suppose he has /already/ alienated the independents? He calls
/lots/ of people names, and some names really sting.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2020-02-05 17:57:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 12:58:06 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 13:56:37 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:44:59 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by J. Clarke
The Democrats should be concentrating on winning the
election,
That would involve finding a candidate that *could* win.
Good luck with that. They have no one. The Republicans could
run Charles Manson's rotting corpose, and the Democrats
couldn't beat it this year.
I don't think that's true. If, for some reason, Trump doesn't
run, I think the Dems would win.
Or, more properly, the Republicans would lose.
Depends on who they run.
Nope. In 1992, they could have run the mummified corpses of Marx
and Lenin and /still/ run. The economy had gone to pot.
It's not 1992, and the economy is not gone to pot.
Not yet. Wait a bit.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
That's really how it works, you know. The Dems don't actually
/win/, they merely get elected when the Republicans do
something so awful that they lose.
All of which is irrelevant, since Trump is running.
But suppose he has /already/ alienated the independents? He
calls /lots/ of people names, and some names really sting.
Suppose whatever you want, hallucinate if you really need to, the
Democrats have no one who has any prayer of beating him this year.
They don't have to /win/. He just has to /lose/. Just one major blowup
that alienates and activates the independents.
What would have been *really* funny would have bene if he'd
switched parties again and run for relection as a Democrat.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Johnny1A
2020-02-04 08:30:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest it,
passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it to be likely, I would
have thought. Unless something truly outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake
by the Democrats, I would think, it would be easy for the Republicans to use the
spin that they just want to change the election and they're just being vindictive.
Since Trump concluded a trade deal with China as it became apparent his trade
war with China might hurt the economy, if one imagines the Illuminati made the
stock market crash in 2008 so Obama would be elected, will they also be blamed
for the Coronavirus?
The Democrats should be concentrating on winning the election, not
shouting defiance at the sky.
I'm not sure they can help themselves. Nor is it limited to the Democrats, a lot of the Republicans hate Trump so irrationally they can barely contain it, but they _have_ to contain it if they want to avoid being Flaked.

To make matters worse, behind the scenes a lot of the Dems are at each other's throats. Gabbard is suing Hillary. Warren and Bernie are elbowing each other. Mayor Pete is struggling with the black vote, and the underlying problem is one he can't really fix. Bernie is super-popular with a subset of the Dem voters, but he makes visions of 1972 dance in the heads of old hands.
Pelosi and AOC are struggling for control of the caucus, and AOC is quietly threatening to recruit primary challengers for other Dems.
Paul S Person
2020-02-04 18:20:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:30:47 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest it,
passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it to be likely, I would
have thought. Unless something truly outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake
by the Democrats, I would think, it would be easy for the Republicans to use the
spin that they just want to change the election and they're just being vindictive.
Since Trump concluded a trade deal with China as it became apparent his trade
war with China might hurt the economy, if one imagines the Illuminati made the
stock market crash in 2008 so Obama would be elected, will they also be blamed
for the Coronavirus?
The Democrats should be concentrating on winning the election, not
shouting defiance at the sky.
I'm not sure they can help themselves. Nor is it limited to the Democrats, a lot of the Republicans hate Trump so irrationally they can barely contain it, but they _have_ to contain it if they want to avoid being Flaked.
To make matters worse, behind the scenes a lot of the Dems are at each other's throats. Gabbard is suing Hillary. Warren and Bernie are elbowing each other. Mayor Pete is struggling with the black vote, and the underlying problem is one he can't really fix. Bernie is super-popular with a subset of the Dem voters, but he makes visions of 1972 dance in the heads of old hands.
Pelosi and AOC are struggling for control of the caucus, and AOC is quietly threatening to recruit primary challengers for other Dems.
In 1972, the Dems ran a flake. With an infamous last name.

Bernie /is/ insane, but he is not a flake.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Johnny1A
2020-02-05 05:52:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest it,
passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it to be likely, I would
have thought. Unless something truly outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake
by the Democrats, I would think, it would be easy for the Republicans to use the
spin that they just want to change the election and they're just being vindictive.
Since Trump concluded a trade deal with China as it became apparent his trade
war with China might hurt the economy, if one imagines the Illuminati made the
stock market crash in 2008 so Obama would be elected, will they also be blamed
for the Coronavirus?
The Democrats should be concentrating on winning the election, not
shouting defiance at the sky.
I'm not sure they can help themselves. Nor is it limited to the Democrats, a lot of the Republicans hate Trump so irrationally they can barely contain it, but they _have_ to contain it if they want to avoid being Flaked.
To make matters worse, behind the scenes a lot of the Dems are at each other's throats. Gabbard is suing Hillary. Warren and Bernie are elbowing each other. Mayor Pete is struggling with the black vote, and the underlying problem is one he can't really fix. Bernie is super-popular with a subset of the Dem voters, but he makes visions of 1972 dance in the heads of old hands.
Pelosi and AOC are struggling for control of the caucus, and AOC is quietly threatening to recruit primary challengers for other Dems.
In addition to my previous comment about the Dems, there has since been the Iowa caucus charlie foxtrot.

The interesting thing about it is that even many Dems strongly doubt that the 'coding problem' is really what happened.

To my mind, it's entirely plausible that it really was a coding problem, but it's just as plausible that somebody in the Dem apparat wanted to cloud the issue for some reason. There is a _lot_ of resistance to the idea of Bernie as the nominee in the Democratic Party. If some of the coverage can be believed, the company that did the app had close ties to Hillary's crew, too. Make of that what you will.
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-05 06:22:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
The interesting thing about it is that even many Dems strongly doubt that the 'coding problem' is really what happened.
To my mind, it's entirely plausible that it really was a coding problem, but it's just as plausible that somebody in the Dem apparat wanted to cloud the issue for some reason.
Not likely seeing as the actual results come from paper records
Kevrob
2020-02-05 13:23:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny1A
The interesting thing about it is that even many Dems strongly doubt that the 'coding problem' is really what happened.
To my mind, it's entirely plausible that it really was a coding problem, but it's just as plausible that somebody in the Dem apparat wanted to cloud the issue for some reason.
Not likely seeing as the actual results come from paper records
[quote]

The app was issued by Jimmy Hickey of Shadow Inc., metadata of the
program that the Des Moines Register analyzed Tuesday shows. Gerard
Niemira and Krista Davis, who worked for Clinton’s 2016 campaign,
co-founded Shadow.

[/quote] - Des Moines Register 4 Feb, 2020

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2020/02/04/iowa-caucus-app-problems-shadow-inc-clinton-campaign/4653989002/

This is bound to set the Berniebots teeth on edge. It should
do the same to Bernie's, once he gets them out of the glass. :)

Kevin R
Paul S Person
2020-02-05 17:59:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 21:52:32 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest it,
passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it to be likely, I would
have thought. Unless something truly outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake
by the Democrats, I would think, it would be easy for the Republicans to use the
spin that they just want to change the election and they're just being vindictive.
Since Trump concluded a trade deal with China as it became apparent his trade
war with China might hurt the economy, if one imagines the Illuminati made the
stock market crash in 2008 so Obama would be elected, will they also be blamed
for the Coronavirus?
The Democrats should be concentrating on winning the election, not
shouting defiance at the sky.
I'm not sure they can help themselves. Nor is it limited to the Democrats, a lot of the Republicans hate Trump so irrationally they can barely contain it, but they _have_ to contain it if they want to avoid being Flaked.
To make matters worse, behind the scenes a lot of the Dems are at each other's throats. Gabbard is suing Hillary. Warren and Bernie are elbowing each other. Mayor Pete is struggling with the black vote, and the underlying problem is one he can't really fix. Bernie is super-popular with a subset of the Dem voters, but he makes visions of 1972 dance in the heads of old hands.
Pelosi and AOC are struggling for control of the caucus, and AOC is quietly threatening to recruit primary challengers for other Dems.
In addition to my previous comment about the Dems, there has since been the Iowa caucus charlie foxtrot.
The interesting thing about it is that even many Dems strongly doubt that the 'coding problem' is really what happened.
To my mind, it's entirely plausible that it really was a coding problem, but it's just as plausible that somebody in the Dem apparat wanted to cloud the issue for some reason. There is a _lot_ of resistance to the idea of Bernie as the nominee in the Democratic Party. If some of the coverage can be believed, the company that did the app had close ties to Hillary's crew, too. Make of that what you will.
"Paranoia strikes deep in the heartland"

But why /wouldn't/ there be opposition to Bernie? He isn't a Democrat,
he's a Socialist who lacks the cojones to run as one.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2020-02-02 18:38:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest it,
passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it to be likely, I would
have thought. Unless something truly outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake
by the Democrats, I would think, it would be easy for the Republicans to use the
spin that they just want to change the election and they're just being vindictive.
Oh, I don't know ... it depends on when/whether the various court
cases result in the testimony/documents Trump's been hiding becoming
available.

A quick hearing, a quick vote, an immediate submission to the Senate
should be doable two if not three times between now and November.

As to the arguments you have cited, the Republicans are already making
them. And will continue making them, no doubt. After a certain point
this all becomes noise and is tuned out.

I do agree it would be a big mistake. Indeed, I've always felt that
/this/ go-round was a big mistake, right back from before it got
going. My reason is simple: it would put a /competent/ person into the
Oval Office, and that person would be able to run /as an incumbent/
not only in 2020 but (if he won in 2020) 2024 as well. Trump has only
one more shot.
Post by Quadibloc
Since Trump concluded a trade deal with China as it became apparent his trade
war with China might hurt the economy, if one imagines the Illuminati made the
stock market crash in 2008 so Obama would be elected, will they also be blamed
for the Coronavirus?
One can imagine what one likes, but, IIRC, the 1992 result was
blamed/credited to "the economy, stupid!". So causing an actual
Depression might do it. Losing a city to a N Korean nuke would also be
very bad for Trump, politically. It would be /very/ hard for even him
to spin.

Also, his base isn't enough to elect him -- and he has been slowly but
surely alienating every single other group of voters.

The real problem is the Dems, who appear to be convinced that what
they need is another old fart even crazier than Hillary. What they
/need/ is someone at least 20 years younger than Trump who everyone
(except, of course, Trump's base) can get behind.

