So Biden and or his Son are / is doing business in l’Ukraine?Problem is Democrat Joe Biden was Vice President at the time. He put the squeeze on the Ukraine government to stop criminal investigations of his son Hunter Biden who was finagling there to make money. The VP Biden squeeze is what may be illegal which ironically is what the Democrats are accusing Trump of doing asking Ukraine to start up the investigation again. It's a small world. What goes around comes around. :)
What’s wrong with you US guys? Some decades ago a person only mentioning the ussr would be hung as commie.
Now even Biden is dealing with them.
There are no certainties anymore...
At least your potus didn’t loose focus. 8)
... In any case, there are more commies and socialists and leftists here in the USA then there any more in Russia. The world is going topsy turvy.
How true! And sad. This coming from a guy who thought he safely escaped them by coming here.
Wanna see how it worked for the Bidens?Beck is a nice guy but no one watches him. Biden will continue to be protected by the leftist press. Unless they decide to throw him under the bus for Pocahontas.
https://www.facebook.com/liberalprivilegeusa/videos/667744380375147/UzpfSTc2NjU5NzIyMjoxMDE1ODA5NTEzMjc5MjIyMw/
Beck is a nice guy but no one watches him...
You may have Boris and Brexit, but we now have impeachment hearings this side of the pond to keep us entertained. And who knew you would get a different take on it depending on which papers you read and which news you watch.and what fora your read...!
and what fora your read...!
It came to me as a surprise :)
One reads both:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forum
One doesn’t read “fora” but “forums.”
Sure, as one can equally well visit one forum (in Rome), but cannot read it.
https://grammarist.com/usage/fora-forums/
Any more distractions from the topic?
Wanna see how it worked for the Bidens?
https://www.facebook.com/liberalprivilegeusa/videos/667744380375147/UzpfSTc2NjU5NzIyMjoxMDE1ODA5NTEzMjc5MjIyMw/
Well at least something interesting in this Coffee Corner ;)
BTW Does somebody know why Marylin Monroe should be THAT important at all? I know, OT...
Problem is Democrat Joe Biden was Vice President at the time. He put the squeeze on the Ukraine government to stop criminal investigations of his son Hunter Biden who was finagling there to make money. The VP Biden squeeze is what may be illegal which ironically is what the Democrats are accusing Trump of doing asking Ukraine to start up the investigation again. It's a small world. What goes around comes around. :)
This notion that Biden pressured Ukraine to not investigate his son is hogwash. For example, a quote from the Washington Post:
"No evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens has surfaced. Giuliani’s primary allegation — that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor to quash a probe into the former minister and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — is not substantiated and has been widely disputed by former U.S. officials and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists."
But hey, we don't need no stinking facts--we're Republicans!
...a quote from the Washington Post:
If you're depending on the Washington Post for facts, Peter, you're in serious trouble.I suppose you get your alternate facts from Fox News, Breitbart, and InfoWars.
No can do: they want me to join facebook, which I shall not.
This notion that Biden pressured Ukraine to not investigate his son is hogwash. For example, a quote from the Washington Post:
"No evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens has surfaced. Giuliani’s primary allegation — that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor to quash a probe into the former minister and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — is not substantiated and has been widely disputed by former U.S. officials and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists."
But hey, we don't need no stinking facts--we're Republicans!
This notion that Biden pressured Ukraine to not investigate his son is hogwash. For example, a quote from the Washington Post:
"No evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens has surfaced. Giuliani’s primary allegation — that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor to quash a probe into the former minister and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — is not substantiated and has been widely disputed by former U.S. officials and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists."
But hey, we don't need no stinking facts--we're Republicans!
You quote a statement by the WT as facts!?
What's the WT?
Simple:
...
...
... BTW, if you want to add a new topic on Biden and his son's dealings, please feel free to start a new thread. Let's stay on topic in this one.
Biden is not being impeached, and he is not called Donald Trump.It is really pretty simple. Trump asked the president of a foreign country to work with his personal attorney and the attorney general to dig up dirt on a political rival. You can argue about whether there was a quid pro quo for military aid, but a quid pro quo is not necessary. The ask, by itself, constitutes abhorrent behavior.
It is really pretty simple. Trump asked the president of a foreign country to work with his personal attorney and the attorney general to dig up dirt on a political rival. You can argue about whether there was a quid pro quo for military aid, but a quid pro quo is not necessary. The ask, by itself, constitutes abhorrent behavior.Then Biden who used his office as Vice President and asked Ukraine to drop the investigation of his son is also guilty of abhorrent behavior. But not impeachable. We should use elections to remove presidents.
... The ask, by itself, constitutes abhorrent behavior.
Biden is not being impeached, and he is not called Donald Trump.Get serious Bart, The argument for Trump's impeachment has to do with Biden's and his son and what they did which may have been illegal, certainly Biden did what Trump apparently did. Talk to the Ukrainians. But if Biden's son did what he seems to have done, asking another country to investigate is not against the law or unusual. Of course, there's the political issue which is serious. But you can;t isolate one issue from the other. Well, you can if you hate Trump and don;t want to hurt the Democrat in the process. That's the nub of the problem, isn't it. How to bury Trump without hurting Biden? :)
How about not just ask, but pay for and use it? As in the Steele-dossier case, ordered and paid by DNC and ultimately approved by Hillary?
... How to bury Trump without hurting Biden? :)
Just join the 21st century, Rob 😉
Thank you for the very clear and interesting explanation :D
Wrong thread.
We should combine this thread with previous Russian Conspiracy threads into a single one: "Failed Democrats' Attempts at Soft Coup d'Etat."
And maybe there is also a link to Marilyn Monroe....
That would be a thread titled: "Democrat's Successful Attempt at Coup de Bra (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=coup%20de%20bra)." ;)
Slobodan, you have too much spare time on your hands; get a hobby!
My hobby, passion even, is at a stage where nobody cares anymore. When everyone is a photographer, nobody is. I started listing all my gear on eBay.Give it away. No, not the equipment, the prints. Pick your best. Blow them up and frame them beautifully. Then give them to friends and family as gifts. Portraits of family especially, but landscapes too. They'll love you for it. Then every time you're over their house there will be your work hanging in their homes being appreciated every day by the people you admire and love. What can be better than that?
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/september/30/impeachment-or-cia-coup/A political coup d'etat. The deep state at work trying to destroy a presidency to advance themselves. First the phoney "collusion". Now the phone call.
It is really pretty simple. Trump asked the president of a foreign country to work with his personal attorney and the attorney general to dig up dirt on a political rival. You can argue about whether there was a quid pro quo for military aid, but a quid pro quo is not necessary. The ask, by itself, constitutes abhorrent behavior.
Then Biden who used his office as Vice President and asked Ukraine to drop the investigation of his son is also guilty of abhorrent behavior. But not impeachable. We should use elections to remove presidents.
On the other hand, you know that Biden's competition including Harris, Warren, Sanders, and the other Democrat candidates are thinking how they can stick it to Biden without being attacked.
Most of the canidates have already come out and said they would not allow their child to work for a foreign company. Not sure how you prevent this though, since, they presumably, would be over 18 and can do what they want.
No body is really going to care about a phone call.
Although this may be true, it does not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If you disagree, please state the criminal code which he violated.The whole thing about impeachment is that the Dems want to keep the discussion going until the election. They really don't care about actually impeaching him. Then they will make Trump the issue for the campaign not their policies. That worked well for them in 2018.
Anyway, Newt Gingrich had an interesting discussion on this whole thing last wee. Essentially he stated that Pelosi can either risk looking stupid and talke about impeachment, or risk looking scary and talk about the policies the candidates are pushing (open borders, completely getting rid of private healthcare, giving free healthcare to illegal aliens, the green new deal, etc.).
Looking stupid is probably the better path. Those policies are sure to loose them elections.
Since politicians cant walk and chew gum at the same time, this whole "impeachment thing" (no vote has been held yet, so it is not really an inquiry) will ensure nothing gets done, just like the last two years. And it is directly the Dems' fault.
Well, Trump played a part too, I'd say. :)
You recuse yourself then.
My hobby, passion even, is at a stage where nobody cares anymore. When everyone is a photographer, nobody is. I started listing all my gear on eBay.
And now something totally unrelated:
Golfing in the Hamptons with Devon Archer, who served on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings with Hunter.
I hope you are joking.
You do photography extremely well; don't betray your talent. Or at the very least, decide on the body and single lens you find give you most joy and keep them.
There is always tomorow. Photography has saved my sanity these past (almost) eleven years.
I have seldom been more serious than in my writing of this.
Rob
...Old tools, like an actual amp, with a guitar which has been “broken in”, with a real spring reverb laid across the room, the right room, the time spent on song writing, the right band mates or engineer, and the awareness of sound as a flowing properly outside of the computer, moving through the electricity in the air - is an entirely undefeatable endeavour.
So it is with photography. No one can replicate the hours spent, the tactile relationship to a camera made to be brought to the eye, the meaning behind the activity which emboldens beyond quick fix satisfaction...
Of seemingly little importance to the Trump apologists here is the fact that the Trump administration deemed it necessary hide the call record...
It should have stayed hidden (classified). Making it public is doing more damage to the US foreign policy than hundred phone calls like that. There is a reason things are classified.
Why? Trump himself termed the call "perfect". Why hide perfection?Presidential phone calls with foreign leaders are classified as a regular procedure. Trump declassified it and released it immediately to clear up the matter. Yet you criticize him.
Presidential phone calls with foreign leaders are classified as a regular procedure. Trump declassified it and released it immediately to clear up the matter. Yet you criticize him.It did not exactly clear things up.
It did not exactly clear things up.
The call was buried at a deeper level, on a higher-security server than "normal" presidential phone calls.This is starting to sound like the collusion controversy that lasted 2 1/2 years. Meanwhile no one is discussing the real issues of the country. It's all politics.
You didn't answer the question: "Why?"
And he released a redacted voice-to-text version. Apparently the call wasn't audio recorded.
This is starting to sound like the collusion controversy that lasted 2 1/2 years. Meanwhile no one is discussing the real issues of the country. It's all politics.
Although I do not normally like to reference Fox News, since I find it too partisan like MSNBC, there is an interesting take on this by a former Democratic DC operative. Before going on to give his take, one thing we all need to remember is that many house Dems are in primary challenges with far left wing progressives who are foaming at the mouth over impeachment, and no one wants to become a victim of the next AOC. This is a big part of the reason so many Dems are backing impeachment.
So, according to the article, Pelosi has timed this so that the impeachment inquiry will be active throughout the primaries, leaving those in progressive districts safe. But, more then likely, this will blow over just afterwards so that those in moderate or Trump districts will be able to campaign on policy.
Of course, the writer does point out the flaw that this will probably destroy Joe Biden and the Dems will be stuck with defending and selling ultra-progressive policies of Warren. He predicts that Warren will probably out perform HRC in NY and CA, but is questionable whether she would ever appeal to swing state voters.
I personally feel Warren would loose NY, especially if you take into account De Blasio's failed time in office and the pushing away of Amazon. Additionally, I just cant see what those Dems in moderate districts could possibly run on policy wise since they have accomplished nothing to sell.
Anyway, this is just a one ring circus at this point. If an official impeachment investigation passes the house floor and the house Republicans get subpoena power, that is when Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus comes out of retirement.
Biden may survive this current situation, but an official investigation will bring never ending subpoenas of Hunter Biden and associates to the hill. I just cant imagine anyone else but Biden giving Trump a run for his money in the swing states.
This is starting to sound like the collusion controversy that lasted 2 1/2 years. Meanwhile no one is discussing the real issues of the country. It's all politics.
I thought this was an interesting article about telephone security https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/01/white-house-trump-leaks-code-015194 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/01/white-house-trump-leaks-code-015194). I am kind of surprised to hear that the President didn't already have the best that money can buy.
So, it's not important what he appears to have done?The "appearance" that Trump colluded with the Russians was a setup by Democrats and people who hate Trump. So we wasted 2 1/2 years down the rabbit hole chasing our tails for no reason. Sure, it helped Democrats win the House. But it didn't help the country. So now we'll chase our tails for another year or so until the next election. It might help the Democrats win more power, what this whole thing is all about anyway. But it also won't help the country. The whole thing just sucked all the oxygen out of the room. We can't discuss anything else that's really important.
I have some familiarity with the types of national secrets stored on the "system" referred to in this Politico account, although not the particular White House server, itself, and the report about a recent access-control "upgrade" during the Trump Administration doesn't ring true: any connection always should have been logged to identify the specific individual, the particular information, and the type of access. I've read several stories today that attempt to explain how information of this kind is restricted and they all contain what appear to me to be errors. I suspect these are the result of people in the government (who really shouldn't be discussing this stuff except with appropriate executive branch agencies and the two congressional intelligence committees) trying to be discreet to avoid revealing sensitive information to reporters, who in turn aren't equipped to understand what their sources are telling them.Chris, You dangled some sweet fruit in front of us. Then pulled it away. Thanks. :)
The "appearance" that Trump colluded with the Russians was a setup by Democrats and people who hate Trump.
Nice deflection. I didn't ask about Russia, I asked about Ukraine.Well of course, Russian collusion didn't work. Obstruction fizzled out. So now you'll try Ukraine. What's after that?
So, it's not important what he appears to have done?
What he did was neither a high crime nor misdemeanor.
I suggested nothing. I asked Alan if what he (Trump) appeared to have done was important.Well I want to know if beating your wife is important? :-\
Well of course, Russian collusion didn't work. Obstruction fizzled out. So now you'll try Ukraine. What's after that?
I had always been an arch Tory, but now, I could never vote for them again unless they became something quite different to the vicious, blindly rabid tail - tail? not even a tail, but a tiny inner cancer - that is currently wagging the entire dog.
Conservative doesn't mean what it used to. Neither does progressive. Human society has obviously evolved into mixed economies because the extremes don't work. If they worked, we'd be living in them. We should be tweaking things, trying to make like better. But we don't do that, it's too boring maybe.
So we have left-wing loonies lost in their "safe space" fantasy world instead of worrying about the loss of middle-calls income in the last generation, something they could actually do something about. And we have "right-wing" crazies who think they have the right to tell other women what to do with their bodies while decrying "religious" head scarves in other cultures. It's 24/7 wall-to-wall bullsh*t now.
People who are lost vote for strong men thinking that the strong men are on their side, but strong men are only ever on their own side.
I agree with you that there are strong men on all sides who would have government and them impose their beliefs on us. Which is why you need a strong and respected Constitution that limits governmental power. Unfortunately, people are lazy, ignorant, and greedy and think "their" guy won;t be a tyrant. One day they wake up and they're living in Venezuela. Or worse.Oh, the irony.
It could prove interesting to discover the proportion of Republican voter that, whilst faithful to party, come what may, actually disapproves of Trump, the man. And by extension, whether loyalty to party extends even to times when that party goes against the particular voter's own beliefs.
I had always been an arch Tory, but now, I could never vote for them again unless they became something quite different to the vicious, blindly rabid tail - tail? not even a tail, but a tiny inner cancer - that is currently wagging the entire dog.
Rob
It could prove interesting to discover the proportion of Republican voter that, whilst faithful to party, come what may, actually disapproves of Trump, the man. And by extension, whether loyalty to party extends even to times when that party goes against the particular voter's own beliefs.
It could prove interesting to discover the proportion of Republican voter that, whilst faithful to party, come what may, actually disapproves of Trump, the man. And by extension, whether loyalty to party extends even to times when that party goes against the particular voter's own beliefs.
I had always been an arch Tory, but now, I could never vote for them again unless they became something quite different to the vicious, blindly rabid tail - tail? not even a tail, but a tiny inner cancer - that is currently wagging the entire dog.
Rob
Oh, the irony.
Well I want to know if beating your wife is important? :-\
Another (but not-so-nice) deflection. In fact, quite a telling response.Well, there was no intent to insult. I was trying to make a point about the old saw in trials that you can;t ask a double question assuming the answer to the first is true. The opposing counseling would object to the judge. You assumed what Trump did was wrong than asked if I thought it was important. That's like asking the witness when he stopped beating his wife assuming without proving he was beating her in the first place. Maybe my analogy was too deep. Sorry.
You really, really don't want to answer that question, do you, Alan?
Hi Rob, It gets pretty complicated: As a person, I think Trump stinks. But I have to consider what he's done and against whom he's running. Trump made promises during the election and followed through on all of them, or at least tried. That fact is almost unique in political history. In spite of the left-wing propaganda put out by our captive "press," the results have been very favorable, especially for the middle class and "people of color." The "press" never will admit that, but statistics make clear it's true. The other complication is the array of people running against him in the coming election. They all seem obviously insane, except for "lunch-bucket" Joe Biden, who turns out to be nothing more than a befuddled liar. Seems a nice guy, but the crap he's done with son Hunter in Ukraine makes it clear he's also a crook.
So, whaddya do? I know what I'll do: I'll vote for the guy who stinks, but honestly tries to improve things. He's got way too big a mouth, and I think he's wrong about a lot of stuff, especially his tariffs, but. . . what the hell? I've gotta look at the alternatives. Seems to me most of life is like that. Wish it were simpler, but it just ain't.
Trump loves touting equity gains more than his predecessors, who were usually wary of taking credit for unpredictable returns largely out of anyone’s control. And while the president’s record remains a solid one by historical standards, with the S&P 500 up almost 43% including dividends since his election victory, on a price basis it’s the same return he could’ve claimed in January 2018. Amid uneven economic data and a two-year trade war, the market hasn’t budged since.
My hobby, passion even, is at a stage where nobody cares anymore. When everyone is a photographer, nobody is. I started listing all my gear on eBay.
Bart, I'm sure your "media" is telling you this crap, but as the Duke said: "If you believe that, you will believe anything. Check the statistics. Ignore the opinions.
Trump's approval has jumped to a 2019 high as a result of the impeachment kabuki performance, and millions are rolling in to finance his campaign.
.... nothing ....
. . .the country is in many ways worse off than before he took office.
I hear there are even people dumb enough to believe what they see on Fox.Actually, I watch what you watch - MSNBC and CNN. Then I figure the truth is everything opposite what they say. :)
Actually, I watch what you watch - MSNBC and CNN. Then I figure the truth is everything opposite what they say. :)Based on what?
Based on what?That they hate Trump and provide biased one-sided news.
Hi Russ,Trump has:
From my perspective, most of what Trump has done is undo what the previous administration has done. Hardly constructive, and the country is in many ways worse off than before he took office. The international standing of the USA is at a record low, if it were not for those who go against the government's intentions. The only remaining friends (buyers of defense equipment) are folks like Mohammad bin Salman, and they try to let the USA do his dirty work with Iran, and Kim Jong-un, another dictator.
In fact, it's still the Steve Bannon playbook of destroying the cohesion of the nation on many levels, and then take over control. Divide and conquer. But Trump is unfit for that latter part of the strategy. Trump only cares about Trump, the rest is collateral damage to him, which he couldn't care less about. The economy was already picking up during Obama, and despite Trump's policies has not collapsed yet (at the expense of the national deficit). Now he's looking for a Tradewar with Europe (who will return the favor).
...
Cheers,
Bart
"5. Created the lowest unemployment rate ever for minorities, The best in 70 years for everyone else"Presidents get credit or blame for what's going on during their term. In any case, all economists give Trump credit for a good economy although many don't like his trade policies. By the way, you only flagged item 5. Thanks for agreeing with all the others that he did a great job on. That's appreciated.
(https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/media:bba1835ca6914355bacb45e51ebc2659/800.jpeg)
Presidents get credit or blame for what's going on during their term. In any case, all economists give Trump credit for a good economy although many don't like his trade policies. By the way, you only flagged item 5. Thanks for agreeing with all the others that he did a great job on. That's appreciated.
Have they?Yes, Democrat leaders have called for Trump to be put in solitary confinement.
That's "Alan logic" in a nutshell.You only objected with #5. So the others are true unless you don't agree. I'm listening.
You only objected with #5. So the others are true unless you don't agree. I'm listening.
You only objected with #5. So the others are true unless you don't agree. I'm listening.Jeremy did not object to no5 -
Jeremy did not object to no5 -Huh? ???
It was the facts that were in conflict with your so called "facts based on what you see and hear"
have it your way:
So the others are also untrue unless you don't agree. I'm listening.
One could easily refute each and every one of the <insert usual suspects here> claims, but, as we've seen over and over, they'd either ignore the refutations or dispute them with deflections and whataboutisms. Distract, delay, deny.You're either too lazy to respond or can't come up with the proof to prove me wrong.
In other words, a waste of keystrokes. Just like this post. :(
Outburst? If you don't like me using charts, I'll have to use words.
- Denying climate change instead of adapting to it or, heaven forbid, preparing for the consequences.
- Dismantling of the EPA, and thus creating health risks for American citizens.
- Destroying the current and future markets for, e.g. Soybean, producers. Brasil thanks you for developing a new market for them, China.
- Europe pulled out of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) due to an untrustworthy partner, i.e. the USA.
- Creating distrust between intelligence partners, e.g. Europe has become more careful about what to share, since it may well end up being shared with the wrong countries, which is a risk for assets.
- Trust issues between NATO partners due to the president's underestimation of Putin's gameplan.
And more things that are not the main topic of this thread, e.g. healthcare.
On topic, what is your opinion on:
5 potential offenses in the phone-transcript
1. The president 'threatening' to misuse congressionally appropriated (military) funds,
2. extortion from a foreign head of state, of
3. a foreign intervention into the US political and electoral process,
4. through the mechanism of the gross violation of the civil liberties of 2 US citizens,
5. extorting the dishing of dirt on a political opponent
Attempted hiding of information to frustrate the work of house members (to ensure that the Constitution is respected).
Threatening the life of whistleblowers, by labeling them as spies (that can face the death penalty), could be added.
Cheers,
Bart
You're either too lazy to respond or can't come up with the proof to prove me wrong.Actually, they just don't want to waste their time going down a rabbit hole with you. And you still have not said whether you think Trump asking Ukraine President Zelensky to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son was wrong. So, according to your logic, we can deem as admitted that you do think it was wrong.
Bert, please, this is all inference. He did not, once, during the phone call bring up the military funds let along threaten to with hold or misuse them. Trump asked Ukraine to help with an investigation his AG Bill Barr was conducting and to look into the Bidens' actions, which on the surface do not appear innocent. (And the whole no evidence has not been found is a horrible argument since no investigation has yet to be conducted. This excuse would not have worked with Trump on Russia.) On top of that, by treaty, Ukraine is suppose to help us with investigation, just like they did with the Russian investigation the Dems were so willing to receive help on.
How is investigating someone a violation of civil liberties? Please explain.
Last, I get it, asking a foreign leader to drudge up dirt on a political opponent does not sound good, for either Trump in this situation or for the Dems with the Russian Collusion. But, politics is a blood sport and if it was good for the Dems, then it should be good for Trump.
In the beginning of this whole thing, I was kind of interested in seeing what was going on.
Then the transcript was released and I read it over. Not one example of a quid pro quo or extortion.
So a couple of days ago, I was thinking well, maybe there is still other things here worth looking at.
Then last night it comes out that Schiff's staff had direct contact with the whistleblower a few days before the complaint was submitted (and rejected I might add since he had no first hand knowledge of the phone call) after Schiff repeatably denied he or his staff had contacts with the whistleblower.
Last week, when some Republicans made the claim that the report was too well written, in favor of the Dems, to have been only written by the CIA operative without help from the opposition, I was thinking this is crazy talk. Now I have to give this claim a high level of credence.
This is looking more and more like a political theatre by the Dems, especially with Pelosi not even making it official and holding a vote.
You're either too lazy to respond or can't come up with the proof to prove me wrong.
Actually, they just don't want to waste their time going down a rabbit hole with you. And you still have not said whether you think Trump asking Ukraine President Zelensky to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son was wrong. So, according to your logic, we can deem as admitted that you do think it was wrong.See my response #136 re-printed below. Of course, it's sleazy. Politics is sleazy. Hillary was sleazy. The Dems are sleazy. Trump is sleazy. They're all sleazy. How do they all sleep at night?
You mean like when Hillary paid $10 million dollars to get a British spy to collude with Russian spies to develop the phoney dossier to smear Trump with dirt and be used to start a phoney investigation for two years by Mueller? At least with the Bidens, they appear to have been involved in something shady. But certainly worthy of an investigation. In any case, the Democratic congressional leadership wil twist this with the anti-Trump press into something worse. Politics is dirty. And the press is against Trump. They've always been against Republicans and conservatism.. |
It's not a question of being lazy, Alan. It's a question of stopping beating one's head against a brick wall.Since when has that stopped us all from posting? All these pages and we still got another 13 months to the next election. :)
Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?
Slobodan, the other photographers are not quite as good as you.
(http://www.postfun.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/money-with-camera-28652-79518.jpg)
Outburst? If you don't like me using charts, I'll have to use words.
- Denying climate change instead of adapting to it or, heaven forbid, preparing for the consequences.
- Dismantling of the EPA, and thus creating health risks for American citizens.
- Destroying the current and future markets for, e.g. Soybean, producers. Brasil thanks you for developing a new market for them, China.
- Europe pulled out of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) due to an untrustworthy partner, i.e. the USA.
- Creating distrust between intelligence partners, e.g. Europe has become more careful about what to share, since it may well end up being shared with the wrong countries, which is a risk for assets.
- Trust issues between NATO partners due to the president's underestimation of Putin's gameplan.
And more things that are not the main topic of this thread, e.g. healthcare.
On topic, what is your opinion on:
5 potential offenses in the phone-transcript
1. The president 'threatening' to misuse congressionally appropriated (military) funds,
2. extortion from a foreign head of state, of
3. a foreign intervention into the US political and electoral process,
4. through the mechanism of the gross violation of the civil liberties of 2 US citizens,
5. extorting the dishing of dirt on a political opponent
Attempted hiding of information to frustrate the work of house members (to ensure that the Constitution is respected).
Threatening the life of whistleblowers, by labeling them as spies (that can face the death penalty), could be added.
Cheers,
Bart
Of course, it's sleazy. Politics is sleazy. Hillary was sleazy. The Dems are sleazy. Trump is sleazy. They're all sleazy.
So do you fall in the sleazy but not an impeachable offense category?
I would say this is about right.
If only some of my friends on the right could look inside themselves and understand that admitting you're wrong is ok, and "deregulation" is a pretty sorry reason to suffer the fool that resides in the white house, now that we have years of evidence to that effect.
There is no way, regardless of what might come of this, that Warren would ever have my vote. Her policies, all of them, are lunacy.
And all this is doing is ensuring Biden is ruined and Warren gets on the ticket.
Not all of them, but she's certainly not my preferred candidate. Then again, she's clearly more suited to the office than Donald Trump, not that that's saying much.
Yeah - I think you're right about this.
Nope!
I still think that Trump was the whistleblower to get rid of Biden. On the other hand, it could have been Dems on the left who wanted to get rid of both Biden and Trump and found a very left whistleblower to file the papers. Another reason why the guy or gal should be known.
Huh? May I remind you that the *Trump-appointed IG* found the report credible and relevant. I know the narrative today is that the whistleblower is some far-left mole that conspired with Adam Schiff to fabricate the entirety of the story, but frankly that's absurd. The actual facts of the matter seem to be that the whistleblower came to the relevant congressional committee with the report, and the staffer told them, correctly, to take it to the IG. (You can distinguish this from the WRONG way to do it by looking at what the Trump team did when the Russians came to them with alleged info on Trump. in THAT case they eagerly took the meeting and then lied about it, while never informing the FBI as is proper)
I mean, it's not really debatable. You may not like her policy proposals, and you may love the proposals that are coming out of the Republican party right now, but there's no logical way to argue that Donald Trump is more capable or suited to making critical decisions that impact 365 million people, even if you don't like the answers she comes up with. He's demonstrably ignorant and shows no inclination to learn, because he thinks he knows it all already. He's driven by emotional reactions to slights real and imagined, and he's making not even a pretense of being a leader for the entirety of the nation. He has few policy positions that show any understanding of the range of complexity that such things require, and he surrounds himself with ideologues and yes-men who show loyalty to Trump over loyalty to America. He's incompetent, petty, stupid, and arrogant, and that's a horrible, horrible combination for the most important position, literally, in the world.Trump wants to expand Medicare. What's Warren offering? That doesn't seem so stupid. Seems fit for office to me.
And balanced against this, Warren wants to advocate for a $15 minimum wage and heath care of all? She also wants to get rid of mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders, and a host of other things that are imminently reasonable (In addition to the policy positions she has that are absolutely unreasonable like the wholesale wiping out of student debt and using the government to break up companies she deems dangerous), BUT... 1) You can't tell me that Trump doesn't have an equal number of nonsense policy positions, AND, 2) That's what Congress is for - to pass laws. They should stop abrogating that duty to the executive and then we wouldn't have to worry about our elected executive doing outrageously stupid stuff (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/). (Just read that, and if that paints a picture of fitness for office, I don't know what else to tell you.)
But isn't a person in authority supposed to act for all, and not pick sides?
I mean, it's not really debatable. You may not like her policy proposals, and you may love the proposals that are coming out of the Republican party right now, but there's no logical way to argue that Donald Trump is more capable or suited to making critical decisions that impact 365 million people, even if you don't like the answers she comes up with. He's demonstrably ignorant and shows no inclination to learn, because he thinks he knows it all already. He's driven by emotional reactions to slights real and imagined, and he's making not even a pretense of being a leader for the entirety of the nation. He has few policy positions that show any understanding of the range of complexity that such things require, and he surrounds himself with ideologues and yes-men who show loyalty to Trump over loyalty to America. He's incompetent, petty, stupid, and arrogant, and that's a horrible, horrible combination for the most important position, literally, in the world.
And balanced against this, Warren wants to advocate for a $15 minimum wage and heath care of all? She also wants to get rid of mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders, and a host of other things that are imminently reasonable (In addition to the policy positions she has that are absolutely unreasonable like the wholesale wiping out of student debt and using the government to break up companies she deems dangerous), BUT... 1) You can't tell me that Trump doesn't have an equal number of nonsense policy positions, AND, 2) That's what Congress is for - to pass laws. They should stop abrogating that duty to the executive and then we wouldn't have to worry about our elected executive doing outrageously stupid stuff (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/). (Just read that, and if that paints a picture of fitness for office, I don't know what else to tell you.)
You have to look at the whole package, which means you need to consider Warren's policies. The policies she has been selling 24/7 at her rallies are beyond nuts, including the $15 minimum wage btw. (Yes, that is nuts, it would be a total shock to the economy, would only increase automation at a much higher rate and keep young people from getting their first job. No teenager is worth $15 a hour.)
In a Trump vs. Warren race, there is nothing you could say to convince me to vote for Warren. She has already ruined herself due to the super far left ideas she is pushing, and I would bet the majority of those in the swing states would agree.
Trump demands vote on impeachment investigation by whole Congress before he'll release documents to their subpoenas which he claims are not legal until the House votes. This will pressure both Democrats and Republican congressmen to vote where they are creating problems for themselves. Pelosi is stuck between a rock and a hard spot.
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/767205170/trump-demands-full-house-vote-on-impeachment-before-complying-with-lawmakers
Wages should be determined between employers and employees, not the government. Setting wage levels is like the government setting minimum or maximum costs for products. Product pricing create black markets. Minimum wages just eliminate jobs at the lower end for the very people who need jobs. So instead of helping, it hurts them. It encourages illegal immigration where low paying jobs go to foreigners who actually earn less than the minimum wage eliminating jobs for low level citizens. The rest of us just pay through taxes for medical, schools, and other care for families of illegals. Then we build walls, create safe cities for illegals, and fight about immigration. Government should mind its business and go fight a war. That would be less destructive. :o
Don't see what this has to do with impeachment.
Don't see what this has to do with impeachment. Should employers and employees be allowed to come to a work for food agreement? Maybe indentured servitude? Would you allow unions? Where and how would you draw the line at the type of employment contract that is allowed?There are plenty of rules that protect employees and unions. But the government should not get involved with setting wage levels for the reasons I mentioned above. I'm the only person I know who is an indentured servant - in my home. :)
Nothing. It is a deflection. Right out of the Trump playbook. It is insidious.Trump is fighting back. You don't really think he'll just roll over do you?
Trump is fighting back. You don't really think he'll just roll over do you?Is that what you are doing? Fighting back? By deflecting the discussion to other topics?
Looks like a lot of assumptions there; do you really believe that automation, to the max affordable and possible, is being hampered out of some desire to keep paying employees a salary? You have to be kidding. Business is about getting the most out for the least in; with a qualifier: artists and also shamateur photographers who have an ability to live on air and ego. Instead of cheap photos and paintings, they should conspire to market that ability to thrive on nothing. They would clean up big time, not a couple of cents on the dollar.
Regarding teenagers and their worth not topping fifteen bucks an hour: you are badly out of touch: consider influencers and sports people and musos. And they are just the media-visible ones, and don't include those working their way through college and mowing lawns and washing cars. I won't mention the red light "workers" and drugs mules etc. etc. all of whom are worth a great deal more. The child labour market is supposed to be officially dead; many teens can do the same job as older people whose only attribute is an older passport number.
In fact, your position reads like something my grandparents might have espoused in the 50s.
:-)
Rob, with current wages, automation and using robots/machines are too expensive. It is cheaper to use labor, which is why it has not taken off yet. However, if wages were suddenly and artificially raised to $15 an hour, automating jobs with machines becomes cheaper that using labor. So business will start to use machines instead of people for many more jobs.
Insofar as you teenager example, you are siting very exceptional and unique kids, by far not the norm. A normal teenager who is more concerned with partying and chasing girls, or guys, around and who has no skills yet is not worth $15 an hour. No employer would hire a kid for that much.
Automation has taken off; look at car factories, for one example. They used to be full of human drones, but now there are mainly robots and skilled workers tending robots. A few months ago I watched a fascinating programme about the making of BMW's Mini. Mostly robotic poduction, extreme accuracy and, get this: being the product it is, BMW still manages to market them way above the comparative value level of what the things are. Automation has brought them huge benefits in profitability. And mobility: as the company never ceases to warn the ardent Brexiteers.
Regarding the teenagers: yes, of couse the ones I quoted are notable exceptions; it was a response to your blanket assertion that none was worth that sum.
My daughter is a teacher in Scotland. One of her problems is finding a convincing reply to those unwilling students kept in school by law and age, who ask her why they are being held captive, being taught a lot of irrelevant stuff whilst their mate is out there as a plumber or electrician and making a thousand quid a week, which is close to double what a fully qualified, highly educated school teacher normally makes...
Rob
That's why in my country we use a progressive scale, 'Minimum Youth Wage' starting at the age of 15 to 21, and 'Minimum Wage' for ages 21 and more it's at a fixed level.
BTW, Letting people earn a living wage can also boost the economy. That's more likely to happen than with giving tax-breaks to the super rich. Afterall how many additional meals can that upper 1 % buy...?
But, we're engaged in topic drift.
Cheers,
Bart
That's why in my country we use a progressive scale, 'Minimum Youth Wage' starting at the age of 15 to 21, and 'Minimum Wage' for ages 21 and more it's at a fixed level.
Have you been in McDonald's lately. There's only one person taking orders when there were more before. They pick up the orders with computer ordering screens where customers tap in their orders and pay with their credit cards. There's no human taking your order. More low income jobs lost.I don't frequent fast food joints, so I guess I am out of the loop. I guess Egg McMuffins make themselves nowadays.
I don't frequent fast food joints, so I guess I am out of the loop. I guess Egg McMuffins make themselves nowadays.
So you can pay someone who is 21+ years old a wage befitting a 15 year old?The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour (€6.6/hour). Twenty-nine states have higher minimum wages.
It's not "thread drift" at all, Fab. Who do you think has been trying to mount a coup against Trump since the day the election returns were in? Answer: the whole wild socialist lineup. They couldn't even stand "lunch bucket" Joe Biden, even though he kowtowed to the far left in order to stay in the race. These people want exactly what Bart's describing.
Who needs a coup when Trump himself is demonstrating this clearly his unfitness for the job?It seems you only want to draw the line on Trump. Yet you apparently approve that Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to stop a foreign investigation of criminal activity related to his son Hunter Biden's work in the Ukraine. Isn't what Biden did criminal? Shouldn't that be investigated? Or do you think only Trump should be investigated for collusion with the Russians in 2016 based on a dossier prepared by British and Russian spies who were paid $10 million dollars by Trump's presidential opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton? Just where do you draw the lines?
Aren’t you concerned that your candidate doesn’t understand that he is violating the same constitution he uses all the time to justify mass shootings?
How blind do you need to be to see where this is taking you?
Your very concerns about how far left things could go if the Democrats won should be ample proof that Joe Biden is the main adversary of Trump and that it is both illegal and unethical to try to use foreign influences to dig dirt on your main opponent?
Is democracy still important for you?
Cheers,
Bernard
I don't frequent fast food joints, so I guess I am out of the loop. I guess Egg McMuffins make themselves nowadays.I said there are less order takers not less cooks or preparers. On the other hand, it's possible fast food restaurants are using more automation to prepare the food as well.
It seems you only want to draw the line on Trump. Yet you apparently approve that Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to stop a foreign investigation of criminal activity related to his son Hunter Biden's work in the Ukraine. Isn't what Biden did criminal? Shouldn't that be investigated? Or do you think only Trump should be investigated for collusion with the Russians in 2016 based on a dossier prepared by British and Russian spies who were paid $10 million dollars by Trump's presidential opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton? Just where do you draw the lines?
Impeaching Trump may be the only way to beat him.
U.S. Sees 50-Year Low Unemployment Rate
"“Thanks to our pro-American agenda, the economy is booming, wages are rising and poverty is plummeting,” said President Trump. “3.5 percent — people didn’t think they were going to see that."[/size]
https://www.oann.com/u-s-sees-50-year-low-unemployment-rate/ (https://www.oann.com/u-s-sees-50-year-low-unemployment-rate/)
Yet you apparently approve that Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to stop a foreign investigation of criminal activity related to his son Hunter Biden's work in the Ukraine. I
Okay Bart, "evidence please." I realize that's what your screaming, off the wall, terminally biased sources of opinion say, but they have no more actual evidence of it than Mueller had in his more than two year coup attempt. This one isn't even gonna taxi fast, much less get off the ground.
It's a no brainer all right, Bart, but not the kind of no brainer you and Snopes think it is.
Both of them should be fired if proof is made of their culpability.Bernard, you're conflicting. The only way the prove Biden is culpable is to re-open the investigation in Ukraine. Maybe have an investigation in the US too. That requires the US president to request the Ukraine President to investigate. It's the only way to get to the bottom of what the Bidens did. If Trump doesn't ask, it won't happen.
Trump confessed of his crime so that part is already clear.
You are the one making this a political story by trying to find equal guilt on the Democrat side. The only relevant story here is Trump, the president of the US, clearly violating the constitution.
With or without quid pro quo btw. That corruption would only be an aggravating factor.
Cheers,
Bernard
The only way the prove Biden is culpable is to re-open the investigation in Ukraine.
Bernard, you're conflicting. The only way the prove Biden is culpable is to re-open the investigation in Ukraine. Maybe have an investigation in the US too. That requires the US president to request the Ukraine President to investigate. It's the only way to get to the bottom of what the Bidens did. If Trump doesn't ask, it won't happen.
If the press was honest, and not anti-Trump, they would be calling for an investigation of the Bidens. But they're protecting them. Look at all the accusations against Trump for his foreign business dealings. Why isn't the press as demanding and make similar accusation and demands for investigation of the Bidens?
Alan,No it doesn't. We should get to the bottom if Biden used his position as VP to help his son in a criminal investigation. After all, Biden is running for president in 2020 too. Only Trump could call for the investigation in the Ukraine. Don;t you want to know if Biden is a crook? Or do you only want to go after Trump? The point is if Biden did wrong, the president is responsible for calling for an investigation and the only person capable of asking for it. If he happens to get political benefit, well, what alternative would there be? Let Biden get away with breaking the law as VP?
With all due respect, you are not making sense.
There is zero need to connect the violation of the constitution Trump committed to anything else. It stands by itself.
Cheers,
Bernard
Then Trump will call for an investigation of Warren for lying on her application claiming she's a minority to make it easier to get legal license...You get your license to practice law by passing the bar exam, not checking a box on an application form.
Pocahontas.
Tired of the racism, Alan.
Tired of the racism, Alan.Typical liberal response calling someone a racist that calls attention to truth through parody. It is Warren who lied about her heritage, taking minority status to advance herself. She was the one who apologized to the Indian Nation, the Cherokees, for slanting them and stealing their identity.
Typical liberal response calling someone a racist that calls attention to truth through parody.So using derogatory ethnic terms is parody? Who is laughing at the "comic effect" of doing so?
Where is Slobodan today; haven't noticed a post yet.
No it doesn't. We should get to the bottom if Biden used his position as VP to help his son in a criminal investigation. After all, Biden is running for president in 2020 too. Only Trump could call for the investigation in the Ukraine. Don;t you want to know if Biden is a crook? Or do you only want to go after Trump? The point is if Biden did wrong, the president is responsible for calling for an investigation and the only person capable of asking for it. If he happens to get political benefit, well, what alternative would there be? Let Biden get away with breaking the law as VP?
In any case, when the dust settles, Biden will be done as the Democrat candidate because of Ukraine and Trump will still be president, probably facing Pocahontas. Then Trump will call for an investigation of Warren for lying on her application claiming she's a minority to make it easier to get legal license and jobs at Harvard and advance her political career.
Only Trump could call for the investigation in the Ukraine. Don;t you want to know if Biden is a crook? . . . The point is if Biden did wrong, the president is responsible for calling for an investigation and the only person capable of asking for it.
So using derogatory ethnic terms is parody? Who is laughing at the "comic effect" of doing so?Pocahontas is not a derogatory ethnic term. It's a female Indian name. It's the same as calling her Maria if she had impersonated a Latina.. And I'm not telling a joke. This is to remind everyone that she's a phoney and a fraud.
By the standard you are defending, it would be excusable to kill someone to proof that he is a murderer.
Everybody but you thinks this is crazy.
Cheers,
Bernard
...and forums. Can you imagine if everyone thought the same here? We'd be bored and the forum would die.
PS. I'm not quite sure what your example means in this case.
Where is Slobodan today; haven't noticed a post yet.
Far be it from me to case aspersions on a fellow poster to this forum, but is it possible he has slunk away furtively to engage in ... photography?
At the Big Cypress National Preserve they just caught a second 18ft python.
Alan,Politicians do all kinds of things for political reasons. That's why we call them politicians. But if the constitution allows a president to enforce the law and prosecute a potential violator of it, then it's constitutional. He may get a political benefit from it coincidentally. But he's doing his job. Otherwise, how would an Administration ever prosecute a political "enemy". It will always be said that he's doing it for political reasons. If someone may have committed a crime, shouldn't he be investigated for it?
You are saying that it was excusable for Trump to violate the constitution to investigate a possible violation of the constitution by Biden years ago.
By the same standard, it would be excusable to kill someone to proof that he is a murderer.
And again, I have not seen anybody else but you come forward and tell us this is sound thinking. This is just not "not sound", it's plain crazy.
Cheers,
Bernard
Politicians do all kinds of things for political reasons. That's why we call them politicians. But if the constitution allows a president to enforce the law and prosecute a potential violator of it, then it's constitutional. He may get a political benefit from it coincidentally. But he's doing his job. Otherwise, how would an Administration ever prosecute a political "enemy". It will always be said that he's doing it for political reasons. If someone may have committed a crime, shouldn't he be investigated for it?
Alan,I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Repeating the same non sense again and again won't magically make it better.
Cheers,
Bernard
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Hopefully, he is taking pictures of architecture, not nature.
At the Big Cypress National Preserve they just caught a second 18ft python.
(https://www.irishexaminer.com/remote/content.assets.pressassociation.io/2019/10/06181446/b522a66e-623c-49b0-b9c8-9b79121c978d.jpg?width=600&s=ie-955328)
We can agree to disagree, but it doesn't make you any more right.Of course, when Obama used his administration to go after Trump, nobody flinched. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
This agreement on disagreement in in no way an agreement that this is a matter of opinion.
This is just constituion vs facts.
There is nothing to discuss really about whether Trump's behaviour will result in Impeachement.
Cheers,
Bernard
Of course, when Obama used his administration to go after Trump, nobody flinched. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
In any case, the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot. By pressing this issue, the whole world now considers Joe Biden as being involved in a coverup for his son. The more the Democrats shoot at TRump, the more they'll hit Biden. He'll soon be out of the nomination parade. And Trump will still be president. Clever move on the Democratic part. While tut-tutting in public, Warren is laughing herself silly in private. :)
(1)- The whole world knows full well that whatever Biden did or didn't do has nothing to do with the impreachment of Trump,(1) Sure It does. They're both running for president in 2020.
(2)- The whole world knows full well that if Biden had broken the law, the Republicans would have uncovered this when he was Vice-President. And this is demonstrated in a totally clear way by how hard they are trying now,
(3)- The whole world knows full well that a large majority of honest working people in the US are tired of the corrupt Trump administration. They have to play by the rules every day and are trying hard to teach their kids that they have to play by the rules, only to find out that their President doesn't.
Although I may not agree with some of their positions, I used to respect many of the values of the GOP. And it really saddens me to see so many of the Republican politicans having to compromise this badly with the basic of ethics in a desperate, and pathetic, attempt to save their political ass.
Cheers,
Bernard
So you can pay someone who is 21+ years old a wage befitting a 15 year old?
Ever hear of the concept of a free market? What an employer and employee agree between themselves should be a voluntary, private contract and the government shouldn't have any involvement.Many people want to be treated like children by Big Daddy government who will take care of them. But Big Daddy has curfews and other requirements that don't give you the freedom to live your own life. Some people don;t mind. They like being treated like children. They think they're safer.
(1) Sure It does. They're both running for president in 2020.
(2) When Biden "broke the law", he was VP. No one cares about VP's. As one VP once said, the job isn;t worth a bucket of "spit". In any case, the President at that time wa Obama, a Democrat. He was his running mate. DOn;t you think Obama wanted the whole Ukraine investigation to disappear as well?
(3) People are tired of corruption. That's why they hired Trump -to clean out the swamp. They figure it takes one to know one. Now Biden appears to be corrupt. That he didn't play by the rules when it came to his son finagling in the Ukraine. Now that I mentioned it, Warren is another corrupt individual. She lied about her heritage to gain personal advantages. So was Hillary who used her position many people say as Secretary of State to shake down foreign leaders to contribute millions to the Clinton Foundation. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Well, Bernard, I guess you'll be voting against Trump.
I don't think that Trump will be a candidate.Then you'll be voting for someone else.
Cheers,
Bernard
What racism? It's a derogatory term, certainly, but it's unclear how it can be said to be racist.
Jeremy
Even a 'free' market has rules and regulations. Unless one lives in a banana republic *).
*) In economics, a banana republic is a country with an economy of state capitalism, by which economic model the country is operated as a private commercial enterprise for the exclusive profit of the ruling class. Such exploitation is enabled by collusion between the state and favored economic monopolies, in which the profit, derived from the private exploitation of public lands, is private property, while the debts incurred thereby are the financial responsibility of the public treasury.
Proof, or just innuendo and libel?So was the collusion charge against Trump accusing him of treason. Yet the Democrats spent 2 1/2 years trying to impeach the victim of a phony charge. Using the secret services of the last administration to spy on his campaign and people and to start a phony investigation. Yet, you have no problem with that. No apologies. No I'm sorries. Now when the situation is reversed, and Biden, who admitted to shutting down the Ukraine investigation of his son as VP, the new administration asks for an investigation to see if there was wrong doing, you again want to impeach Trump. It seems there's a double standard and a lot of hypocrisy going around.
Just as calling an Indian "Gunga Din" is racist, or shopping at a "Paki shop". is racist However, I realise that someone who takes his lead from Rod Liddle is unlkely to see a problem.Being an American, I'm not familiar with your interpretation. But there was an American movie by that name made before I was born that I thought made this individual into a hero. I remember seing it in the fifties and that how I remember him portrayed. I just looked Ginga Din up in Google. I got this interpretation. How is that racist? It seems calling someone by his name is a complement. Of course, they may be other interpretations Americans aren't familiar with. So if there are, let me know what they are.
That's the sort of muddle-minded socialism that has ruined the chimney-sweeping trade :-)
So you admit it is just innuendo and libel on your part.No, not innuendo. Biden admitted to shutting down the investigation when he was VP. Trump did not violate the constitution as he is charged as president with enforcing laws. Only he could ask a foreign president to help in a potential criminal case. That's his job. Or he can ask the Attorney General or his ambassador to speak to the foreign leader. Even Rudy. In any case, if he gets side political benefit, well that's the way it is. His acting under his authority as president makes it legal and constitutional.
FYI, the Biden case has been investigated earlier and nothing illegal was found. The replacement of a Ukranian prosecutor was an international cooperative effort.
Trump, on the other hand, did violate the constitution by soliciting foreign interference in the election process by (now) multiple countries, admitted to doing it, and more proof of other violations is surfacing as a result.
His acting under his authority as president makes it legal and constitutional.
L'état, c'est lui?Please. Trump isn't a king. The authority I was referring to is his constitutionally. He's charged with making deals with foreign leaders under the advice and consent of the Senate. Enforcing law of the US are part of his responsibility. So asking a foreign leader to intervene in a potential criminal case affecting American law is within that authority. Of course, I recognize there are political implications. No more so than when Obama was involved when he authorized surveillance of Trump's people during the election. We all understand what happened in both cases that there are political ramifications. But let's not be simple yokels. Let's not have double standards that gives one side the legal right to do stuff but not the other.
Just as calling an Indian "Gunga Din" is racist, or shopping at a "Paki shop". is racist However, I realise that someone who takes his lead from Rod Liddle is unlkely to see a problem.
Calling you "Gunga Din" or a "Paki" would be foolish, but not racist (assuming your race is as your photograph suggests).
I fail to see the relevance of your reference to Rod Liddle. Doubtless it makes sense, to you at least.
Trump has:
1. Destroyed ISIS territory and made what's left a rump organization
Completely unfit to serve. Yes, this is 100% real and no, it's not a parody account. This is the President of the United States of America, and shameful can't begin to describe it.I don;t like walking away from allies who fought with us on the battlefield. But, Americans have had it with the Middle East. We been fighting their for decades even before 9-11. Didn't we save Kuwait in the first Middle East War in 1991? We walked out on the Kurds then too, as I recall and many died by the hand of Saddam. If China invades Taiwan, should we fight there? How about South Korea? Japan? What about Eastern Europe against Russia? (not that I think they'll attack). Should we stay in Afghanistan after waring there for 18 years? When is enough, enough? I've been pretty much of a warmonger over the years. But even I'm getting tired of it. Let them sort out their differences among themselves. We tend to mess it up anyway when we stay involved. Let's hope Trump is right and Turkey isn't going to walk over them. I hope not.
Let's hope Trump is right and Turkey isn't going to walk over them. I hope not.Turkey is going to annihilate the Kurds. They have said so. Why else would they be invading northern Syria?
Turkey is going to annihilate the Kurds. They have said so. Why else would they be invading northern Syria?
No, not innuendo. Biden admitted to shutting down the investigation when he was VP.
Trump did not violate the constitution as he is charged as president with enforcing laws. Only he could ask a foreign president to help in a potential criminal case. That's his job. Or he can ask the Attorney General or his ambassador to speak to the foreign leader. Even Rudy. In any case, if he gets side political benefit, well that's the way it is. His acting under his authority as president makes it legal and constitutional.
Your continuous attempts to rewrite history to match your delusions strangely reminds me about the way Trump turns facts into something they are not.
Interesting point. Confining this comment solely to Trump's elected supporters in the Congress — obviously, what participants in social media forums say is irrelevant to the impeachment inquiry — it appears to me that as Trump becomes increasingly fearful regarding his future, his public statements are becoming correspondingly bizarre (admittedly, that's a high bar) and therefore, synchronously, so are those of his supporters. I can't quite figure out if the latter are expressing their own anxieties or simply mimicking his own.
[/size][/size]
Well, at the end of the day, and, not saying I 100% agree here, this is all a moot point if Warrens gets on the ticket. She would be Trump's best re-election asset, and considering how Biden is handling this, it is almost a certainty at this point.
I would be willing to bet the next debate will destroy Biden. I cant see his fellow front runners ignoring this and not indirectly, at the very least, attacking him.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/04/schweizer_bidens_son_cashed_in_on_vp_being_point_man_for_obama_in_ukraine_and_china.html
If people call Trump corrupt because of his business dealings, they better have clean hands themselves if they intend to run for office.
If people quote news organisations to call people corrupt, they better have clean hands themselves if they want to be taken seriously.
https://politicalwire.com/2019/10/07/secret-far-right-site-linked-to-realclearpolitics/
More than anyone really wants to know about the Biden family:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign
The more Democrats go after Trump regarding the Biden-Ukraine issue, the worse it will be for Biden. Not Trump. Pure irony. Frankly, Biden's toast.Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.What sounds like wishful thinking? That the press wants someone like Warren not Biden? Or that Biden is toast?
What sounds like wishful thinking? That the press wants someone like Warren not Biden? Or that Biden is toast?
Why the deflection to Biden in a thread about what Trump may have done wrong? Biden isn't in office anywhere at the moment, Trump is. Even if Biden was found to be in bed with the mob and the drug cartels combined, would Trump's methods be acceptable, that's the question, isn't it? Who cares about Biden. If he's toast, he's toast, just another has-been politician, plenty of those to go round. You seem to be awfully concerned about him.Trump does a lot of things I don't like. But at the end of the day, when you vote, you have a choice between two people. Warren and Sanders are too liberal, practically Marxists. Biden's toast because of his own incompetence. Warren is also a fraud who got ahead in life using a false claim of minority status. That's pretty despicable. So no one's hands are clean. The country is doing pretty well under Trump. Socialists will just screw it up worse. So you hold your nose when you vote.
Is there anything that Trump would be that would meet with your disapproval, I'm just curious. Given your stated problems with those old terrible royal family ruling elites, I would have thought that you'd be a little displeased at Trump hiring only members of his family for jobs for which they don't seem obviously prepared. Should they have jobs in the administration just because they're related to the guy? And related to that, I'm surprised you're not more concerned with the unusually high turnover in senior personnel, isn't that a red flag to you? Not to mention that many top jobs remained unfilled, probably because no one with experience or knowledge wants to work for him. Doesn't this worry you? Why doesn't it?
What sounds like wishful thinking? That the press wants someone like Warren not Biden? Or that Biden is toast?No, that, as you stated, Biden will be worse off that Trump because of the impeachment inquiry. It's lunacy that you could believe that.
So you hold your nose when you vote.
Trump does a lot of things I don't like. But at the end of the day, when you vote, you have a choice between two people... The country is doing pretty well under Trump. Socialists will just screw it up worse. So you hold your nose when you vote.Apparently, given your defense of Trump, you are not really holding your nose. You are cheering him on, even in the face of the most despicable behavior.
you foreigners
What I don;t understand is why you foreigners are so obsessed with Trump. I mean I look at Boris Johnson, and go , "meh", seems a little weird and I wonder of he knows what he's doing. But I don't obsess about him like my neighbors wife. You don;t live here. You don't pay taxes here? You don't have to send your son off to American wars. You don't vote here. Just what is it that drives you to think about this guy all the time?It is an international forum and the topic of the thread is Trump. What you see as obsession is really just staying on topic. Of course, given your unwavering support of Trump, you would see it as obsession. I'm sure if someone started a thread on Boris Johnson, you would see more posts about Boris Johnson.
Let me guess - "go back where you came from".Thanks for making my point.
It is an international forum and the topic of the thread is Trump. What you see as obsession is really just staying on topic. I'm sure if someone started a thread on Boris Johnson, you would see more posts about Boris Johnson.The Brexit thread says a lot about Johnson. And I've contributed a lot there. But I don't obsess about Johnson. I don't hate him. He's your problem, not mine. You guys obsess about Trump. Hate him so much. I'm curious. Why is that?
Warren and Sanders are too liberal, practically Marxists.
Maybe because Trump is a president like no other.
It is very difficult to take your statements seriously.Why is that?
Warren and Sanders are too liberal, practically Marxists.
It is very difficult to take your statements seriously.
Why is that?
Because your statements are hyperbolic in the extreme. I'd wager you haven't read The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital.No I haven't. But Sanders did.
Because your statements are hyperbolic in the extreme. I'd wager you haven't read The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital.
The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital or 50 Shades Of Gray. All equally off-putting.
The Brexit thread says a lot about Johnson. And I've contributed a lot there. But I don't obsess about Johnson. I don't hate him. He's your problem, not mine. You guys obsess about Trump. Hate him so much. I'm curious. Why is that?
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people who have solved reasonably well the basic psychologic issues most of us manage to deal with during our teenage years
So, are we to infer from this that you think Trump might be exaggerating when he says he is a "stable genius" who exhibits "great and unmatched wisdom?"
So, are we to infer from this that you think Trump might be exaggerating when he says he is a "stable genius" who exhibits "great and unmatched wisdom?"
Another attempt to turn him into a victim while he is the perpetrator.I appreciate you taking the time to tell us what you think. But often what you see is only in the eye of the beholder as others see other things, often very differently.
Do I hate Trump? No.
Do I dislike him? Yes.
Why so?
- because I think that he is taking the world in the wrong direction in terms of philosophy. Although I believe that state should really promote equality of opportunities for all and help those in the need, I am also a firm believer in the power of free enterprise and open trade - be it under the control of the state to avoid the market becoming unbalanced if some entities become too powerful, be it biased towards sustainability. And Trump has been the worst offender against free trade for tens of years. Way worse than what you keep calling "socialist European countries"
- because I believe that debt is the worse kind of dependance, and his tax policy - focusing on reducing tax for the richest - is create debt, and the Reagan years have demonstrated clearly that this doesn't result in a more dynamic economy, it only result in the super rich getting hyper rich
- because, although I believe that private life should stay private, I believe that leaders should fare reasonably well in terms of moral authority, and Trump has been known to violate his word, participate in unfair business practices,... he is the most immoral guy in power in a democratic country in tens of years
- because I think that he is fundamentally racist (which is crazy when you understand what America is) and profoundly disrespects woman in any capacity except that of sex toy
- because of his retard positions about global warming that goes against the good will of a large majority of Americans who understand the reality of the threat
- because I believe that he is a true danger to the stability of the world
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people with a deep understanding of philosophy and the nature of the world, which goes far being "the art of the deal". The "art of the deal" probably accounts for less than 0.01% of what I expect a president of the US to know,
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people who have solved reasonably well the basic psychologic issues most of us manage to deal with during our teenage years
- because the kind of lowest common denominator approach he is making so common lowers the level of civilization, not just in the US, but worldwide
- because there is a truth and his constant lying just sucks
- because he is a threat to democracy because he is demonstrating on a daily basis his non respect for the law and the constitution of the US. How do you expect kids to behave when the boss is a crook?
- and, above all, because I like a certain idea of America that rhymes with excellence and progress... and that he is just the opposite of that
If you think that foreigners shouldn't comment on Trump, then make sure that the US becomes a small country with no international influence. Trump may get you that though...
Cheers,
Bernard
The liberal press really doesn;t want Biden as president. They prefer someone more radical and left like Warren. So they won't protect him like they did Obama. The more Democrats go after Trump regarding the Biden-Ukraine issue, the worse it will be for Biden. Not Trump. Pure irony. Frankly, Biden's toast.Biden drops to second after Warren.
Biden drops to second after Warren.
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/8/20905274/elizabeth-warren-frontrunner-democratic-nomination-2020
That’s because Biden keeps saying stupid stuff, making errors and basically looking like he can’t handle the job. Some people (Democrats apparently) care about that kind of thing, oddly enough. Can you really imagine a Biden / Trump debate? It would be utterly incoherent.Don't you think Ukraine has something to do with it too?
Another attempt to turn him into a victim while he is the perpetrator.
Do I hate Trump? No.
Do I dislike him? Yes.
Why so?
- because I think that he is taking the world in the wrong direction in terms of philosophy. Although I believe that state should really promote equality of opportunities for all and help those in the need, I am also a firm believer in the power of free enterprise and open trade - be it under the control of the state to avoid the market becoming unbalanced if some entities become too powerful, be it biased towards sustainability. And Trump has been the worst offender against free trade for tens of years. Way worse than what you keep calling "socialist European countries"
- because I believe that debt is the worse kind of dependance, and his tax policy - focusing on reducing tax for the richest - is create debt, and the Reagan years have demonstrated clearly that this doesn't result in a more dynamic economy, it only result in the super rich getting hyper rich
- because, although I believe that private life should stay private, I believe that leaders should fare reasonably well in terms of moral authority, and Trump has been known to violate his word, participate in unfair business practices,... he is the most immoral guy in power in a democratic country in tens of years
- because I think that he is fundamentally racist (which is crazy when you understand what America is) and profoundly disrespects woman in any capacity except that of sex toy
- because of his retard positions about global warming that goes against the good will of a large majority of Americans who understand the reality of the threat
- because I believe that he is a true danger to the stability of the world
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people with a deep understanding of philosophy and the nature of the world, which goes far being "the art of the deal". The "art of the deal" probably accounts for less than 0.01% of what I expect a president of the US to know,
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people who have solved reasonably well the basic psychologic issues most of us manage to deal with during our teenage years
- because the kind of lowest common denominator approach he is making so common lowers the level of civilization, not just in the US, but worldwide
- because there is a truth and his constant lying just sucks
- because he is a threat to democracy because he is demonstrating on a daily basis his non respect for the law and the constitution of the US. How do you expect kids to behave when the boss is a crook?
- and, above all, because I like a certain idea of America that rhymes with excellence and progress... and that he is just the opposite of that
If you think that foreigners shouldn't comment on Trump, then make sure that the US becomes a small country with no international influence. Trump may get you that though...
Cheers,
Bernard
Obviously it would, since it would suggest that being (say) a Pakistani is somehow a negative characteristic. Likewise if I called someone a Jew, regardless of their race.
Perhaps it was someone else who wrote:
Rod Liddle, a political commentator in the UK, generally spells with word with multiple "a"s, aptly mimicking the usual pronunciation of those who resort to it.
Interesting introduction, which confirms a previously-held suspicion.
Perhaps it was someone else who wrote:
Rod Liddle, a political commentator in the UK, generally spells with word with multiple "a"s, aptly mimicking the usual pronunciation of those who resort to it.
Oh, I read all sorts of things, from the Spectator each week to the Guardian each morning. I find not isolating myself in the bubble of those who agree with me is a Good Thing; it's what makes me the broadly-informed, well-rounded individual that I am. It doesn't mean I "follow" anyone, whether left- or right-wing (and Liddle was a member of your much-loved Labour party until he left because of its antisemitism).
Jeremy
Yes, but apart from that he's a great guy :-)
Biden drops to second after Warren.
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/8/20905274/elizabeth-warren-frontrunner-democratic-nomination-2020
I feel like the real fantasy land is that Warren can actually win in a general election.Debt financed trillion dollar tax cut for the rich by the Republicans?
She just released a statement vowing $1T for areas hit by industrial pollution. I mean whats another trillion, right?, after $93T for the Green New Deal, $30T for Medicare-For-All, $6T to $14T for slavery and Native American repatriations, another $1.25T for wipe out college debt and give free college to anyone who wants to go (and to think my college debt is almost completely paid off; will I be able to get cold hard cash instead ???).
What have I missed?
I feel like the real fantasy land is that Warren can actually win in a general election.
She just released a statement vowing $1T for areas hit by industrial pollution. I mean whats another trillion, right?, after $93T for the Green New Deal, $30T for Medicare-For-All, $6T to $14T for slavery and Native American repatriations, another $1.25T for wipe out college debt and give free college to anyone who wants to go (and to think my college debt is almost completely paid off; will I be able to get cold hard cash instead ???).
What have I missed?
Universal Child Care for one, but I cant seem to find the overall cost for that program.
Debt financed trillion dollar tax cut for the rich by the Republicans?
It's cute how people are suddenly concerned with unreasonable spending again now that it's time to potentially elect a Democrat. Oddly enough, I heard a lot of these concerns in 2008-2016 too. Since then it's been relatively quiet. Quite odd, isn't it?
I am by no means rich, and I got a nice tax cut from that plan. Getting a 20% discount on our taxable income certainly brought us down a tax bracket and saved a few thousand.I am glad you got something out of it. Kind of like a credit card cash advance.
I am glad you got something out of it. Kind of like a credit card cash advance.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/
Debt financed trillion dollar tax cut for the rich by the Republicans?Tax cuts are not expenditures. Most liberals don;t understand that the government does not own or earn the tax money they collect. The money never belonged to them. So tax cuts are just leaving more money earned with those who earned the money in the first place. Tax cut dollars belong to the taxpayer to begin with.
It's cute how people are suddenly concerned with unreasonable spending again now that it's time to potentially elect a Democrat. Oddly enough, I heard a lot of these concerns in 2008-2016 too. Since then it's been relatively quiet. Quite odd, isn't it?Both Republicans and Democrats have been buying the vote from the public by giving away more things than we can afford. So we have trillion dollar deficits and $22 trillion in debt. We borrow from the Chinese and print up the rest. Of course, the blame ultimately lies with us because we refuse to give up any "free" stuff. Of course, the huge new freebies the Democrat candidates for presidency plan to implement would make a Marxist blush. The amounts could fill the Pacific Ocean's Mariana Trench. So sure. It's being discussed and should be. Frankly, people should also ask why Trump is adding on so much debt. He's not much better.