But, of course, all of that is obvious.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-02-02 19:32:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:38:50 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest it,
passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it to be likely, I would
have thought. Unless something truly outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake
by the Democrats, I would think, it would be easy for the Republicans to use the
spin that they just want to change the election and they're just being vindictive.
Oh, I don't know ... it depends on when/whether the various court
cases result in the testimony/documents Trump's been hiding becoming
available.
A quick hearing, a quick vote, an immediate submission to the Senate
should be doable two if not three times between now and November.
As to the arguments you have cited, the Republicans are already making
them. And will continue making them, no doubt. After a certain point
this all becomes noise and is tuned out.
And how many cycles does it take before the public gets sick of
hearing the word "impeach" and recognizes that the Democrats are a
bunch of lunatics who don't understand that when you do the same thing
over and over and expect a different outcome that indicates that you
are crazy?
Post by Paul S Person
I do agree it would be a big mistake. Indeed, I've always felt that
/this/ go-round was a big mistake, right back from before it got
going. My reason is simple: it would put a /competent/ person into the
Oval Office, and that person would be able to run /as an incumbent/
not only in 2020 but (if he won in 2020) 2024 as well. Trump has only
one more shot.
So you see putting a competent person into the Oval Office as a
negative? That does seem to be the Democratic position in a nutshell.
No actual interest in removing Trump from office, they just want to
hurt his feelings.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Quadibloc
Since Trump concluded a trade deal with China as it became apparent his trade
war with China might hurt the economy, if one imagines the Illuminati made the
stock market crash in 2008 so Obama would be elected, will they also be blamed
for the Coronavirus?
One can imagine what one likes, but, IIRC, the 1992 result was
blamed/credited to "the economy, stupid!". So causing an actual
Depression might do it. Losing a city to a N Korean nuke would also be
very bad for Trump, politically. It would be /very/ hard for even him
to spin.
It would be very bad for any President. But the only way to prevent
it is to invade North Korea and take away their toys. Unless you want
to resurrect Safeguard or the SDI. The real question if that happened
is whether the US would do anything about it. Public sentiment would
be to pave the place, and just as a precaution do the same for Iran
and Pakistan, and that not happening would be the real political
killer.
Post by Paul S Person
Also, his base isn't enough to elect him -- and he has been slowly but
surely alienating every single other group of voters.
The Democrats base isn't enough to elect anybody either. And they are
not working very hard at coming up with a candidate who is a clear
improvement. They seem to think that "I'm not Trump" is an adequate
platform.
Post by Paul S Person
The real problem is the Dems, who appear to be convinced that what
they need is another old fart even crazier than Hillary. What they
/need/ is someone at least 20 years younger than Trump who everyone
(except, of course, Trump's base) can get behind.
What they _need_ is a _platform_. What they're coming up with so far
scares more people than it lures.
Post by Paul S Person
But, of course, all of that is obvious.
Ninapenda Jibini
2020-02-03 01:53:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:38:50 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 10:42:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 11:20:15 AM UTC-7, Paul S
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest
it, passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it to
be likely, I would have thought. Unless something truly
outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake by the Democrats,
I would think, it would be easy for the Republicans to use the
spin that they just want to change the election and they're
just being vindictive.
Oh, I don't know ... it depends on when/whether the various
court cases result in the testimony/documents Trump's been
hiding becoming available.
A quick hearing, a quick vote, an immediate submission to the
Senate should be doable two if not three times between now and
November.
As to the arguments you have cited, the Republicans are already
making them. And will continue making them, no doubt. After a
certain point this all becomes noise and is tuned out.
And how many cycles does it take before the public gets sick of
hearing the word "impeach" and recognizes that the Democrats are
a bunch of lunatics who don't understand that when you do the
same thing over and over and expect a different outcome that
indicates that you are crazy?
Yeah, they look as stupid and crazy as the Republicans voting to
repeal Obamacare week after week, expecing that somehow, it would
actually happen.
Post by J. Clarke
I do agree it would be a big mistake. Indeed, I've always felt
that /this/ go-round was a big mistake, right back from before
it got going. My reason is simple: it would put a /competent/
person into the Oval Office, and that person would be able to
run /as an incumbent/ not only in 2020 but (if he won in 2020)
2024 as well. Trump has only one more shot.
So you see putting a competent person into the Oval Office as a
negative? That does seem to be the Democratic position in a
nutshell. No actual interest in removing Trump from office, they
just want to hurt his feelings.
They aren't interested in removing him from office because they
know full well the *can't*. Zero possiblity. They know they can't
win in November, too. This entire election cycle is about
generating as much money as possible (which is what the impeachment
is all about, outrage mongering) from their own base, and wait out
the two term Trump presidency.
Post by J. Clarke
Since Trump concluded a trade deal with China as it became
apparent his trade war with China might hurt the economy, if
one imagines the Illuminati made the stock market crash in 2008
so Obama would be elected, will they also be blamed for the
Coronavirus?
One can imagine what one likes, but, IIRC, the 1992 result was
blamed/credited to "the economy, stupid!". So causing an actual
Depression might do it. Losing a city to a N Korean nuke would
also be very bad for Trump, politically. It would be /very/ hard
for even him to spin.
It would be very bad for any President.
No worse than 9/11, really. In fact, less bad, since it would
involve a single, easily identifiable enemy to go bomb the shit out
of. We'd live to see North Korean be the 51st state.
Post by J. Clarke
But the only way to
prevent it is to invade North Korea and take away their toys.
Unless you want to resurrect Safeguard or the SDI. The real
question if that happened is whether the US would do anything
about it. Public sentiment would be to pave the place, and just
as a precaution do the same for Iran and Pakistan, and that not
happening would be the real political killer.
There's zero chance of North Korea continuing to exist as a
sovereign nation after using a nuke. Depending on who is President
at the time, either we'd reduce them to the stone age, we'd conquer
them, or we'd let China take them over.
Post by J. Clarke
Also, his base isn't enough to elect him -- and he has been
slowly but surely alienating every single other group of voters.
The Democrats base isn't enough to elect anybody either. And
they are not working very hard at coming up with a candidate who
is a clear improvement.
They don't have one. *Nobody*.
Post by J. Clarke
They seem to think that "I'm not Trump"
is an adequate platform.
It is, for their real goal, which is to make as much money as
possible this year.
Post by J. Clarke
The real problem is the Dems, who appear to be convinced that
what they need is another old fart even crazier than Hillary.
What they /need/ is someone at least 20 years younger than Trump
who everyone (except, of course, Trump's base) can get behind.
What they _need_ is a _platform_. What they're coming up with
so far scares more people than it lures.
Which is a classic (and necessary) step in building a cult -
alienate the True Believers from normal people.

What the US needs is a third political party for people who aren't
batshit crazy.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2020-02-03 03:05:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
What the US needs is a third political party for people who aren't
batshit crazy.
Welcome back.

Now, there's something I agree with. Both parties play too much to their base,
instead of trying to be electable by concentrating on the middle-of-the-road
voter.

But both parties used to be different, so apparently between 1960 and today,
something about the American political system has changed. So combining that
with the difficulties a third party faces in the American system, my suspicion
is that the U.S. needs something else that has a better chance of achieving the
desired result.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-03 03:10:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
What the US needs is a third political party for people who aren't
batshit crazy.
Welcome back.
Now, there's something I agree with. Both parties play too much to their base,
instead of trying to be electable by concentrating on the middle-of-the-road
voter.
But both parties used to be different, so apparently between 1960 and today,
something about the American political system has changed.
They went to the direct primary system so that everything would be
"more democratic". The bosses in the smoke-filled back rooms did a
far better job of picking candidates. Or maybe smoking does something
beneficial to the political brain.
Post by Quadibloc
So combining that
with the difficulties a third party faces in the American system, my suspicion
is that the U.S. needs something else that has a better chance of achieving the
desired result.
John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-02-03 03:15:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
But both parties used to be different, so apparently between 1960 and today,
something about the American political system has changed.
They went to the direct primary system so that everything would be
"more democratic". The bosses in the smoke-filled back rooms did a
far better job of picking candidates. Or maybe smoking does something
beneficial to the political brain.
I had thought the U.S. went to direct primaries shortly after Tammany Hall. None
the less, you are quite right - I've heard something in the news about a recent
change to how primaries work being the cause of this.

While nicotine does improve people's ability to concentrate - which is why many
scizophrenics are heavy smokers - I don't think we have to go in that direction.
It's obvious what is going on.

Primary voters have an interest in selecting the candidate who most closely
reflects their views, and they tend to be party activists.

People within the party itself, on the other hand, have as their chief interest
getting elected.

John Savard
Kevrob
2020-02-03 04:47:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
People within the party itself, on the other hand, have as their chief interest getting elected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#History

A minority of states had primaries prior to 1972.
Jimmy Carter made the Iowa caucus a thing by out-organizing
his opponents under the post-1968 rules. Caucuses used to
be the smoke-filled rooms, at least back East or in Chicago.

More primaries, and greater citizen participation in caucuses,
were reforms that, paradoxically, pushed the official party
duopoly into the hands of entrepreneurial candidates, activists
and ideologues, as opposed to candidates who were proven vote-
getters acceptable to state and local hacks, responsible for
actually getting out the vote. This change exacerbated the trend,
dating at least to the 1952 candidacy of Ike, to use electronic
media to make a case directly to independents and voters open
to splitting their tickets. Post-war, a lot of the old ward heelers'
constituencies had moved into the suburbs, over the city line, the
county line and/or the old congressional district.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#History

Kevin R
Paul S Person
2020-02-03 18:37:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
But both parties used to be different, so apparently between 1960 and today,
something about the American political system has changed.
They went to the direct primary system so that everything would be
"more democratic". The bosses in the smoke-filled back rooms did a
far better job of picking candidates. Or maybe smoking does something
beneficial to the political brain.
I had thought the U.S. went to direct primaries shortly after Tammany Hall. None
the less, you are quite right - I've heard something in the news about a recent
change to how primaries work being the cause of this.
While nicotine does improve people's ability to concentrate - which is why many
scizophrenics are heavy smokers - I don't think we have to go in that direction.
It's obvious what is going on.
Primary voters have an interest in selecting the candidate who most closely
reflects their views, and they tend to be party activists.
In Washington, you are required to /declare/ your party before voting
in the Presidential Primary (which is completely different from the
normal primary in August).

So of course only the Party faithful vote. If anyone else votes, what
do you think they get next? I think they get a party membership card
and a bill; well, they /claimed/ to be a party member, didn't they?
Post by Quadibloc
People within the party itself, on the other hand, have as their chief interest
getting elected.
John Savard
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-03 21:01:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 19:15:33 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Sunday, February 2, 2020 at 8:10:30 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 19:05:15 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
But both parties used to be different, so apparently between
1960 and today, something about the American political system
has changed.
They went to the direct primary system so that everything
would be "more democratic". The bosses in the smoke-filled
back rooms did a far better job of picking candidates. Or
maybe smoking does something beneficial to the political
brain.
I had thought the U.S. went to direct primaries shortly after
Tammany Hall. None the less, you are quite right - I've heard
something in the news about a recent change to how primaries
work being the cause of this.
While nicotine does improve people's ability to concentrate -
which is why many scizophrenics are heavy smokers - I don't
think we have to go in that direction. It's obvious what is
going on.
Primary voters have an interest in selecting the candidate who
most closely reflects their views, and they tend to be party
activists.
In Washington, you are required to /declare/ your party before
voting in the Presidential Primary (which is completely
different from the normal primary in August).
Could be worse. California now has the option to register as
unaffiliated, and the parties can decide whether or not to let such
voters vote in their primary.

So I can vote in the Democratic primary, but not the Republican.

(Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference. California will
go for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is. Hell if Trump
switched parties and ran as a Democrat, California would put its
electoral votes up for him simply because he's the Democratic
candidate.)
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Paul S Person
2020-02-04 18:26:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 14:01:21 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 19:15:33 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Sunday, February 2, 2020 at 8:10:30 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 19:05:15 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
But both parties used to be different, so apparently between
1960 and today, something about the American political system
has changed.
They went to the direct primary system so that everything
would be "more democratic". The bosses in the smoke-filled
back rooms did a far better job of picking candidates. Or
maybe smoking does something beneficial to the political
brain.
I had thought the U.S. went to direct primaries shortly after
Tammany Hall. None the less, you are quite right - I've heard
something in the news about a recent change to how primaries
work being the cause of this.
While nicotine does improve people's ability to concentrate -
which is why many scizophrenics are heavy smokers - I don't
think we have to go in that direction. It's obvious what is
going on.
Primary voters have an interest in selecting the candidate who
most closely reflects their views, and they tend to be party
activists.
In Washington, you are required to /declare/ your party before
voting in the Presidential Primary (which is completely
different from the normal primary in August).
Could be worse. California now has the option to register as
unaffiliated, and the parties can decide whether or not to let such
voters vote in their primary.
So I can vote in the Democratic primary, but not the Republican.
(Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference. California will
go for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is. Hell if Trump
switched parties and ran as a Democrat, California would put its
electoral votes up for him simply because he's the Democratic
candidate.)
I think the way it should work is this:

1) Any Party that wants a primary rather than/in addition to caucases
can have one. They just have to pay for it.
2) If they want /anyone who wants to/ to vote, then the State sends
out ballots to everybody; if they only want Party members to vote,
then they provide the list but the State mails them out.
3) Each Party has its own primary. This means that a voter who gets a
ballot for more than one can vote in each.
4) The ballots are processed by the State. If all voters were sent
ballots, the Party is /prohibited/ from using any information for
recruiting purposes.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-04 19:59:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 14:01:21 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 19:15:33 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Sunday, February 2, 2020 at 8:10:30 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 19:05:15 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
But both parties used to be different, so apparently
between 1960 and today, something about the American
political system has changed.
They went to the direct primary system so that everything
would be "more democratic". The bosses in the smoke-filled
back rooms did a far better job of picking candidates. Or
maybe smoking does something beneficial to the political
brain.
I had thought the U.S. went to direct primaries shortly after
Tammany Hall. None the less, you are quite right - I've heard
something in the news about a recent change to how primaries
work being the cause of this.
While nicotine does improve people's ability to concentrate -
which is why many scizophrenics are heavy smokers - I don't
think we have to go in that direction. It's obvious what is
going on.
Primary voters have an interest in selecting the candidate who
most closely reflects their views, and they tend to be party
activists.
In Washington, you are required to /declare/ your party before
voting in the Presidential Primary (which is completely
different from the normal primary in August).
Could be worse. California now has the option to register as
unaffiliated, and the parties can decide whether or not to let
such voters vote in their primary.
So I can vote in the Democratic primary, but not the Republican.
(Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference. California
will go for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is. Hell
if Trump switched parties and ran as a Democrat, California
would put its electoral votes up for him simply because he's the
Democratic candidate.)
1) Any Party that wants a primary rather than/in addition to
caucases can have one. They just have to pay for it.
2) If they want /anyone who wants to/ to vote, then the State
sends out ballots to everybody; if they only want Party members
to vote, then they provide the list but the State mails them
out. 3) Each Party has its own primary. This means that a voter
who gets a ballot for more than one can vote in each.
4) The ballots are processed by the State. If all voters were
sent ballots, the Party is /prohibited/ from using any
information for recruiting purposes.
And what color is the sky on your planet?
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-03 20:59:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
n Sun, 2 Feb 2020 19:05:15 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Sunday, February 2, 2020 at 6:53:18 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
What the US needs is a third political party for people who
aren't batshit crazy.
Welcome back.
Now, there's something I agree with. Both parties play too much
to their base, instead of trying to be electable by
concentrating on the middle-of-the-road voter.
But both parties used to be different, so apparently between
1960 and today, something about the American political system
has changed. So combining that with the difficulties a third
party faces in the American system, my suspicion is that the
U.S. needs something else that has a better chance of achieving
the desired result.
Not /one/ party. /Two/ parties.
One center-left.
One center-right.
Pushing the Dems and Republicans further and further from the
middle ... and more and more out of power.
A two-party system works as long as the parties are /not/
ideological. We just need to get back to that point again.
Unfortunately, at the moment, the extremes are what appeals to the
people who donate money to the parties, so they're the only ones
who get any love.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Paul S Person
2020-02-04 18:28:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 13:59:05 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
n Sun, 2 Feb 2020 19:05:15 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Sunday, February 2, 2020 at 6:53:18 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
What the US needs is a third political party for people who
aren't batshit crazy.
Welcome back.
Now, there's something I agree with. Both parties play too much
to their base, instead of trying to be electable by
concentrating on the middle-of-the-road voter.
But both parties used to be different, so apparently between
1960 and today, something about the American political system
has changed. So combining that with the difficulties a third
party faces in the American system, my suspicion is that the
U.S. needs something else that has a better chance of achieving
the desired result.
Not /one/ party. /Two/ parties.
One center-left.
One center-right.
Pushing the Dems and Republicans further and further from the
middle ... and more and more out of power.
A two-party system works as long as the parties are /not/
ideological. We just need to get back to that point again.
Unfortunately, at the moment, the extremes are what appeals to the
people who donate money to the parties, so they're the only ones
who get any love.
Well, I suppose we could always lease Madame La Guillatine from the
French.

She is known to be very effective in solving this sort of infestation.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
James Nicoll
2020-02-04 18:47:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 13:59:05 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
n Sun, 2 Feb 2020 19:05:15 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Sunday, February 2, 2020 at 6:53:18 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
What the US needs is a third political party for people who
aren't batshit crazy.
Welcome back.
Now, there's something I agree with. Both parties play too much
to their base, instead of trying to be electable by
concentrating on the middle-of-the-road voter.
But both parties used to be different, so apparently between
1960 and today, something about the American political system
has changed. So combining that with the difficulties a third
party faces in the American system, my suspicion is that the
U.S. needs something else that has a better chance of achieving
the desired result.
Not /one/ party. /Two/ parties.
One center-left.
One center-right.
Pushing the Dems and Republicans further and further from the
middle ... and more and more out of power.
A two-party system works as long as the parties are /not/
ideological. We just need to get back to that point again.
Unfortunately, at the moment, the extremes are what appeals to the
people who donate money to the parties, so they're the only ones
who get any love.
Well, I suppose we could always lease Madame La Guillatine from the
French.
She is known to be very effective in solving this sort of infestation.
I was rather impressed that recent Puerto Rican protestors deployed a mock-
up of a guillotine. Bit on the nose but it probably got their displeasure
across.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Dimensional Traveler
2020-02-04 20:35:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 13:59:05 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
n Sun, 2 Feb 2020 19:05:15 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Sunday, February 2, 2020 at 6:53:18 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
What the US needs is a third political party for people who
aren't batshit crazy.
Welcome back.
Now, there's something I agree with. Both parties play too much
to their base, instead of trying to be electable by
concentrating on the middle-of-the-road voter.
But both parties used to be different, so apparently between
1960 and today, something about the American political system
has changed. So combining that with the difficulties a third
party faces in the American system, my suspicion is that the
U.S. needs something else that has a better chance of achieving
the desired result.
Not /one/ party. /Two/ parties.
One center-left.
One center-right.
Pushing the Dems and Republicans further and further from the
middle ... and more and more out of power.
A two-party system works as long as the parties are /not/
ideological. We just need to get back to that point again.
Unfortunately, at the moment, the extremes are what appeals to the
people who donate money to the parties, so they're the only ones
who get any love.
Well, I suppose we could always lease Madame La Guillatine from the
French.
She is known to be very effective in solving this sort of infestation.
And creating another.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-04 20:01:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 13:59:05 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
n Sun, 2 Feb 2020 19:05:15 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Sunday, February 2, 2020 at 6:53:18 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
What the US needs is a third political party for people who
aren't batshit crazy.
Welcome back.
Now, there's something I agree with. Both parties play too
much to their base, instead of trying to be electable by
concentrating on the middle-of-the-road voter.
But both parties used to be different, so apparently between
1960 and today, something about the American political system
has changed. So combining that with the difficulties a third
party faces in the American system, my suspicion is that the
U.S. needs something else that has a better chance of
achieving the desired result.
Not /one/ party. /Two/ parties.
One center-left.
One center-right.
Pushing the Dems and Republicans further and further from the
middle ... and more and more out of power.
A two-party system works as long as the parties are /not/
ideological. We just need to get back to that point again.
Unfortunately, at the moment, the extremes are what appeals to
the people who donate money to the parties, so they're the only
ones who get any love.
Well, I suppose we could always lease Madame La Guillatine from
the French.
She is known to be very effective in solving this sort of
infestation.
Typical violent fantasy from a leftie extremist.

When Da Revolution comes, one side will be armed with 200 million
guns, and the other side with man buns and pussy hats.

I know which side I'd bet on.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Johnny1A
2020-02-04 08:35:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
What the US needs is a third political party for people who aren't
batshit crazy.
Welcome back.
Now, there's something I agree with. Both parties play too much to their base,
instead of trying to be electable by concentrating on the middle-of-the-road
voter.
Partly because the actual middle-of-the-road voters in America tend to lean fiscally liberal and somewhat socially conservative, which is nearly anathema to the donor class in both big parties.
Paul S Person
2020-02-03 18:31:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:53:15 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:38:50 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 10:42:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 11:20:15 AM UTC-7, Paul S
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest
it, passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it to
be likely, I would have thought. Unless something truly
outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake by the Democrats,
I would think, it would be easy for the Republicans to use the
spin that they just want to change the election and they're
just being vindictive.
Oh, I don't know ... it depends on when/whether the various
court cases result in the testimony/documents Trump's been
hiding becoming available.
A quick hearing, a quick vote, an immediate submission to the
Senate should be doable two if not three times between now and
November.
As to the arguments you have cited, the Republicans are already
making them. And will continue making them, no doubt. After a
certain point this all becomes noise and is tuned out.
And how many cycles does it take before the public gets sick of
hearing the word "impeach" and recognizes that the Democrats are
a bunch of lunatics who don't understand that when you do the
same thing over and over and expect a different outcome that
indicates that you are crazy?
Yeah, they look as stupid and crazy as the Republicans voting to
repeal Obamacare week after week, expecing that somehow, it would
actually happen.
And then turning out, when they controlled both houses of Congress and
the White House, after six years of vocal opposition, to have /no idea
whatsoever/ what to do.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Johnny1A
2020-02-04 08:40:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:53:15 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:38:50 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 10:42:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 11:20:15 AM UTC-7, Paul S
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest
it, passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it to
be likely, I would have thought. Unless something truly
outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake by the Democrats,
I would think, it would be easy for the Republicans to use the
spin that they just want to change the election and they're just being vindictive.
Oh, I don't know ... it depends on when/whether the various
court cases result in the testimony/documents Trump's been
hiding becoming available.
A quick hearing, a quick vote, an immediate submission to the
Senate should be doable two if not three times between now and
November.
As to the arguments you have cited, the Republicans are already
making them. And will continue making them, no doubt. After a
certain point this all becomes noise and is tuned out.
And how many cycles does it take before the public gets sick of
hearing the word "impeach" and recognizes that the Democrats are
a bunch of lunatics who don't understand that when you do the
same thing over and over and expect a different outcome that
indicates that you are crazy?
Yeah, they look as stupid and crazy as the Republicans voting to
repeal Obamacare week after week, expecing that somehow, it would
actually happen.
And then turning out, when they controlled both houses of Congress and
the White House, after six years of vocal opposition, to have /no idea
whatsoever/ what to do.
--
That's because the GOP' big business donor class _likes_ Obamacare. From their POV, it was a chance to offload their employee health care costs onto the taxpayer. Thus the GOP leadership was happy to cast endless meaningless votes against it when they knew it would have no effect, but when they suddenly found themselves in a position to actually kill it, they panicked because they had no desire whatever to actually do it.

One reason Ted Cruz is, or was, so disliked by much of the GOP apparat was that he publicly called McConnell and some of the others out on it.