Tax cuts are not expenditures. Most liberals don;t understand that the government does not own or earn the tax money they collect. The money never belonged to them. So tax cuts are just leaving more money earned with those who earned the money in the first place. Tax cut dollars belong to the taxpayer to begin with.
That's different than expenditures which is money spent from the earnings of the taxpayer. So when Warren or others call for "free" this and "free" that, what they're really saying is we intend to have the government take more money that you earned and give it to others through income redistribution, the hallmark of Socialism, Communism and Marxism. The program and cost for them that she intends to carry out would make the Russian Revolution look like nickel and dime stuff.
I feel like the real fantasy land is that Warren can actually win in a general election.
She just released a statement vowing $1T for areas hit by industrial pollution. I mean whats another trillion, right?, after $93T for the Green New Deal, $30T for Medicare-For-All, $6T to $14T for slavery and Native American repatriations, another $1.25T for wipe out college debt and give free college to anyone who wants to go (and to think my college debt is almost completely paid off; will I be able to get cold hard cash instead ??? ).
What have I missed?
Universal Child Care for one, but I cant seem to find the overall cost for that program.
But who knows, maybe she wont be on the ticket. She just got caught in two new lies. Apparently she voluntarily left her job when she was a teacher, which is well documented and she admitted to in interviews from 10 years ago, instead of the current claim that she was fired because she was pregnant. Also, her mother's temperament about her going to college was not as bad as she made out, albeit this revelation is due to her highly inconsistent accounts from today and in previous decades.
More third-rate ideological tripe. Taxes are how we pay for the common expenditures that we incur. There's nothing philosophical about it. You live in a society, you have joint responsibilities, you pay for them, that's all she wrote. All discussions about whether taxes are right or wrong are utter b*llshit. The real conversation is in deciding what you want to pay for collectively. Once you know that, you divvy up the costs. And anyway, when you pay taxes the money doesn't disappear into a black hole.I was making the point that tax cuts are not expenditures as the poster had implied. He was wrong.
I was making the point that tax cuts are not expenditures as the poster had implied. He was wrong.
I didn't say taxes were expenditures. I said they were debt financed, meaning we are borrowing the money to make the tax cuts possible. Otherwise, we would have had to cut expenditures an equivalent amount, and Congress certainly isn't interested in that.Lower taxes are not debt financed. Expenditures are debt financed. We are borrowing to make the expenditures possible. Of course, if tax collection is less than spending, we have to borrow or print. But it's spending that decides how much taxes you need. The government pays interest on the deficit and debt, money spent. Not on the tax money not collected. Unless we get spending under control, we're in trouble. There's not enough tax money available that won't hurt the economy with the programs the Democrats are proposing. The Republicans are better, but not by much.
Lower taxes are not debt financed. Expenditures are debt financed. We are borrowing to make the expenditures possible. Of course, if tax collection is less than spending, we have to borrow or print. But it's spending that decides how much taxes you need. The government pays interest on the deficit and debt, money spent. Not on the tax money not collected. Unless we get spending under control, we're in trouble. There's not enough tax money available that won't hurt the economy with the programs the Democrats are proposing. The Republicans are better, but not by much.Expenditures are not debt financed. The difference between taxes collected and expenditures made are debt financed. When expenditures stay the same or are increased, lower taxes mean increased debt. It is a direct correlation. Tax collections are replaced by debt. The more taxes are cut, the more debt increases. Such deficit financing gave us two quarters of modest economic growth. Economists have referred to it as a "sugar high". Hardly worth the price of increasing the debt.
Expenditures are not debt financed. The difference between taxes collected and expenditures made are debt financed. When expenditures stay the same or are increased, lower taxes mean increased debt. It is a direct correlation. Such deficit financing gave us two quarters of modest economic growth. Economists have referred to it as a "sugar high". Hardly worth the price of increasing the debt.Yes, expenditures beyond tax collection is debt financed. I said that: "Of course, if tax collection is less than spending, we have to borrow or print." But it's expenditures that drive taxes and debt. I agree with you that it's a sugar high. It's like getting a new credit card. It feels great until the end of the month when you get the statement. :o
Anyone interested in a factual analysis about the impact of the rate/distribution of taxes as a function of revenue on the economy and unbalanced accumulation of wealth should read Thomas Pickety.
Hint, he is a strong inspiration for Warren and Sanders.
Cheers,
Bernard
Tax cuts are not expenditures. Most liberals don;t understand that the government does not own or earn the tax money they collect. The money never belonged to them. So tax cuts are just leaving more money earned with those who earned the money in the first place. Tax cut dollars belong to the taxpayer to begin with.
Anyone interested in a factual analysis about the impact of the rate/distribution of taxes as a function of revenue on the economy and unbalanced accumulation of wealth should read Thomas Pickety.
Hint, he is a strong inspiration for Warren and Sanders.
Cheers,
Bernard
...
For example, the differences in income between the average American and the average Hispanic American is pretty substantial, but the average age of Hispanic Americans is significantly lower, which plays a large role but is hugely ignored by progressives. There are other aspects as well that greatly effect income inequality that are largely ignored.
Not to mention, those whom follow his theories tend to support that life is a zero sum gain, meaning that wealth is limited and in order for one person to become wealthy, he/she must take wealth from someone else. There is no evidence of this, and there is plenty of evidence that wealth is created (out of nothing sometimes), leading to near limitless amount of potential.
Now this is not to say that excessive income inequality is a good thing; it certainly will cause extreme instability but I do not think we are there yet...
It's been pointed out by more then just a hand full that Pinkety cherry picked his evidence for his theories.
On top of that, those whom always rail against income inequality tend to never remove the outliners in the data (those at the very very top who make up .01% but significantly skew the means) and do not give age the proper weight when looking at income distributions.
For example, the differences in income between the average American and the average Hispanic American is pretty substantial, but the average age of Hispanic Americans is significantly lower, which plays a large role but is hugely ignored by progressives. There are other aspects as well that greatly effect income inequality that are largely ignored.
Not to mention, those whom follow his theories tend to support that life is a zero sum gain, meaning that wealth is limited and in order for one person to become wealthy, he/she must take wealth from someone else. There is no evidence of this, and there is plenty of evidence that wealth is created (out of nothing sometimes), leading to near limitless amount of potential.
Now this is not to say that excessive income inequality is a good thing; it certainly will cause extreme instability but I do not think we are there yet. This over emphasis by Millennials and Gen Zs on income inequality is very likely due to the excessive college debt they hold that was brought onto them by the false premise that in order to be successful one needed to go to college. This in course increased college admissions (demand) faster then supply could increase and, combined with easy to get loans, increased the prices significantly, increasing debt. Last, and unfortunately, there is only a finite percentage of jobs in the real world that require college degrees, leaving many with jobs that pay too little to pay off the debt and whom have no real skills to work in areas that pay well but require different skill sets then what one would learn in a traditional college.
Those in the trades are actually doing well, but the stigma of being a tradesman is still prevalent and many trades people are looked down upon by college educated individuals, which I find rather disheartening.
(If you ever do any work in construction, you will find out that the building science that goes into construction is far more complicated that what it is given credit for. I recently had a fairly in depth conversation with a client about insulating baring masonry walls and how you need to adjust methods after taking into account masonry materials and zone location.)
But anyway, getting back to the whole income inequality issue, maybe we are approaching the edge of the cliff. I was listening to Chris Hedges today talk about the USA in the age of Trump. Now he is a progressive liberal whom (I think) leans more socialist then capitalist and is an obvious Trump hater, so I will certainly not agree with everything he says. But he did make a good point that the Democrats, influenced most recently by the Clintons, abandoned the working class, and this lack of support for the working class is what is causing such a huge upheaval in the country. I tend to agree with this. Even Jordan Peterson, whom I am more in line with, agrees that excessive income inequality will cause eventual economic failure.
Hedges also is of the theory that the next bubble to burst will be the college debt crisis, and solutions will be limited since we already used every (progressive) solution in our arsenal in the last recession. I cant argue against either of these; when/if that bubble bursts, it appears like we will be giving the right wing austerity a try and get to actually test it out.
My solutions will, it seems, be very different then yours though, at any stretch.
His new book solves many of the shortcomings of the previous one.Most of the major entrepreneurial businesses including Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft,and so many others happened in America mostly started by normal people who were not rich. Jeff Bezos who started Amazon and is now the richest man in the world, had very humble beginnings. His parents divorced when he was four and he worked for McDonalds hamburger store as a short-order cook. These businesses didn't happen in Europe which because of it's socialist and other practices regular people can;t do these things. Your so-called equality of income doesn;t seem to help you too much there.
Inequality of income and, more than that, of family capital through inheritance is obviously a major obstacle against equality of chances in a fair society.
Cheers,
Bernard
Most of the major entrepreneurial businesses including Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft,and so many others happened in America mostly started by normal people who were not rich. Jeff Bezos who started Amazon and is now the richest man in the world, had very humble beginnings. His parents divorced when he was four and he worked for McDonalds hamburger store as a short-order cook. These businesses didn't happen in Europe which because of it's socialist and other practices regular people can;t do these things. Your so-called equality of income doesn;t seem to help you too much there.
It is still much easier to start a company in USA than in most European countries (correspondingly, not only to start them but also to dissolve them). The red tape and accounting hurdles are much worse in Europe than in USA or Canada. Although, now there are several small software or photography companies based in various European countries with excellent and innovative products.
Most of the major entrepreneurial businesses including Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft,and so many others happened in America mostly started by normal people who were not rich. Jeff Bezos who started Amazon and is now the richest man in the world, had very humble beginnings. His parents divorced when he was four and he worked for McDonalds hamburger store as a short-order cook. These businesses didn't happen in Europe which because of it's socialist and other practices regular people can;t do these things. Your so-called equality of income doesn;t seem to help you too much there.
His new book solves many of the shortcomings of the previous one.
Inequality of income and, more than that, of family capital through inheritance is obviously a major obstacle against equality of chances in a fair society.
Cheers,
Bernard
So Trump's moves to deregulate and lower business taxes and those of wealthy people, helps American business and its economy and makes America more competitive in the world. It's entrepreneurial system it's second to none. Sanders and Warren would destroy it as would Picketty.
But anyway, getting back to impeaching Trump and the whole Ukraine thing, it just seems that Joe Biden cant get a break here.The Times wants Warren as president not Biden. He's toast.
Here is a recent NY Times article, "What Hunter Biden Did Was Legal — And That’s the Problem." (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/what-hunter-biden-did-was-legal-and-thats-the-problem.html)
So Trump's moves to deregulate and lower business taxes and those of wealthy people, helps American business and its economy and makes America more competitive in the world. It's entrepreneurial system it's second to none. Sanders and Warren would destroy it as would Picketty.
Are you seriously suggesting that American enterprise has been held back in the last 20-30 years? What planet do you wake up on every day?
Are you seriously suggesting that American enterprise has been held back in the last 20-30 years? What planet do you wake up on every day?Yes. America was held back. There was less investment in America by Americans as well as foreigners due to our high corporate income tax. It was higher the most other countries in the world. Since Trump changed tax legislation with Congress, corporate taxes are now lower and there's more investment in America business.
A world where Bill Gates had no help from his parents, I suppose. I wonder what colour the sky is ?Well, many kids unfortunately don't have parents to rear them or even know who their father is. Maybe we should take everyone's parents away to even it up.
A world where Bill Gates had no help from his parents, I suppose. I wonder what colour the sky is ?
For every Bill Gates, there is one Steve Jobs.Bill Gates did have well-to-do parents. But a lot of people do and don't become captains of industry. Look at Paris Hilton. :)
For an alternative to the cheerleading, this is a start:What're the articles about and what's your point?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/12/phone-state-private-sector-products-investment-innovation
https://hbr.org/2013/03/taxpayers-helped-apple-but-app
What're the articles about and what's your point?
For a man who became an expert on the work of Thomas Piketty overnight I don't think a couple of magazine articles will tax you greatly? But, in short, they are about the contribution of government money (you know - taxes) to entrepreneurs.I did read it. But didn;t want to comment because I didn't know what point you were trying to make. Also, the rules here are you're suppose give a summary when you post a link to an article. It's also a courtesy to other forum members because people don't always have time to read everything that's linked here. Also, it would be helpful to let us know why you think the article is important to read so we may object or support your point.
USA!!! USA!!!!
For an alternative to the cheerleading, this is a start:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/12/phone-state-private-sector-products-investment-innovation
https://hbr.org/2013/03/taxpayers-helped-apple-but-app
I did read it. But didn;t want to comment because I didn't know what point you were trying to make.If you read the the articles, the point he was trying to make is obvious.
If you read the the articles, the point he was trying to make is obvious.I don't agree with his point. :)
Rob, I don't know about UK, but based on my own experience, the cost and procedures to start a company (solo proprietorship or corporation) were much lower and easier in Canada than in Netherlands, Germany, Czech Republic and Slovakia. OTOH, I was told that starting and operating a business in Poland is much easier than in the surrounding states.I'm staying out of the political discussions but I'll just add my experience. When I retired from my day job in pharma, I set up a consulting practice. You can get a business ID from IRS for free and I only had to file papers with the State of Maryland for my Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). IIRC that cost $200 or so. I had to file a yearly corporate tax statement with the State that outlined equipment and supply purchases and depreciation and disposal of equipment. that took all of ten minutes to do. I did not have to file separate tax returns for the LLC, it all went into the personal tax filing for both the US and Maryland. Everything was pretty easy and expenses on a yearly basis, minimal.
In Canada, it's relatively easy to start a business. You need to apply for a business number (in person or by mail), open a bank account, and print business cards. To dissolve it, you close the bank account and submit the outstanding tax return(s). The cost to register a basic unincorporated company is under $100, and a corporation can be formed for $500-$1000.
I don't agree with his point. :)
I don't agree with his point. :)I do not know how you can disagree with his point when you said you did not know what his point was.
I'm staying out of the political discussions but I'll just add my experience. When I retired from my day job in pharma, I set up a consulting practice. You can get a business ID from IRS for free and I only had to file papers with the State of Maryland for my Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). IIRC that cost $200 or so. I had to file a yearly corporate tax statement with the State that outlined equipment and supply purchases and depreciation and disposal of equipment. that took all of ten minutes to do. I did not have to file separate tax returns for the LLC, it all went into the personal tax filing for both the US and Maryland. Everything was pretty easy and expenses on a yearly basis, minimal.
quite right. That's exactly what I did and it worked fine for about five years when most of my clients went their own way. At that point, I was happy to just go into retirement and let the LLC fade into obscurity. I still get occasional press calls because of the pharma experience but that doesn't pay very much!!! ;D
Last, unless you are operating your LLC like a corporation and/or maintain separate bank accounts where you only us the business bank account, and any credit cards, for business purchases only, your business's separation from your person would be easy to argue against in court of you were sued. So, if you opened an LLC to keep your business assets separate from your personal assets, for liability reasons, make sure you do not use your business account to cover personal expenses.
For a man who became an expert on the work of Thomas Piketty overnight I don't think a couple of magazine articles will tax you greatly? But, in short, they are about the contribution of government money (you know - taxes) to entrepreneurs.Well, I wouldn't want the administrator to make you or me sit in the corner for not making a point. We might actually have to sit together and discuss things in a friendly way. :)
Regardless of what the government did or didn't do, it's private investment capital that's taking the risk.
quite right. That's exactly what I did and it worked fine for about five years when most of my clients went their own way. At that point, I was happy to just go into retirement and let the LLC fade into obscurity. I still get occasional press calls because of the pharma experience but that doesn't pay very much!!! ;D
You can't have been reading properly - it was the governmnet that took the risk in funding the startups' technology.I don't know anything about startups. No one ever helped me when I started my business.
I don't know anything about startups. No one ever helped me when I started my business.I think Jeremy was speaking about all the government funded research (DARPA, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Heath, Department of Agriculture) that many tech startups took advantage of. Certainly in my area of expertise, key discoveries by federally funded university researchers led to the creation of the biotechnology industry and the development of a lot of novel pharmaceuticals.
I think Jeremy was speaking about all the government funded research (DARPA, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Heath, Department of Agriculture) that many tech startups took advantage of. Certainly in my area of expertise, key discoveries by federally funded university researchers led to the creation of the biotechnology industry and the development of a lot of novel pharmaceuticals.
“I want to add that I’m here to help you folks do well, and you’re doing well right now,” he said to a room that included Apple CEO Tim Cook, Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos and Alphabet CEO Larry Page.
From the first paragraph of the HBR article I linked to:It's true that the government also buys things from companies. So you could argue that a highway contractor who got a job from the Feds to re-pave US Route 66 and got his business started that way was government funded. But what really happened is the company was privately funded and got work from the government. The investors were still taking a risk with their investments. There's no guarantee that the company would survive in a competitive business world.
"Many of the revolutionary technologies that make the iPhone and other products and services “smart” were funded by the U.S. government. Take, for instance, the Internet, GPS, touchscreen display, as well as the latest voice-activated personal assistant, Siri. And Apple did not just benefit from government-funded research activities. It also received its early stage finance from the U.S. government’s Small Business Investment Company program. Venture capitalists entered only after government funding had gotten the company to the critical proof of concept."
But I don't know what you're suggesting in any case.
If the Feds were to seize the companie for itself, you wind up like Cuba or the USSR.
That Apple et al should pay their taxes.We got jazz, swing, country and rock n roll.
Unlikely. You haven't got the music.
Senate leader Republican Mitch McConnell calls House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bluff about impeachment and Pelosi blinks.How did McConnell call Pelosi’s bluff and how did she blink?
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/17/20919037/nancy-pelosi-mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-timeline-donald-trump
Oh look. Corruption (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-has-awarded-next-years-g-7-summit-of-world-leaders-to-his-miami-area-resort-the-white-house-said/2019/10/17/221b32d6-ef52-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html). But hey, look over there. Hunter Biden. HUNTER BIDEN!
::). This alone is impeachable. And illegal.
Good luck with this one; I guess sometimes you just need to see what sticks.
Personally I dont see how this rises to the level of gifts, especially if Trump is sponsoring the summit and not making any money. (I have no idea if this is the case; I could only read the headline and not the full article.) And if the property did take in revenue for this event, it would be money paid for services provided, which is not exactly a gift. He would need to make a profit beyond what is normal.
Really? You don't see the complete and total self-dealing and conflict of interest here? Listen. If we come back and find that Donald Trump, in his generosity and magnanimity donated the rooms, the space, and the catering then that's great. I find that... doubtful.
Then there's the issue of a complete and utter lack of self-awareness this shows, but that's par for the course for a man who wants to build government policy around investigating a rival's son, but happily steers business to one of his own kids directly using the office, and places his other kids in positions where they're so conflicted that a blind man could see it.
If you're ok with that, I don't know what to tell you.
I'll give you that. It is a head scratcher that he decided to do this considering all of the other things going on. Seems he likes to invite criticism.
But anyway, getting back to the point. The Republicans in the Senate will never convict Trump, unless something more damning comes out, and it is looking more and more that the Dems in the house don't even have the numbers to actually pass a formal vote. They tried three times before and failed to pass it, so I doubt a fourth time will be the charm.
So, the whole premise of this impeachment thingie is tainting Trump for the election, which would certainly work if the Democratic candidates were not crazy. But they have totally gone off the cliff, tripping over each other to prove how woke they are, and it appears the craziest one of them all will be on the ticket. Not to mention Warren is a known lier and has been caught this week three times.
Last, the economy is doing great. Just read that in the last two years average middle class household income increased by $5000. In the 8 years under Obama, it only increased $1000.
So, unless the economy tanks by next November, or one of the moderate Dems gets the ticket, Trump will easily win re-election, especially if Warren is on the ticket.
Yeah - I hear you. We're having two different discussions in a sense. On one hand, there's the philosophical argument about whether Donald Trump is fit for the presidency. I believe that the available evidence, ranging from the constant questionable decisions, to the self-dealing, to the nepotism, to the unwillingness to properly learn about things that impact every American's (and to be honest, much of the rest of the world's) life, to the abuse of power and seeming inability to actually run the government correctly, (and the various criminal/civil violations contained in these actions) make him unfit. It's my belief that he should be impeached and removed on that basis - it's our duty to do so. It's NOT about policy disagreements - that, as they say, are what elections are for. Its about incompetence. High crimes and misdemeanors in the parlance of the founders, or wanton breach of fiduciary duty in the language of today.
After that, who knows. You may be (in fact I think you probably are) correct about the results of a Warren nomination, though I'm not at all convinced that her ideas are any wackier than some of the stuff I hear from the right. There will be the sexists that won't vote for her because she's "shrill" and the know-nothings who won't vote for her because she's not "someone I can have a beer with" and total fools who won't vote for her because she's a "liar" even though every third word out of Trump's mouth is a lie, and so on and so on.
I'm not sure anymore, however, that the two things are relevant to one another. For a long time I was on the side of impeachment being a bad political move for Democrats with an eye toward 2020. But the more we find out, the more I'm convinced that a Republican administration with some sort of competence and compassion (even if I disagree with their philosophies) is a fair trade to make so long as the incompetent in office now is removed. (And that's a nasty position to have to take, considering Mike Pence is pretty much a horror show himself.)
Both the Post and the Times are reporting the G7 contract will be worth millions to Doral County Club -- the G7 attracts thousands of people, who will not all stay at Doral, but many of whom will use Doral services. It's absolutely unbelievable. Another question that occurs to me is whether, in the end, Trump can issue a formal pardon of himself for any crimes committed as President, because I think this may be an actual indictable crime, even if he can't be indicted until after he leaves office.They can use my house.
A more pressing question for the G7 people will be whether they're able to hear anything at the conference, since Doral is more or less at the end of the runways of Miami International Airport. 8-)
They can use my house.
Former Senator Jeff Flake said that there would likely be 20 Republican votes in the Senate for Impeachment if there was a secret ballot.Actually, he said 35.
It's really disturbing that a segment of Americans - you among them - thinks this kind of thing is a joke. It tells me that you don't care if the president breaks laws and has no ethics as long as you get the result you desire, and that's screwed up. And actually, even that's not quite right, because getting rid of the human garbage pile sitting in the Oval Office would still get conservatives Pence - a better conservative anyway. So it's not even your principles - it's *Trump* that people support, and that says a lot about them - nothing good, I might add.Puleese. Trump was a billionaire made before he got into politics. This nickel and dime accusation is just silly. Why don't you accuse Joe Biden who used his position as Vice President to get his son a $600,000 job with a Ukrainian corporation and thousands more with a $1.5 billion China corporation, with products he has never done business with. How about Hillary CLinton who used her position as Secretary of State and got foreign countries to "donate" $100's of millions to her and the former President and her husband Bill Clinton's foundation whee they skimmed off the top and are now worth $100 million personally. How about the half million speaking engagements they made paid by foreign corporations and countries to gain political access. Meanwhile TRump's $400,000 salary as president he donates to charity. And any profit from Doral will likewise be donated to charity or paid to the IRS. Calling the president of the US a "human garbage pile" says more about you than Trump.
A sad summary of just the past week in Trumpland https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/19/trump-white-house-staff-051393 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/19/trump-white-house-staff-051393).The democrats don;t seem to be doing much better. Hillary is calling fellow democrats Russian stooges. And the three leaders of the presidential nomination hit parade seem to be having identify problems of their own. Biden seems to have sold his VP office for monetary gain for his family, Warren changed her race to gain career advancing benefits, and Bernie is a card-carrying, anti-Capitalist Bolshevik. The Three Amigos. :)
As others have said the constant attention is a pain to put up with, but, geez, how do you not pay attention to this runaway train.
The democrats don;t seem to be doing much better. Hillary is calling fellow democrats Russian stooges. And the three leaders of the presidential nomination hit parade seem to be having identify problems of their own. Biden seems to have sold his VP office for monetary gain for his family, Warren changed her race to gain career advancing benefits, and Bernie is a card-carrying, anti-Capitalist Bolshevik. The Three Amigos. :)
Puleese, he's been a fraud all his life. How one cannot see through that facade, boggles the mind.Bart, Forbes estimated his wealth at $3.5 billion before he became president. I just checked and see Forbes new estimate is $3.1 billion. Wikipedia says Forbes said $6.1 and Bloomberg $5.8 billion. But what's a billion here or there? He's not a poor man in any case. Does he hype his worth, Of course. Does he hype everything else. Well, of course. He's a salesman if you haven't noticed. That's his business to sell the Trump name. That';s how he makes a lot of his money. Most of the buildings that bear his name are not owned by him. They are owned by others who have paid Trump a fee to use his name. So the more the Trump name is in the press, the more valuable it becomes.
More proof keeps surfacing, which also explains why he doesn't reveal his Tax returns:
Fraud Of Donald Trump's Self-Made Persona Exposed In Father's Financials
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM9f2YAKIJg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM9f2YAKIJg)
But this won't distract from the topic at hand, the impeachment inquiry.
The Democrats are not in power, how could they be doing better?All four are power players in American politics. Hillary owned the Democrats recently. She still has enormous power when and if she gives her support to one candidate or another. Biden was VP under Obama and the other two, Sanders and Warren are two of only 100 current US Senators. That's power!
Also, you want to have it both ways. On the one hand you say he's using the presidency to unfairly get people to stay at his hotels in Washington or at his Doral Golf CLub in FLorida or in Scotland and make money off his presidency. Then you claim his worth is a farce. How many The van der Wolf Hotel's are in Washington or anywhere else for that matter? You can't claim he's rich and poor at the same time.Another red herring. No one has said he is poor, just not a rich as he says he is. You call him a salesman; I call him a liar. And there is nothing inconsistent in saying that he is not as rich as he says he is and also saying that he is steering business his way in an unethical manner, whether or not you think his activities are in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
All four are power players in American politics. Hillary owned the Democrats recently. She still has enormous power when and if she gives her support to one candidate or another.I don't think anyone listens to what Hilary Clinton has to say. She's a has been.
Another red herring. No one has said he is poor, just not a rich as he says he is. And there is nothing inconsistent in saying that and also saying that he is steering business his way in an unethical manner, whether or not you think his activities are in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.Americans don't care whether he's worth $1 billion or 3 billion. The democrats have spent three years trying to find something to impeach Trump and complaining about things of Trump that the American people, except Trump hating Democrats, don;t care about. If travelers want to stay in one of his nice hotels like you or I might, then God bless them. Who cares? People are more concerned about their health, taxes, and wars in the Middle East. And Democrats aren't paying attention other than to look for faults in Trump who everyone including Trump supporters agree has loads of them. He's like a bull in a China shop. And the three leading Democrat nomination contenders for president meanwhile have enough of their own faults to talk about. Meanwhile, democrats and Congress in general are not doing their jobs.
I don't think anyone listens to what Hilary Clinton has to say. She's a has been.You're very mistaken. If Warren wins the nomination, she's going to need both the Clintons for support to get the Black vote.
You're very mistaken. If Warren wins the nomination, she's going to need both the Clintons for support to get the Black vote.You don't strike me as an expert on the black vote. Blacks are going to overwhelmingly vote for the Democrat candidate regardless of who it is. The only question is how many turn out. I don't think the Clintons endorsing the Democratic candidate, which they surely will, will make the slightest difference in that regard. The election will be close enough that it will turn on how many idiots vote for the third party candidates instead of the Democrat, just as in 2016. The second choice of the people that voted for Jill Stein was not Trump.
You don't strike me as an expert on the black vote. Blacks are going to overwhelmingly vote for the Democrat candidate regardless of who it is. The only question is how many turn out. I don't think the Clintons endorsing the Democratic candidate, which they surely will, will make the slightest difference in that regard. The election will be close enough that it will turn on how many idiots vote for the third party candidates instead of the Democrat, just as in 2016. The second choice of the people that voted for Jill Stein was not Trump.So if the Clintons campaign hard and get more Blacks to turn out for the Democrat, all the third party candidate votes won't matter. I wouldn't apply for a campaign advisor job if I were you.
So if the Clintons campaign hard and get more Blacks to turn out for the Democrat, all the third party candidate votes won't matter. I wouldn't apply for a campaign advisor job if I were you.If, If, If. I don't think the Clintons will campaign hard for the Democratic candidate. Endorse - yes; campaign hard - no. They have lost all currency.
The more Democrat impeachment Congressmen investigate Trump and Ukraine, the more they hurt their own candidate Joe Biden. So now, a career State Dept official tells Congress he warned the Obama Administration that Biden's dealing with Ukraine while his son gets a job there seems like a conflict of interest. Biden's advisors ignored the advice. Warren must be rolling on the floor laughing. Meanwhile, it makes Trump look like he was doing his job asking Ukraine to start the investigation again and at the same time getting rid of Biden as his main adversary for 2020, a double win.Can you describe this conflict of interest? Factually, Hunter Biden sat on the Board of Directors of a Ukrainian company while his father was Vice President. Do you have something more than that? Or just Giuliani's conspiracy theories? Meanwhile, Trump has chosen his own Doral Golf Course and Resort as the site of the next G7 summit.
Hillary Clinton goes off the rails calling fellow Democrat and presidential candidate Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard a "stooge" of the Russians.
Can you describe this conflict of interest? Factually, Hunter Biden sat on the Board of Directors of a Ukrainian compan while his father was Vice President. Do you have something more than that?
Can you describe this conflict of interest? Factually, Hunter Biden sat on the Board of Directors of a Ukrainian company while his father was Vice President. Do you have something more than that? Or just Giuliani's conspiracy theories? Meanwhile, Trump has chosen his own Doral Golf Course and Resort as the site of the next G7 summit.I didn't call it a conflict of interest. It was the linked article where a chief Department of State official in the Obama administration called it that. The official warned the administration and Biden officials of the problem. They chose to do nothing about it.
Technically, for there to have been a conflict of interest, it would have been necessary for Biden-père to have had a personal financial stake in the income that Biden-fils was receiving in Ukraine. What the State Department officer reportedly argued was that Hunter Biden’s position "could look like a conflict of interest," and that it would complicate U.S. government efforts to encourage the Ukrainian government to deal with corruption. There was clearly no crime and perhaps no violation of federal ethics rules, but he certainly was justified in raising the issue.But Biden can't complain about Trump's kids conflicts either. So suddenly, Trump and Biden look the same. The appearance is what counts in both cases. So it weakens Democrat's position in the upcoming election that Trump is corrupt when Biden did the same thing as VP. Of course, Biden is now toast. And the Democrats are burying him deeper every time they raise an impeachment claim regarding Ukraine. It's poetic justice. :)
But Biden can't complain about Trump's kids conflicts either.
So suddenly, Trump and Biden look the same.
The appearance is what counts in both cases. So it weakens Democrat's position in the upcoming election that Trump is corrupt when Biden did the same thing as VP.
Of course, Biden is now toast. And the Democrats are burying him deeper every time they raise an impeachment claim regarding Ukraine.
It's poetic justice. :)
The appearance is what counts in both cases. So it weakens Democrat's position in the upcoming election that Trump is corrupt
I didn't know he was.
No they don't.
How is Biden corrupt? What is it that Biden did that was the same as Trump?
Not really.
Only in la-la land. The primary concerns about Biden are his age and mental fitness, and perhaps he is not progressive enough.
Trump never divested himself from his business interests by placing them in a blind trust, and some of them (for example, the hotel in the Old Post Office Building in Washington and several of the resort properties) clearly are profiting from his being in public office. That is an actual conflict of interest, not the appearance of a conflict.
I actually see some logic in Trump's decision not to divest. Given the sprawling nature of his family business and the fact that it involves the ownership or brand-management of many real estate properties, placing all the assets under the control of independent trustees would have been complicated and, unless the trustees sold off the real estate, an ineffective way to insulate him from continuing to personally profit from the patronage of the properties by individuals or groups seeking favorable treatment from his Administration. But that in no way alters the reality that he has a conflict of interest.
Taking the MAGA slogan one step further, Dr. Caroline Trapp, DNP, ANP-BC, CDE, FAANP, DipACLM, the director of diabetes education & care at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine advocates fiber rich diet and says:Funny, I just read you post and saw the video after getting back from eating a delicious New York Strip in a restaurant out by the Jersey Shore. Delish!. They screwed it up at first by plopping down a wad of cheese butter that I had to immediately sweep off. The problem with the video and the meeting is that you can see why the general public is so mixed up and confused about what to eat. Even the experts argue and make their claims of what's good and what's bad. How does the average guy separate the wheat from the chaff, no pun intended? :)
Let's Make America Go Again
at the end of this video
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/highlights-from-the-2020-dietary-guidelines-hearing/
Funny, I just read you post and saw the video after getting back from eating a delicious New York Strip in a restaurant out by the Jersey Shore. Delish!. They screwed it up at first by plopping down a wad of cheese butter that I had to immediately sweep off. The problem with the video and the meeting is that you can see why the general public is so mixed up and confused about what to eat. Even the experts argue and make their claims of what's good and what's bad. How does the average guy separate the wheat from the chaff, no pun intended? :)
In my view, that video presented enough evidence about the evils of meat and dairy, but I agree that the information floating around the meat and plant-based food is pretty confusing. And most doctors and nutritionists who should help the consumers, are from the old school and don't have a clue about the findings of new health studies. To answer your question how to separate the wheat from the chaff, one has to be interested in finding the facts, read a lot and be skeptical of "experts" who are financed by the meat and dairy industries. BTW, the probability of getting Alzheimer is substantially greater for meat eaters than for vegans. Same for quite a few other diseases.
Good source of health information is at https://nutritionfacts.org
Click on Video Library, and then on All videos
All kidding aside, I'm a meat eater. I won;t stop completely as long as I;m still eating with my mouth. But I try to limit the amount and fat content. NY Strip and Sirloin are the lowest, so it's good that I like them the most. Oh. I did have my greens with my steak tonight although I added French fries a worse no-no per my doctors and nutritionists. The carbs are the worse. Especially when they're fried.
There can be more than 50 shades of food, some with more meat than others. I applaud you on reducing your meat intake. And your doctor is right about the danger of French fries. Better to switch to boiled potatoes or even to sweet potatoes.You see, he isn't all bad. :) And the players must have loved him for it. Notice the big guy in the second picture. He has the happy smirk on his face and not one, but two hamburgers on his plate. And if you haven't noticed in the first picture, Trump even bought load a salad dishes on the big tray on the right. It looks like no one took any though. Well, maybe the managers are on a diet.
But back to Trump. He has not ruined just the situation in Middle East, but also the health of the entire football team by ordering 300 hamburgers, pizzas, and french fries for them.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-mcdonalds-fast-food-white-house-clemson-tigers-156653 (https://inews.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-mcdonalds-fast-food-white-house-clemson-tigers-156653)
He's smart enough to get his kid a good job. :)
That doesn't require smart - even Trump has done it!Trump's kids work for the Trump Organization, a private firm, long before Donald got into politics. They've been learning the trade being tutored by their father since they were children. That's a lot different than a politician like VP Biden using his office to pressure foreign countries to arrange high paying job for his kid in a field they know nothing about. Maybe he can get me a job in the oil industry too. After all, I know how to pump gas. :)
. A
Trump's kids work for the Trump Organization, a private firm, long before Donald got into politics. They've been learning the trade being tutored by their father since they were children. That's a lot different than a politician like VP Biden using his office to pressure foreign countries to arrange high paying job for his kid in a field they know nothing about. Maybe he can get me a job in the oil industry too. After all, I know how to pump gas. :)
You're totally delusional. Since daddy became President Trump's family have made millions off the back of his position. A readable account is found here: https://www.gq.com/story/trump-kids-profit-presidency (I know you won't read it, but newbies may stumble onto this thread and not understand that the house rules are that you make up stuff to defend the Orange One at any cost).I read it. So you also approve of Hunter Biden getting a job off the back of his father, Vice President Biden?
Trump not having G7 at his Doral Florida Golf Resort. It would be in June, 2020, too close to the election and not look good. One less thing to be impeach about.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-g7/trump-abandons-plan-to-host-2020-g7-meeting-at-his-florida-golf-resort-idUSKBN1WZ01E
You spelled “indict” wrong. The fact that’s he proposed it is just another reason to kick his butt out.
Puleese. Trump was a billionaire made before he got into politics.Trump's business practices have been well documented and he has used the tax and LLC laws to protect him in multiple bankruptcies. He also got a nice loan from his father to help after one of the casinos went bust. Lots of stuff is continuing to emerge and ProPublica, one of the best set of investigative journalists around, is on the case. Their latest report shows some significant discrepancies in tax filings which may put him at risk of financial fraud. https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies Before you get your dander up and calling them a tool of the left, ProPublica is independently funded and cooperate with numerous news organizations. In this current example, the hard numbers cannot be easily argued away. either he misreported on his property tax or he lied to the lender in the loan documents. For someone who maintains a legion of attorneys and accountants, this should not happen.
Trump not having G7 at his Doral Florida Golf Resort. It would be in June, 2020, too close to the election and not look good.Mulvaney reported that the clueless Trump was surprised by the pushback. Not sure why he was surprised. Everyone has been saying it was a terrible idea from the time he first floated it, which was months ago. I am surprised he backed off rather than doubled down. Very uncharacteristic of him. I doubt it had anything to do with a moral compass.
I'm waiting for the headline, "Trump Burps in Oval Office, Dems Insists It's Reason for Impeachment."F*L*A*S*H - "Trump Impeached for Bad Breath. Wife Leaves Him and Checks Into DC Hotel."
Trump's business practices have been well documented and he has used the tax and LLC laws to protect him in multiple bankruptcies. He also got a nice loan from his father to help after one of the casinos went bust. Lots of stuff is continuing to emerge and ProPublica, one of the best set of investigative journalists around, is on the case. Their latest report shows some significant discrepancies in tax filings which may put him at risk of financial fraud. https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies (https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies) Before you get your dander up and calling them a tool of the left, ProPublica is independently funded and cooperate with numerous news organizations. In this current example, the hard numbers cannot be easily argued away. either he misreported on his property tax or he lied to the lender in the loan documents. For someone who maintains a legion of attorneys and accountants, this should not happen.Trump's worth $3.5 billion give or take. What are you worth? To argue that he used the tax laws to help him financially is just silly. Do you write off your mortgage interest payments? Or do you pay taxes that would have been legally deferred? Who would hire an accountant who would tell them to pay taxes they don't have to pay? There are no such accountants. They'd be unemployed standing on a food line hoping to get something to eat. Give me a break.
Let's put Trump in there for another 4 years. It looks like he needs more time to clean up the swamp. " [/i]Could you expand on just how he has been draining the swamp?
Trump's worth $3.5 billion give or take. What are you worth? To argue that he used the tax laws to help him financially is just silly. Do you write off your mortgage interest payments? Or do you pay taxes that would have been legally deferred? Who would hire an accountant who would tell them to pay taxes they don't have to pay? There are no such accountants. They'd be unemployed standing on a food line hoping to get something to eat. Give me a break.I'm worth enough to not have to go to work as a greeter at a big box store. I have been a co-owner of an apartment building in California and am familiar with real estate depreciation and taxation. I have taken advantage of all the deductions made available to me.
Trump's been writing off his real estate property for years. The IRS looks at things like that to see if they're reasonable valuations. If he commited fraud they would have indicted him a long time ago. The IRS is always auditing him, not like me and you. Charging him with fraud based on rumor and politics is like you charging him with colluding with the Russians. You guys don't give up.IRS audits do not cover financial fraud that is the topic of the story I linked to. had you read the article you would have seen copies of two financial documents that are publicly available that contradict each other and 'may' cause him some problems. I'm not charging him with fraud, I only said that these are problematic. I would not be surprised if there are more in this category. there have been condo developments where the Trump kids said were already sold out and that was totally wrong; in one case less than 1/4 of the units were sold despite what Ivanka said.
Of course, all these charges are made with the intent of going into the election hoping the public sees Trump as a crook. After all the Democrats have nothing else to run on. It might work. On the other hand, the public might think, "You know, these charges have been all a lot of bunk. It's all political nonsense. The democrats haven't done a damn thing in 4 years to help this country and have spent all that time trying to bring down the President.The Republicans were in power for the first two years of President Trump's term so it is not fair to say that the Democrats have not done anything. Since the beginning of this year the Democrats have had control over the House and have passed numerous pieces of legislation which are lying dormant in the Senate as Majority Leader McConnell refuses to bring them up for a vote. The fault here is not with the Democrats who would like to do some infrastructure and health care legislation only to see things evaporate into the Senate ether.
I'm worth enough to not have to go to work as a greeter at a big box store. I have been a co-owner of an apartment building in California and am familiar with real estate depreciation and taxation. I have taken advantage of all the deductions made available to me.Your post confirmed my point. Democrats have spent three years and counting looking under every stone to see if they can find some dirt. Collusion with the Russians, Obstruction, paying off hookers and girlfriends. And now you say that although you're "not accusing him of fraud", you think there are some "problematic" documents that "may" be a smoking gun to IRS fraud. Meanwhile the IRS has never charged him with fraud even though he's audited all the time for 40-50 years he's been in the real estate and other businesses. But somehow, this time, you know you got the goods. And then you tell me that Democrats would spend their time doing the people's business but it's the Republicans that are stopping them. Give me a break.
IRS audits do not cover financial fraud that is the topic of the story I linked to. had you read the article you would have seen copies of two financial documents that are publicly available that contradict each other and 'may' cause him some problems. I'm not charging him with fraud, I only said that these are problematic. I would not be surprised if there are more in this category. there have been condo developments where the Trump kids said were already sold out and that was totally wrong; in one case less than 1/4 of the units were sold despite what Ivanka said.
Show me one quote of mine where I accused the President of colluding with the Russians (don't waste your time trying to find one as I've never said this).
The Republicans were in power for the first two years of President Trump's term so it is not fair to say that the Democrats have not done anything. Since the beginning of this year the Democrats have had control over the House and have passed numerous pieces of legislation which are lying dormant in the Senate as Majority Leader McConnell refuses to bring them up for a vote. The fault here is not with the Democrats who would like to do some infrastructure and health care legislation only to see things evaporate into the Senate ether.
Could you expand on just how he has been draining the swamp?If he wasn't defending himself all the time against phony impeachment charges, he would have had more time to "shoot" swamp rats. That's why he's earned another 4 years. :)
If he wasn't defending himself all the time against phony impeachment charges, he would have had more time to "shoot" swamp rats. That's why he's earned another 4 years. :)So he hasn't done anything to drain the swamp, but it is someone else's fault.
So he hasn't done anything to drain the swamp, but it is someone else's fault.I think he's given up on getting rid of them. So he just bypasses them and makes his own decisions. If he listened to all the neocon yakkers and warmongering generals, they'd have us in a war with Turkey, Russia and Syria. But that's for the other thread.
If he wasn't defending himself all the time against phony impeachment charges, he would have had more time to "shoot" swamp rats. That's why he's earned another 4 years. :)
Alan - in the interests of saving time, could you please just provide a list of those ways (if any) in which you consider Trump to be less than completely perfect?He should learn to keep his big mouth shut. Hmmm.
Thanks.
From day one this president talked lies.
He could not even be honest about the amount of people that came to his inauguration:
"Before Spicer’s briefing room tirade on Saturday, Trump had told an audience at CIA headquarters that he had given his inauguration address to a “massive field of people … packed”, he estimated, with between 1 million and 1.5 million people.
To his eye, Trump said, the crowd stretched “the 20-block area, all the way back to the Washington Monument” – but a television network he didn’t name had broadcast a shot of “an empty field” and put the crowd at 250,000.
His spokesman Spicer even stated: “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period.”
There was enough evidence to prove that wrong, but that was all fakenews...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/trump-inauguration-crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/trump-inauguration-crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/donald-trump-inauguration-crowd-size-photos-edited (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/donald-trump-inauguration-crowd-size-photos-edited)
He's always been asalesmanliar.
FTFYDo you know when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.
Do you know when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.If Biden or Hillary states 1+ 1 = 3 They get the same bad reaction from the outside world as if trump would say it.
So you believe Biden that he knew nothing about his son's dealings with the Ukrainian and Chinese corporations? So you believe Warren when she says she never intended to use her claim of being an American Indian to advance her career? So you believe Hillary Clinton when she she says she had no ulterior motives for having a private server and secret emails nor did she ever use her office as Secretary of State to gain financially? So you believe Obama that he never authorized the IRS to be tough on his political opponents taxes or that he knew nothing about the investigation his FBI was doing of the Trump campaign?
If Biden or Hillary states 1+ 1 = 3 They get the same bad reaction from the outside world as if trump would say it.Biden and Hillary called accusations against her as false. Biden said he flew 12 hours with his son to China and never discussed business with him once. Hillary said her illegal servers made her more efficient as Secretary of State and they were never used for classified information. Nor she said did she use them to communicate private business discussing with foreign leaders and other people looking to contributing millions to her Clinton Initiative foundation to buy influence with the American government.
Trump however, will be the only one to stick to it and call 1+1 =2 'fake news'.
He would even add it was a brillant idea.
Your post confirmed my point. Democrats have spent three years and counting looking under every stone to see if they can find some dirt. Collusion with the Russians, Obstruction, paying off hookers and girlfriends. And now you say that although you're "not accusing him of fraud", you think there are some "problematic" documents that "may" be a smoking gun to IRS fraud. Meanwhile the IRS has never charged him with fraud even though he's audited all the time for 40-50 years he's been in the real estate and other businesses. But somehow, this time, you know you got the goods. And then you tell me that Democrats would spend their time doing the people's business but it's the Republicans that are stopping them. Give me a break.The IRS budget has been cut way back over the past eight years. We have only President Trump's word that his taxes are under audit; the IRS never discloses whose tax returns are under audit. Given the President's lack of veracity, there is no guarantee that he is telling the truth. He made an empty promise about releasing his tax returns because he didn't believe he would win the nomination much less the presidency. Once he accomplished both wins, that promise of transparency disappeared. Do you deny that this took place? Also, you have no idea how often he was audited and by which tax authorities and neither do I.
So Trump has reversed course again and has now decided to keep some troops in Syria to protect the oil fields, which of course begs the question for whom and from whom. I don't think the US imports any oil from Syria. So much for bringing the boys home and letting the ME fight it out among themselves. Mendacity.I agree, Frank. First thing I thought. Why are we there protecting oil? Whose oil is it anyway? I think some of the oil is in Iraq. But who cares? Let the Iraqi army protect it. If it's on Syrian lands, maybe it belongs to the Syrians in the first place and the Kurds are stealing it. So we're complicit in their theft. In any case, we're supposed to be policeman protecting oil? It's nuts! Frankly, it's just an excuse to keep troops there; an attempt to cool off the criticism of Trump because he pulled out.
The IRS budget has been cut way back over the past eight years. We have only President Trump's word that his taxes are under audit; the IRS never discloses whose tax returns are under audit. Given the President's lack of veracity, there is no guarantee that he is telling the truth. He made an empty promise about releasing his tax returns because he didn't believe he would win the nomination much less the presidency. Once he accomplished both wins, that promise of transparency disappeared. Do you deny that this took place? Also, you have no idea how often he was audited and by which tax authorities and neither do I.So because the IRS budget has been cut, we are to assume that Trump has commited tax fraud. Never mind that only effect the non-rich because the IRS mainly goes after rich people and companies. They still audit the Trumps because they have so much money. But meanwhile, there has not been one charge of tax fraud or insurance fraud for over-valuations of real estate in his entire life from the IRS. Remember that banks and insurance companies are the ones that eventually have to deal with any bankruptcies. So if TRump did something illegal, they'd be pissed. They'd be holding the bag as the property value would not cover the their payments to creditors.
IRS fraud is not what either I or the ProPublica piece was talking about. It was property tax declarations and loan applications. These are public documents and there is a clear discrepancy.
Anyone can be investigated for malfeasance and this happens all the time. Look at how much investigation was done about President Clinton and his wife during his administration. Do you think those investigations (along with the countless investigations of Secretary of State Clinton) were not warranted. You cannot have it both ways. Either everyone is fair game or nobody is.
Your final comment is just silly. The House has done a lot of legislative work that is just sitting on Senator McConnell's desk. He is not even making an attempt to have the Senate pass something and see if there is some common ground. The Senate could easily not vote to finalize something if a compromise could not be reached. I think President Trump has held a couple of 'infrastructure weeks' and nothing has happened. I don't know what your roads and bridges are like in NJ, but ours down here need a lot of work.
Interesting piece from a forthcoming book, about Trump's first Pentagon briefing, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/21/inside-trumps-first-pentagon-briefing-229865 (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/21/inside-trumps-first-pentagon-briefing-229865).The read shows the president as his own man with a plan. He became president wanting to stop foreign wars and get our allies to pay more for their defense and to straighten out trade imbalances caused by unfair trade practices. Mattis was still in the Neocon camp where America would remain as the guarantor of international peace using our muscle to get our way. Mattis is stuck in the past. Americans elected the president not Mattis. It was Trump's policy promises that got him elected. Americans had enough of old ways of doing things; Mattis's ways of doing things.
I agree, Frank. First thing I thought. Why are we there protecting oil? Whose oil is it anyway? I think some of the oil is in Iraq. But who cares? Let the Iraqi army protect it. If it's on Syrian lands, maybe it belongs to the Syrians in the first place and the Kurds are stealing it. So we're complicit in their theft. In any case, we're supposed to be policeman protecting oil? It's nuts! Frankly, it's just an excuse to keep troops there; an attempt to cool off the criticism of Trump because he pulled out.The point is Trump can't make up his mind. The mission changes from day to day. So yesterday he was bringing the boys home as a rationale for letting Turkey invade Syria. What's the rationale today?
The read shows the president as his own man with a plan. He became president wanting to stop foreign wars and get our allies to pay more for their defense and to straighten out trade imbalances caused by unfair trade practices. Mattis was still in the Neocon camp where America would remain as the guarantor of international peace using our muscle to get our way. Mattis is stuck in the past. Americans elected the president not Mattis. It was Trump's policy promises that got him elected. Americans had enough of old ways of doing things; Mattis's ways of doing things.
The read shows the president as his own man with a plan.
I can't remember, did Trump ever get his military parade?I think he had two "Sherman" tanks on the National Mall on the Fourth of July.
The point is Trump can't make up his mind. The mission changes from day to day. So yesterday he was bringing the boys home as a rationale for letting Turkey invade Syria. What's the rationale today?He wants to get re-elected and protect himself from impeachment. So he's going along with Republican complaints about his original decision.
Nobel-prize winning economist Robert Shiller believes a recession may be years away due to a bullish Trump effect in the market.
"Robert Shiller: Recession likely years away due to bullish Trump effect"I hope you're right. But I don;t know. What if he loses in 2020? Also, the Fed is pumping fake money into the economy again to keep it afloat. I'm afraid it's going to end badly. If a socialist wins, the printing presses will be run on overtime.
https://www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/20/shiller-recession-likely-years-away-due-to-bullish-trump-effect.html
Impeach that! ;)
So Trump has reversed course again and has now decided to keep some troops in Syria to protect the oil fields, which of course begs the question for whom and from whom. I don't think the US imports any oil from Syria. So much for bringing the boys home and letting the ME fight it out among themselves. Mendacity.
"Robert Shiller: Recession likely years away due to bullish Trump effect"Well, just one year ago the same oracle you site said that stocks were in for a tough time: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/nobel-prize-winner-shiller-sees-bad-times-in-the-stock-market-ahead.html
https://www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/20/shiller-recession-likely-years-away-due-to-bullish-trump-effect.html
Impeach that! ;)
The problem is the democrats have been looking for something, anything, to impeach. It's a wild goose chase. They look under every rock and cranny until they hope they can find something to use against him even if there really isn't anything there, like the Russian collusion charge.
That's very true. You can't fire him because of incompetency, so they have to find other ways to get rid of him. Same as with Al Capone.Impeachment talk started even before the inauguration. They (Democrats and connected Republicans) just couldn't accept that Hillary lost and this outsider won. Especially because everyone though Hillary was a shoe-in. The analogy to Capone is a little unfair, don't you think? ;)
The analogy to Capone is a little unfair, don't you think? ;)
Impeachment talk started even before the inauguration. They (Democrats and connected Republicans) just couldn't accept that Hillary lost and this outsider won. Especially because everyone though Hillary was a shoe-in. The analogy to Capone is a little unfair, don't you think? ;)
Yes, I've no reason to believe that Capone was a racist.Well, Capone executed people who caused him trouble, something that Trump hasn't been accused of. Yet.
Well, Capone executed people who caused him trouble, something that Trump hasn't been accused of. Yet.
You are absolutely right, Alan. Al Capone's mansion in Miami pales in comparison to Mar A Lago.Well, Trump's taste is of a higher standard although I think his Trump's gold powered Tower residence is a little tacky for my taste. :)
"Robert Shiller: Recession likely years away due to bullish Trump effect"
https://www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/20/shiller-recession-likely-years-away-due-to-bullish-trump-effect.html
Impeach that! ;)
Well, Trump's taste is of a higher standard although I think his Trump's gold powered Tower residence is a little tacky for my taste. :)Everything associated with Trump is tacky.
Everything associated with Trump is tacky.
Except Melania and Air Force One.Having a trophy wife is tacky. Air Force One just looks dated.
Having a trophy wife is tacky. Air Force One just looks dated.Yeah, Air Force One looks older.
Yeah, Air Force One looks older.Well, he can't keep Air Force One when he leaves office. It won't fit in his cell.
Having a trophy wife is tacky...
Having a trophy wife is tacky. Air Force One just looks dated.
With Taylor's testimony today things are getting worse for the Prez. I think it's looking more and more like a resignation before the end of the year; I don't think he wants to go through impeachment.You've been claiming that for three years. Are you sure this time?
With Taylor's testimony today things are getting worse for the Prez. I think it's looking more and more like a resignation before the end of the year; I don't think he wants to go through impeachment.
I don't think you've been paying attention. Nothing is too low for this guy. If he beat conviction by a single vote in the Senate, he'd claim complete vindication. And I'm not sure they can get enough Republicans to vote for conviction, though they might come close. The problem the Republicans face is that Pence, who'd be the presumptive nominee if he assumes the presidency later in this year or earlier in the next, has all the charisma of a barrel of hair. I think for Republicans, Trump would run stronger.
I doubt he did it personally, so the comparison is still not looking good for Trump.
Capone made his bones as a hit man for the mob in his younger days. When he was a boss, yes, he did not do it personally, but before that, he had no qualms with executing someone.Fugetaboutit.
That's an interesting conversation. Just how strong would Pence be in an election? Pence seems like a squeaky clean kind of guy. He looks like a president, speaks like a president, coherently and with authority. He comes from middle America (Indiana) and would attract middle American votes from the swing states. If the Democrat nominate is a left winger, he could attract a lot of votes in other states that might not vote for Trump. Who knows how it would turn out?
It is really a question of voter turnout with this election. Fact is, although many may not like Trump, he draws a big crowd and large support from those that do support him. Another fact is that many just don't like the current Dems. Warren's policies and the recent CNN LGBT town hall turned off a lot of voters, more then those on the Left want to admit, that would be shoe ins for the Dems, so there is very low enthusiasm there.
Last, and this something that I realized today, the WOKE and Trans movement is an ideological pure all or nothing crowd. They refuse compromise, and any movement that does this is doomed for failure and will bring down all politicians that support it as well. This is the main reason why prohibition failed; the teetotalers refused to compromise. If they did, we would probably live in a country with only wine and light beer.
In the past election, many were still too scarred to rail against the obvious parts of these movements that were flawed. Now though, both comedians and female athletes (and their upset fathers and mothers watching them loose to biological boys) are starting to openly critique both movements. 6 to 9 months, the damn will break wide open, just in time for the election. Given the recent mess created in CT, I would not be surprised if that state turns red.
A lot of the left wing stuff will disappear during the general election. Right now, everyone is trying to win the nomination. Whoever wins will shift back into the middle. People have short memories.
I don't know how Warren goes back to the middle. She already ruined herself.She'll be protected by the media.
She'll be protected by the media.
Pence is so conservative, be careful what you wish for....So why do they want to impeach Trump?
Congrats to my Canadian friends having re-elected Justin Trudeau. Please, I no longer wish to hear how Trump only got 46% of the popular vote. How do you run Canada when only 1/3 of the people voted for you? 33.1%! Also, no more complaints about the American electoral system.
"Not only was Trudeau's Liberal Party forced by voters to accept a demotion to a minority government -- grabbing just 157 of 338 seats in the House of Commons -- but about two-thirds of the country voted against him. His party's share of the popular vote clocked in at just 33.1 % -- less than the 34.4% earned by the rival the Conservative Party of Canada and its leader Andrew Scheer."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/opinions/canada-election-bociurkiw/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/opinions/canada-election-bociurkiw/index.html)
Capone made his bones as a hit man for the mob in his younger days. When he was a boss, yes, he did not do it personally, but before that, he had no qualms with executing someone.
I think the media is falling apart right now though.I don't watch a lot of TV news and when I do, I try to sample both FOX and MSNBC both of which are good for some laughs. Since I walk an hour each morning, I listen to lots of podcasts, some of which are news related. With the ubiquitous of the Internet, there are lots of alternative news outlets. The Washington Post does a poor job of local news coverage these days but we have a very good local outlet Bethesda Beat that delivers a daily email with links to all current stories that are of interest to me.
I used to watch and read CNN all of the time, but just cant anymore. My wife initially criticized me for getting my news elsewhere, but eventually she stop as well. I think her newfound opinion on the CNN, which she held onto for a long time, just proves the point.
I have been listening to a lot of podcast recently, and people are more and more getting their news from these sources. On one such podcast, a credentialed journalist made the point that the mass media is realizing this and trying to correct for it by being over the top, which in turn makes it worse.
Too bad he didn't have drones and an air force, eh? Could have avoided getting his little hands dirty altogether.
Don't know why you want to portrait yourself as unnecessarily more dim than you actually are...
I'm not sure how the nomination process is done in the Democratic Party, but is it possible for an outsider to enter the group that is already running for the candidacy for a while? That would put those having had to already spend money at a disadvantage.
Personally, and from a distance, I'm not overly impressed by the line-up. It doesn't look like the best candidate to beat the probable Republican nominee is being selected.
Cheers,
Bart
Damn, and this is in the NY Times!There is no surprise here! Lots of us who are reliable Democratic voters are uncomfortable with the three front runners for various reasons. I made my first contribution of the year to a Dem running and it was not anyone of those. Former Senator and Secretary of State Clinton should just fade away like an old soldier.
Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’ (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/politics/democratic-candidates-2020.html)
And it looks like Hillary may jump back in for a 2020 run. It is mud slinging time. Personally I think she is done. Maybe before Farrow book came out, she had a chance. However now that it is evident that Hillary also tried to squash the Weinstein story, I cant see her surviving the Me2 people.
Personally, I would like to see Michael R. Bloomberg enter the race.
Don't know why you want to portrait yourself as unnecessarily more dim than you actually are, but let's explain.Your insult wasn;t required Bart. You're better than that.
In a multi-party election system, in the case of Canada 5 parties, there is a chance that a multi-party coalition government will have to be formed. These parties will not participate unless a fair share of their specific policies find their way to the day-to-day governing and future legislation. In this way, they can create a coalition government that represents more than 50% of the population, AKA democracy.
There is no surprise here! Lots of us who are reliable Democratic voters are uncomfortable with the three front runners for various reasons. I made my first contribution of the year to a Dem running and it was not anyone of those. Former Senator and Secretary of State Clinton should just fade away like an old soldier.Why do you think she attacked Gabbard?
An observation, followed by an explanation, in case the observation is wrong..
Ok. Reported to the moderator.Slobodan, I appreciate your concern. Let me deal with Bart directly. I'm not interested in raising the issue to the moderator. Thanks.
The point is non-Americans like yourself and others from Canada laugh at the America presidential electoral system. How could Hillary who received 48% of the popular vote lose the election to Trump who received less votes at 46%. That's not a democracy. When we explain our electoral system, foreigners argue that it should be the popular vote that counts. Well, there in Canada, Trudeau got 33.1% and his opponent got a higher popular vote at 34.1%. But Trudeau's opponent doesn't become the leader, just like Clinton. There are other rules and processes that affect the selection. Well, those aren't "democratic" either at least not based on popular vote. The parties have to work behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms to make special deals to select the PM. Doesn;t sound democratic to me. At least with our electors, almost all are required to follow what their state's popular vote was.
Think about it. 69.1% of Canadians voted against Trudeau. Only 54% of American voted against Trump. Sounds like America is more "democratic" the Canada and other Parliamentary systems.
No one laughed, they simply expressed reservations about the process. We're allowed to do that.The Point is one shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house. I want to remind people in countries with parliamentary systems that your processes aren't exactly "democratic" either. The only reason we heard from them, is because they're upset that Hillary didn't win because of the electoral system. It was about Hillary, and who won, not the system that concerned them. The argument about popular vote was just a ploy. Their systems may be more undemocratic than America's.
As to the outcomes in a multi-party system, that was explained above. Did you not read it? If you did, why repeat the same question. In any case, no one ever claimed that we non-Americans get it exactly correct either, so I don't understand the point of even bringing it up. It is not necessary to take everything personally.
The point is non-Americans like yourself and others from Canada laugh at the America presidential electoral system. How could Hillary who received 48% of the popular vote lose the election to Trump who received less votes at 46%. That's not a democracy. When we explain our electoral system, foreigners argue that it should be the popular vote that counts. Well, there in Canada, Trudeau got 33.1% and his opponent got a higher popular vote at 34.1%. But Trudeau's opponent doesn't become the leader, just like Clinton. There are other rules and processes that affect the selection. Well, those aren't "democratic" either at least not based on popular vote. The parties have to work behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms to make special deals to select the PM. Doesn;t sound democratic to me. At least with our electors, almost all are required to follow what their state's popular vote was.
The Point is one shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house. I want to remind people in countries with parliamentary systems that your processes aren't exactly "democratic" either. The only reason we heard from them, is because they're upset that Hillary didn't win because of the electoral system. It was about Hillary, and who won, not the system that concerned them. The argument about popular vote was just a ploy. Their systems may be more undemocratic than America's.
It should be noted that the US has independent candidates as well, not only in presidential, but also in congressional elections. It also has a multi-party system. It is just that the other parties can not get enough popular support at present. The most notable independent congressional member is Bernie Sanders.
"Since 1877, there have been 113 third-party U.S. Representatives"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
Although third-parties are not ruled out, they exist mostly in theory, it seems to me. The two main parties have sown things up very well, haven't they. But I don't know enough about the history to know why that's happened, but lots of people around the world find it very odd.
Political positions of Donald Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump
Was hoping to get an explanation. Could the frequent switching of sides have to do with influence on candidate selection...
It shall be noted that Trump had never been a candidate for anything political until 2016 elections. Thus his frequent switching has nothing to do with his own candidacy. He, and many others, switch party affiliation for a different reason - voting. Depending on state legislation, one may or may not vote in a party primary unless officially affiliated with the party. In some states you can, in others you can not. For instance, in Illinois, I was able to participate in a primary voting without declaring my affiliation. When I moved to Florida, however, if I want to vote in primaries, I would have to choose sides first. In presidential and congressional elections, however, that doesn't matter.
What is the reason for requiring affiliation in the places where it is required?
What is the reason for requiring affiliation in the places where it is required?
Don't know why you want to portrait yourself as unnecessarily more dim than you actually are, but let's explain.
I have made it perfectly clear that gratuitous personal abuse will not be tolerated, Bart. That sentence is unacceptable, subsequent "explanation" or no. Don't do it again.
Jeremy
The electoral college, plain and simple. Since it is a winner takes all in the state vote, third party candidates typically never stand a chance at even winning some electoral votes. So from a party forming perspective, why bother trying to create a third parties if you know you will never have any national influence in the executive branch. This is exactly why Bernie is running as a Dem, even though he is not really one.Didn't Ralph Nader have a major impact on the executive branch in 2000?
That's fine Jeremy.
To avoid offending anyone, I've started removing my LuLa contributions. Let's see how that affects the signal to noise ratio.
Cheers,
Bart
How do you get on the electoral roll in the US? Is it possible to be eligible but then denied the vote because you haven't fulfilled some other obligation, e.g., sign up for something, register somewhere, etc.? Does your presence on one electoral roll, say federal, mean that you are automatically enrolled for state elections, or municipal elections?Every state has their own rules because each state is sovereign. My wife an I just voted by mail for mayor, sheriff, school officials, and other local officials who have their hand in the till. :), a procedure allowed in the State of New Jersey. Enrollment is by state, not Federally. There are no federal enrollments. Since all federal officials except the President represent only the whole state in the case of senators or a particular election district in the states for Representative for Congress. You can't vote for officials in other states. You can only vote where you live and are registered to vote. You can only register in one state at a time. It;'s illegal to vote in two states.
Every state has their own rules because each state is sovereign.
But they're sovereign in all areas where they haven't relinquished their sovereignty in the enumerated powers given to the Federal government.
Nope. Sovereignty is absolute. If it isn't absolute, it isn't sovereignty.I submit to your definition. :) Just to clarify the original question though, within states' non-absolute authority, they each determine the rules for their state how their residents vote as long as their rules do not violate the Constitution of the United States. I hope I got it right this time. :)
Nope. Sovereignty is absolute. If it isn't absolute, it isn't sovereignty.You know, that's what my wife keeps telling me.