One reason Trump was able to sweep aside the GOP establishment so easily in 2016 was that their _voters_ were sick of it, too. They knew perfectly well that the GOP congressional leadership had no interest in _doing_ anything other than the big business agenda.
J. Clarke
2020-02-04 22:46:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:40:51 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:53:15 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:38:50 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 10:42:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest
it, passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it to
be likely, I would have thought. Unless something truly
outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake by the Democrats,
I would think, it would be easy for the Republicans to use the
spin that they just want to change the election and they're
just being vindictive.
Oh, I don't know ... it depends on when/whether the various
court cases result in the testimony/documents Trump's been
hiding becoming available.
A quick hearing, a quick vote, an immediate submission to the
Senate should be doable two if not three times between now and
November.
As to the arguments you have cited, the Republicans are already
making them. And will continue making them, no doubt. After a
certain point this all becomes noise and is tuned out.
And how many cycles does it take before the public gets sick of
hearing the word "impeach" and recognizes that the Democrats are
a bunch of lunatics who don't understand that when you do the
same thing over and over and expect a different outcome that
indicates that you are crazy?
Yeah, they look as stupid and crazy as the Republicans voting to
repeal Obamacare week after week, expecing that somehow, it would
actually happen.
And then turning out, when they controlled both houses of Congress and
the White House, after six years of vocal opposition, to have /no idea
whatsoever/ what to do.
--
That's because the GOP' big business donor class _likes_ Obamacare. From their POV, it was a chance to offload their employee health care costs onto the taxpayer.
How does it "offload employee health care costs onto the taxpaper"?
Big business is required to provide insurance and is not reimbursed by
the government.
Post by Johnny1A
Thus the GOP leadership was happy to cast endless meaningless votes against it when they knew it would have no effect, but when they suddenly found themselves in a position to actually kill it, they panicked because they had no desire whatever to actually do it.
One reason Ted Cruz is, or was, so disliked by much of the GOP apparat was that he publicly called McConnell and some of the others out on it.
One reason Trump was able to sweep aside the GOP establishment so easily in 2016 was that their _voters_ were sick of it, too. They knew perfectly well that the GOP congressional leadership had no interest in _doing_ anything other than the big business agenda.
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-04 22:57:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:40:51 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:53:15 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:38:50 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 10:42:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest
it, passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it to
be likely, I would have thought. Unless something truly
outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake by the Democrats,
I would think, it would be easy for the Republicans to use the
spin that they just want to change the election and they're
just being vindictive.
Oh, I don't know ... it depends on when/whether the various
court cases result in the testimony/documents Trump's been
hiding becoming available.
A quick hearing, a quick vote, an immediate submission to the
Senate should be doable two if not three times between now and
November.
As to the arguments you have cited, the Republicans are already
making them. And will continue making them, no doubt. After a
certain point this all becomes noise and is tuned out.
And how many cycles does it take before the public gets sick of
hearing the word "impeach" and recognizes that the Democrats are
a bunch of lunatics who don't understand that when you do the
same thing over and over and expect a different outcome that
indicates that you are crazy?
Yeah, they look as stupid and crazy as the Republicans voting to
repeal Obamacare week after week, expecing that somehow, it would
actually happen.
And then turning out, when they controlled both houses of Congress and
the White House, after six years of vocal opposition, to have /no idea
whatsoever/ what to do.
--
That's because the GOP' big business donor class _likes_ Obamacare. From their POV, it was a chance to offload their employee health care costs onto the taxpayer.
How does it "offload employee health care costs onto the taxpaper"?
Big business is required to provide insurance and is not reimbursed by
the government.
Johnny comes from Foxworld
Johnny1A
2020-02-05 05:41:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:40:51 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:53:15 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:38:50 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 10:42:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest
it, passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it to
be likely, I would have thought. Unless something truly
outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake by the Democrats,
I would think, it would be easy for the Republicans to use the
spin that they just want to change the election and they're
just being vindictive.
Oh, I don't know ... it depends on when/whether the various
court cases result in the testimony/documents Trump's been
hiding becoming available.
A quick hearing, a quick vote, an immediate submission to the
Senate should be doable two if not three times between now and
November.
As to the arguments you have cited, the Republicans are already
making them. And will continue making them, no doubt. After a
certain point this all becomes noise and is tuned out.
And how many cycles does it take before the public gets sick of
hearing the word "impeach" and recognizes that the Democrats are
a bunch of lunatics who don't understand that when you do the
same thing over and over and expect a different outcome that
indicates that you are crazy?
Yeah, they look as stupid and crazy as the Republicans voting to
repeal Obamacare week after week, expecing that somehow, it would
actually happen.
And then turning out, when they controlled both houses of Congress and
the White House, after six years of vocal opposition, to have /no idea
whatsoever/ what to do.
--
That's because the GOP' big business donor class _likes_ Obamacare. From their POV, it was a chance to offload their employee health care costs onto the taxpayer.
How does it "offload employee health care costs onto the taxpaper"?
Big business is required to provide insurance and is not reimbursed by
the government.
At one time, there was a spread of subsidies built in that functionally served that purpose. There have been changes since. Also, a lot of the O-care policies were less generous than what was already being offered.

Also, there were loopholes that enabled companies to work around the requirements. The best known one is simply employing people under a certain number of hours per week.

Similarly, the insurance industry liked Obamacare because it make purchasing their services mandatory. The pharmaceutical industry thought they were going to make a killing, too.

That's a big part of why the GOP was suddenly in a panic when Trump won the election, they had control of both chambers, and Trump said, more or less, "Send me the repeal bill."

They had none. They (the GOP leadership) had talked about it for seven years with no intention whatever of ever doing it. The GOP caucus in the House split into three or four factions on it, driven in large part by business donors, but also by ideological splits.
Paul S Person
2020-02-04 18:31:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 13:58:02 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:53:15 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:38:50 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 10:42:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 11:20:15 AM UTC-7, Paul S
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events
suggest it, passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it to
be likely, I would have thought. Unless something truly
outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake by the
Democrats, I would think, it would be easy for the
Republicans to use the spin that they just want to change the
election and they're just being vindictive.
Oh, I don't know ... it depends on when/whether the various
court cases result in the testimony/documents Trump's been
hiding becoming available.
A quick hearing, a quick vote, an immediate submission to the
Senate should be doable two if not three times between now and
November.
As to the arguments you have cited, the Republicans are
already making them. And will continue making them, no doubt.
After a certain point this all becomes noise and is tuned out.
And how many cycles does it take before the public gets sick
of hearing the word "impeach" and recognizes that the
Democrats are a bunch of lunatics who don't understand that
when you do the same thing over and over and expect a
different outcome that indicates that you are crazy?
Yeah, they look as stupid and crazy as the Republicans voting to
repeal Obamacare week after week, expecing that somehow, it
would actually happen.
And then turning out, when they controlled both houses of
Congress and the White House, after six years of vocal
opposition, to have /no idea whatsoever/ what to do.
Well, they couldn't very well devote their entire beings, body mind
and soul, to mindless hatred, to the point of mental illness, of
Trump, like they did Obama.
My intended point was that, had they actually been serious, the House
(which the controlled) would have passed their solution the day Trump
was inaugurated, the Senate would have done so the next day, and Trump
would have found it on his desk, ready for signature, the day after.

And, if not quite that fast, still, a lot faster than what actually
happened.

They had /six years/ to figure out what they wanted to do. By the
inauguration, they should have been ready to go.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-04 20:02:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 13:58:02 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:53:15 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:38:50 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 10:42:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events
suggest it, passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
There's not enough time between now and November... for it
to be likely, I would have thought. Unless something truly
outrageous happens, it would be a big mistake by the
Democrats, I would think, it would be easy for the
Republicans to use the spin that they just want to change
the election and they're just being vindictive.
Oh, I don't know ... it depends on when/whether the various
court cases result in the testimony/documents Trump's been
hiding becoming available.
A quick hearing, a quick vote, an immediate submission to
the Senate should be doable two if not three times between
now and November.
As to the arguments you have cited, the Republicans are
already making them. And will continue making them, no
doubt. After a certain point this all becomes noise and is
tuned out.
And how many cycles does it take before the public gets sick
of hearing the word "impeach" and recognizes that the
Democrats are a bunch of lunatics who don't understand that
when you do the same thing over and over and expect a
different outcome that indicates that you are crazy?
Yeah, they look as stupid and crazy as the Republicans voting
to repeal Obamacare week after week, expecing that somehow, it
would actually happen.
And then turning out, when they controlled both houses of
Congress and the White House, after six years of vocal
opposition, to have /no idea whatsoever/ what to do.
Well, they couldn't very well devote their entire beings, body
mind and soul, to mindless hatred, to the point of mental
illness, of Trump, like they did Obama.
My intended point was that, had they actually been serious, the
House (which the controlled) would have passed their solution
the day Trump was inaugurated, the Senate would have done so the
next day, and Trump would have found it on his desk, ready for
signature, the day after.
And, if not quite that fast, still, a lot faster than what
actually happened.
They had /six years/ to figure out what they wanted to do. By
the inauguration, they should have been ready to go.
They did know exactly what they wanted to do, and they did it
exactly as they intended.

What they wanted to do and what they *said* they wanted to do have
little connection to one another.

Just like every other political issue.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
o***@gmail.com
2020-02-02 19:37:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
But, of course, all of that is obvious.
...uh....huh....
Quadibloc
2020-02-03 00:08:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Losing a city to a N Korean nuke would also be
very bad for Trump, politically. It would be /very/ hard for even him
to spin.
That depends on the circumstances.

If it was thought that it happened because he needlessly provoked North Korea,
yes. If, on the other hand, it was seen as entirely a North Korean decision,
which would have taken place no matter who was in the White House, then if
Trump's actions afterwards showed that he was the sort of man to respond
decisively to such a provocation, it could do wonders for his re-election.

Unless it led to losing another city to a Chinese nuke.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2020-02-03 18:40:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Losing a city to a N Korean nuke would also be
very bad for Trump, politically. It would be /very/ hard for even him
to spin.
That depends on the circumstances.
If it was thought that it happened because he needlessly provoked North Korea,
yes. If, on the other hand, it was seen as entirely a North Korean decision,
which would have taken place no matter who was in the White House, then if
Trump's actions afterwards showed that he was the sort of man to respond
decisively to such a provocation, it could do wonders for his re-election.
I guess you weren't paying attention a year or two ago.

Trump has /already/ "needlessly provoked" North Korea -- not, to be
sure, hard to do, but he has already done it. And the video of it will
be played endlessly as part of the campaign.
Post by Quadibloc
Unless it led to losing another city to a Chinese nuke.
Which is why China, as a member of the Security Council and a putative
Great Power, should be tasked with correcting the situation by
rectifying North Korea's government and removing all the toys to
China.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-03 21:05:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 16:08:59 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Losing a city to a N Korean nuke would also be
very bad for Trump, politically. It would be /very/ hard for
even him to spin.
That depends on the circumstances.
If it was thought that it happened because he needlessly
provoked North Korea, yes. If, on the other hand, it was seen as
entirely a North Korean decision, which would have taken place
no matter who was in the White House, then if Trump's actions
afterwards showed that he was the sort of man to respond
decisively to such a provocation, it could do wonders for his
re-election.
I guess you weren't paying attention a year or two ago.
Trump has /already/ "needlessly provoked" North Korea -- not, to
be sure, hard to do, but he has already done it. And the video
of it will be played endlessly as part of the campaign.
And in response, North Korea . . . did pretty much nothing.

So yeah, the video will be played endlessly, most likely by *both*
parties. And rightly so.
Post by Quadibloc
Unless it led to losing another city to a Chinese nuke.
Which is why China, as a member of the Security Council and a
putative Great Power, should be tasked with correcting the
situation by rectifying North Korea's government and removing
all the toys to China.
China has already explained to the cabal that has its hand up Kim's
ass (because Kim is a sock puppet) that it would be very, very bad,
and not for long, for Best Korea to do more than clutch their
pearls and whine about unfair it is, because they're not going to
provoke Trump any more than they already have.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
James Nicoll
2020-02-01 18:49:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:41:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
This column
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/america-in-2020-king-george-gets-his-revenge/
shows what one Canadian, at least, thinks that the vote against calling witnesses
in the Senate means for America's future.
Hardly unexpected.
how many coats of whitewash will the Republicans apply?
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were said to
favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take this event?
They'll knuckle under and lick Russian boot, if the recent past is any guide.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
o***@gmail.com
2020-02-01 18:58:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
They'll knuckle under and lick Russian boot, if the recent past is any guide.
And you will continue to misinterpret reality, in a continuing effort to make it fit your agenda(s).......if the recent past is any guide.
Ninapenda Jibini
2020-02-03 01:54:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by James Nicoll
They'll knuckle under and lick Russian boot, if the recent past is any guide.
And you will continue to misinterpret reality,
In order to misinterpret it, he'd have to be able to perceive it.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David Johnston
2020-02-01 22:14:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:41:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
This column
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/america-in-2020-king-george-gets-his-revenge/
shows what one Canadian, at least, thinks that the vote against calling witnesses
in the Senate means for America's future.
Hardly unexpected.
how many coats of whitewash will the Republicans apply?
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were said to
favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take this event?
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest it,
passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
Nothing except sanity. Pelosi was reluctant even to do it this time
because of the potential damage to the party.
Paul S Person
2020-02-02 18:39:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 15:14:43 -0700, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:41:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
This column
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/america-in-2020-king-george-gets-his-revenge/
shows what one Canadian, at least, thinks that the vote against calling witnesses
in the Senate means for America's future.
Hardly unexpected.
how many coats of whitewash will the Republicans apply?
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were said to
favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take this event?
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest it,
passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
Nothing except sanity. Pelosi was reluctant even to do it this time
because of the potential damage to the party.
The damage has been done.

The fun continues!
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
David Goldfarb
2020-02-01 22:51:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were said to
favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population as a whole,
49% of Republicans.

But yeah, they've stopped pretending this is anything but a whitewash.
I saw a meme that sums it up:

Trump shoots someone dead on the Senate floor. He is acquitted 47-53.
Unless the person he shot was a Republican Senator: then 47-52.
--
David Goldfarb |"It is curious that a dog runs already
***@gmail.com | on the escalator."
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Bella Abzug
Paul S Person
2020-02-02 18:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were said to
favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population as a whole,
49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with independents
and Dems even higher.

But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the reporter didn't
get confused?
Post by David Goldfarb
But yeah, they've stopped pretending this is anything but a whitewash.
Trump shoots someone dead on the Senate floor. He is acquitted 47-53.
Unless the person he shot was a Republican Senator: then 47-52.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-02-02 19:35:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were said to
favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population as a whole,
49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with independents
and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the reporter didn't
get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else having to do
with the impeachment monkey show.

If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as much
leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is just playing to
the peanut gallery.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
But yeah, they've stopped pretending this is anything but a whitewash.
Trump shoots someone dead on the Senate floor. He is acquitted 47-53.
Unless the person he shot was a Republican Senator: then 47-52.
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-03 00:04:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were said to
favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population as a whole,
49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with independents
and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the reporter didn't
get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else having to do
with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as much
leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is just playing to
the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to leverage a foreign country into damaging his political opponents.
Ninapenda Jibini
2020-02-03 01:56:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 6:35:10 AM UTC+11, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were
said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take
this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population as a
whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the reporter
didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as
much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is just
playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to leverage
a foreign country into damaging his political opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At least
they're consistent.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-03 03:46:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 6:35:10 AM UTC+11, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were
said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take
this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population as a
whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the reporter
didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as
much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is just
playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to leverage
a foreign country into damaging his political opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At least
they're consistent.
When would that have been Terry?
Ninapenda Jibini
2020-02-03 07:53:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 12:56:08 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 6:35:10 AM UTC+11, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base
were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they
will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population as
a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as
much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is
just playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At
least they're consistent.
When would that have been Terry?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/five-times-obama-put-conditions-on-
foreign-aid-and-democrats-didnt-care/

for starters. And that's just Obama.

Note, especially, #1, in which Obama did exactly the same thing
with Ukraine, except to kill an investigation into Hunter Biden's
quid pro quo arrangement for access to the White House.

That took me less than 10 seconds to find, five of which were
waiting for my browser to open.

You didn't know this because you *choose* not to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-03 13:49:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 12:56:08 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base
were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they
will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population as
a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as
much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is
just playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At
least they're consistent.
When would that have been Terry?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/five-times-obama-put-conditions-on-
foreign-aid-and-democrats-didnt-care/
for starters. And that's just Obama.
Note, especially, #1, in which Obama did exactly the same thing
with Ukraine, except to kill an investigation into Hunter Biden's
quid pro quo arrangement for access to the White House.
That took me less than 10 seconds to find, five of which were
waiting for my browser to open.
You didn't know this because you *choose* not to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome
None of them are cases where the president is trying to to force a foreign country to announce an investigation into a domestic political opponent.

Frankly that attempt is so pathetic Lynn would be ashamed of it.
Ninapenda Jibini
2020-02-03 15:06:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 6:53:06 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 6:35:10 AM UTC+11, J.
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:51:39 GMT,
In article
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican
Base were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder
how they will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population
as a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor
as much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment
is just playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At
least they're consistent.
When would that have been Terry?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/five-times-obama-put-conditions-on-
foreign-aid-and-democrats-didnt-care/
for starters. And that's just Obama.
Note, especially, #1, in which Obama did exactly the same thing
with Ukraine, except to kill an investigation into Hunter
Biden's quid pro quo arrangement for access to the White House.
That took me less than 10 seconds to find, five of which were
waiting for my browser to open.
You didn't know this because you *choose* not to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome
None of them are cases where the president is trying to to force
a foreign country to announce an investigation into a domestic
political opponent.
All of them is the President interfering with an investigation into
their own internal corruption for the political benefit of the
President and his party here.

But, of course, you don't care about any form of corruption that
*your* party engages in, only that which you can hallucinate that
Trump engages in, *even* *if* *they* *are* *the* *same* *thing*.
Frankly that attempt is so pathetic Lynn would be ashamed of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome

People (and I use the term loosely) like you have absolutely
guaranteed that Trump will be reelected. So keep up the good work.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-03 16:13:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 6:53:06 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At
least they're consistent.
When would that have been Terry?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/five-times-obama-put-conditions-on-
foreign-aid-and-democrats-didnt-care/
for starters. And that's just Obama.
Note, especially, #1, in which Obama did exactly the same thing
with Ukraine, except to kill an investigation into Hunter
Biden's quid pro quo arrangement for access to the White House.
That took me less than 10 seconds to find, five of which were
waiting for my browser to open.
You didn't know this because you *choose* not to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome
None of them are cases where the president is trying to to force
a foreign country to announce an investigation into a domestic
political opponent.
All of them is the President interfering with an investigation into
their own internal corruption for the political benefit of the
President and his party here.
So Terry believes that linking foreign aid to
- requiring a peace agreement in Columbia
- not passing a bill that makes consensual same sex activity punishable with 10-14 years imprisonment in Nigeria
- not passing a bill that makes consensual same sex activity punishable with life imprisonment in Uganda
- putting restrictions on how Israel could spend _38_billion_ in military aid, limiting it to being spent buying US military equipment
- removing a prosecutor who's renowned for turning a blind eye to corruption in a country with problems with corruption.

Are exactly the same as trying to force a country to announce an investigation into an american citizen to damage a political opponent.
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
But, of course, you don't care about any form of corruption that
*your* party engages in, only that which you can hallucinate that
Trump engages in, *even* *if* *they* *are* *the* *same* *thing*.
Have you been watching Fox news for enough talking points that it's actually rotted your brain?
You were always an arsehole but now you're at Shawn levels of pathetic
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-03 15:42:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 2:06:20 AM UTC+11, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 6:53:06 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 12:56:08 PM UTC+11,
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it.
At least they're consistent.
When would that have been Terry?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/five-times-obama-put-conditions-
on- foreign-aid-and-democrats-didnt-care/
for starters. And that's just Obama.
Note, especially, #1, in which Obama did exactly the same
thing with Ukraine, except to kill an investigation into
Hunter Biden's quid pro quo arrangement for access to the
White House.
That took me less than 10 seconds to find, five of which
were waiting for my browser to open.
You didn't know this because you *choose* not to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome
None of them are cases where the president is trying to to
force a foreign country to announce an investigation into a
domestic political opponent.
All of them is the President interfering with an investigation
into their own internal corruption for the political benefit of
the President and his party here.
So Terry believes that linking foreign aid to
- requiring a peace agreement in Columbia
Forcing a sovereign government to make peace with terrorists who
have killed tens, at least, of thousands of people while publicly
proclaiming the the US does not negoiate with terrorists - for the
political advantage of his party.
- not passing a bill that makes consensual same sex activity
punishable with 10-14 years imprisonment in Nigeria
Interfering with the interal politics of a sovereign state for the
political advantage of his party.
- not
passing a bill that makes consensual same sex activity
punishable with life imprisonment in Uganda
Interfering with the interal politics of a sovereign state for the
political advantage of his party.
- putting
restrictions on how Israel could spend _38_billion_ in military
aid, limiting it to being spent buying US military equipment
At the expense of their domestic military industry, thus making
their very survival (literal, personal survival, at that) utterly
dependent on the US, which has a long and nearly *universal*
history of fucking over its allies for political gain at home.
-
removing a prosecutor who's renowned for turning a blind eye to
corruption in a country with problems with corruption.
Specifically to protect the VP's son, who is directly and
personally involved in that corruption, in such an obvious way the
VP publicly bragged about it.
Are exactly the same as trying to force a country to announce an
investigation into an american citizen to damage a political
opponent.
Indeed, they are all exactly the same thing: quid pro quo. Which is
what diplomacy is, all the time.

It's good when your party does it, and it's bad when Trump does it,
and that's the *only* difference: whether or not you like the
person doing it.

Which is pretty mcuh the definition of hypocrisy (and corruption).
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
But, of course, you don't care about any form of corruption
that *your* party engages in, only that which you can
hallucinate that Trump engages in, *even* *if* *they* *are*
*the* *same* *thing*.
Have you been watching Fox news for enough talking points that
it's actually rotted your brain? You were always an arsehole but
now you're at Shawn levels of pathetic
You keep snipping out this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome

That won't make your illness go away. Get past the denial and get
help, son.

But make sure Trump wins in November first, please.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-04 00:39:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 2:06:20 AM UTC+11, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 12:56:08 PM UTC+11,
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it.
At least they're consistent.
When would that have been Terry?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/five-times-obama-put-conditions-
on- foreign-aid-and-democrats-didnt-care/
for starters. And that's just Obama.
Note, especially, #1, in which Obama did exactly the same
thing with Ukraine, except to kill an investigation into
Hunter Biden's quid pro quo arrangement for access to the
White House.
That took me less than 10 seconds to find, five of which
were waiting for my browser to open.
You didn't know this because you *choose* not to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome
None of them are cases where the president is trying to to
force a foreign country to announce an investigation into a
domestic political opponent.
All of them is the President interfering with an investigation
into their own internal corruption for the political benefit of
the President and his party here.
So Terry believes that linking foreign aid to
- requiring a peace agreement in Columbia
Forcing a sovereign government to make peace with terrorists who
have killed tens, at least, of thousands of people while publicly
proclaiming the the US does not negoiate with terrorists - for the
political advantage of his party.
The "doesn't negotiate with terrorists" always means "we aren't bargaining to get hostages back" or similar, not that there won't be a negotiated peace plan>
Note that the Trump administration has bargained with the Taliban (and has also set a new record for most bombs dropped in Afghanistan in a calendar year)
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
- not passing a bill that makes consensual same sex activity
punishable with 10-14 years imprisonment in Nigeria
Interfering with the interal politics of a sovereign state for the
political advantage of his party.
So you want to claim any action at all that Obama took could theoretically help his party so that's exactly equivalent to Trump pushing for the announcement of an investigation into Hunter Biden...

At this point it's hard to tell if you're just trolling or whether you've dived deep enough into the right wing bullshit that you believe it now.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
- not
passing a bill that makes consensual same sex activity
punishable with life imprisonment in Uganda
Interfering with the interal politics of a sovereign state for the
political advantage of his party.
opposing human rights violations.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
- putting
restrictions on how Israel could spend _38_billion_ in military
aid, limiting it to being spent buying US military equipment
At the expense of their domestic military industry, thus making
their very survival (literal, personal survival, at that) utterly
dependent on the US, which has a long and nearly *universal*
history of fucking over its allies for political gain at home.
The _record_levels_ of aid had to be spent on US military, they could spend their own money on domestic military research and funding.

It's still not targeting a domestic political rival.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
removing a prosecutor who's renowned for turning a blind eye to
corruption in a country with problems with corruption.
Specifically to protect the VP's son, who is directly and
personally involved in that corruption, in such an obvious way the
VP publicly bragged about it.
Bzzt, incorrect
The investigation had been shelved for a year.
It was restarted by the new prosecutor and Barusma settled.

The corruption being investigated was before Hunter did any work for the company, in fact he was first hired on (and then given a board position) by the company for advice on reforming their corporate governance after the investigation was started.

So you're at Fox news levels of wrongness there.

Joe Biden has never denied that he, with the backing of the bipartisan Ukraine Caucus and most of Europe, exerted pressure to remove the prosecutor. There is no evidence at all that it happened to protect Hunter seeing as he wasn't involved with the company when the corruption did occur.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Are exactly the same as trying to force a country to announce an
investigation into an american citizen to damage a political
opponent.
Indeed, they are all exactly the same thing: quid pro quo. Which is
what diplomacy is, all the time.
As president you are meant to be prioritising your country, not your political party or yourself.
Trump was trying to get an investigation into Hunter Biden for his own political benefit.