Just to clarify the original question though, within states' non-absolute authority, they each determine the rules for their state how their residents vote as long as their rules do not violate the Constitution of the United States. I hope I got it right this time. :)
How do you get on the electoral roll in the US? Is it possible to be eligible but then denied the vote because you haven't fulfilled some other obligation, e.g., sign up for something, register somewhere, etc.? Does your presence on one electoral roll, say federal, mean that you are automatically enrolled for state elections, or municipal elections?
Afraid not: the states' voting regimes must also conform to the requirements of federal statutes—for example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (https://www.justice.gov/crt/history-federal-voting-rights-laws).Not trying to be picky. But if Congress is passing laws, they're operating under the constitution. So states are ultimately abiding by the constitution.
Thanks all.
What sounds the most odd to me (from Canada) is the concept of primaries and public voting in them, whether party affiliation is required or not. There is no equivalent to that here. Political parties decide internally who they choose to stand for office in each riding (district is the nearest equiv to you, I believe) with no input from the public. The selection of who stands for office has no connection with voter eligibility, either formal or informal.
Getting on the electoral roll here is a bureaucratic process, completely separate from politics, not unlike getting a driver's license or applying for old age pension, and is supervised by a federal government department set up for the purpose, called Elections Canada. I have never heard of a political party trying to interfere in its workings. If it ever happened, it would be a career-ending move by the politician who tried and put the party to which he/she belonged in deep sh*t. It may even be a criminal offence, but I don't really know about that. Maybe some other readers know more about that.
Please dont Bart! Yours are the main reason to visit the site!
+1I couldn't care less about these discussions on that person Trump or whatever.
Bart is far and away the most constructive and informative contributor to this (sub-)forum, and it's no wonder that he (very rarely) loses patience with those who are less honest. If he were to be driven away because he expresses that impatience in a straightforward way without flowery language or snide insinuation, that would be the forum's loss.
Bart is far and away the most constructive and informative contributor to this (sub-)forum, and it's no wonder that he (very rarely) loses patience with those who are less honest. If he were to be driven away because he expresses that impatience in a straightforward way without flowery language or snide insinuation, that would be the forum's loss.Jeremy, Your nonchalance is not appreciated. Bart personally attacked me and deliberately called me stupid and was called out for it. I have done the same myself a couple of times in the heat of battle and was called out for it as well. I took my medicine and tried to correct my ways and then moved on. No one is forcing him out, certainly not me or the moderator. It's his call.
Quite a few members have " called" Alan out without being rebuked. Some of his comments are provocative therefore he has brought it upon himself? ::)If you can't read my posts because they're provocative, whatever that means, and the only response you can come up with is to call me names, you ought to stop reading my posts. I wouldn't want to upset you and ruin your day.
Let's also not forget the current attempts by three states to eliminate Republican party primary voting even though there are three announced candidates running against President Trump.
Because of the complaints, the Democrat party changed their procedures. I believe they still have superdelegates. But they can't be used unless the first round of voting for the nominee does not get a majority. Then they can go back to their shifty ways. :)
To answer the question, the lowest administrative voting level in the US is usually a city (town, township) or, occasionally, a county if there is no substantial city in that county. You would sign up to vote with your town or county. Usually (and in my experience, virtually always) when you sign up to vote at the lowest level, you're also signing up to vote at every level, up to and including federal elections.Congress also passed a law making it easier to register to vote back in 1993 with the passage of the National Voter Registration Act. this was done on the elections clause of the Constitution.
If you can't read my posts because they're provocative, whatever that means, and the only response you can come up with is to call me names, you ought to stop reading my posts. I wouldn't want to upset you and ruin your day.
Let's also not forget the current attempts by three states to eliminate Republican party primary voting even though there are three announced candidates running against President Trump. Nor show if they learned their lesson.That's also not right. But let's face it, the superdelegate situation with Hillary and Bernie was a major embarrassment to the Democrat party. Not sure if they learned their lesson.
I haven't called you names. Re read my post. I said that some of your posts are provocative.I've said enough on this matter and have moved on. If anything I've said may have offended you, I apologize. Thank you.
Thank you to those who have expressed their appreciation for my contributions.To paraphrase the Washington Post's logo: Democracy and truth die in darkness
So far I've been busy removing about a hundred of my posts from this and a few other threads, which took some time. It would take much more time to delete the other, approx. 9000 contributions. I have not (yet) removed myself from LuLa, but I do have a growing reluctance to contribute to making some of the Lula forum threads more informative.
Cheers,
Bart
To paraphrase the Washington Post's logo: Democracy and truth die in darkness
Glad you avoided the word "dim". ;)I only use the word 'dim' as it applies to light bulbs. this is why I have been installing LED bulbs and light strips. They provide nice illumination though I'm not sure they are the best for viewing photographs.
So far I've been busy removing about a hundred of my posts from this and a few other threads, which took some time.
I only use the word 'dim' as it applies to light bulbs. this is why I have been installing LED bulbs and light strips. They provide nice illumination though I'm not sure they are the best for viewing photographs.LED lights come in different Kelvins. I use 2800 for normal home use as they have a warm rosy look. 5000 are a bright white like noontime sun and o.jare better for photos except they make everyone look like they need to go ro the beach and get a suntan.
Well it seems more and more the Dems have put themselves between a rock and hard place. They can either vote to impeach or not, both of which are a loose loose.they can release all the transcripts and then vote to censure the President for specific reasons. While falling short of an Impeachment vote, it does offer another avenue after the investigation is completed.
they can release all the transcripts and then vote to censure the President for specific reasons. While falling short of an Impeachment vote, it does offer another avenue after the investigation is completed.True, and interesting point on the censuring of the President. However, I am not sure if this would be politically viable since the Dems voted against censuring Schiff who did make stuff up during a congressional hearing and have repeatably lied.
None of us know what has been happening behind closed doors and until we do it is difficult to make any prediction.
LED lights come in different Kelvins. I use 2800 for normal home use as they have a warm rosy look. 5000 are a bright white like noontime sun and o.jare better for photos except they make everyone look like they need to go ro the beach and get a suntan.I had to replace the fluorescent fixtures in the family room where my work station is located as they were old and the ballast on both sets needed replacing. there were several different color temps offered and I bought the daylight version (6200 I think)
I had to replace the fluorescent fixtures in the family room where my work station is located as they were old and the ballast on both sets needed replacing. there were several different color temps offered and I bought the daylight version (6200 I think)
The real issue, regardless of color temp, is that all LEDs have a discontinuous light spectrum, just like all fluorescents. Also, for most LEDs, they emit a lower amount of the spectrum then fluorescents. This greatly effects color, especially in photography; LEDs are the bane of my work. For viewing prints under, I dont know if it would matter as much.When I'm doing critical photo editing, I turn off the lights so that my monitor is not affected. I have a separate Spectraview calibration for the lower light level. Lights are much brighter than the fluorescents they replaced which was jarring when they were first installed. I'm used to them now. 8)
they can release all the transcripts and then vote to censure the President for specific reasons. While falling short of an Impeachment vote, it does offer another avenue after the investigation is completed.It's like those secret trials the Soviets used to do. Find the people guilty then let you know the evidence they found.
None of us know what has been happening behind closed doors and until we do it is difficult to make any prediction.
It's like those secret trials the Soviets used to do. Find the people guilty then let you know the evidence they found.I honestly don't know how you can say this. What is happening right now is no different from the Benghazi investigation of Secretary Clinton. Trey Gowdy argued that closed hearings were the best approach to getting reliable testimony. He is a Republican and former prosecutor. The Democrats have already said that this will move into a public venue with release of the transcripts. Arguing over procedure or making over the top statements such as the above doesn't to the Republicans any good. As with yesterday's intrusion of a secure hearing room, it makes them look petty and foolish.
I honestly don't know how you can say this. What is happening right now is no different from the Benghazi investigation of Secretary Clinton. Trey Gowdy argued that closed hearings were the best approach to getting reliable testimony. He is a Republican and former prosecutor. The Democrats have already said that this will move into a public venue with release of the transcripts. Arguing over procedure or making over the top statements such as the above doesn't to the Republicans any good. As with yesterday's intrusion of a secure hearing room, it makes them look petty and foolish.
The comments by William Taylor, a career diplomat and former Army officer who serves as the charge d’affaires in the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, were in a copy of his statement to lawmakers posted online by U.S. media.
Taylor’s statement to the three Democratic-led House of Representatives committees leading an impeachment inquiry against the Republican president marked a pivotal development in the political drama unfolding in Washington that threatens Trump’s presidency even as he pursues re-election.
It ran counter to Trump’s contention that there was no quid pro quo - a Latin phrase meaning a favor for a favor - related to the $391 million in security assistance approved by the U.S. Congress to help combat Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine that Trump had withheld.
“It was the most damning testimony,” Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz told Reuters.
In closed-door testimony, Taylor said he was told by Gordon Sondland, the U.S. envoy to the European Union, that Trump had linked release of the aid to public declarations by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that he would investigate Trump’s domestic political rival Joe Biden, and his son Hunter Biden, as well as a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election.
Zelenskiy agreed to the request. The aid was later released
I honestly don't know how you can say this. What is happening right now is no different from the Benghazi investigation of Secretary Clinton. Trey Gowdy argued that closed hearings were the best approach to getting reliable testimony. He is a Republican and former prosecutor. The Democrats have already said that this will move into a public venue with release of the transcripts. Arguing over procedure or making over the top statements such as the above doesn't to the Republicans any good. As with yesterday's intrusion of a secure hearing room, it makes them look petty and foolish.No one cares about Benghazi and certainly no one ever heard of Trey Gowdy. What people care about is that the president of the United States is being indicted in a secret Hearing in a soundproof room being run by Democrats where Republicans aren't allowed to defend him. Of course if you read CNN or MSNBC, everything seems like it's on the up-and-up. But Independents hopefully will look at how this is being done and draw their conclusions.
In closed-door testimony, Taylor said he was told by...
I don't think it makes all Republicans look petty and foolish, but those Tea Party guys are basically idiots and they do much damage to the Republican Party, which is a shame. We really do need a strong two party system, IMHO. I think Joe is way off base with his predictions of damage to the Democrats by the current investigation. Eventually, I think two things will damage Trump almost irrecoverably: the disaster in Syria and the extortion in the Ukraine. There was apparently nothing illegal about his decision in Syria, but the PR is so terrible that I think it turned lots of people against him, who might have otherwise stuck with him, even if holding their noses. Even the military is getting restive, as you see in comments from retired military people, including his former secretary of defense. The Ukraine deal was typical thuggish Trump strong-arming, and that could get him impeached. I still doubt that he'd be convicted in the Senate, no matter what he did.Who you been listening to? MSNBC and CNN? Trump has never been charged with tax fraud. That's a very severe charge that isn't true.
One thing we don't know about is what's going to happen when the appeals court orders the IRS to give his eight years of tax returns to the Manhattan prosecutor. Manhattan, of course, leans Democratic (I joke) and Trump has a long and ugly history of cheating on his taxes. It's interesting that they asked for eight years of tax returns -- going back before he was President, and when he might not have been seriously thinking of running, and therefore might have felt freer to cheat. If he did that, I would expect state indictments about the most delicate time for Trump in the election process. Say, about next October, close enough to the election to to do serious damage, not far enough away for him to mount an effective defense.
No one cares about Benghazi and certainly no one ever heard of Trey Gowdy. What people care about is that the president of the United States is being indicted in a secret Hearing in a soundproof room being run by Democrats where Republicans aren't allowed to defend him. Of course if you read CNN or MSNBC, everything seems like it's on the up-and-up. But Independents hopefully will look at how this is being done and draw their conclusions.As with a couple of other posters here, you are going to soon enter my 'no-read' zone. Your statement about Congressman Gowdy is just silly given his prominence in past inquiries. Gowdy led the House appointed committee that investigated Secretary Clinton and was also seriously considered as a lawyer to help President Trump negotiate the current impeachment difficulties. If you so desire you can read more about Gowdy and how the President's crew botched the attempt to hire him: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/trey-gowdy-trump-impeachment.html The President is not being indicted in a secret hearing in a soundproof room. The three Congressional Committees are collecting evidence the same way a Grand Jury does. Indictment only takes place with an impeachment vote and the trial is the conducted with the Senate sitting as the jury. this is all pretty much Civics 101.
As with a couple of other posters here, you are going to soon enter my 'no-read' zone. Your statement about Congressman Gowdy is just silly given his prominence in past inquiries. Gowdy led the House appointed committee that investigated Secretary Clinton and was also seriously considered as a lawyer to help President Trump negotiate the current impeachment difficulties. If you so desire you can read more about Gowdy and how the President's crew botched the attempt to hire him: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/trey-gowdy-trump-impeachment.html The President is not being indicted in a secret hearing in a soundproof room. The three Congressional Committees are collecting evidence the same way a Grand Jury does. Indictment only takes place with an impeachment vote and the trial is the conducted with the Senate sitting as the jury. this is all pretty much Civics 101.
Your statement about independents is important and Nate Silver's poll aggregation shows public opinion for impeachment climbing by 14 points over the past month getting close to the 50% point: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/ Of course you are free to disbelieve data as you see fit.
Like I said before, unless clear evidence comes out, the Dems best course of action is to drop this impeachment inquiry and get actual bills passed so the vulnerable Dems have something to run on. Maybe, if they do this, they will actually retain the house.How can House Democrats get bills passed if McConnell won't bring them to the Senate floor?
How can House Democrats get bills passed if McConnell won't bring them to the Senate floor?
This crazy idea called bi-partisanship.
Maybe the moderate Dems ignore the progressives and work with the moderate Republicans to create bills the Senate would actually consider.
You don't understand how it works, Joe. Mitch McConnell alone decides which bills get voted on. Not the Republican moderates.
But think about it, a bi-partisanship bill with string support on both sides coming out of the house, McConnell would be forced to bring it to the floor.Oh, the hypothetical bill that appeals to both moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, assuming there actually are any.
Oh, the hypothetical bill that appeals to both moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, assuming there actually are any.
You don't understand how it works, Joe. Mitch McConnell alone decides which bills get voted on. Not the Republican moderates.Democrat Speaker Pelosi is holding up bills in the House that the Democrats control. Congressional gridlock. Just what the people are complaining about. The Dems would rather discuss impeachment and spend all their time on that while the people's business gets ignored. Impeachment talk has been going on since around June of 2015, 7 months before Trump was even sworn into office. The only piece of important legislation that got passed was the Republican tax cut and jobs bill. And that required the House to be Republican before its switched hands to the Dems in 2018 because every Democrat voted against it in both the Senate and the House.
As with a couple of other posters here, you are going to soon enter my 'no-read' zone. Your statement about Congressman Gowdy is just silly given his prominence in past inquiries. Gowdy led the House appointed committee that investigated Secretary Clinton and was also seriously considered as a lawyer to help President Trump negotiate the current impeachment difficulties. If you so desire you can read more about Gowdy and how the President's crew botched the attempt to hire him: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/trey-gowdy-trump-impeachment.html The President is not being indicted in a secret hearing in a soundproof room. The three Congressional Committees are collecting evidence the same way a Grand Jury does. Indictment only takes place with an impeachment vote and the trial is the conducted with the Senate sitting as the jury. this is all pretty much Civics 101.Oh please. The only people who heard of Trey Gowdy, a Republican ex-congressman from some state in the US, not sure which, are me, you, his wife and mother. Maybe 1 person in a thousand could pick him out of a police lineup. He would be better off robbing banks. He'd never get caught. No one would remember his face. In any case, impeaching the president is not like indicting a bank robber in a Grand Jury. We're talking about the president of the US. The process should be open so people don't feel it's all a political witch hunt, a star chamber.
Your statement about independents is important and Nate Silver's poll aggregation shows public opinion for impeachment climbing by 14 points over the past month getting close to the 50% point: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/ Of course you are free to disbelieve data as you see fit.
Democrat Speaker Pelosi is holding up bills in the House that the Democrats control. Congressional gridlock. Just what the people are complaining about. The Dems would rather discuss impeachment and spend all their time on that while the people's business gets ignored. Impeachment talk has been going on since around June of 2015, 7 months before Trump was even sworn into office. The only piece of important legislation that got passed was the Republican tax cut and jobs bill. And that required the House to be Republican before its switched hands to the Dems in 2018 because every Democrat voted against it in both the Senate and the House.What legislation is Speaker Pelosi holding up?
...doing the People's business.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACJFDczhGfk&t=203sThe Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?
This is getting even more hilarious everyday... 12 of the republicans who protested against the Congress secrets hearing's lack of transparency... were part of the 47 Republicans attending the hearing!!! :)
And the rules they are calling unconstitutional were proposed by a Republican senator 3 years ago...
Really good stuff!
Cheers,
Bernard
What legislation is Speaker Pelosi holding up?For one, the new North American Trade Deal with Canada and Mexico. She'll never agree to have it signed off before the election as it may make Trump look good.
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?We have a problem of reliable sources of news that everybody ( Left +right) acknowledges.
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?
Why not? It's more accurate than Fox.I never found Colbert funny. He should change his profession and get a job with CNN or MSNBC.
We have a problem of reliable sources of news that everybody ( Left +right) acknowledges.No. I just checked their main page and 7 or 8 of 9 reviews picked out negative things about Trump. That alone tells me they're biased. They couldn't find anything the Democrats are saying that are false? How about Pelosi or Schiff who never lived a day when they didn't lie.
let try this source... is this a source of news everybody can live with as being most probably true?
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/trumps-error-filled-cabinet-meeting/
No. I just checked their main page and 7 or 8 of 9 reviews picked out negative things about Trump. That alone tells me they're biased. They couldn't find anything the Democrats are saying that are false? How about Pelosi or Schiff who never lived a day when they didn't lie.
https://www.factcheck.org/the-factcheck-wire/
In any case, you have to look at multiple sources to weed out the truth. And often you still can't. If you're not in America, you probably will get 100% of news that's anti-Trump because the outlets that provide that news and bylines like the NY TImes and the Washington Post both hate Trump. I found Reuters more balanced. They were suggested to me by Bart, and he was right on the one, mainly. :) So all the news you read is biased against Trump and all have a strong liberal, left wing slant. Period. You really don;t know what's going on in America. Most Americans don't either because most people here too read or see only biased news. A free press is suppose to serve the people, not the leaders. Unfortunately, media has decided to take sides politically. That's not exactly new. But it's gotten really bad and the public really doesn;t know what going on. So read everything with a grain of salt and be smarter than everyone else. Be critical. Don;t just believe because some source, regardless of supposed credentials, tells you they know the "truth". They have biases too.
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?
For one, the new North American Trade Deal with Canada and Mexico. She'll never agree to have it signed off before the election as it may make Trump look good.That must be the FOX news meme. Negotiations are nearing conclusion to stop the outsourcing of US jobs that took place under the old NAFTA and of course this is one of President Trump's major goals as well. he campaigned on this quite vociferously. There is also a major give away to my former industry that needs to be dealt with. Congress serves to advise and consent on treaties.
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?No, I get my news from John Oliver's 'Last Week Tonight' show. It's highly reliable and without it I would not understand the conspiracy surrounding Jeffery Epstein's strange 'suicide.'
You seem to forget that mr Trump is the president of the US.But news is biased if it's only checked on one side even assuming the checker is truthfully reporting the truth.
Of course is everything what he says of such importance that it is checked.
Problem is, that a lot of his statements are simply not true; hence the attention. It is not anti Trump. He gets the attention he askes for as being President and producing false statements...all the time.
Anyway- if you don't like the reality just hide you head in the sand; you are the perfect Trump supporter, Alan, whatever he does, so be it.
There are some good thing to tell about Trump the way i see it: He did not start any foolish war yet; as did Bush JR. He started a discussion about the role of China in the world.
(this is my personal view and no fact...)
...
That must be the FOX news meme. Negotiations are nearing conclusion to stop the outsourcing of US jobs that took place under the old NAFTA and of course this is one of President Trump's major goals as well. he campaigned on this quite vociferously. There is also a major give away to my former industry that needs to be dealt with. Congress serves to advise and consent on treaties.You asked what they haven't done. Well, they're sitting on it and wont do anything. YOu don;t really think that Democrat Speaker Pelosi is going to approve a Trump trade deal before the election, do you. How long has it been since Trump approved the new trade pact? What are the Dems waiting for? Hell will freeze over first. Les and the rest of Canada want to know!! :)
You really don;t know what's going on in America. Most Americans don't either because most people here too read or see only biased news. A free press is suppose to serve the people, not the leaders. Unfortunately, media has decided to take sides politically. That's not exactly new. But it's gotten really bad and the public really doesn;t know what going on. So read everything with a grain of salt and be smarter than everyone else. Be critical. Don;t just believe because some source, regardless of supposed credentials, tells you they know the "truth". They have biases too.You act as if Fox News doesn't exist. They are constantly tooting Trump's horn.
PS When are you guys going to stop assuming I base everything I say on what Fox says? Do you think I spend all my time watching that stuff. Actually I watch CNN and MSNBC more to find out what the "enemy" thinks. :) Do I accuse you of saying everything from what you heard from CNN or MSNBC? It's just a typical left way of trying to make people look stupid and uniformed. You should know me by now that I'm far from stupid or uninformed and don;t need Fox to to learn things and draw my own conclusions about things.And yet you always toe the Fox News line. And refer to CNN and MSNBC as the enemy.
One thing I really don't get is why all those who have been asked to testify either in writing or by subpoena are refusing to do so. If President Trump is innocent, wouldn't he welcome these folks going on the record. I just see that two more subpoenas were issued for OMB personnel. It would also be interesting to hear from the President's lawyer, Rudy Guiliani. I think when the House moves to the public part of the inquiry all of this is going to reflect very poorly on the President.
For what it is worth, the more I hear from Guillani, the more I wonder how he took down the mob and ran NYC with little issues. What the hell happened to him?He fell within Trump's orbit.
For what it is worth, the more I hear from Guillani, the more I wonder how he took down the mob and ran NYC with little issues. What the hell happened to him?that was two wives and a lot of alimony ago. Once he left office he took any job that was willing to pay big money.
You act as if Fox News doesn't exist. They are constantly tooting Trump's horn.Do non-Americans actually watch Fox? It must be very few people. Most of the news people get from here are bylines in your regular press. So that press is regurgitating American liberal press from the NY TImes or Washington Post or one of the major broadcast TV stations, ABC, NBC or CBS. I doubt if 1% watch Fox.
Do I accuse you of saying everything from what you heard from CNN or MSNBC?
It's just a typical left way of trying to make people look stupid and uniformed.
One thing I really don't get is why all those who have been asked to testify either in writing or by subpoena are refusing to do so. If President Trump is innocent, wouldn't he welcome these folks going on the record. I just see that two more subpoenas were issued for OMB personnel. It would also be interesting to hear from the President's lawyer, Rudy Guiliani. I think when the House moves to the public part of the inquiry all of this is going to reflect very poorly on the President.Would you testify in a Soviet trial? This is a Star Chamber investigation where the judges and jury are out to get a conviction no matter what. No lawyer would let their client testify under such circumstances unless they were forced too.
When the opposition has been trying to get you before you even were sworn in and is now selectively leaking testimony to support their narrative, why fuel the fire?He had major issues with NYC. He was always under fire from minorities especially for his policing policies. Of course it brought down the crime rate a lot so he got credit for that. 9-11 gave him big approval to for his action then, calmness, etc.
This whole thing is going to come down to Guillani. Was Trump investigating Ukraine to get information to use against his rivals in the 2020 election, or was he continuing to investigate the 2016 election interference is an attempt to clear his name of any wrong doing since many in the media still think he was guilty of something.
Personally, it is looking like the latter and that Guillani was getting bad information from nefarious actors, which he was relaying to the White House.
For what it is worth, the more I hear from Guillani, the more I wonder how he took down the mob and ran NYC with little issues. What the hell happened to him?
When the opposition has been trying to get you before you even were sworn in and is now selectively leaking testimony to support their narrative, why fuel the fire?
Would you testify in a Soviet trial? This is a Star Chamber investigation where the judges and jury are out to get a conviction no matter what. No lawyer would let their client testify under such circumstances unless they were forced too.I take this to mean that you would ignore a Grand Jury summons if one was presented to you and you felt that was a closed session. I honestly don't know how you can make such statements. Grand Juries do not try or judge people!!!! This joint committee is not trying the President or anyone else. that is the responsibility of the Senate (read the Constitution!). All that is happening right now is evidence is being gathered.
Aren't there a significant number of Republicans present inside the SCIF? Also taking part in that "secret trial"?I think the count is 47 Republicans from each of the three relevant Committees.
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?
... The easy to check fact is that:
1.12 of the Republicabs senators who were protesting against the lack of transparency of hearings they call unconstitutional... were part of these hearings, which is simply crazy
2. The very format and proceedings of these hearings was defined by Republicans 4 years ago... which is even crazier...
Can you provide a link to those claims, please?
The U.S. Treasury on Friday said that the federal deficit for fiscal 2019 was $984 billion. The gap between revenues and spending was the widest it’s been in seven years as expenditures on defense, Medicare and interest payments on the national debt ballooned the shortfall.
The government said corporate tax revenues totaled $230 billion, up 12%, thanks to a rebound in the second half of the year. Individual tax revenues rose 2% to $1.7 trillion. Receipts totaled $3.4 trillion, up 4% through September, while federal spending rose 8%, to $4.4 trillion. The U.S. government also collected nearly $71 billion in customs duties, or tariffs, a 70% increase compared to the year-ago period.
Annual deficits have nearly doubled under President Donald Trump’s tenure notwithstanding an unemployment rate at multidecade lows and better earnings figures. Deficits usually shrink during times of economic growth as higher incomes and Wall Street profits buoy Treasury coffers, while automatic spending on items like food stamps decline. Two big bipartisan spending bills, combined with the administration’s landmark tax cuts, however, have defied the typical trends and instead aggravated deficits. The Congressional Budget Office projects the trillion-dollar deficit could come as soon as fiscal 2020.
I take this to mean that you would ignore a Grand Jury summons if one was presented to you and you felt that was a closed session. I honestly don't know how you can make such statements. Grand Juries do not try or judge people!!!! This joint committee is not trying the President or anyone else. that is the responsibility of the Senate (read the Constitution!). All that is happening right now is evidence is being gathered.This is a palace coup being run by the Democrats. Schiff is acting like a Commisar. The government isn't like a grand jury. The Constitution respects equal powers between the Congress and the Executive. The Executive may resist subpoenas and in this case especially when the Democrats only aim is to destroy the President to gain power for the Democrats. To argue something else is going on is just bias on your part. If the executive witnesses wrongfully resisting subpoenas, the Federal courts will decide who's right. That's how it works. Of course you disagree because you want to impeach the President come hell or high water.
Subpoena's are meant to mean something. If we can just choose to ignore them when we see fit, the nation is no longer under the rule of law. Eventually these claims of immunity and executive privilege will be decided by the courts and not you, the President, or any of his enablers. I always hate to get repetitious, but there is nothing wrong with the way the House is proceeding. they are using rules passed when the Republicans were in power and John Boehner was Speaker. Do you think that what they did was wrong when they used the EXACT same approach to probe what happened in Benghazi. You also cannot draw any parallels with either the Nixon or Clinton investigations because they had special counsels that did all the grunt work up front.
As I and others have pointed out, Republicans serve on this investigative committee and have the right to question witnesses. In the end it will come down to how the public process of reviewing these statements and those of public witnesses that are called.
To argue something else is going on is just bias on your part.Or bias on your part.
Do non-Americans actually watch Fox? It must be very few people. Most of the news people get from here are bylines in your regular press. So that press is regurgitating American liberal press from the NY TImes or Washington Post or one of the major broadcast TV stations, ABC, NBC or CBS. I doubt if 1% watch Fox.
Can be a record deficit a valid reason for impeachment?
I doubt if 1% watch Fox.I think I have see statements to the effect that Fox News has been the most watched cable news program for the past 17 years.
[...]
Lord, what fun to be a conservative, where anything you WANT to be true just becomes true in you mind. No thinking, no smarts, no research.
Do the work Slobodan. You aren’t afraid of the truth are you?
Can be a record deficit a valid reason for impeachment?
Can you provide a link to those claims, please?Main link about Republican statements on closed hearings is here (you won't like this one): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/22/then-now-how-republicans-downplay-subpoenas-when-they-target-trump/
... The NY Times is perhaps the most respected newspaper in the world, with accurate and in-depth reporting every day. The Post is not far behind...
I think I have see statements to the effect that Fox News has been the most watched cable news program for the past 17 years.
Main link about Republican statements on closed hearings is here (you won't like this one): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/22/then-now-how-republicans-downplay-subpoenas-when-they-target-trump/
There are 47 Republicans on the joint committees that are taking testimony during the closed sessions. 12 of them were in the group that stormed the meeting room (I know that Congressmen Jordan and Meadows are on the joint committee but don't know the other names.
Thanks for the link, but I couldn't' find anything about 47/12 Republicans there? Maybe I was reading too fast?there are too many stories out there. I couldn't remember where I saw the number but will look at a couple of other places other than the WaPo or NYT.
Thanks for the link, but I couldn't' find anything about 47/12 Republicans there? Maybe I was reading too fast?Slobodan's right, nothing in there except more reporting that shows Democrat Schiff running it like he's an Inquisitor in a Star Chamber trial.
Main link about Republican statements on closed hearings is here (you won't like this one): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/22/then-now-how-republicans-downplay-subpoenas-when-they-target-trump/
Have you noticed that Alan was referring to non-Americans (i.e., audience abroad)?
Or bias on your part.Moi? Never happen. :)
Which raises question I wanted to ask. How many people here have changed their minds about what should happen? Only the Yes people have to post. It'll be easier to count. :)
Thanks for the link, but I couldn't' find anything about 47/12 Republicans there? Maybe I was reading too fast?
And here's another (similar) take on that:Interesting that both Senator Graham and Alan Klein use the term 'star chamber inquiry.'
Cuomo to Graham: Impeachment hasn't changed ... you have
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I69ASeEv8kc
Hipocricy of republicans rules ...
Interesting that both Senator Graham and Alan Klein use the term 'star chamber inquiry.'
Which raises question I wanted to ask. How many people here have changed their minds about what should happen? Only the Yes people have to post. It'll be easier to count. :)
I should spend less time on this forum section and more time shooting.
Interesting that both Senator Graham and Alan Klein use the term 'star chamber inquiry.'Wow. That's interesting because I never heard anyone including Graham mention it. It just came to me. It must have a Star Chamber feel. Anyone who's lived through Soviet broadcasted trials knows what I'm talking about.
I should spend less time on this forum section and more time shooting.Exactly my point for the "poll". All this time wasted when we could be shooting. Talk about priorities.
When are you snowbirds coming down here? Let’s do some shooting together. And I don’t mean the breeze 😊A bunch of my friends here in New Jersey in my 55+ community have already hightailed it to the Gold Coast of Florida (chad country) for the next few months as "snow birds"avoiding the upcoming harsh winter. For them, climate change can't come fast enough. Of course my wife and I are the ones suffering because we stay here in cold New Jersey braving the snow. :)
P.S. Bart cordially invited too
"Regurgitating?" Please. The NY Times is perhaps the most respected newspaper in the world, with accurate and in-depth reporting every day. The Post is not far behind. Yes, their editorial opinions are liberal, but their news reporting is accurate. When they make an error, it is reported as a "correction" very soon.
Lord, what fun to be a conservative, where anything you WANT to be true just becomes true in you mind. No thinking, no smarts, no research.
... The TRUTH has a liberal bias...
Of course the NYT and others have a liberal bias. So do the colleges and universities. The TRUTH has a liberal bias.Wow. Just, wow.
They all can’t be wrong.
Dunno why that should be a "wow, just wow". When you have most of the western media and educational systems on one side and Fox news and Breitbart on the other, it pretty well explains itself.Surveys have shown that 93% of journalists are Democrats. Liberals are attracted to the "arts", education, journalism, etc more than conservatives. You tend to write and produce things along your belief system. It's not a mystery or conspiracy. But that doesn't make their belief systems truth any more than it does for conservatives. It's just how we're wired.
Of course the NYT and others have a liberal bias. So do the colleges and universities. The TRUTH has a liberal bias.
They all can’t be wrong.
... highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources ...
... It's like bias in the N Y Times. A negative story about TRump is put on page one above the paper's fold. A good story is buried on pg 47. Of course the Times will claim both stories were printed.