The examples you give have
- an attempt to get a peace settlement
- protecting gay people from human rights abuses
- restrictions meaning that US donations to the Israeli military have to be spent on US companies
- taking action to reduce corruption in a foreign country

If you honestly believe those are equivalent to what Trump did you're now at Shawn levels of stupidity
If you don't but you're willing to bullshit that they are for your amusement you really need to get over yourself.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
It's good when your party does it, and it's bad when Trump does it,
and that's the *only* difference: whether or not you like the
person doing it.
bullshit
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Which is pretty mcuh the definition of hypocrisy (and corruption).
Fuck off Terry.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-03 23:46:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
So you want to claim any action at all that Obama took could
theoretically help his party so that's exactly equivalent to
Trump pushing for the announcement of an investigation into
Hunter Biden...
Yes.

And the Senate agrees with me.

Deal with it.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Fuck off Terry.
Truth hurts, does it?
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Quadibloc
2020-02-04 16:05:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
And the Senate agrees with me.
Deal with it.
I don't know if the Senate thinks Obama did anything objectionable. In all
evidence, it just seems they find not impeaching Trump useful, and are wilfully
disregarding the oath they took before the "trial".

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-04 15:29:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 5:46:06 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
And the Senate agrees with me.
Deal with it.
I don't know if the Senate thinks Obama did anything
objectionable. In all evidence, it just seems they find not
impeaching Trump useful, and are wilfully disregarding the oath
they took before the "trial".
It seems that way to you because you, like so many, especialy outside
the US, suffer from TDS.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Quadibloc
2020-02-04 16:02:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by h***@gmail.com
- putting
restrictions on how Israel could spend _38_billion_ in military
aid, limiting it to being spent buying US military equipment
At the expense of their domestic military industry, thus making
their very survival (literal, personal survival, at that) utterly
dependent on the US, which has a long and nearly *universal*
history of fucking over its allies for political gain at home.
Nothing restricted Israel from spending it's own money on home-made military
equipment. The restriction merely allowed the U.S. to afford to give Israel more
military aid.

While the U.S. can afford to give _goods_ to Israel, _foreign exchange_ is
something that, if given away, throws Americans out of work, because the WTO,
like GATT before it, restricts the ability of the U.S. to raise tariffs in
response to world economic conditions.

I mean, this is something the Democrats have in common with Trump: an
understanding of basic economics.

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-04 15:29:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 9:42:37 AM UTC-7, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by h***@gmail.com
- putting
restrictions on how Israel could spend _38_billion_ in
military aid, limiting it to being spent buying US military
equipment
At the expense of their domestic military industry, thus making
their very survival (literal, personal survival, at that)
utterly dependent on the US, which has a long and nearly
*universal* history of fucking over its allies for political
gain at home.
Nothing restricted Israel from spending it's own money on
home-made military equipment.
That's as naive a claim as anything you've ever said.
I mean, this is something the Democrats have in common with
Trump: an understanding of basic economics.
That would be the Democrats who keep touting idiocy like "basic
income" when they clearly have no clue where the giveaway money would
come from?
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Alan Baker
2020-02-03 17:30:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 6:53:06 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At
least they're consistent.
When would that have been Terry?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/five-times-obama-put-conditions-on-
foreign-aid-and-democrats-didnt-care/
for starters. And that's just Obama.
Note, especially, #1, in which Obama did exactly the same thing
with Ukraine, except to kill an investigation into Hunter
Biden's quid pro quo arrangement for access to the White House.
That took me less than 10 seconds to find, five of which were
waiting for my browser to open.
You didn't know this because you *choose* not to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome
None of them are cases where the president is trying to to force
a foreign country to announce an investigation into a domestic
political opponent.
All of them is the President interfering with an investigation into
their own internal corruption for the political benefit of the
President and his party here.
So Terry believes that linking foreign aid to
- requiring a peace agreement in Columbia
- not passing a bill that makes consensual same sex activity punishable with 10-14 years imprisonment in Nigeria
- not passing a bill that makes consensual same sex activity punishable with life imprisonment in Uganda
- putting restrictions on how Israel could spend _38_billion_ in military aid, limiting it to being spent buying US military equipment
- removing a prosecutor who's renowned for turning a blind eye to corruption in a country with problems with corruption.
Are exactly the same as trying to force a country to announce an investigation into an american citizen to damage a political opponent.
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
But, of course, you don't care about any form of corruption that
*your* party engages in, only that which you can hallucinate that
Trump engages in, *even* *if* *they* *are* *the* *same* *thing*.
Have you been watching Fox news for enough talking points that it's actually rotted your brain?
You were always an arsehole but now you're at Shawn levels of pathetic
Well said.
Paul S Person
2020-02-03 18:47:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:56:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 6:35:10 AM UTC+11, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were
said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take
this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population as a
whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the reporter
didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as
much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is just
playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to leverage
a foreign country into damaging his political opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At least
they're consistent.
This degenerated into a very interesting discussion.

But not a relevant discussion.

What Trump did violated /campaign law/. That is what makes it an
impeachable offense.

The other items cited did not violate /campaign law/, and very likely
did not violate any law.

And the Republicans were in charge of both House and Senate, and
/they/ are the ones who decided Obama's actions were A-OK with them.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-03 21:03:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:56:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 6:35:10 AM UTC+11, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base
were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they
will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population as
a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as
much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is just
playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At least
they're consistent.
This degenerated into a very interesting discussion.
But not a relevant discussion.
What Trump did violated /campaign law/. That is what makes it an
impeachable offense.
The other items cited did not violate /campaign law/, and very
likely did not violate any law.
And the Republicans were in charge of both House and Senate, and
/they/ are the ones who decided Obama's actions were A-OK with
them.
And they are currently deciding that Trump's actions are A-OK with
them, too. Well, they decided that before the clown college in the
House even started impeachment proceedings.

Impeachment is meaningless (except in terms of raising money for
the party doing it) if there's zero chance of conviction.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-04 00:24:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Impeachment is meaningless (except in terms of raising money for
the party doing it) if there's zero chance of conviction.
Nope, opposing something that's wrong isn't meaningless even if you don't win.
Dimensional Traveler
2020-02-04 03:39:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:56:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 6:35:10 AM UTC+11, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base
were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they
will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population as
a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as
much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is just
playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At least
they're consistent.
This degenerated into a very interesting discussion.
But not a relevant discussion.
What Trump did violated /campaign law/. That is what makes it an
impeachable offense.
The other items cited did not violate /campaign law/, and very
likely did not violate any law.
And the Republicans were in charge of both House and Senate, and
/they/ are the ones who decided Obama's actions were A-OK with them.
And they are currently deciding that Trump's actions are A-OK with
them, too. Well, they decided that before the clown college in the
House even started impeachment proceedings.
Impeachment is meaningless (except in terms of raising money for
the party doing it) if there's zero chance of conviction.
Well, it did get the GOP to admit that having a corrupt president is okay.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
J. Clarke
2020-02-04 04:02:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 19:39:42 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:56:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base
were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they
will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population as
a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as
much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is just
playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At least
they're consistent.
This degenerated into a very interesting discussion.
But not a relevant discussion.
What Trump did violated /campaign law/. That is what makes it an
impeachable offense.
The other items cited did not violate /campaign law/, and very
likely did not violate any law.
And the Republicans were in charge of both House and Senate, and
/they/ are the ones who decided Obama's actions were A-OK with them.
And they are currently deciding that Trump's actions are A-OK with
them, too. Well, they decided that before the clown college in the
House even started impeachment proceedings.
Impeachment is meaningless (except in terms of raising money for
the party doing it) if there's zero chance of conviction.
Well, it did get the GOP to admit that having a corrupt president is okay.
You're assuming that the GOP believes that he's corrupt. I realize
that it is inconcievable to a Democrat that this could be the case,
but, you keep using this word . . .
Alan Baker
2020-02-04 04:16:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 19:39:42 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:56:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base
were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they
will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population as
a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as
much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is just
playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At least
they're consistent.
This degenerated into a very interesting discussion.
But not a relevant discussion.
What Trump did violated /campaign law/. That is what makes it an
impeachable offense.
The other items cited did not violate /campaign law/, and very
likely did not violate any law.
And the Republicans were in charge of both House and Senate, and
/they/ are the ones who decided Obama's actions were A-OK with them.
And they are currently deciding that Trump's actions are A-OK with
them, too. Well, they decided that before the clown college in the
House even started impeachment proceedings.
Impeachment is meaningless (except in terms of raising money for
the party doing it) if there's zero chance of conviction.
Well, it did get the GOP to admit that having a corrupt president is okay.
You're assuming that the GOP believes that he's corrupt. I realize
that it is inconcievable to a Democrat that this could be the case,
but, you keep using this word . . .
They do believe he's corrupt. That's beyond a shadow of a doubt.

They just settled for the rationalization that he's not corrupt ENOUGH
to remove.
Ninapenda Jibini
2020-02-04 06:32:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:56:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base
were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they
will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population
as a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as
much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is
just playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At
least they're consistent.
This degenerated into a very interesting discussion.
But not a relevant discussion.
What Trump did violated /campaign law/. That is what makes it
an impeachable offense.
The other items cited did not violate /campaign law/, and very
likely did not violate any law.
And the Republicans were in charge of both House and Senate,
and /they/ are the ones who decided Obama's actions were A-OK
with them.
And they are currently deciding that Trump's actions are A-OK
with them, too. Well, they decided that before the clown
college in the House even started impeachment proceedings.
Impeachment is meaningless (except in terms of raising money
for the party doing it) if there's zero chance of conviction.
Well, it did get the GOP to admit that having a corrupt
president is okay.
Which the Democrats not only admitted, but bragged about, long ago.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
The Doctor
2020-02-04 16:30:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:56:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base
were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they
will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population
as a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as
much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is
just playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At
least they're consistent.
This degenerated into a very interesting discussion.
But not a relevant discussion.
What Trump did violated /campaign law/. That is what makes it
an impeachable offense.
The other items cited did not violate /campaign law/, and very
likely did not violate any law.
And the Republicans were in charge of both House and Senate,
and /they/ are the ones who decided Obama's actions were A-OK
with them.
And they are currently deciding that Trump's actions are A-OK
with them, too. Well, they decided that before the clown
college in the House even started impeachment proceedings.
Impeachment is meaningless (except in terms of raising money
for the party doing it) if there's zero chance of conviction.
Well, it did get the GOP to admit that having a corrupt
president is okay.
Which the Democrats not only admitted, but bragged about, long ago.
Since Obama left, the Democrats are floundering.
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
--
Terry Austin
Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
A problem is a chance for you to do your best. -Duke Ellington
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-04 15:38:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:56:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 6:35:10 AM UTC+11, J.
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:51:39 GMT,
In article
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican
Base were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder
how they will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population
as a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor
as much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment
is just playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At
least they're consistent.
This degenerated into a very interesting discussion.
But not a relevant discussion.
What Trump did violated /campaign law/. That is what makes
it an impeachable offense.
The other items cited did not violate /campaign law/, and
very likely did not violate any law.
And the Republicans were in charge of both House and Senate,
and /they/ are the ones who decided Obama's actions were
A-OK with them.
And they are currently deciding that Trump's actions are A-OK
with them, too. Well, they decided that before the clown
college in the House even started impeachment proceedings.
Impeachment is meaningless (except in terms of raising money
for the party doing it) if there's zero chance of conviction.
Well, it did get the GOP to admit that having a corrupt
president is okay.
Which the Democrats not only admitted, but bragged about, long
ago.
Since Obama left, the Democrats are floundering.
Not really. They had a Plan. Hillary was to be Business as Usual
on the corruption train. What derailed them was when Trump won,
not when Obama termed out.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-04 00:44:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:56:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 6:35:10 AM UTC+11, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were
said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take
this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population as a
whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the reporter
didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as
much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is just
playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to leverage
a foreign country into damaging his political opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At least
they're consistent.
This degenerated into a very interesting discussion.
But not a relevant discussion.
What Trump did violated /campaign law/. That is what makes it an
impeachable offense.
The other items cited did not violate /campaign law/, and very likely
did not violate any law.
High Crimes and Misdemeanours is a legal term of art.
It includes more than just crimes
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-03 23:48:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:56:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base
were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they
will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population
as a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as
much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is
just playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At
least they're consistent.
This degenerated into a very interesting discussion.
But not a relevant discussion.
What Trump did violated /campaign law/. That is what makes it
an impeachable offense.
The other items cited did not violate /campaign law/, and very
likely did not violate any law.
High Crimes and Misdemeanours is a legal term of art.
It includes more than just crimes
It also includes less than just crimes, which is to say, it has
nothing whatsoever do to with criminal acts.