Of course how headlines and photo captions are written can change the entire meaning and effect. "Trump Pulls Out of Syria Abandoning the Kurds Without American Protection". Or, "Trump Pulls American Troops Out of Syria Ending Further US Deaths Defending the Kurds". Both tell the truth. But which one makes you feel better about Trump? Worse? The meanings are different. It's all in the interpretation. It can stir hearts and opinions in different directions. This is what Fake News is all about. Not about lies. About false imaging.
Surveys have shown that 93% of journalists are Democrats.I'm curious how they arrive at this number. I don't think journalists routinely say what their party affiliation is. Obviously one can 'infer' this but is that the same as having a documented statement?
I'm curious how they arrive at this number.
The NY Times fails not on fact but on presentation. That's makes its reporting more Liberal, anti-Trump, and Democrat favoring news. I gave an example in another thread. I've copied it here. If you click on the date link, you can see the complete post in the original thread.
I'm curious how they arrive at this number. I don't think journalists routinely say what their party affiliation is. Obviously one can 'infer' this but is that the same as having a documented statement?What just surprised me when I googled it, was how many financial journalists are left leaning. No wonder Socialism is getting a good name.
So Trump is often just plain wrong about facts, but you blame the NY Times for presenting facts with a biased view.I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't taking a position on the Kurdish situation. I was illustrating how two different but truthful headlines can create different feelings about a story.
Also the Kurds were not so much protected by the US soldiers. It were the Kurds that did the fighting against ISIS on the ground and the US helped with material and weapons.
They have prevented US casualties. the protection the US army forces were providing to the Kurds was just there presence... They just had to stay put - no fighting needed.
And as said before ; Democrats and Republicans were against pulling out of Syria as was the US defence staff... Only Trump, Erdogan, Poetin, Assad and Alan Klein thought it was a brilliant idea.
What just surprised me when I googled it, was how many financial journalists are left leaning. No wonder Socialism is getting a good name.This is why you need to drill down and go to the original manuscript to examine the methodology. The researchers got a response rate of only 10% to their survey. They also used the questionable tactic of offering a donation to charity for completed surveys. 80% of the respondents fall into the somewhat conservative to somewhat liberal spectrum but this is self reported so we really don't know what it means. This is typical of a lot of social science research, small data set and ill-defined responses.
"When you add it up, 58.47% admit to being left of center. Along with that, another 37.12% claim to be "moderate."
What about the mythic "conservative" financial journalist? In fact, a mere 0.46% of financial journalists called themselves "very conservative," while just 3.94% said they were "somewhat conservative." That's a whopping 4.4% of the total that lean right-of-center.
That's a ratio of 13 "liberals" for every one "conservative."
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/ (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/)
This is why you need to drill down and go to the original manuscript to examine the methodology. The researchers got a response rate of only 10% to their survey. They also used the questionable tactic of offering a donation to charity for completed surveys. 80% of the respondents fall into the somewhat conservative to somewhat liberal spectrum but this is self reported so we really don't know what it means. This is typical of a lot of social science research, small data set and ill-defined responses.
Well, here's a survey I did of the NY Times and Washington Post. I looked at various articles on-line where they have readers' responses on Trump related articles. 90-95% of the reader's responses are Trump negative. Because the Times moderates the responses, they could be vitriolic but never nasty. More high-brow, often intellectual and well-written. The Washington Post however, does not moderate. Their responses are vile and bile and can get really nasty. I'm surprised the editors even allow that to happen.You are quite correct about the WaPo comments section and that's the reason I almost never read them. The NY Times comment policy is the best approach.
Alan, check out today’s NYT op-Ed piece entitled “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote”.It was written by Brett Stephens who is one of their op-ed writers. He's a well known conservative. The Washington Post has a far greater and more diverse set of Conservative op-ed writers, some of whom are strong supporters of the President (Marc Thiessen & Hugh Hewitt).
Then, please, report back to us on the unrelenting bias of the NYT.
Alan, check out today’s NYT op-Ed piece entitled “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote”.
Then, please, report back to us on the unrelenting bias of the NYT.
Then there is a possibility of paying only a lip service to diversity and objectivity. Similar to when, years ago, Sean Hannity had a Democratic counterpart on the show, so weak and ineffective that he only amplified Sean.I'm old enough to remember when 60 minutes had James J. Kilpatrick (Conservative) and Shana Alexander (Liberal) on at the end of each show in a point - counterpoint discussion. I think the alternated who went first. I always felt that these types of discussions were useful and some of the cable news outlets did this in the early years but it's largely disappeared. Too bad.
... received the Bipartisan Justice Award from the 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center for his efforts to pass the First Step Act, which grants early release to thousands of nonviolent offenders who are currently serving time in federal prisons.
Alan, check out today’s NYT op-Ed piece entitled “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote”.I'm referring to the news section where they are biased. They can do and say what they want in the editorial op-ed section. That is the opinion-editorial section.
Then, please, report back to us on the unrelenting bias of the NYT.
It was written by Brett Stephens who is one of their op-ed writers. He's a well known conservative. The Washington Post has a far greater and more diverse set of Conservative op-ed writers, some of whom are strong supporters of the President (Marc Thiessen & Hugh Hewitt).That doesn't matter. Everyone knows these are opinion pieces, not news. It's the news section where the NY Times fails by being biased. It's here that the world gets an impression about things that are different than reality.
That doesn't matter. Everyone knows these are opinion pieces, not news. It's the news section where the NY Times fails by being biased. It's here that the world gets an impression about things that are different than reality.Whose reality?
Our "racist" president in action:In the Times, they'll bury it on pg 47.
Whose reality?If you want to believe everything that the NY Times says, go right ahead. I'm not stopping you. I find myself more discerning.
I find myself more discerning.Of course you do. No surprise there.
Of course you do. No surprise there.OK. I'm more skeptical. :)
OK. I'm more skeptical. :)I trust this extends to the many statements from President Trump/
I'm referring to the news section where they are biased.Here is a very good story the discusses in an even handed manner tariffs and the impact on the steel industry: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-a-kentucky-mill-shutters-steelworkers-see-the-limits-of-trumps-intervention/2019/10/25/a27d3bb2-f02f-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html I don't see much bias here and as an investor who once owned stock in one of the steel companies mentioned, think that it gives a good assessment of what has gone wrong. Domestic growth in industrial production has not been high enough to save jobs and some of the companies are in financial risk. President Trump announced that the there would be some short term pain but the tariffs would right things.
What am I to learn from one story?Read it and find out.
Read it and find out.Why would reading it change my mind about the Washington Post? Ir doesn't change their overall biases.
Surveys have shown that 93% of journalists are Democrats. Liberals are attracted to the "arts", education, journalism, etc more than conservatives. You tend to write and produce things along your belief system. It's not a mystery or conspiracy. But that doesn't make their belief systems truth any more than it does for conservatives. It's just how we're wired.
This whole discussion about media bias isn’t relevant to the Trump impreachement for 2 obvious reasons:So you think it's OK to claim that supporters of Trump like me would support him if he acted like a Nazi who wanted to send Arabs to gas chambers? Never mind the slur on me or him. That kind of off-hand hyperbolic attack just cheapens and diminishes the lives of millions of people who were actually killed in gas chambers. The rest of your post isn't worthy of a response from me.
1. Trump, his team and the various testimonies have clearly admitted to committing the deeds for which he is proposed for impreachement. The media coverage has nothing to do with it,
2. Trumps policies and actions are not at all aligned with the core values of Republicans. If he were to do the exact same things as a Democrat he would be killed by conservative media as being the most anti American president ever. Which means that the pro Trump bias isn’t about ideas or beliefs, it is only about politics. Based on ideas or beliefs or facts 100% of the press should be anti Trump. The fact that he is still getting some support from some media is the obvious proof of their bias resulting not from ideology, but simply from the fact that they would support a Republican associated president no matter what he does just because he is a Republican. They would continue to support him if he sent arabs to gas chambers.
Cheers,
Bernard
They would continue to support him if he sent arabs to gas chambers.
...arabs...
That doesn't matter. Everyone knows these are opinion pieces, not news. It's the news section where the NY Times fails by being biased. It's here that the world gets an impression about things that are different than reality.
Wrong. The item was in the Op-Ed section. Few here have read it, obviously.Peter, I don;t understand your post. My complaint is that there's bias in the news section where straight reporting should be the standard. What any newspaper does in their opinion-editorial section (op-ed) , is, well, opinion and editorial. So having a conservative or liberal viewpoint there does not matter when measuring a newspaper's bias and slant. Everyone understands that section is not the straight reporting of news.
Bravo! You have reached a new, despicable low!
So you think it's OK to claim that supporters of Trump like me would support him if he acted like a Nazi who wanted to send Arabs to gas chambers? Never mind the slur on me or him. That kind of off-hand hyperbolic attack just cheapens and diminishes the lives of millions of people who were actually killed in gas chambers. The rest of your post isn't worthy of a response from me.
... The real, and totally valid question, is how far would Trump have to go to lose support from its base...
Of course the NYT and others have a liberal bias. So do the colleges and universities. The TRUTH has a liberal bias.
They all can’t be wrong.
I apologize for the overblown example.I appreciate the apology Bernard. We all get hyperbolic from time to time. I know I have.
I am not surprised that you haven’t much to answer about the rest of the post.
Cheers,
Bernard
This whole discussion about media bias isn’t relevant to the Trump impreachement for 2 obvious reasons:1. First off, what he did was not illegal. Demanding a foreign country do things for us when we give them money is standard quid pro quo. You have a right to ask a drunk on the street who you just gave $5 to spend it on food and not a drink. Well, the president was asking for Ukraine to clean up it's corruption, the same as Obama demanded they do. He also asked to check on Biden who may have illegally used his position to violate US as well as Ukrainian law helping his son get a job and escape criminal investigation, all part of the corruption going on in the Ukraine. Of course there's a side benefit that Biden is a political foe. However, how is that different than Democrat congressman investigating Trump for the last three years for potential criminal activity knowing that they would benefit if it turns out Trump commiting a crime? If Trump isn't above the law, neither is Vice President Biden. If Democrats can get a side benefit politically from an legal investigation, why can't the Republicans? None of it is illegal. It's just politics.
1. Trump, his team and the various testimonies have clearly admitted to committing the deeds for which he is proposed for impreachement. The media coverage has nothing to do with it,
2. Trumps policies and actions are not at all aligned with the core values of Republicans. If he were to do the exact same things as a Democrat he would be killed by conservative media as being the most anti American president ever. Which means that the pro Trump bias isn’t about ideas or beliefs, it is only about politics. Based on ideas or beliefs or facts 100% of the press should be anti Trump. The fact that he is still getting some support from some media is the obvious proof of their bias resulting not from ideology, but simply from the fact that they would support a Republican associated president no matter what he does just because he is a Republican. They would continue to support him ...
Cheers,
Bernard
How will this affect a possible impeachment? His re-election?It will have the same significance and importance as the assassination of Bin Laden did by the Navy Seal team when Obama was President.
"Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead," Trump said at the White House, calling the ISIS leader's removal "the top national security priority of my administration."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/27/politics/isis-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-operation-donald-trump/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/27/politics/isis-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-operation-donald-trump/index.html)
Of course our Pravda and Izvestia and others have a Soviet bias. So do our colleges and universities. Our writers are writing Soviet prose, and our artists are painting in Soviet style. The TRUTH (PRAVDA) has a Soviet bias.
They all can’t be wrong.
Leonid Brezhnev
It will have the same significance and importance as the assassination of Bin Laden did by the Navy Seal team when Obama was President.Would you give Trump the credit he deserves?
It will have the same significance and importance as the assassination of Bin Laden did by the Navy Seal team when Obama was President.Just a clarification. al Baghdadi was not assassinated. He refused to surrender to American forces and committed suicide killing three children along with himself. That shows something about his character.
Need-to-know basis. Feel the burn!
;D ;D ;D
Would you give Trump the credit he deserves?
How was the Trump involved in this operation?Like Obama and Bin Laden, presidents make the decision and give the orders. They get credit for successful operations and blame for the unsuccessful ones. After all, the President is the Commander-in Chief. If this came out bad, everyone would be chastising him. How many Nazis did Churchill personally kill during WWII?
U.S. intelligence officials were able to “scope out” his exact location two weeks ago, while Trump himself became aware of the planned raid three days ago.
Like Obama and Bin Laden, presidents make the decision and give the orders. They get credit for successful operations and blame for the unsuccessful ones. After all, the President is the Commander-in Chief. If this came out bad, everyone would be chastising him. How many Nazis did Churchill personally kill during WWII?
Trump, the murderer of religious scholars.
How our dear free press reported the news and some totally unrelated and unwarranted twitter obituaries:
That was the second of three edits, FWIW. All three were radically different in tone, as well. It was weird...
It is bewildering to say the least! The fact that you would write a nonchalant, almost woeful, headline about such an infamous person is simply crass.
I also look at it as another great example of Trump-derangement-syndrome and how the mainstream media goes out of it was to belittle anything Trump does, even at the expense of coming off as obtuse. And people wonder why Trump canceled the WP from the White House.
... the "mainstream media is out to get Trump" nonsense...
If it is nonsense, how do you explain the WaPo headline? Just as "weird"?
Would you give Trump the credit he deserves?Neither Trump nor Obama deserve any credit other than saying yes to the assassination(s). The military and intelligence did 98% of the work. I never gave Obama any credit for bin Laden and I won't give Trump any credit for this.
Well, it IS weird. But I don't it has anything to do with Trump, honestly.What is weird and does have to do with President Trump is that he did not notify House Speaker Pelosi about what was going to happen. He offered some phony excuses about leaking information ignoring that Congresswoman Pelosi served on the House Intelligence Committee for 20 years and was never accused of leaking sensitive information.
What is weird and does have to do with President Trump is that he did not notify House Speaker Pelosi about what was going to happen...
Are you aware of what the first headline was? Or the third? Doesn't really fit with your theory. As an aside, it's disturbing to see a self-professed moderate/libertarian starting to parrot the "mainstream media is out to get Trump" nonsense. The "mainstream media" is perceived as "anti-Trump" because Trump is a ginormous fool. As I believe I said here before, if a purveyor of sh*t sandwiches is in a kerfluffel because Italian restaurants continually get better reviews, it's not because the media is biased against poo.f
All you have to do is look at media that was reliably conservative (Dallas Morning News) or previously non-committal (USA Today), and then look how they treat Trump. It's not because they hate conservatives, it's because Donald Trump is unfit to serve in intellect, temperament, and judgment.
Why is everything a conspiracy with you guys?
Why is everything a conspiracy with you guys?
Nevertheless, several individuals—most notably former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr,[4] former naval intelligence officer and U.S. National Security Council member Gary Sick, and former Reagan/Bush campaign staffer and White House analyst Barbara Honegger—have stood by the allegation.
Perhaps the WP has an incredibly obtuse editor out of touch with the current reality of things. Or perhaps the first headline was a little too positive for Trump, just like with the NYT's headline months ago, so a change was done, but oops, that went a little too far and a 2nd change was needed.
What is weird and does have to do with President Trump is that he did not notify House Speaker Pelosi about what was going to happen. He offered some phony excuses about leaking information ignoring that Congresswoman Pelosi served on the House Intelligence Committee for 20 years and was never accused of leaking sensitive information.
EDIT: Obama notified the leaders of both Congressional parties and the relevant intelligence committee chairs prior to the bin Laden assassination
Come on now. The Dems are currently holding secret hearings and selectively leaking what supports their narrative to the public, not to mention the two year Muller probe that was put into motion before Trump was even sworn in. On top of that, officials in the White House have been leaking information to the press since Trump was first sworn in. Last, in the coming weeks a book is being released supposedly written by a (coward who lacks his convictions too quit) senior official in the White House.Years ago, Democrat and Republican political fights used to end at American shores. No longer.
"It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you."
Given the current political climate of lynching the president at all and any costs, it is not inconceivable that Pelosi, other Democrats, or thier staff would leak the info just to make Trump look bad. You think I am exaggerating? Rumor has it that Reagan asked the Iranians to free the hostages not during Carter's reign, but when he comes to power. Literally twenty minutes after Reagan's inauguration speech, the hostages were freed. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theoryIt's not Pelosi who would leak. But Schiff, the head of the House Intelligence Committee, who would and has. He is the natural recipient of news like this. Yet there he is leaking all the time like a sieve in his attempt to impeach Trump and make him look bad at any cost to the country. No offense to the legal profession. But I've met lawyers and I've met lawyers. And this guy is the sleaziest. He'd sell out his mother for an advantage.
The example was indeed exaggerated and I apologize.
The real, and totally valid question, is how far would Trump have to go to lose support from its base. So far I haven’t seen any hint that there is a limit.
Neither Trump nor Obama deserve any credit other than saying yes to the assassination(s). The military and intelligence did 98% of the work. I never gave Obama any credit for bin Laden and I won't give Trump any credit for this.
Well said. And 2% presidential credit for "yes, do it" is overly generous.
And yet, Carter lost election because of it. So, you may or may not give credit, but the importance of success or failure (in case of Carter) is huge,
And yet, Carter lost election because of it. So, you may or may not give credit, but the importance of success or failure (in case of Carter) is huge,For those not familiar with Slobodan's reference, here's an article about the disastrous rescue attempt President Carter did to get out American embassy hostages being held in Iran. 8 American servicemen died in the operation, 6 helicopters and 1 transport plane were lost, and the rescue was a complete failure. Carter said this was the reason he lost his bid for re-election.
Well, in that case maybe the intelligence analysis and risk assessment by the military advisers were to blame.
Well, in that case maybe the intelligence analysis and risk assessment by the military advisers were to blame.Unlike Obama who blamed Bush for 7 years, Americans hold their leaders responsible. That's the way of the world. Democrat President Truman had a plaque on his desk in the Oval Office of the White House: "The Buck Stops Here"
Perhaps, but it was he who lost the next election because of it. After all, he gave the order to abort the mission.As an officer aboard a nuclear submarine, who served in the US Navy for 7 years, Carter was very familiar with the stern belief that captains of ships are ultimately the ones responsible for what happens on their ship. The Navy does not like finger pointing and passing the buck. Interestingly, the USS Jimmy Carter is the only US submarine names after a living president, something Carter must be very proud of.
While Americans in general tend to give a disproportionate credit or blame to personalities, be it Saddam, Slobodan, or a CEO, 2% is way too low. After all, CEOs, leaders, presidents, etc. set the tone, provide direction, select personnel, etc. In that sense, Obama did deserve a decent amount of credit. As Bush deserves a decent amount of blame for dismantling a CIA unit in charge of pursuing Bin Laden (decision that may or may not have had a direct impact on 9/11). In other words, give Trump credit when credit is due.
In other words, giveTrumpcredit when credit is due.
Okay, the Kurds did a fantastic job. They tracked down the target 4-5 weeks ago in area that was inaccessible to the USA forces.And then they needed American forces to finish the job. So that's why we partnered with them to kill ISIS. But we never promised to build them a homeland and war with Turkey our and your NATO partner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_StatesJohn, because of politics, you can't rate acting presidents. Obviously, because Democrats oppose him, you immediately have half the population saying he's bad. A stupid and meaningless statistic. You have to wait at least twenty years, preferably longer after they're out of office and they're dead and buried when no one cares about them any longer. In any case, what does rating a president have to do with impeachment. If you don;t like him, don't vote for him in 2020.
1. First off, what he did was not illegal. Demanding a foreign country do things for us when we give them money is standard quid pro quo. You have a right to ask a drunk on the street who you just gave $5 to spend it on food and not a drink. Well, the president was asking for Ukraine to clean up it's corruption, the same as Obama demanded they do. He also asked to check on Biden who may have illegally used his position to violate US as well as Ukrainian law helping his son get a job and escape criminal investigation, all part of the corruption going on in the Ukraine. Of course there's a side benefit that Biden is a political foe. However, how is that different than Democrat congressman investigating Trump for the last three years for potential criminal activity knowing that they would benefit if it turns out Trump commiting a crime? If Trump isn't above the law, neither is Vice President Biden. If Democrats can get a side benefit politically from an legal investigation, why can't the Republicans? None of it is illegal. It's just politics.
2. I'm glad you brought this up. Trump is actually a liberal in many of his beliefs. Being a New Yorker helps. He never got excited about race issues, gays, and issues like that. He's worked with these people all his life. He's a cosmopolitan who lives and works and helped build the largest liberal, Democrat city in the USA, bar none. Remember, he won the election convincing traditional, blue-collar Democrats to vote for him. They felt he was one of them. Many Republicans actually find he's too liberal for them, certainly not a VP Pence. Republican newspapers still support him because his policies are still miles ahead conservatively of liberals like Warren and AOC. Unfortunately, these newspapers and media, except for Fox, don't have the same power to influence as do the rest of the liberal, Democrat media. So the latter set the tone and spin of the news. It's very frustrating for Republicans to realize the press is almost never on their side.
Bernard,
1) it remains to be seen if anything illegal happened.
2) how was Biden’s quid pro quo legal? He asked for a prosecutor to be fired (quid) in order to release money (quo).
Bernard,
1) it remains to be seen if anything illegal happened.
2) how was Biden’s quid pro quo legal? He asked for a prosecutor to be fired (quid) in order to release money (quo).
Bernard,
1) it remains to be seen if anything illegal happened.
2) how was Biden’s quid pro quo legal? He asked for a prosecutor to be fired (quid) in order to release money (quo).
What's not illegal about soliciting a foreign state to interfere with the US elections?
Come on now. The Dems are currently holding secret hearings and selectively leaking what supports their narrative to the public, not to mention the two year Muller probe that was put into motion before Trump was even sworn in. On top of that, officials in the White House have been leaking information to the press since Trump was first sworn in. Last, in the coming weeks a book is being released supposedly written by a (coward who lacks his convictions too quit) senior official in the White House.Why do you try to conflate all kinds of different things? The impeachment inquiry is just as secret as the Kenneth Starr investigation of Clinton and the special prosecutor's investigation of Nixon. What is wrong with that? Both of those reports ended up being released and discussed by Congress during subsequent deliberations. The impeachment inquiry will travel down the same path. Do you have any special knowledge of who is leaking what? How do you know it is not a Republican(s) that is doing the leaking? The Muller investigation was designed to examine specific questions about Russian influence on the 2016 election. do you think this was not a good thing? Do you favor foreign involvement in US elections? As for the 'anonymous' book that may be coming out, who cares? One of the most famous articles on foreign policy was published anonymously back in 1947 about the Soviet pressure on free institutions in the West and what should be done to 'contain' it. the author of that piece was George Kennan, a famous diplomat and civil servant (maybe he was even the first member of the 'deep state').
"It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you."
Why do you try to conflate all kinds of different things? The impeachment inquiry is just as secret as the Kenneth Starr investigation of Clinton and the special prosecutor's investigation of Nixon. What is wrong with that? Both of those reports ended up being released and discussed by Congress during subsequent deliberations. The impeachment inquiry will travel down the same path. Do you have any special knowledge of who is leaking what? How do you know it is not a Republican(s) that is doing the leaking? The Muller investigation was designed to examine specific questions about Russian influence on the 2016 election. do you think this was not a good thing? Do you favor foreign involvement in US elections? As for the 'anonymous' book that may be coming out, who cares? One of the most famous articles on foreign policy was published anonymously back in 1947 about the Soviet pressure on free institutions in the West and what should be done to 'contain' it. the author of that piece was George Kennan, a famous diplomat and civil servant (maybe he was even the first member of the 'deep state').
As to your final quote, Thomas Pynchon said this with much more insight in his Proverbs for Paranoids (always useful to read and re-read 'Gravity's Rainbow' to understand how the world works). My favorite of the five is, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers." This is of course our President's strategy and maybe a good one for him but not the American public.
The point is, leaking is taking place in many different places, much more then with previous Presidents. It is happening in Congress and in the White House. Trump has every right to be concerned about things leaking to the Press and screwing up missions, like this raid.
And then they needed American forces to finish the job. So that's why we partnered with them to kill ISIS.
Ask Hillary.+1 It's perfectly legal for a president to ask another leader to investigate if there's reason to believe the American commited a crime. The president may get a political benefit from it. But what's the alternative? Let the American get away with the crime? Both things can happen simultaneous.
In all seriousness, it is either Trump asked them to help with his re-election OR Trump asked them to investigate the 2016 election interference, which the Dems already shown is okay to do along with holding back aid to get them to do so since they did the same exact thing to the same exact country during the same exact term.
All evidence is pointing to the latter being what happened. If there is a smoking gun that proves the former, by all means vote for impeachment, but as of right now there is not any.
Furthermore, this whole conversation is ignoring the fact that the Senate, with the current evidence, will not convict and that either Warren or Biden will get the ticket, both of which guarantee Trump's re-election. Warren because she is too far left and will never get the swing states (and even some blue ones IMHO), and Biden because his campaign has no enthusiasm and cant even raise any money.
If there was a Quid pro quo with Biden, it will be just as illegal as the one Trump committed. Why would it not be? It isn't because you look at this as a political topic that it's one, or that people thinking Trump should be impreached do.Holding back American aid to get the recipient country to investigate an American who may have committed a crime is not illegal.
Why on earth would Republicans be looking for a quid Pro quo involving Biden if it were a legal practice though...
I hope you see the crazy inconsistency between claiming simultaneously that a Quid Pro Quo isn't illegal and saying "look, the other camp did it too"... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
+1 It's perfectly legal for a president to ask another leader to investigate if there's reason to believe the American commited a crime. The president may get a political benefit from it. But what's the alternative? Let the American get away with the crime? Both things can happen simultaneous.
Even if Trump and Giuliani sincerely believe that Trump was wronged in the 2016 election or that his opponents are criminals, this does not make their 2019 desire for vindication, revenge or political advantage into a public, rather than private, interest. If they think Americans have committed crimes, they could have brought those allegations to the public institutions that investigate such allegations, which must follow certain rules—including in an international investigation. Trump and Giuliani did not do that. What they therefore must prove, against the prima facie evidence of bad, private intent, is that they really believed—even falsely—that working on these 2016 allegations would help clean up Ukrainian politics in 2019.
You and Joe are incorrect. This explains it in detail. (https://www.lawfareblog.com/self-dealing-ukraine-core-impeachment-inquiry). See the pull quote below for the directly relevant part. Perhaps Chris Kern could comment further...The article you referenced is practically a lawyer's brief. It's like complicated papers they submit to a court in a trial. You can't even explain it. So you now need to call on another lawyer, Chris, to explain the first lawyer's explanation as to why the president did something illegal, then it's about politics, not the law. Should we get another lawyer to write a brief as to what Trump did was legal? You know that's what happens in a trial. Both sides get to present their case.
+1 It's perfectly legal for a president to ask another leader to investigate if there's a reason to believe the American commited a crime.
The point is, leaking is taking place in many different places, much more then with previous Presidents. It is happening in Congress and in the White House. Trump has every right to be concerned about things leaking to the Press and screwing up missions, like this raid.Does hard data exist for this statement? there are probably many more leaks coming out of the White House than Congress. Virtually all Congressional activity is open to the public other than Intelligence Committee work.
+1 It's perfectly legal for a president to ask another leader to investigate if there's reason to believe the American commited a crime. The president may get a political benefit from it. But what's the alternative? Let the American get away with the crime? Both things can happen simultaneous....and to extrapolate in a fair manner, it is perfectly legal for Congress to investigate the President if they believe he committed a '...high crime or misdemeanor..'
...and to extrapolate in a fair manner, it is perfectly legal for Congress to investigate the President if they believe he committed a '...high crime or misdemeanor..'Yes, but the public can also see that as just political as they did with the Clinton impeachment.
And betrayed them with a free Turkish massacre and displacement of 160,000 citizens.We didn't betray them. You Europeans betrayed them after WWI. A hundred years ago and have done nothing to help them ever since. At least we saved them from ISIS. What did you do?
We didn't betray them. You Europeans betrayed them after WWI. A hundred years ago and have done nothing to help them ever since. At least we saved them from ISIS. What did you do?
+1 It's perfectly legal for a president to ask another leader to investigate if there's reason to believe the American commited a crime. The president may get a political benefit from it. But what's the alternative? Let the American get away with the crime? Both things can happen simultaneous.
The point is, leaking is taking place in many different places, much more then with previous Presidents. It is happening in Congress and in the White House. Trump has every right to be concerned about things leaking to the Press and screwing up missions, like this raid.
As one of the coalition members we supplied air support with an F-16s squadron in Syria and Irak, and financial and material support ("non-Lethal Assistence") to 22 select Rebel groups. We're just a small country (17 million people), but we do what we can do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War).ISIS was a threat to Europe. They committed acts of terror there so you were also fighting for yourselves as were the Kurds and the US fighting for themselves. So it wasn't an act of charity. But your effort there is appreciated. But how can the Netherlands and America, both NATO countries, go against another NATO country Turkey. We're supposed to be helping Turkey against Kurdish terrorists wanting to take Turkish lands this themselves. Wouldn't you want us to support the Dutch in such a situation? After all, Turkey has supported us for decades.
Today, the first of 46 ordered F35 Lightning II jets arrives in the Netherlands after lots of delays due to technical issues. Pilots have been trained, and we manufacture parts for the F35. This allows us to keepcontributing our bit in NATO, as long as it's a coalition. Let's hope it was the right choice, instead of e.g. a Swedish alternative.
https://www.f35.com/global/participation/netherlands
You're getting caught up in American politics trying to make a Republican president look bad for the elections coming up. It has nothing to do with the Kurds
This must be an awfully important photo forum if you think that a few contributors can affect a US election.
It's mainly Dutch and Canadians meddling in US elections.
If it's true that there are more leaks now than with previous administrations, it may be interesting to ask why. Is it to do with Trump or is it simply because online media is more pervasive now so there are more opportunities. In some small part though, doesn't Trump sort of invite it since he seems to conduct so much of his policy making on Twitter.
Anyway, isn't he supposed to be such a clever CEO/businessman media-savvy entrepreneur? He had GOP majorities in both houses to begin with but his administration seemed confused right out the gate. And we still hear people complain about how the media is against him. Well, boo-hoo, is my response. Grow a pair and act like a President, I say. Am I really supposed t believe that the "fake news" New York Times has more power that POTUS, that's a reach, isn't it?
And I am also confused about the complaints about secret investigations. Investigations are always conducted in secret, it's the trials that are public. What's wrong with that, seems like a good arrangement to me. Can you imagine televised police interrogations on cable? Those criticisms are a phoney distraction, nothing more.
Q: What reason? That Giuliani was already conspiring with people linked to Russian Oligarchs to create/fabricate dirt?
Trump's son didn't even work at Burisma when the corrupt prosecutor was ousted after combined international pressure agianst corruption.
Instead, a less corrupt prosecutor was put in place.
Q: Then why hide the transcript of the call on a different server with more restricted access than all other call transcripts?
Q: Why the many concerned staffers who knew that when Trump went off-script it caused legal issues?
A: Because they thought/knew it was illegal.
You do know that the first leak about the raid came from Trump, when he tweeted that something big was coming? It was after the raid, but before they'd confirmed the identity of the dead man, and when it was presumably still secret?
... as if dire consequences will emerge if one side or another is picked...
Since day one, the White House staff has been leaking information. So, in response Trump has been putting certain things in a more secure server to avoid leaks. This has been reported on and the conversation was not the first item stored in this fashion, nor was it only one of a few.
... The reason why previously buttoned up civil servants are doing this is because Donald Trump does dangerous, uninformed, ill-advised things. Period.
Venezuela didn't reach the dire stage it is in currently the day after the election of a socialist. It took years. Soviet Union lasted 70+ years, etc.
How would you describe the political stance of Russia today?... In the end, it boils down to much the same thing it always has...
A simple question: where would you rather live? In the present day Russia, or in the Soviet one?
A simple question: where would you rather live? In the present day Russia, or in the Soviet one?
You do know that the first leak about the raid came from Trump, when he tweeted that something big was coming? It was after the raid, but before they'd confirmed the identity of the dead man, and when it was presumably still secret?The president does not and cannot leak information-classified or not. He controls it as President. As such he determines classification and when to declassify information. If he feels that certain "secrets' would be better off declassified so the public can know, that's perfectly acceptable. He does not need anyone else's authority. He is the authority. Presidents do that all the time. The problem is when others leak information that could influence policy. It's not their prerogative to make those determinations. People go to jail for leaking classified information.
Oh no, maybe the US will push up the tariffs on tulip bulbs and maple syrup if we don't stop!
Personally speaking, I couldn't care less if they impeach him or not. It risks making him a martyr, as improbable as that sounds. It's not as if they need to keep the pressure on to induce bizarre behaviour on Trump's part, he's more than happy to oblige all on his own. I see that today he's attacking officials in Chicago for some reason or other. It's a sure sign that politics is screwed up these days because at first blush it should be easy to find someone reasonable to win against him, but the internecine fight among the Democrats seems to be as poisoned as anything else. Why should that be?
It's ironic to listen to these "debates" as if dire consequences will emerge if one side or another is picked. We have all the food and shelter we need, there is always ample money to conduct wars, maintain weapons systems, etc., always plenty of cash for that. There's money to give Amazon tax breaks and pay off Big Corn, but a rise in the minium wage will cripple the country. Is it possible to sound more stupid. I think these "battles" are taking place at the level of symbolism, not reality. Trump is no Nazi, the Democrats are not Stalins buying up land to build the new Gulag. The rhetoric is largely moronic and utterly without meaning. Meanwhile, Amazon pays no taxes and the infrastructure rusts. The coal miners won't get their jobs back, there is no need to retract regulations, we were all doing fine with them in place. It's mostly all smoke.
It's a wonderful thing that The Coffee Corner has a "Mark Read" button.
Pointless question. Just because you prefer A over B does not mean A is OK.
... He's not a capital "N" Nazi, but he certainly fits the mold a Mussolini-type fascist...
...Trump seems intent on tearing down the country...
Pointless question. Just because you prefer A over B does not mean A is OK.
Except when your alternative is B.
Doesn't anyone who opposes Trump here have anything positive to say about him regarding al Baghdadi? What would you want him to do that you would actually praise him? Would your fingers fall off your hand if you typed something positive about him?
My men's club visited Mcguire Air Force Base here in New Jersey a few months ago. Beside airmen giving us a tour of the C17 and base fire brigade company, they ran us threw their dog training area explaining all the procedures they use. We then got a demo of how dogs bring down "villains". Of course most of those would be drug people here in the states. But of course, overseas, the dogs are used for other things. They don't know a drug pusher from a terrorist or care. They seem to enjoy biting people in general and aren't particular about which one. :)
We don't have enough information how the mission unfolded and what was Trump's involvement. But as shown in another Coffee Corner thread (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132453.msg1136419#msg1136419), NYT and Times Of Israel stated that the operation was successful despite Trump, not thanks to him. And that's very positive.That's just another hit on Trump, Les. Obama did nothing more than Trump but got high praises for weeks about his "courage" on ordering the raid which eliminated Bin Laden. Had it failed, Obama would have been blasted as Democrat President Carter was when his raid to rescue American hostages in Iran failed. He lost his re-election bid because of it. So would have Trump been lambasted if he had failed. Yet you read and mimic the anti-Trump press and refuse to give him any credit.
My, my... TDS in full display.
[Trump Derangement Syndrome -- I had to look it up.]John to compare Trump to let's say Spanish Fascism under Franco is a bridge too far. Trump is a loudmouth, true. A bull in a china shop. All right. Course, rough. OK. But, his bark is louder than his bite. The Constitution and federal courts control all presidents including this one. Franco made war on his people and was a dictator who killed his countrymen. To compare Trump to that is, well, TDS. You're just being hyperbolic like all the other anti-Trump people here.
I won't argue that; I even agree with it. I covered politics as a reporter for quite a long time, for major metro newspapers; and I majored in American Studies in college, which was a combination of American history, political science and literature. I served in the Army, as did my father and both of my uncles (in World War II.) I love this country. It's the greatest country that's ever been. I loathe Trump, I really do. He's the most destructive influence we've ever seen in this nation. He is immoral, ignorant, personally vicious, suffers from a severe mental disorder, and refuses even the basic sort of education necessary to run this country. He is doing great damage to it, and encouraging the very worst of it -- racism, white nationalism, political corruption on an unprecedented scale.
For me, he's also quite an interesting case study. That's why I say he's a fascist -- because it fits. If instead of a wise-ass reply to this, go out to wiki or some other source, and see what fascism means, and understand that it was quite a popular political position in Europe, part of South America, and Japan, for quite a long time. And then look what it led to. In every case.
... If instead of a wise-ass reply to this, go out to wiki or some other source, and see what fascism means...
Doesn't anyone who opposes Trump here have anything positive to say about him regarding al Baghdadi? What would you want him to do that you would actually praise him? Would your fingers fall off your hand if you typed something positive about him?
Doesn't anyone who opposes Trump here have anything positive to say about him regarding al Baghdadi? What would you want him to do that you would actually praise him? Would your fingers fall off your hand if you typed something positive about him?LOL, as if he had much to do with this other than giving the go ahead. Reports coming out yesterday pointed out that his military withdrawal forced them to accelerate the timetable. Shouldn't the military and intelligence groups be praised much more than the President? I found it curious that in his praise of those who had ancillary roles, the Syrian Kurds who provided most of the key intelligence were listed last. Of course this also had to be the 'greatest' assassination of a terrorist even though the Caliphate never posed any threat to the US unlike bin Laden's group who murdered several thousand Americans. Good that the President got in yet another dig at Obama for not doing more against Gaghdadi!!
I speak five languages. I am a trained economist and hold an MBA degree from the #1 business school in the world (Booth).According to whose metric? A quick Google search shows a variety of rankings with several #1 business schools both in the the US and abroad. There are lots of people who graduate from #1 colleges/universities and that means very little.
According to whose metric? A quick Google search shows..
This:Yes, you can validate anything on the Internet. The US News rating is from 2018. US News now has it tied for 3rd behind Wharton and Stanford. In the end it really doesn't matter at all what the ratings mean, it is what the graduate does with the degree that matters. In the good old days when I was growing up we didn't have college/university rankings; perhaps we were better off. We always told our daughters that they could go to what ever school they wanted. They chose wisely and have fulfilling careers helping at risk children. That's what it's all about.
Doesn't anyone who opposes Trump here have anything positive to say about him regarding al Baghdadi? What would you want him to do that you would actually praise him? Would your fingers fall off your hand if you typed something positive about him?
Turns out, Trump was, once again, totally wrong. Once again, betting on the wrong horse (errr... dog). Not such a hero, after all:
https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-uncovers-evidence-hero-dog-sniffed-butts?fbclid=IwAR0zucm3faFUyDOJdT555E4TvtapxxHvbwl8o5s0lqoB_JyFvYlF7drd5ss
Trump had nothing to do with al-Baghdadi except perhaps for okaying the mission--just like Obama/bin Ladin. But Obama never took any credit while here's the Bone Spur Boy prancing around patting himself on the back. And Trump's moronic decision to pull US troops out and leave the Kurds hanging by their testicles came very close to scuttling the entire al-Baghdadi mission. And Trump has been spouting classified information about the mission to the press. And military sources involved in the operation say that some of Trump's statements about the operation are false.
You want me to praise Trump? Have him resign. It will finally be something good for the country.
Turns out, Trump was, once again, totally wrong. Once again, betting on the wrong horse (errr... dog). Not such a hero, after all:
https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-uncovers-evidence-hero-dog-sniffed-butts?fbclid=IwAR0zucm3faFUyDOJdT555E4TvtapxxHvbwl8o5s0lqoB_JyFvYlF7drd5ss
A team of NVIDIA researchers has defined new AI techniques that give computers enough smarts to see a picture of one animal and recreate its expression and pose on the face of any other creature. The work is powered in part by generative adversarial networks (GANs), an emerging AI technique that pits one neural network against another.
Before this work, network models for image translation had to be trained using many images of the target animal. Now, one picture of Rover does the trick, in part thanks to a training function that includes many different image translation tasks the team adds to the GAN process.
What? ???
I seem to remember Obama touting this on his re-election campaign, "Osama is dead and Detroit is alive," along with other variants said plenty of times in 2012.
Turns out, Trump was, once again, totally wrong. Once again, betting on the wrong horse (errr... dog). Not such a hero, after all:
Obama saying "Osama is dead" is a simple, undeniable fact. He did not take personal credit for it.
Amazing. I'd never heard of that site before, and my attention has been drawn to two links in 24 hours.
(This (https://babylonbee.com/news/motorcycle-that-identifies-as-bicycle-sets-world-cycling-record?fbclid=IwAR0CnN19DAs5PgvN7BQ7Z6BhxbNGTiim8zdYDg1vT_LhOwYX1rb6Lz7jLDU) is the other.)
Jeremy
Amazing. I'd never heard of that site before, and my attention has been drawn to two links in 24 hours.
It's a website known for Satire...
Happens every time. The discussion starts with a serious statement and ends with a joke.
Especially when you try to treat a joke (impeachment) as a serious statement ;)
Especially when you try to treat a joke (impeachment) as a serious statement ;)
Well Tom Brokaw, on MSNBC none the less, said, “The big difference is … they still don’t have what you call 'the goods' on this president in terms of breaking the law and being an impeachable target for them." It's important to remember that (a) aid was not withheld and (b) the investigation was not implemented. Even if you think Trump's words were concerning helping him in the 2020 election, he did not follow through with it.
I think that's not correct, or even relevant. He did solicit for a foreign nation to influence the national elections. That's the ground for impeachment, and from the looks of it there is enough first-hand evidence to prove that. It was only made worse by the attempted cover-up, and the going outside of the official diplomatic channels (making it more difficult for Congress to do its duty) doesn't help either. Then the coercion of witnesses to not testify raised more suspicion, what (else) are they trying to hide.
Cheers,
Bart
... In other news though, it really getting bad for the dog!
All of these can be explained by other possible actions and motives. Sorry Bart, but there is no clear cut evidence. They don't have the goods. I am half expecting the vote to fail on Thursday; as of this morning, at least one Dem in the house is saying he will most like vote against the resolution.Speaker Pelosi will not bring a vote to the floor that she will lose. I don't know how you can say there is no clear cut evidence. We have already seen several credible witnesses come before the inquiry panel that lay out the problem. In addition, the President only released an edited transcript of the phone call and put the actual phone call in a lock box. There is also the significant matter regarding the role of Giuliani, who may or may not have been delegated with carrying out the President's foreign policy and other goals in the Ukraine. The bigger problem for the President is obstruction of justice which will likely be one of the Impeachment articles 'if' they bring a charge to forward to the Senate.
;D
Speaker Pelosi will not bring a vote to the floor that she will lose. I don't know how you can say there is no clear cut evidence. We have already seen several credible witnesses come before the inquiry panel that lay out the problem. In addition, the President only released an edited transcript of the phone call and put the actual phone call in a lock box. There is also the significant matter regarding the role of Giuliani, who may or may not have been delegated with carrying out the President's foreign policy and other goals in the Ukraine. The bigger problem for the President is obstruction of justice which will likely be one of the Impeachment articles 'if' they bring a charge to forward to the Senate.
There are going to be some difficult votes to take by both sides though I think more will be of consequence in the Senate if there is an Impeachment vote. The Republicans who seem only to be attacking this on procedural grounds and not trying to seek the truth are leading the US to a dangerous place. Many of them have argued in the past that the executive branch has grown in power and much of this results from poor Congressional oversight. Now that we have some Congressional oversight, the Republicans are lining up to argue against the process. I've done my share of Congressional testimony during my working career and it's never very pleasant (I got severely upbraided by Senator Boxer on an environmental issue that we were actually the 'good guys'). The Senate can ultimately vote not to impeach but they ought to welcome oversight. the only Senate committee that is doing a passable job is the Intelligence Committee that is chaired by Senator Burr with Senator Warner as the ranking member.
... s Wardog still joyously alive, barking mad, or in that big kennel in the sky?...
I disagree. Regardless though on who is right, it's really not going to matter.Neither of us can vote on this matter until next November. We will have to see how it all plays out when the evidence is made public and how the House decides to proceed. All else is mere conjecture.
Apparently, the dog was injured in the blast, but survived and is ok now.
Oh no... it seems that the transcript of the Ukraine conversation was not word for word after all...
This is very surprising since Trump said at least 4 times in public that absolutely nothing had been left out...
Why would he lie on this?
Cheers,
Bernard
it's an example of the new freedom: elastic reality.... It will get a lot worse than it is now...
Truth Decay
Simple minds like Occam’s?
Only simple minds believe in simple truths.
Bernard, if there is any “disrespect” for the Constitution, it comes from Democrats, who have been desperately trying to overturn election results by a slow-motion coup d’etat, clutching at the straws, and making mountains out of molehills. As if they haven’t learned anything from the spectacular failure that the Russian Connection was, they are now going for the Ukrainian one. The result will be the same: Trump 2020.
Bernard, if there is any “disrespect” for the Constitution, it comes from Democrats, who have been desperately trying to overturn election results by a slow-motion coup d’etat, clutching at the straws, and making mountains out of molehills. As if they haven’t learned anything from the spectacular failure that the Russian Connection was, they are now going for the Ukrainian one. The result will be the same: Trump 2020.
... If you want something to be true, just declare it true and - poof - there ya go. No need to think or investigate.
Russian investigation a failure? Where do you get your news, the Nancy and Sluggo show? It provided tons of evidence for illegal collusion, but for reasons I do not understand Mueller concluded it was not enough to indict a sitting president.
Russian investigation a failure? . . . It provided tons of evidence for illegal collusion, but for reasons I do not understand Mueller concluded it was not enough to indict a sitting president.
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Meanwhile...
R: "This is a total sham!!! These hearings are SECRET and REPUBLICANS ARE SHUT OUT!!!"
(note: totally not true. Republicans are in the hearings, which are using the rules set forth by a Republican speaker and a Republican House, but I digress..)
D: Hey buddy... these are your rules, but ok.. let's vote on open hearings.
There are 40+ republicans on the three committees that are conducting the impeachment investigations.
There are 40+ republicans on the three committees that are conducting the impeachment investigations.
Bernard, if there is any “disrespect” for the Constitution, it comes from Democrats, who have been desperately trying to overturn election results by a slow-motion coup d’etat, clutching at the straws, and making mountains out of molehills. As if they haven’t learned anything from the spectacular failure that the Russian Connection was, they are now going for the Ukrainian one. The result will be the same: Trump 2020.
I am at a loss...
... After Trump leaves office, or is removed by the impeachment process, he could be charged with any federal crimes he committed during his tenure.
There are 40+ republicans on the three committees that are conducting the impeachment investigations.
At this point truth and common sense have become totally unrelated to the behaviour of republicans.
Bernard, if there is any “disrespect” for the Constitution, it comes from Democrats, who have been desperately trying to overturn election results by a slow-motion coup d’etat, clutching at the straws, and making mountains out of molehills. As if they haven’t learned anything from the spectacular failure that the Russian Connection was, they are now going for the Ukrainian one. The result will be the same: Trump 2020.
Here's a prediction for you guys: The Democrat impeachment circus will lead to (1) The Republicans retaking the House next year. (2) The Republicans hanging on to the Senate next year, and (3) The reelection of Trump next year. Keep your eyes peeled and your ear to the ground. (Can't think of any more clichés at the moment.) Stay alert.
At this point truth and common sense have become totally unrelated to the behaviour of republicans.
Cheers,
Bernard
Let me Google that for you...
Can somebody provide evidence for that? I didn't dig deep into that, but the only "proof" I saw is that those Republicans are members of those committees. That fact might or may not mean that they are actually participating in those impeachment hearings. And if they are, then they are protesting the closed nature of the hearings in which, procedurally, they are not allowed to issue their own subpoenas or question witnesses. Again, I admit that I did not dig deep into the issue, so I welcome if someone proves me wrong.
You're apparently not even an American. Why even respond? And, do you really think what your media spoon feeds you is the truth? Myself I don't give a rat's ass what the politics are in Canada or UK. Have no idea what they are in Japan. I leave it up to their citizens to decide what they want.
That is because you totally misjudged the situation. Which shouldn't be surprising, given the distance you are observing.
Can somebody provide evidence for that? I didn't dig deep into that, but the only "proof" I saw is that those Republicans are members of those committees. That fact might or may not mean that they are actually participating in those impeachment hearings. And if they are, then they are protesting the closed nature of the hearings in which, procedurally, they are not allowed to issue their own subpoenas or question witnesses. Again, I admit that I did not dig deep into the issue, so I welcome if someone proves me wrong.
What’s to be feared?
... Because any way you look at it, Trump has been violating the constitution.
And you have not provided any sensible explanation showing that he didn’t...
What I really don't understand about Trump supporters -- and specifically you Slobodan -- is your acceptance of a guy like Trump. I assume you're pretty conservative. Trump isn't. Neither are his politics. I mean, as an economist do you think the signature Trump achievement so far, his tax cut, which has led to a near trillion dollar deficit at a time of increasing tax collections was a good idea? Or are you one of those people who believe the deficits don't matter? People say, "I don't like Trump, but I support his policies." Which policies? The trade war with China that's devastated our farm economy? The encouragement of such things as coal mining, at a time when we know if does great damage to the environment AND is already uneconomic, given the rise of fracking and natural gas? I personally don't disagree that socialism is a threat we need to deal with (see Soviet Communism, Mao, Pol Pot -- it's generally been as bad or worse than fascism, when it's leaders get cornered) but you don't deal with it by supporting a fascist like Trump. But the thing that worries me more than anything is the fact that Trump is deranged. He suffers from known mental illnesses called delusional disorder of the grandiose type and from narcissism. As I made clear in an earlier post, I can live with a conservative president, or, for that matter, a liberal President. I have a hard time with a crazy one, who makes decisions like the one he made on Syria, apparently without consulting virtually any military leaders.
... it's culture war...
Fine, I’ll stop to care about US politics the day US stops to attempt to influence the politics of Japan, Europe and the Middle East and the US$ ceases to control the price of oil and most other core utilities.
The market controls the price of oil.
You want to abolish the first and second amendment (and some others along the way). You want open borders. You want to send people to jail for using the “wrong” pronoun for freaks. You want to send people to jail for using terms like “illegal alien” and “bitch.” You want people losing their jobs for a joke from decades ago. You wage a culture war on everything: on whites, on men, on Christmas, on Columbus, on Christians, on comedy, on humor, on sex, on families, on having children, on meat, on airplanes...
WTF are you talking about?Some people are adaptable; others, not so much.
Achieving in depth understanding of anything is hard work, it requires thought, evidence gathering and study. We may no longer have the infrastructure to do that.
Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on Today at 10:58:19 am
You want to abolish the first and second amendment (and some others along the way). You want open borders. You want to send people to jail for using the “wrong” pronoun for freaks. You want to send people to jail for using terms like “illegal alien” and “bitch.” You want people losing their jobs for a joke from decades ago. You wage a culture war on everything: on whites, on men, on Christmas, on Columbus, on Christians, on comedy, on humor, on sex, on families, on having children, on meat, on airplanes...
WTF are you talking about?
You bet it is.
You want to abolish the first and second amendment (and some others along the way). You want open borders. You want to send people to jail for using the “wrong” pronoun for freaks. You want to send people to jail for using terms like “illegal alien” and “bitch.” You want people losing their jobs for a joke from decades ago. You wage a culture war on everything: on whites, on men, on Christmas, on Columbus, on Christians, on comedy, on humor, on sex, on families, on having children, on meat, on airplanes...
And then you wonder people like a jerk who has the tenacity to stand in your way.
WTF are you talking about?
Maybe you are not old enough to have lived through the oil boycotts in the 1970s. It proves that your statement is false and I can tell you as an individual I had to care as there were long gas lines to get one's care refueled.
The market controls the price of oil. All countries try to influence others to some degree, but as an individual I basically don't care.
Kent in SD
Can somebody provide evidence for that? I didn't dig deep into that, but the only "proof" I saw is that those Republicans are members of those committees. That fact might or may not mean that they are actually participating in those impeachment hearings. And if they are, then they are protesting the closed nature of the hearings in which, procedurally, they are not allowed to issue their own subpoenas or question witnesses. Again, I admit that I did not dig deep into the issue, so I welcome if someone proves me wrong.What you say is totally irrelevant. It makes no difference as the respective members had the 'right' to attend every meeting and question witnesses. If they chose not to do so the fault is on them. the only true thing you state above relates to the power to issue their own subpoenas but that's because the Republicans took this power away from the minority when they were in power. Dems did not have this power during the Benghazi hearings which were also closed to members not on the relevant committee.
Latest data points out that in some regions of the country manufacturing is slowing down, particularly for industries in export driven businesses. Were it not for financial services and health care industries things would be a lot worse.
People can convince themselves of anything. The coal miners won't get their jobs back and the manufacturing industries (which are doing fine btw, it's only unskilled factory workers who suffered) won't be hiring the unskilled to carry boxes around any more. But they think that Trump has solved these problems because the distance between high-level policy and low-level effects on people's daily lives is so great that nobody can see the link in the first place. It serves the purpose of many to convince people to not look beyond their fingertips for analysis and understanding. Achieving in depth understanding of anything is hard work, it requires thought, evidence gathering and study. We may no longer have the infrastructure to do that.
What I really don't understand about Trump supporters -- and specifically you Slobodan -- is your acceptance of a guy like Trump. I assume you're pretty conservative. Trump isn't. Neither are his politics. I mean, as an economist do you think the signature Trump achievement so far, his tax cut, which has led to a near trillion dollar deficit at a time of increasing tax collections was a good idea? Or are you one of those people who believe the deficits don't matter? People say, "I don't like Trump, but I support his policies." Which policies? The trade war with China that's devastated our farm economy? The encouragement of such things as coal mining, at a time when we know if does great damage to the environment AND is already uneconomic, given the rise of fracking and natural gas? I personally don't disagree that socialism is a threat we need to deal with (see Soviet Communism, Mao, Pol Pot -- it's generally been as bad or worse than fascism, when it's leaders get cornered) but you don't deal with it by supporting a fascist like Trump. But the thing that worries me more than anything is the fact that Trump is deranged. He suffers from known mental illnesses called delusional disorder of the grandiose type and from narcissism. As I made clear in an earlier post, I can live with a conservative president, or, for that matter, a liberal President. I have a hard time with a crazy one, who makes decisions like the one he made on Syria, apparently without consulting virtually any military leaders.It will be interesting to see if these questions elicit any serious responses from US posters on this forum.
I will admit that it is indeed a beautiful fence!!!!
Very expensive, however. We're fortunate that México agreed to pay for it.
There is this little annoying thing called presumption of innocence, i.e., it is your job to prove his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, not his job or mine. Two years of investigations, with media screeching about his guilt 24/7, with everything and a kitchen sink thrown at him, and... nothing. No proof.
Now we are at the beginning of the circus #2, Ukraine. Good luck with that.
And again, a negative is impossible to prove. It is a basic formal logic. So, no one can “prove” that he didn’t violate the constitution.
Maybe you are not old enough to have lived through the oil boycotts in the 1970s. It proves that your statement is false and I can tell you as an individual I had to care as there were long gas lines to get one's care refueled.
Yes, I was in college. I note you had to go all the way back about 45 years to find anything even close to an example. At that time there were many fewer producers, and eventually the market did correct the problem.
1. My point was that, until recently, the US$ was recognized universally as the currency in which oil was traded.
2. Through the fact that the US can print US$ pretty much for free without any measurable downside.
3. This should explain quite clearly one of the reasons why many informed non US citizens appear to care more about Trump than the millions of his supporters who appear to blindly believe whetever lie they are being fed with. Talk about the great freedom... ;)
4. But I gave a list of 10+ more reasons a few pages ago that I could summarize in “I respect too much positions of high governance to accept them being owned by people without the historical understanding, culture and mental abilities”.
5. Finally, I have a young child and I am trying to teach her about right and wrong. I would also prefer the world she will be evolving in not to be infected more by the level of mediocrity Trump’s approach has started to spread everywhere. A mediocrity best summarized by “instead of working hard to change the world, I’ll just lie about the fact it’s already the way I want it to be”. No, that doesn’t work. And it’s not fair to the millions of people suffering in America and elsewhere. It has nothing to do with the American dream I love, it’s just the opposite.
6. So I still don’t understand why so many smart people here prefer to go against their own values to support Trump out of fear that a socialist may come in office if they don’t. This really is a severe misjudgment of the terrible impact Trump is having on this world.
1. That will be true no matter who is president, or if there's even one at all.
2. There is always a downside. The downsides are a weakening of the country and increase of percentage of annual budget paid for interest. Eventually the rates will go up and that will be trouble.
3. Very few "blindly believe." And the same could be said about Obama's constant BS of "Hope & Change." Nothing substantive changed at all.
4. If there is little understanding it's because the national media is basically run by partisan fanatics intent on MISinforming the population. They are dishonest to the core.
5. When it comes to right/wrong and morals, politicians can universally be used as bad examples. NONE of the top four people in the current U.S. presidential race are by any stretch moral and honest.
6. I can help you with this. I'm not a Trump supporter--I'm a "not Hillary" voter. Here's what your national press won't tell you. Hillary is corrupt and phony to the bone. She has never told the truth about anything and her whole life has been about collecting wealth for herself by hook or crook. She corrupted the Democratic Party AND the news media in charge of the national primary debates into giving her in advance the questions that would be asked, thus stabbing Bernie in the back. One of her campaign themes was Trump had a "war" against women, and yet later it came out that she kept a predatory campaign manager despite numerous complaints by women because "he was so good." Wikileaks founder Julian Assaunge recently went on record that the reason he leaked Hillary's emails was he believed she was a "sadistic, vindictive sociopath" and that the national media would never hold her to account. (He has been proven correct.) Finally, in a famous email by Colin Powell the media loved to quote the part where he was negative about Trump but only one provided the whole email. In that we read Powell wrote, "Hillary always manages to screw it up, usually a result of her own Hubris." The whole "Russia" investigation just concluded this year turns out to have been instigated by Hillary's campaign staff dirty tricks. Hillary et al. are the type that could easily turn our country into something equally corrupt as any banana republic. Most of the people I've talked weren't voting for Trump, they were voting for the "least bad." Somehow the Democratic Party managed against all odds to find someone worse than Trump. They seem to be doing the same now by promoting Elizabeth Warren, a person who stole a high paying job that was supposed to go to a minority person, lied about it for years, had the poor judgement to announce a DNA test that showed she was 1/1024 American Indian proved she had been telling the truth, and is now lying about being fired because she was pregnant. This is another dishonest person who has spent their entire life in protected academia and never had to deal with the real world, and like Bernie is telling us, "Vote for me and everything will be FREE!" No thanks. Our political parties have been hijacked by emotion driven partisan fanatics, not people with real governing skills. The other problem is a national media that is nothing more than the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party, and I would bet your's is exactly the same.
Kent in SD
Lol. Thing is, even if, for the sake of argument, we pretend that your complaints about HRC are factual, Donald Trump embodies every one of them to a greater degree - usually a much greater degree.
I mean, how am I supposed to take you even remotely seriously when you claim that your problem is that Hillary is a liar and only cares about accumulating wealth, and you follow that by saying, “so THAT’S why I support Donald Trump instead.”
Yes, I was in college. I note you had to go all the way back about 45 years to find anything even close to an example. At that time there were many fewer producers, and eventually the market did correct the problem.
Kent in SD
Why is this all about HRC? She's done. Who cares?
This discussion is about now, not three years ago.
Your ability to read and comprehend is in question here. I never said I "supported" Trump. I said I voted "not Hillary." Everything she has said and done since has only reassured me I made the right choice. As for pretending my "claims" are true, if you do just a minimal amount of research you will find they are indeed and for the sake of brevity I skipped over many. Do you deny she conspired with Debbie Wasserman Schultz (former head of the Democratic Party,) Donna Brazil (formerly of CNN,) She admits to it; Hillary never addresses it.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donna-brazile-leaves-cnn/
Do you deny the Powell email?
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/14/493927155/powell-trump-a-national-disgrace-clinton-screws-up-everything-with-hubris
Do you deny Julian Assange's stated motivation was Hillary is a sadistic sociopath and the press will never hold her to account?
https://qz.com/1599384/mueller-report-on-trump-campaigns-contacts-with-wikileaks/
Do you deny that former head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, conspired with Hillary to stab poor old Bernie in the back during teh 2016 campaign?
https://www.change.org/p/debbie-wasserman-schultz-a-call-for-corruption-dripping-debbie-wasserman-schultz-head-of-dnc-to-resign
Do you deny that after making a big deal about the "war on women" during her campaign, Hillary herself refused to remove a campaign manager after several complaints from her women staffers?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/01/27/hillary-clinton-metoo-meet-sowhat/
Do you deny E. Warren did not claim to be an "Indian" in order to get a high paying job that was set aside for a minority?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/28/harvard_must_set_the_record_straight_on_elizabeth_warren_140678.html
Are you denying anything I wrote was not factual?
My degree is in medical science, I like to deal with facts when making decisions. The facts clearly show Hillary was and is corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, and phony to the bone. That made Trump the "least worst" choice. As a suggestion I'll recommend you not use MSNBC as your only information source.
... do you still think today that voting Trump was a good decision?..
Why is this all about HRC? She's done. Who cares?
This discussion is about now, not three years ago.
I can relate with your concerns about Hilary Clinton, but do you still think today that voting Trump was a good decision?
1. Clinton is certainly corrupt (all politicians in the US by design since the law allows their funding by private parties), dishonest and phony, but there is zero doubt that she is way more competent than Trump.
2. Heck, I am pretty certain I would do a better job than Trump as a President.
You calling her incompetent makes me wonder if you are objective about her abilities.
Cheers,
Bernard
I can relate with your concerns about Hilary Clinton, but do you still think today that voting Trump was a good decision?I originally prefered Bush but he only got 3% of the nomination vote after spending $100 million on his campaign. How is Hillary competent? She rode her husband's coattails to become senator in NYS even though she's from Arkansas. The Democrats who run democrat NYS got her the job. She became Secretary of State with Obama again as a payoff to keep the Clintons quiet and so she wouldn't run against Obama in his re-election. As Secretary of State, she handled the disaster in Benghazi, the overthrow of Gaddafi, almost got us into war with Russia and North Korea. Meanwhile she sold influence to foreign leaders due to her position. Her husband was able to make $100 million off of it for the same reason. She never ran anything in her life.
Clinton is certainly corrupt (all politicians in the US by design since the law allows their funding by private parties), dishonest and phony, but there is zero doubt that she is way more competent than Trump.
Heck, I am pretty certain I would do a better job than Trump as a President.
You calling her incompetent makes me wonder if you are objective about her abilities.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm baaack! Well, Sunday's a good day to catch up. I see not much has changed. Nobody's changed their minds.
How did that "getting a life" work out? How long till the next flounce?Ask my wife. :)
That was before the huge consolidation of the petroleum industry. there were many more refiners and integrated petroleum companies. Were it not for the fracking revolution and new approaches such as horizontal drilling, the US would not be in the self-sufficient state regarding petro energy that they are today.
Yes, I was in college. I note you had to go all the way back about 45 years to find anything even close to an example. At that time there were many fewer producers, and eventually the market did correct the problem.
Kent in SD
That was before the huge consolidation of the petroleum industry. there were many more refiners and integrated petroleum companies. Were it not for the fracking revolution and new approaches such as horizontal drilling, the US would not be in the self-sufficient state regarding petro energy that they are today.The Democrats want to shut down fracking and make as dependent on the Middle East again. That will open us up to more war there. Are you in favor of fracking?
The Democrats want to shut down fracking and make as dependent on the Middle East again. That will open us up to more war there. Are you in favor of fracking?Absolutely but I'm also cognizant of the issues that it raises. Look at all the earthquakes that are taking place in Oklahoma right now. there are environmental issues but as with anything they can be managed. There is no free lunch and never has been. It did not escape my notice that there was a major leak on the Canadian side of the Keystone pipeline and a large amount of oil was spilled. Stuff happens.
Absolutely but I'm also cognizant of the issues that it raises. Look at all the earthquakes that are taking place in Oklahoma right now. there are environmental issues but as with anything they can be managed. There is no free lunch and never has been. It did not escape my notice that there was a major leak on the Canadian side of the Keystone pipeline and a large amount of oil was spilled. Stuff happens.
Fracking also produces natural gas in huge amounts. While not directly related to ME oil, it's a major fuel used in heating especially. I use gas and there's no smell like oil burning furnaces. It's also cheaper than oil for the same Btu's. No trucks have to deliver it. Cleaner than oil. Also, when you use more natural gas, you're less dependent on foreign oil as well and it lowers oil prices since it's a competitor to oil. Trump is a heavy supporter of fracking but I don't know how much that will affect the upcoming election.It also destroyed the coal mining industry but our President refuses to acknowledge this and is trying to prop the industry up by weakening environmental regulations.
It did not escape my notice that there was a major leak on the Canadian side of the Keystone pipeline and a large amount of oil was spilled. Stuff happens.
Fracking also produces natural gas in huge amounts. While not directly related to ME oil, it's a major fuel used in heating especially. I use gas and there's no smell like oil burning furnaces. It's also cheaper than oil for the same Btu's. No trucks have to deliver it. Cleaner than oil. Also, when you use more natural gas, you're less dependent on foreign oil as well and it lowers oil prices since it's a competitor to oil. Trump is a heavy supporter of fracking but I don't know how much that will affect the upcoming election.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he had "very considerable anxieties" about fracking, which is a controversial method of extracting shale gas. The government has withdrawn support and said it will block further proposals to change the planning process for fracking sites.