What it really means is "anything whatsoever that pisses off the
House enough to impeach and the Senate enough to convict."

It was _intenionally_ left vague, because the framers recognized -
and wrote - that impeachment is so inherently political a matter
that it can only be handled politically.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Dimensional Traveler
2020-02-04 03:42:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:56:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base
were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they
will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population
as a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor as
much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment is
just playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At
least they're consistent.
This degenerated into a very interesting discussion.
But not a relevant discussion.
What Trump did violated /campaign law/. That is what makes it
an impeachable offense.
The other items cited did not violate /campaign law/, and very
likely did not violate any law.
High Crimes and Misdemeanours is a legal term of art.
It includes more than just crimes
It also includes less than just crimes, which is to say, it has
nothing whatsoever do to with criminal acts.
What it really means is "anything whatsoever that pisses off the
House enough to impeach and the Senate enough to convict."
It was _intenionally_ left vague, because the framers recognized -
and wrote - that impeachment is so inherently political a matter
that it can only be handled politically.
An issue (for lack of a better word) with that is the framers were
apparently not anticipating the evolution of a two-party political system.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Ninapenda Jibini
2020-02-04 06:34:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 5:48:08 AM UTC+11, Paul S
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:56:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:51:39 GMT,
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base
were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they
will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population
as a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor
as much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment
is just playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At
least they're consistent.
This degenerated into a very interesting discussion.
But not a relevant discussion.
What Trump did violated /campaign law/. That is what makes it
an impeachable offense.
The other items cited did not violate /campaign law/, and
very likely did not violate any law.
High Crimes and Misdemeanours is a legal term of art.
It includes more than just crimes
It also includes less than just crimes, which is to say, it has
nothing whatsoever do to with criminal acts.
What it really means is "anything whatsoever that pisses off
the House enough to impeach and the Senate enough to convict."
It was _intenionally_ left vague, because the framers
recognized - and wrote - that impeachment is so inherently
political a matter that it can only be handled politically.
An issue (for lack of a better word) with that is the framers
were apparently not anticipating the evolution of a two-party
political system.
Doesn't really change the fact that impeachment is inherently a
purely political process.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dimensional Traveler
2020-02-04 07:16:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 5:48:08 AM UTC+11, Paul S
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:56:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:51:39 GMT,
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base
were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they
will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population
as a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything else
having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor
as much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment
is just playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At
least they're consistent.
This degenerated into a very interesting discussion.
But not a relevant discussion.
What Trump did violated /campaign law/. That is what makes it
an impeachable offense.
The other items cited did not violate /campaign law/, and
very likely did not violate any law.
High Crimes and Misdemeanours is a legal term of art.
It includes more than just crimes
It also includes less than just crimes, which is to say, it has
nothing whatsoever do to with criminal acts.
What it really means is "anything whatsoever that pisses off
the House enough to impeach and the Senate enough to convict."
It was _intenionally_ left vague, because the framers
recognized - and wrote - that impeachment is so inherently
political a matter that it can only be handled politically.
An issue (for lack of a better word) with that is the framers
were apparently not anticipating the evolution of a two-party
political system.
Doesn't really change the fact that impeachment is inherently a
purely political process.
But a different _kind_ of political than was envisioned.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-04 15:26:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 5:48:08 AM UTC+11, Paul S
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:56:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 6:35:10 AM UTC+11, J.
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:51:39 GMT,
In article
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican
Base were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder
how they will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA
population as a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything
else having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd favor
as much leniency as the law allows. But the impeachment
is just playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it. At
least they're consistent.
This degenerated into a very interesting discussion.
But not a relevant discussion.
What Trump did violated /campaign law/. That is what makes
it an impeachable offense.
The other items cited did not violate /campaign law/, and
very likely did not violate any law.
High Crimes and Misdemeanours is a legal term of art.
It includes more than just crimes
It also includes less than just crimes, which is to say, it
has nothing whatsoever do to with criminal acts.
What it really means is "anything whatsoever that pisses off
the House enough to impeach and the Senate enough to
convict."
It was _intenionally_ left vague, because the framers
recognized - and wrote - that impeachment is so inherently
political a matter that it can only be handled politically.
An issue (for lack of a better word) with that is the framers
were apparently not anticipating the evolution of a two-party
political system.
Doesn't really change the fact that impeachment is inherently a
purely political process.
But a different _kind_ of political than was envisioned.
And? What would you suggest as an alterantive to handling a
political issue other than politically? (Note: "Trump is a poopy
head so Hillary Clinton is automatically President" doesn't
count.)
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-04 20:09:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On 2/3/2020 3:48 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 01:56:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 6:35:10 AM UTC+11, J.
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:41:30 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:51:39 GMT,
In article
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican
Base were said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder
how they will take this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA
population as a whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans,
with independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the
reporter didn't get confused?
Personally I don't care about witnesses, or anything
else having to do with the impeachment monkey show.
If Pelosi walked up to Trump and shot him dead I'd
favor as much leniency as the law allows. But the
impeachment is just playing to the peanut gallery.
Yeah, they should just ignore a president attempting to
leverage a foreign country into damaging his political
opponents.
Well, they ignored it when *their* President(s) did it.
At least they're consistent.
This degenerated into a very interesting discussion.
But not a relevant discussion.
What Trump did violated /campaign law/. That is what
makes it an impeachable offense.
The other items cited did not violate /campaign law/, and
very likely did not violate any law.
High Crimes and Misdemeanours is a legal term of art.
It includes more than just crimes
It also includes less than just crimes, which is to say, it
has nothing whatsoever do to with criminal acts.
What it really means is "anything whatsoever that pisses
off the House enough to impeach and the Senate enough to
convict."
It was _intenionally_ left vague, because the framers
recognized - and wrote - that impeachment is so inherently
political a matter that it can only be handled politically.
An issue (for lack of a better word) with that is the
framers were apparently not anticipating the evolution of a
two-party political system.
Doesn't really change the fact that impeachment is inherently
a purely political process.
But a different _kind_ of political than was envisioned.
And? What would you suggest as an alterantive to handling a
political issue other than politically? (Note: "Trump is a
poopy head so Hillary Clinton is automatically President"
doesn't count.)
Note: Trump's dead head tribble is the wrong color to be poop.
It's not that far off from Baby Shit Yellow. (Which was an
automotive paint color available at a particular speed shop in St.
Louis in the 70s. That was the name printed on the can. No idea if
it was universally used.)
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Joe Bernstein
2020-02-04 19:02:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Doesn't really change the fact that impeachment is inherently a
purely political process.
Inherently? Occasionally judges get impeached for corruption. I
grant politics can get involved in that, but is it really a *purely*
political process?

Impeachments *of presidents*, admittedly, have all been just about
purely political. I mean, yes, Johnson broke a (bad) law, Nixon
and Clinton broke laws, dunno about Trump (in this regard; I'm
pretty sure he's broken others), but none of those impeachments were
aimed at placing the presidents within reach of criminal prosecution,
they were all aimed at getting them out of office, which is political,
or at least humiliating them, which is even more political.

If, next year, President X went and got an automatic rifle and gunned
down everyone sleeping at some military base, maybe then his
impeachment would be aimed at criminal prosecution, but so far, we
haven't had a president crazy enough to break a law we really care
about enforcing. Still, this example means I don't think your
"inherently" even applies to impeachments of presidents.

-- JLB
Kevrob
2020-02-04 20:17:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Doesn't really change the fact that impeachment is inherently a
purely political process.
Inherently? Occasionally judges get impeached for corruption. I
grant politics can get involved in that, but is it really a *purely*
political process?
Impeachments *of presidents*, admittedly, have all been just about
purely political. I mean, yes, Johnson broke a (bad) law. . . .
The idea that Congress could limit the President's prerogative to
remove officers he has appointed, was eventually found unconstitutional.
On the violations of the Tenure of Office Act, Johnson should have
been acquitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_v._United_States
Post by Joe Bernstein
....Nixon and Clinton broke laws, dunno about Trump (in this regard; I'm
pretty sure he's broken others), but none of those impeachments were
aimed at placing the presidents within reach of criminal prosecution,
they were all aimed at getting them out of office, which is political,
or at least humiliating them, which is even more political.
If, next year, President X went and got an automatic rifle and gunned
down everyone sleeping at some military base, maybe then his
impeachment would be aimed at criminal prosecution, but so far, we
haven't had a president crazy enough to break a law we really care
about enforcing. Still, this example means I don't think your
"inherently" even applies to impeachments of presidents.
Real life:

"I have the most loyal people, did you ever see that?
I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot
people and I wouldn’t lose voters,” he (Trump) said."

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/266809-trump-i-could-shoot-people-in-streets-and-not-lose-support

Trump might not be impeachable for an opinion expressed before he,
was even elected, but it illustrates his dismissive attitude toward
the rule of law.

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-04 20:08:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Doesn't really change the fact that impeachment is inherently
a purely political process.
Inherently? Occasionally judges get impeached for corruption.
I grant politics can get involved in that, but is it really a
*purely* political process?
Impeachments *of presidents*, admittedly, have all been just
about purely political. I mean, yes, Johnson broke a (bad)
law. . . .
The idea that Congress could limit the President's prerogative
to remove officers he has appointed, was eventually found
unconstitutional. On the violations of the Tenure of Office Act,
Johnson should have been acquitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_v._United_States
Post by Joe Bernstein
....Nixon and Clinton broke laws, dunno about Trump (in this
regard; I'm
pretty sure he's broken others), but none of those impeachments
were aimed at placing the presidents within reach of criminal
prosecution, they were all aimed at getting them out of office,
which is political, or at least humiliating them, which is even
more political.
If, next year, President X went and got an automatic rifle and
gunned down everyone sleeping at some military base, maybe then
his impeachment would be aimed at criminal prosecution, but so
far, we haven't had a president crazy enough to break a law we
really care about enforcing. Still, this example means I don't
think your "inherently" even applies to impeachments of
presidents.
"I have the most loyal people, did you ever see that?
I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot
people and I wouldn’t lose voters,” he (Trump) said."
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/266809-trump-i
-could-shoot-people-in-streets-and-not-lose-support
Trump might not be impeachable for an opinion expressed before
he, was even elected, but it illustrates his dismissive attitude
toward the rule of law.
Your confusing his Hollywood informed comment of popularity with a
stated intent illustrates Trump Derangement Syndrom.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-04 20:06:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Doesn't really change the fact that impeachment is inherently a
purely political process.
Inherently?
Yes. Inherently. Read the Federalist Paper discussion of it.
Post by Joe Bernstein
Occasionally judges get impeached for corruption.
I grant politics can get involved in that, but is it really a
*purely* political process?
There was a specific discussion among the framers of the
impeachment of the President, specifically, and whether or not the
Constituion should have a process for it. Both sides arguments
stemmed from a clear understanding that it would be, and *must* be,
an inherently political act.

So if you want to be pedantic, I will amend it to "impeachment of
the President specifically."

Nobody was talking about any other impeachments.
Post by Joe Bernstein
Impeachments *of presidents*, admittedly, have all been just
about purely political.
And cannot be otherwise. The framers knew that.
Post by Joe Bernstein
I mean, yes, Johnson broke a (bad) law,
Nixon and Clinton broke laws, dunno about Trump (in this regard;
I'm pretty sure he's broken others), but none of those
impeachments were aimed at placing the presidents within reach
of criminal prosecution, they were all aimed at getting them out
of office, which is political, or at least humiliating them,
which is even more political.
If, next year, President X went and got an automatic rifle and
gunned down everyone sleeping at some military base, maybe then
his impeachment would be aimed at criminal prosecution, but so
far, we haven't had a president crazy enough to break a law we
really care about enforcing. Still, this example means I don't
think
Clearly.
Post by Joe Bernstein
your "inherently" even applies to impeachments of
presidents.
The people who wrote the Constitution do not agree with you. They
do agree with me.

They were very wise.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Joe Bernstein
2020-02-04 23:07:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Doesn't really change the fact that impeachment is inherently a
purely political process.
Inherently?
Yes. Inherently. Read the Federalist Paper discussion of it.
[judges - amendment accepted]
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Joe Bernstein
Impeachments *of presidents*, admittedly, have all been just
about purely political.
And cannot be otherwise. The framers knew that.
See, I don't see that "purely", or anything equivalent to it, in
<Federalist> 65 and 66. Hamilton *considered* impeachment entirely
in a political light, but didn't thereby say, for example, that it
couldn't be seen in a journalistic light, say.

"The subjects of [the impeachment power's] jurisdiction are those
offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in
other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They
are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated
POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the
society itself."
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Joe Bernstein
If, next year, President X went and got an automatic rifle and
gunned down everyone sleeping at some military base, maybe then
his impeachment would be aimed at criminal prosecution, but so
far, we haven't had a president crazy enough to break a law we
really care about enforcing. Still, this example means I don't
think [snip gratuitous insult]
your "inherently" even applies to impeachments of
presidents.
The people who wrote the Constitution do not agree with you. They
do agree with me.
"The punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon
impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender.
After having been sentenced to a perpetual ostracism from the esteem
and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will
still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course
of law."
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
They were very wise.
Actually, another part of the same number I've been quoting (65) may
have been wise, but still turned out wrong. He's comparing the
Senate and the Supreme Court for the gravity and dignity of each:

"What other body [than the Senate] would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE
ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced,
the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?
"Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this
description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that
tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of
fortitude ... and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would
possess the degree of credit and authority" [to refuse to convict when
the 'people's House' brought charges].

As things turned out, in the 1790s both institutions were pretty much
jokes, members coming and going every year because the jobs were so
unimpressive. But at the very beginning of the 19th century John
Marshall got the Supreme Court a pride in office that has sustained
it ever since. It took until about the 1840s for the examples set by
Webster, Clay and Calhoun to settle in at the Senate.

Anyway, though. I'm not objecting to "purely political" as a
description of the impeachments of presidents we've seen so far. And
I'm not objecting to "inherently political" as a description of the
impeachment of presidents in general. But I am objecting to
"inherently purely political".

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
Paul S Person
2020-02-05 18:12:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 23:07:46 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Doesn't really change the fact that impeachment is inherently a
purely political process.
Inherently?
Yes. Inherently. Read the Federalist Paper discussion of it.
[judges - amendment accepted]
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Joe Bernstein
Impeachments *of presidents*, admittedly, have all been just
about purely political.
And cannot be otherwise. The framers knew that.
See, I don't see that "purely", or anything equivalent to it, in
<Federalist> 65 and 66. Hamilton *considered* impeachment entirely
in a political light, but didn't thereby say, for example, that it
couldn't be seen in a journalistic light, say.
"The subjects of [the impeachment power's] jurisdiction are those
offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in
other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They
are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated
POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the
society itself."
IOW, the meaning of "political" is the same as Aristotle's (?)
statement that "man is a political animal" -- that meant "man is an
animal that lives in a polis [town/city]". It refers, not to
ideological excess or concern over who will win the next election, but
to "society itself".

This, of course, is quite different from the Republican usage. And,
quite likely, the Dem usage as well. Truly, we have lost our way.

BTW, did anyone else think that the Trump Defense can be summarized in
three words:
Trump is God
?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Ninapenda Jibini
2020-02-03 01:55:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were
said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take
this event?
The numbers I saw were 79% of the polled USA population as a
whole, 49% of Republicans.
The one that caught my eye had 77% of Republicans, with
independents and Dems even higher.
But it was a fairly small sample. And who can say the reporter
didn't get confused?
Or knew exactly what he was shoveling.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Johnny1A
2020-02-04 08:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:41:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
This column
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/america-in-2020-king-george-gets-his-revenge/
shows what one Canadian, at least, thinks that the vote against calling witnesses
in the Senate means for America's future.
Hardly unexpected.
how many coats of whitewash will the Republicans apply?
They don't need any. The Dems presented no case. They couldn't even name thhe offense.
Post by J. Clarke
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were said to
favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take this event?
Indifference. Everybody knows this whole thing is a farce by now. Both sides are mostly going through the motions. Unless the Dems could turn Trump's base voters against him, acquittal was always written in stone, because they'd need about 20 GOP Senators to cross over. Crossing over while Trump's voters are solid would be sheer political _suicide_, and they know it.

So it always came down to whether Schiff could convince Trump's voters that he was more believable and trustworthy than Trump. Schiff failed to achieve that goal, so impeachment became a meaningless show.
Post by J. Clarke
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest it,
passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
This show isn't over yet.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
This show is over, dead, and buried. Even if Trump were to really do something that merited impeachment now, trying to restart this process after this debacle would almost surely be a political non-starter, esp. this close to November.

Not to say that the Dems won't try something else, they will. They're desperate, and throwing things against the wall to see what sticks (and excite their base, turnout is critical).
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-04 15:36:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 12:20:15 PM UTC-6, Paul S
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:41:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
This column
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/america-in-2020-king-george-get
s-his-rev
enge/
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
shows what one Canadian, at least, thinks that the vote
against calling
witnesses
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
in the Senate means for America's future.
Hardly unexpected.
how many coats of whitewash will the Republicans apply?
They don't need any. The Dems presented no case. They couldn't even name thhe offense.
Post by J. Clarke
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were
said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take
this event?
Indifference. Everybody knows this whole thing is a farce by
now.
Now? It was a farce three years ago when Trump won, and the
Democrats were talking about impeachment before he even took
office.
So it always came down to whether Schiff could convince Trump's
voters that he was more believable and trustworthy than Trump.
Schiff failed to achieve that goal, so impeachment became a
meaningless show.
There was never any possibility of Schiff being taken seriously by
anyone outside of LaLa Land, which includes 100% of Trump's base.
Everybody, including Schiff, knew that all along.

Nor was there an *intention* for impeachment to be real. Cults need
a boogey man, and the left could not possibly hope for a better
boogey man than Trump. If they actually managed to get rid of him,
they'd lose millions in fund raising, and end up with a President
who is every bit as anathama to their base, if not more so, and
more experienced at professional politics.

If party leadership of both parties had met in a smoke filled room
and planned this as a fund raising stunt on purpose, it would have
turned out *exactly* the same.
Post by J. Clarke
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest
it, passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
This show isn't over yet.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
This show is over, dead, and buried. Even if Trump were to
really do something that merited impeachment now, trying to
restart this process after this debacle would almost surely be a
political non-starter, esp. this close to November.
Not to say that the Dems won't try something else, they will.
They're desperate, and throwing things against the wall to see
what sticks (and excite their base, turnout is critical).
Party leadership is just biding their time until 2024, hopeing that
Trump's legacy will including a nominee they can beat. In the
meantime, they're selling outrage to the outrange monkeys in their
base, and collecting millions and millions of dollars.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
The Doctor
2020-02-04 16:37:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 12:20:15 PM UTC-6, Paul S
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:41:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
This column
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/america-in-2020-king-george-get
s-his-rev
enge/
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
shows what one Canadian, at least, thinks that the vote
against calling
witnesses
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
in the Senate means for America's future.
Hardly unexpected.
how many coats of whitewash will the Republicans apply?
They don't need any. The Dems presented no case. They couldn't even name thhe offense.
Post by J. Clarke
A while back, something like 77% of the Republican Base were
said to favor calling witnesses. I wonder how they will take
this event?
Indifference. Everybody knows this whole thing is a farce by
now.
Now? It was a farce three years ago when Trump won, and the
Democrats were talking about impeachment before he even took
office.
So it always came down to whether Schiff could convince Trump's
voters that he was more believable and trustworthy than Trump.
Schiff failed to achieve that goal, so impeachment became a
meaningless show.
There was never any possibility of Schiff being taken seriously by
anyone outside of LaLa Land, which includes 100% of Trump's base.
Everybody, including Schiff, knew that all along.
Nor was there an *intention* for impeachment to be real. Cults need
a boogey man, and the left could not possibly hope for a better
boogey man than Trump. If they actually managed to get rid of him,
they'd lose millions in fund raising, and end up with a President
who is every bit as anathama to their base, if not more so, and
more experienced at professional politics.
If party leadership of both parties had met in a smoke filled room
and planned this as a fund raising stunt on purpose, it would have
turned out *exactly* the same.
Post by J. Clarke
BTW, nothing prevents the House, should future events suggest
it, passing /new/ Articles of Impeachment.
This show isn't over yet.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
This show is over, dead, and buried. Even if Trump were to
really do something that merited impeachment now, trying to
restart this process after this debacle would almost surely be a
political non-starter, esp. this close to November.
Not to say that the Dems won't try something else, they will.
They're desperate, and throwing things against the wall to see
what sticks (and excite their base, turnout is critical).
Party leadership is just biding their time until 2024, hopeing that
Trump's legacy will including a nominee they can beat. In the
meantime, they're selling outrage to the outrange monkeys in their
base, and collecting millions and millions of dollars.
Simply put, the Democrats have lost the plot.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
--
Terry Austin
Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
A problem is a chance for you to do your best. -Duke Ellington
o***@gmail.com
2020-02-01 19:13:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
This column
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/america-in-2020-king-george-gets-his-revenge/
shows what one Canadian, at least, thinks that the vote against calling witnesses
in the Senate means for America's future.
John Savard
S'ok.......

Just more northern jealousy.

The major lesson to be learned (if one is open to learning) is that the structure of the USA is allegorically similar to....

Very good suspension -- springs, shocks, and chassis -- and a POWERFUL engine driving the greatest economic / social / legal machine in the history of mankind.......in such a way that it is capable of resisting and withstanding various shocks and attacks to the degree that render them (and internal attempts at invalidating elections) as just ripples on the water.

(....while pumping OUR OWN fuel....)

And, in our spare time, we often pull other's asses out of the fires.
Titus G
2020-02-02 01:09:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
This column
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/america-in-2020-king-george-gets-his-revenge/
shows what one Canadian, at least, thinks that the vote against calling witnesses
in the Senate means for America's future.
John Savard
S'ok.......
Just more northern jealousy.
The major lesson to be learned (if one is open to learning) is that the structure of the USA is allegorically similar to....
Very good suspension -- springs, shocks, and chassis -- and a POWERFUL engine driving the greatest economic / social / legal machine in the history of mankind.......in such a way that it is capable of resisting and withstanding various shocks and attacks to the degree that render them (and internal attempts at invalidating elections) as just ripples on the water.
The original article stated specifically with example why the model
system is corrupted and the balance lost.
Your vague generalisation would only be useful to launch a small hot air
balloon. (And would make just as much sense if chanted in North Korean.)
o***@gmail.com
2020-02-02 19:32:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
This column
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/america-in-2020-king-george-gets-his-revenge/
shows what one Canadian, at least, thinks that the vote against calling witnesses
in the Senate means for America's future.
John Savard
S'ok.......
Just more northern jealousy.
The major lesson to be learned (if one is open to learning) is that the structure of the USA is allegorically similar to....
Very good suspension -- springs, shocks, and chassis -- and a POWERFUL engine driving the greatest economic / social / legal machine in the history of mankind.......in such a way that it is capable of resisting and withstanding various shocks and attacks to the degree that render them (and internal attempts at invalidating elections) as just ripples on the water.
The original article stated specifically with example why the model
system is corrupted and the balance lost.
....nah.....

It stated why HE THOUGHT it was....which is a long way from it being so.

.....kinda like Schiff's pronouncements.....
Post by Titus G
Your vague generalisation would only be useful to launch a small hot air
balloon. (And would make just as much sense if chanted in North Korean.)
....you have learned much from MSNBC, grasshopper.....
Loading...