Trump is president because the other choice was Hillary. Very relevant.
Kent in SD
That's incorrect. The spill was entirely in ND.
https://globalnews.ca/news/6104304/keystone-north-dakota-spill/
It also destroyed the coal mining industry but our President refuses to acknowledge this and is trying to prop the industry up by weakening environmental regulations.Gas was hurting the coal industry long before fracking came along. Coal miners were looking for support from politicians who were just ignoring them. So he gave them hope, just like Obama gave his supporters hope when he ran. While Trump couldn;t reverse the trend, he still helped the coal industry where he could. That's better than the Democrats would have done. Who would you vote for if you lived in a coal mining town? The fact is Trump got millions of crossover votes from traditional working class Democrats. They see him a one of them, not some guy living up in the clouds despite the fact he's a billionaire. He worked hard, took a lot of crap, still does, and knows how to give it back. Coal miners identify with people like that, not with the Hillarys or Warrens or Buttigiegs.
True, but there have been plenty of other spills on the Candian side of the border.Canada isn't going to shut down their fossil fuel industry. It's too valuable. Environmentalists are stuck between a rock and a hard spot. Hillary tried that here and lost the election because she didn't care about the industry workers. Future politicians will make that mistake again at their peril.
Canada isn't going to shut down their fossil fuel industry. It's too valuable. Environmentalists are stuck between a rock and a hard spot. Hillary tried that here and lost the election because she didn't care about the industry workers. Future politicians will make that mistake again at their peril.
The topic is (ostensibly) about impeaching Trump, not about why he was elected. It's quite apparent why he was elected. That was then. This is now.It is a palace coup. It's not an "obvious mistake" when almost half the population don't want an impeachment. Impeachment is serious business. Only 3 or 4 presidents have in over 200 years have been impeached and none were found guilty in a Senate trial and lost their office. It's not like in a parliamentary system, when they call for an election regularly because they no longer like the PM or his policies. Like what's happening in Great Britain now. Americans don't go for that. We have a different system, maybe one you're not familiar with. Americans want their presidents to serve out their 4 year term. Even presidents they didn't vote for. Then you have another chance to vote them in or out of office. During an election, not some politically contrived "mistake" that isn't treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Impeachment takes the focus off of governing. And remember, what comes around goes around. One day there will be a Democrat president and a Republican Congress. I don;t think Americans want to go through this again, but they will if the Democrats continue with this nonsense. They been trying to impeach for three years. All previous reasons have disappeared because there was no real crime. So now, suddenly, they found Ukraine just three weeks ago. The Democrats are just looking for an excuse. People smell a rat.
People keep claiming that this "coup" is an attempt at an end run around democracy. In fact, it appears to be an attempt to implement the American constitutional provisions and to correct an obvious mistake.
A lot of Canada's fossil fuel industry is shutting itself down because it's not competitive. Same with coal. Trump can wear a funny hat and pretend to drive a tractor all he wants, and maybe people will be fooled for a little while, but in the long run those miners will be out of work just the same.I never said their industry was not in trouble. What I said is only Trump cares about those people and tries to help. When you're down and out, and know things probably won't get better, it's still nice to know that someone is trying to help. That means a lot to people.
I never said their industry was not in trouble. What I said is only Trump cares about those people and tries to help. When you're down and out, and know things probably won't get better, it's still nice to know that someone is trying to help. That means a lot to people.
But you keep saying what you're saying. Because the Democrats won;t get back those votes because you do keep saying it. It shows you really don't care about these people. Or do you?
Anyone got a clue what Alan's talking about?
Anyone got a clue what Alan's talking about?No. It was better when he was getting a life.
Really? So you are in favour of government intervention to support unprofitable industries?First off, coal is profitable. It's cheaper than many other fuels. However, the previous government has intervened by making it harder for coal to compete even though 30% of our electricity is made with coal. So Trump has reversed some government regulations that Obama imposed unilaterally. It's not subsidizing coal as far as I know otherwise. I don;t believe in subsidies.
It is a palace coup. not some politically contrived "mistake" that isn't treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.
Nope.Bart, I don't expect you to know. You're not American. Neither are the others complaining. Those that are, hate Trump so much they can't see the forest through the trees. Keep hating coal miners. Trump needs the votes.
First off, coal is profitable.
No. It was better when he was getting a life.
First off, coal is profitable.That's why mines are shutting down and coal miners are losing their jobs. Because coal is so profitable.
So, Trump's phone call to Ukraine is none of those? You approve of what he (apparently) did?At worse, it's political shenanigans, and not impeachable. All politicians play political games. It's called politics. However, in this case there is a nexus for investigating Biden as part of general Ukrainian corruption we wanted Ukraine to solve, including the last Obama administration. That's perfectly legal. We went over this before I went on a break. We're just repeating again.
Your memory is fading, jeremyrh. Alan isn't in favour of government taking sides with industry, remember? They shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers.
He maintains that "all markets are free", IIRC
That's why mines are shutting down and coal miners are losing their jobs. Because coal is so profitable.
At worse, it's political shenanigans, and not impeachable.
No. It was better when he was getting a life.
Just keep hating on coal miners. I like that. So does Trump. I hope you're advising the Democrats.
Nobody is hating on coal miners. Or buggy whip drivers.
Nobody is hating on coal miners. Or buggy whip drivers.
Fine. Just keep saying what you're saying. Good for Trump. Thank you for your help.
First off, coal is profitable. It's cheaper than many other fuels. However, the previous government has intervened by making it harder for coal to compete even though 30% of our electricity is made with coal. So Trump has reversed some government regulations that Obama imposed unilaterally. It's not subsidizing coal as far as I know otherwise. I don;t believe in subsidies.
10 U.S. states have now legalized the recreational use of marijuana while another 34 have given it the green light for medicinal use. That has resulted in a noticeable boost in the American job market and it's estimated that 211,000 people are now directly employed in the industry full time. Counting indirect and induced jobs depending on legal marijuana, that number rises to 296,000. By comparison, the U.S. has 69,000 brewing workers while 52,000 people are employed in coal mining jobs.
So, Trump's phone call to Ukraine is none of those? You approve of what he (apparently) did?
In UK, the fracking has been recently banned because of the danger of earthquakes. No wonder, if you shake something or somebody, violent reactions can follow. Including gas release.
Yes.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how corruption is born.
First off, coal is profitable. It's cheaper than many other fuels. However, the previous government has intervened by making it harder for coal to compete even though 30% of our electricity is made with coal. So Trump has reversed some government regulations that Obama imposed unilaterally. It's not subsidizing coal as far as I know otherwise. I don;t believe in subsidies.Why are all the coal companies going bankrupt? How has Trump's plan helped save coal mining jobs. According to all the data I've seen jobs in this industry continue to decline.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how corruption is born.Quite right and one wonders what else there is behind all these claims for executive privilege. There is also the very real case of the President's own lawyer, Mr. Giuliani and his various foreign policy escapades.
Just keep hating on coal miners. I like that. So does Trump. I hope you're advising the Democrats.
What corruption?
Corruption.
President Donald Trump said Sunday that he wants to cut off federal funds to fight wildfires raging across California, tweeting that Gov. Gavin Newsom should "get his act together" and properly manage the state's forests.
Nobody hates coal miners. They hate coal and the awful damage it is doing to our planet.
Just keep hating on coal miners. I like that. So does Trump. I hope you're advising the Democrats.Non sequitur. You are flailing around.
Nobody hates coal miners. They hate coal and the awful damage it is doing to our planet.Yes. Keep telling coal miners they're ruining the environment. Don;t leave out frackers, steel makers, electricity makers, gas producers, wildcatters, etc. That's the way to win votes. Ohio are you listening? Pennsylvania? Thank you.
Yes. Keep telling coal miners they're ruining the environment. Don;t leave out frackers, steel makers, electricity makers, gas producers, wildcatters, etc. That's the way to win votes. Ohio are you listening? Pennsylvania? Thank you.Are you off your meds?
Are you off your meds?I'll let the moderator answer you.
CNN finally found an impeachable offense (to get this thread back on track):Definitely impeachable. They finally got him.
So, Trump's phone call to Ukraine is none of those? You approve of what he (apparently) did?
Yes.
Welcome to the forum, ah693973.
You are a welcome addition, too funny. Old members' desperate attempts to impeach Trump just got boring. Keep it coming, we need a good laugh.
You can laugh Slobodan, but you do so to avoid the issue. How about a real argument?
Let me ask you this. Can you come up with any unforced move that Trump has made that harms Russia? It seems that everything the president does helps your old country. This is what I find most perplexing about your worship of Trump. It seems to contradict your obvious hatred of Russia.
Oh sorry, where were my manners. Hi Slobodan. I had a feeling you were going to respond and we would be chatting.
Although not necessary for impeachment the following laws were possibly broken:
1. Bribery.
2. Withholding duly appointed funds.
3. Soliciting political aid from a foreign government.
4. Obstruction.
5. Use of executive branch powers for political purposes. (Hatch act)
Would be nice to address you by your name, instead of your license plate ;)
You can laugh Slobodan, but you do so to avoid the issue. How about a real argument?
Let me ask you this. Can you come up with any unforced move that Trump has made that harms Russia? It seems that everything the president does helps your old country. This is what I find most perplexing about your worship of Trump. It seems to contradict your obvious hatred of Russia.
Non sequitur. You are flailing around.
1. Earlier this year Putin decided to test Trump's resolve in Syria. He sent a mechanized column of about 500 Russians across the agreed upon boundary, the Euphrates River. In what became known as the Battle of Kasham, Trump gave the OK to smoke the column first with Marine artillery and then with helicopter gunships and fighter bombers. Reports were that 200-300 of the 500 troops were wiped out. Putin was so humiliated that he ordered the bodies of the Russians to be incinerated and buried in the desert rather than that huge number be sent back to Russia. Reports from inside Russia were that families were told the loss was from fighting terrorists if they were told at all.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/battle-syria-us-russian-mercenaries-commandos-islamic-state-a8370781.html
... Slobodan,
My name is Andy. Pleased to meet you.
You appear to shrink away from engaging in debate and instead avoid answering questions or change the subject. You have not addressed any points in my original post and you have not come up with a single unforced move by Trump that checks Russian interests. I know it is easier to just lay down quips and dodge the tough stuff but this is the point of this thread after all. No thoughts?..
Trump's phone call was just the starting point for a deep dive into investigating the use of political office for personal gain. Trump used his office to cut off military aide to an ally who was facing an existential crisis as it was being overrun by our longtime foe Russia. He did this in order to get Ukraine to publicly announce they were looking into corruption of his political adversaries.
Although not necessary for impeachment the following laws were possibly broken:
1. Bribery.
2. Withholding duly appointed funds.
3. Soliciting political aid from a foreign government.
4. Obstruction.
5. Use of executive branch powers for political purposes. (Hatch act)
This is textbook what the framer's of the constitution were worried about when they decided to include impeachment as a remedy for a lawless president.
Slobodan,Slobodan explained that Trump wanted to establish a better relation with Russia before his election. You may not agree with that policy. But policies of presidents aren't impeachable offenses. That's what elections are for.
Since you are not willing to engage in debate on the impeachment issue, the point of this thread, there isn't much to discuss. I would wager that Trump will soon be trying to prove a negative or at least trying to raise a reasonable doubt.
I think it is desirable for Trump to put US interests ahead of Russia's, no matter what the status of relations, and in the Ukraine Trump withheld aide while Russia gained territory. In fact the Ukraine was almost ready to largely give up. That is not in the United State's national interest. We support Western democracies, while not perfect, the Ukraine certainly seems closer to that ideal than Russia.
What do you expect we have to gain with this "friendship" between Trump and Putin? And by we, I mean the US and our allies? I fear we will end up like Timothy Treadwell if we think we can befriend that bear.
I'll let the moderator answer you.
Trump's phone call was just the starting point for a deep dive into investigating the use of political office for personal gain. Trump used his office to cut off military aide to an ally who was facing an existential crisis as it was being overrun by our longtime foe Russia. He did this in order to get Ukraine to publicly announce they were looking into corruption of his political adversaries.
Although not necessary for impeachment the following laws were possibly broken:
1. Bribery.
2. Withholding duly appointed funds.
3. Soliciting political aid from a foreign government.
4. Obstruction.
5. Use of executive branch powers for political purposes. (Hatch act)
This is textbook what the framer's of the constitution were worried about when they decided to include impeachment as a remedy for a lawless president.
That is lame.Tipping your toe in the water, are you Bart? :)
Hi Andy Nice to meet you. Some clarifications. First off Ukraine is not an ally of the US. We have bi-lateral relationships but I'm not aware of any military guarantees we made to them. They're also not a member of NATO.
Concerning your five points, I'm not sure what bribery you're talking about. America gives aid, military and other, to many countries for a purpose. We wish to influence them to do things we want and get their support when we need it. If they're not doing what we ask them to do, the president can hold up aid. If the recipient country wants to dance, they have to pay the piper. It's not the recipient country's power to control the situation. After all it's our money.
Second, while it appears to be true that Trump wanted Biden and his son investigated for apparent corruption, Trump asked for investigation and elimination of corruption in general in the Ukraine. This has been a big problem predating Trump's term. Obama also tried to influence the Ukraine to clean up their act. While there may be a political fallout advantage from investigating Biden for Trump, his basic request for investigating possible US violation of the law by Biden and his son and others falls squarely in the responsibility of the President. Are you suggesting that VP Biden is above the law and should not be investigated because the president may get a political benefit? That varies little from the Obama's administration investigation of Trump when they thought there was some collusion going on with the Russians. In that case, the Democrats gained political advantage. But it is argued by Democrats that there was apparent collusion so the investigation was legitimate. Same with Biden's apparent corruption investigation.
Slobodan,
Since you are not willing to engage in debate on the impeachment issue, the point of this thread, there isn't much to discuss. I would wager that Trump will soon be trying to prove a negative or at least trying to raise a reasonable doubt.
I think it is desirable for Trump to put US interests ahead of Russia's, no matter what the status of relations, and in the Ukraine Trump withheld aide while Russia gained territory. In fact the Ukraine was almost ready to largely give up. That is not in the United State's national interest. We support Western democracies, while not perfect, the Ukraine certainly seems closer to that ideal than Russia.
What do you expect we have to gain with this "friendship" between Trump and Putin? And by we, I mean the US and our allies? I fear we will end up like Timothy Treadwell if we think we can befriend that bear.
You can laugh Slobodan, but you do so to avoid the issue. How about a real argument?
Let me ask you this. Can you come up with any unforced move that Trump has made that harms Russia? It seems that everything the president does helps your old country. This is what I find most perplexing about your worship of Trump. It seems to contradict your obvious hatred of Russia.
... such vague 'arguments', have led to many threads being closed...
We need them to fight the common enemy: Islamic extremism. He was sabotaged all the way in that respect, to the point that the relationship is now worse than ever after the cold war, instead of improving.
Hi Alan,But Biden and his sons look like crooks. His son used his father's position as VP to get a $50,000 a month ($600,000/ a year) job from a Ukrainian oil company. Biden's son never ever worked in the oil field. What a lucky guy. How do you think that happened? When the Ukraine began to investigate the company Biden's son worked for because of corruption, the VP got the investigator fired. How convenient. So we should let the VP be above the law because it might look like the president is going after him for political reasons. Maybe so. But he could be going after him because Biden and his son are crooks. Same deal in CHina where Biden's kid got a deal with a Chinese corp worth 1 1/2 billion. Wow, His son was lucky again. Some people got all the luck. Stuff like that never happened to me. Well, my father wasn't a politician.
If you don't see a country on Russia's border trying to become a democracy with Western values as an ally, you are running in a different universe/value system than most people. Would they be an enemy? Would you rather have Russia as an ally?
If you withhold duly apportioned aid, to coerce a foreign country into providing (real or made up) dirt on your political rival, you are guilty of bribery and using your office for personal gain. Remember the "deliverable" they talked about was a public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens and HRC.
Your other arguments are not so hot Alan.
It was not a general corruption "ask" by Trump. It was specific, Bidens and HRC with a public announcement of the investigation.
You know that the whole argument hinges on intent. Did Trump have a corrupt intent when he asked for the investigation? A cop has the right to arrest someone for smoking a joint (well used to anyway) but if they arrest the joint smoker only because they didn't give him a bribe then the cop committed a crime.
How did the Democrats gain an advantage when Trump and his confidants were being investigated? Did it leak? Did the public know anything before the election? FYI, the investigation that did leak before the election was about HRC's emails.
So, what has Trump done to improve that?Trump destroyed ISIS for one, and its leader, al Baghdadi and his #2 were just killed. Russia has been killing terrorists as well. They're no friend of Russia either.
Are you off your meds?
But Biden and his sons look like crooks. His son used his father's position as VP to get a $50,000 a month ($600,000/ a year) job from a Ukrainian oil company. Biden's son never ever worked in the oil field. What a lucky guy. How do you think that happened? When the Ukraine began to investigate the company Biden's son worked for because of corruption, the VP got the investigator fired. How convenient. So we should let the VP be above the law because it might look like the president is going after him for political reasons. Maybe so. But he could be going after him because Biden and his son are crooks. Same deal in CHina where Biden's kid got a deal with a Chinese corp worth 1 1/2 billion. Wow, His son was lucky again. Some people got all the luck. Stuff like that never happened to me. Well, my father wasn't a politician.
Alan,They were copyrights and not patents. I'm not sure that Ms. Trump-Kushner has ever invented anything of value that would lead to a patent.
None of this stuff is illegal on it's face. Wrong maybe, but not illegal. It will always be a fact that the family of powerful people get breaks (Ivanka's Chinese patents for example).
They were copyrights and not patents. I'm not sure that Ms. Trump-Kushner has ever invented anything of value that would lead to a patent.
Andy, I think we are going in circles or you are not reading my replies.
1. How do you expect me to engage in the debate? You provided a list of five personal opinions or yours, and I said I disagree with each of them. Am I supposed to prove that there is no crime committed, for instance? Your opinion that there was, is just that, your opinion, and I have no intention of debating personal opinions. You think he is guilty, I think he is not. End of story. When the SCOTUS determines that Trump committed a crime, I'll accept that. Not your opinion (no offense). If Senate impeaches Trump and removes him from office, I'll accept that (though I do not have to agree, as Senate is political, but I will, as a law abiding citizen, respect that).
2. Ukraine. It has been pointed out that Obama sent sleeping bags (how ironic!) to the Ukrainian army. Trump sent actual arms. I am sorry for having to ask, but do you actually understand what is going on in Ukraine? I have the impression that you see the whole Ukraine as an innocent, pro-Western democracy that is just a victim of Russian aggression and territory grab. Right? I hate to disappoint you, but Ukraine is a deeply divided country between the Catholic West and (Christian) Orthodox East. Between ethnic Ukrainians in the West and ethnic Russians in the East. Between Ukrainian language and Russian language. That Ukraine has a long fascist history to this day and was allied with Nazy Germany. That a legitimately elected president was driven out by the same mostly pro-fascist mob in a classic coup d'etat. That the first order of business of the new rulers was to eliminate Russian as the second official language of Ukraine. No wonder that the Ukrainian East, ethnic Russians living there for centuries, didn't like it and rebelled. The solution, as I see it, is to provide a political autonomy to the East. And guess what? That is exactly what is happening right now, with a ceasefire in place and promises of the autonomy by the new president.
.. Ukraine's top prosecutor did stop cooperating with Mueller...
Send Biden to fire that SOB!
..l Every action here is seen as a political act. Not a constitutional one...
Intellectual property is not of value? My billings this year would disagree. ;)That is not what I said. ;) Of course copyrights are of value but they are not patents. The US has also given copyrights a real 'Mickey Mouse' treatment!!!
What was that sting I just felt?
Oh, here's a BB. Must be Slobodan!
What exactly is the constitutional issue here?It's statements like this one that highlight the issue that I have had with such comments in the past. I'm back to ignoring your posts as they do little to advance any type of reasonable discussion. As a parting word, you might want to pick up a copy of 'The Federalist' which you can get for free from Project Gutenberg and read what both Madison and Hamilton had to say about these issues. As someone who is a naturalized citizen and had to pass a test that most native Americans would fail, you show a surprising lack of understanding.
They were copyrights and not patents. I'm not sure that Ms. Trump-Kushner has ever invented anything of value that would lead to a patent.
... Back to radio silence on your posts.
Sorry, Andy, your arguments (or rather “arguments”) would need to reach a certain minimal intellectual level for me to debate them seriously. In the meantime, your posts provide a welcome comedic relief.
More BBs. It appears you are reluctant to actually engage in substantial debate. Why?
Since you mentioned my name, I responded with three lengthier posts (around 700+ words, hardly a sniping) where I responded to you and tried to explain my stance. What exactly would count, for you, as "engaging in substantial debate"?
... show me what a loser I am. Put me in my place...
You don't need me for that. Mother Nature already took care of it.
Alan,Democrats and anti-Trumpers want to have it both ways. For three years they've been accusing the Triump family and the President's kids of taking advantage of their father and getting rich. They've attacked the president regarding emoluments for still have a nexus to the Trump ORganization. So now, VP Biden is caught doing similar things, apparently helping his son get rich off of his Vice President position. So now you argue, what's the big deal?
None of this stuff is illegal on it's face. Wrong maybe, but not illegal. It will always be a fact that the family of powerful people get breaks (Ivanka's Chinese patents for example). It will always be the case that fathers help their sons get ahead (you can probably figure out the proper example to insert here).
Again, it is motivation. Did Trump ask China to look into Ivanka? Does he have a history of being concerned about corruption other than when it benefits him? Why was a crucial part of the "ask" a public announcement of the investigation by Ukraine? Can you imagine what that would do to Biden's campaign if that announcement came out of "nowhere"? Why did they release the money 2 days after things became public?
Here is a serious question for the supporters of the President. I read today that two officials of the Office of Management and Budget are going to refuse to testify if they are subpoenaed. Their former boss, Mick Mulvaney already stated that there was a quid pro quo regarding the aid to Ukraine though he tried to back off later that day. Regardless of your beliefs about the inquiry, is it right that these officials refuse to testify? If you received a Grand Jury summons to testify, would you disobey the request?Congressional hearings are not a Grand Jury. That's a straw man. There's a constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the President's Executive Branch. You know that. The Congress does not have unlimited subpoena power over members of the Executive Branch any more than the President can subpoena congress. Whether a person has to testify depends on the constitution and the reason for the subpoena. Often the Federal Courts have to make that determination.
IMO, we are moving away from what the original framers of the Constitution had in mind by allowing the executive branch way too much power. this is one of the key points in George Will's fine new book, "The Conservative Sensibility" which I am presently reading (a surprise to you all!!).
Democrats and anti-Trumpers want to have it both ways. For three years they've been accusing the Triump family and the President's kids of taking advantage of their father and getting rich. They've attacked the president regarding emoluments for still have a nexus to the Trump ORganization. So now, VP Biden is caught doing similar things, apparently helping his son get rich off of his Vice President position. So now you argue, what's the big deal?
You can't have it both ways. If you're accusing Trump of enriching his family because of his governmental position, then you can't argue that it's OK for the Biden's to do the same thing. That's why once the hearings get started, Biden's toast. Because the Republicans are going to ask questions if it's OK for the Bidens to have done these things. The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot and will kill the very candidate who has the best chance of beating Trump in 2020.
... Every action here is seen as a political act. Not a constitutional one...
Congressional hearings are not a Grand Jury. That's a straw man. There's a constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the President's Executive Branch. You know that. The Congress does not have unlimited subpoena power over members of the Executive Branch any more than the President can subpoena congress. Whether a person has to testify depends on the constitution and the reason for the subpoena. Often the Federal Courts have to make that determination.
Andy, Slobodan is a master of the brief sting. Unlike I who goes on and on spelling things out like everyone doesn't understand and needs to be spoon fed. He covers important territory and theory in as few words as possible. You have to fill in the rest.
Congressional hearings are not a Grand Jury. That's a straw man. There's a constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the President's Executive Branch. You know that. The Congress does not have unlimited subpoena power over members of the Executive Branch any more than the President can subpoena congress. Whether a person has to testify depends on the constitution and the reason for the subpoena. Often the Federal Courts have to make that determination.Your reading of the Constitution is in error. Impeachment inquiries just as with the Benghazi hearings that the Republicans conducted are akin to Grand Jury gathering of testimony. The Courts are already ruling against the President and just an hour ago, the Appeals Court up held the New York request for President Trump's tax returns. Of course all this stuff will go to the Supreme Court and the President will suffer a number of legal defeats as he is clearly obstructing Congress.
Since there are no takers for my previous question ("what exactly is the constitutional issue here?"), I'll offer my opinion:
There is no constitutional issue here, short of providing for the possibility of impeachment and providing a procedural framework for it.
It is, by design, a political act.
The constitution doesn't not define what "high crimes and misdemeanors, etc." are. No need for a crime either. If a president gives someone the evil eye, they can impeach him for that.
So, defining what happen re Ukraine as a bribery is a political act. Claiming it endangered national security is a political act. Everything regarding impeachment is a political act, not judicial, nor constitutional (except for what I mentioned above).
Your reading of the Constitution is in error. Impeachment inquiries just as with the Benghazi hearings that the Republicans conducted are akin to Grand Jury gathering of testimony. The Courts are already ruling against the President and just an hour ago, the Appeals Court up held the New York request for President Trump's tax returns. Of course all this stuff will go to the Supreme Court and the President will suffer a number of legal defeats as he is clearly obstructing Congress.
Alan,
While I vehemently disagree with your politics, I think I would like you in person.
I agree with your assessments, people are interesting. :-)
Congressional hearings are not a Grand Jury. That's a straw man. There's a constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the President's Executive Branch. You know that. The Congress does not have unlimited subpoena power over members of the Executive Branch any more than the President can subpoena congress. Whether a person has to testify depends on the constitution and the reason for the subpoena. Often the Federal Courts have to make that determination.
Your reading of the Constitution is in error. Impeachment inquiries just as with the Benghazi hearings that the Republicans conducted are akin to Grand Jury gathering of testimony. The Courts are already ruling against the President and just an hour ago, the Appeals Court up held the New York request for President Trump's tax returns. Of course all this stuff will go to the Supreme Court and the President will suffer a number of legal defeats as he is clearly obstructing Congress.You may be right that he will lose in court. However, you don't even have that right to go to court in a grand Jury or have a defense counsel attending. So the comparison to Grand Juries is not correct. The president still has a right to object and defend himself to a much greater degree than in a grand jury. I'll let our lawyers expand on this if they wish.
I wouldn't go that far. There are limits in the constitution that refer to actual crimes. The exact words in the Consitution are as follows:
SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
There has to be some nexus to an actual crime. Treason and Bribery are real crimes. While the House can certainly impeach for political reasons, and interpret high crimes and misdemeanors however they want, Americans won;t stand for it. After all, a little less than half the country voted for the president. They know a crime or not and they know a political act or not.
Americans want to vote their presidents in or out of office during an election. Otherwise, we'd have impeachments every time Congress was held by the opposite party. That would be terrible for government and the country. The bickering is preventing real work from getting done. The public realizes this. That's why they won;t stand for political impeachments.
Alan G,You don't know Trump. Do you really think he quits? He's been involved in something like 800-900 civil law cases, most of which he's won or settled. He's faced down bankruptcies and divorces numerous times and came through them successfully. He breathes on conflict.
To me the interesting question is what happens when he starts losing at the SC? I think that it is existential to his presidency and that there is little chance that, rather than see what he can get away with, he will do the right thing.
You may be right that he will lose in court. However, you don't even have that right to go to court in a grand Jury or have a defense counsel attending. So the comparison to Grand Juries is not correct. The president still has a right to object and defend himself to a much greater degree than in a grand jury. I'll let our lawyers expand on this if they wish.
You don't know Trump. Do you really think he quits? He's been involved in something like 800-900 civil law cases, most of which he's won or settled. He's faced down bankruptcies and divorces numerous times and came through them successfully. He breathes on conflict.
I wouldn't go that far. There are limits in the constitution that refer to actual crimes. The exact words in the Consitution are as follows:
SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
There has to be some nexus to an actual crime. Treason and Bribery are real crimes. While the House can certainly impeach for political reasons, and interpret high crimes and misdemeanors however they want, Americans won;t stand for it...
Alan,My understanding is that republicans on the committee representing the president can call and subpoena their own witness to defend the president. If true, that can't be done in a GJ. In any case, Republican representing the president can cross-examine witness the Democrats call. That's something that doesn't happen in a GJ.
This is only the case in the Senate. The house proceedings are generally akin to a GJ. The houses can make their own rules however and in this impeachment have given Trump rights not available to Nixon or Clinton. Despite his love of playing the victim, Trump has it better than past impeachees.
Alan, whether Americans would stand for it is irrelevant for the claim I made. Their reaction would come after the fact, thus is irrelevant for the fact. While treason and bribery might be real crimes, what constitutes it is open to political interpretation in case of impeachment. While collusion is not a crime (in Russian case), for instance, most Democrats wanted to impeach him for that too.I don't disagree it all comes down to politics and who has the votes. My main point is that Americans won;t stand for it if it's only politics.
My understanding is that republicans on the committee representing the president can call and subpoena their own witness to defend the president. If true, that can't be done in a GJ. In any case, Republican representing the president can cross-examine witness the Democrats call. That's something that doesn't happen in a GJ.
Alan,Why is of interest to the country to submit to a political lynching? He represents his voters and I for one don't want him to quit and roll over to Democrats who are using politics to impeach him looking for three years for something, anything, to get him.
That is exactly what I am saying. We are rolling towards a constitutional crisis at 65 mph and Trump is not letting off the accelerator. He is not going to put the interest of the country first, only himself. If he loses at the SC he will just ignore it. Hope I am wrong.
Alan,
Correct. And these are things that were not available to Nixon or Clinton. The house is being very nice to Trump.
Why is of interest to the country to submit to a political lynching? He represents his voters and I for one don't want him to quit and roll over to Democrats who are using politics to impeach him looking for three years for something, anything, to get him.
There's no constitutional crisis. Everything is going according to the book (the Constitution.) Please explain how there is one?
Why is of interest to the country to submit to a political lynching? He represents his voters and I for one don't want him to quit and roll over to Democrats who are using politics to impeach him looking for three years for something, anything, to get him.
There's no constitutional crisis. Everything is going according to the book (the Constitution.) Please explain how there is one?
It's not "nice". It's political. The whole thing is political. The Democrats have already convicted him. They cheered in Congress when the vote was taken. Everything they do is calculated to how the public will perceive it. It's all a game.
That is not what I said. ;) Of course copyrights are of value but they are not patents. The US has also given copyrights a real 'Mickey Mouse' treatment!!!
It's all a game.
... It is not acceptable to do it by forcing a foreign power to collude for political gain. If we don't have free and fair elections, what do we have?
Say, hypothetically, that Ukraine did start an investigation. Exactly how would that make elections not free and fair? Voters would simply learn that that one candidate might be corrupt (or not) and would make up their own mind about it. Wouldn't that make the election actually more free and fair?
The real danger to free and fair elections would be colluding with a foreign power to hack into voting machines and change the outcome.
... Propaganda is just as dangerous as a voting machine hack...
Free and fair elections are the most important thing we have. Impeachment was added for situations just like this.He's never ignored a court ruling. You are making things up about him.
I did not say we are in a CC, I said we are rolling toward one. If Trump ignores a court ruling he doesn't like, we are there.
You seem to be cheering the demise of the constitution.
We disagree on that one.
Whether it is a disadvantage or not remains to be seen. Half of the population would cheer it, the other half jeer it. Democracy rests not on some supreme power feeding only truth to the masses, but on the masses' ability to discern what is what. If they can't, they deserve what they got.
On a side note, I do not really see what the Ukraine investigation would achieve. Biden admitted what happened publicly, so the American voters already have all they need to know. No need for investigating him on that. As gaffe-prone as he is, I doubt that he is that stupid to leave a written document somewhere in Ukraine saying: "fire that SOB for investigating the company my son is on the board with."
What an Ukrainian investigation might be about is to find internally what led to dropping the case against Burisma (well, even that is clear, Biden's pressure) and more importantly, if the reason for firing the original prosecutor was indeed corruption, why the next one did not continue or reopen the case?
He's never ignored a court ruling. You are making things up about him.
... What are you going to do if it the speculation becomes true? Back Trump or the constitution?
Alan,When did you stop beating your wife?
You are correct, that is why I said "if" and that is why I did not say we were in a CC, only that I feared we would be.
What are you going to do if it the speculation becomes true? Back Trump or the constitution?
When did you stop beating your wife?
When did you stop beating your wife?
October 29, 2019, 02:39:10 pm
I think we beat this to death. I'm signing off to get on with life. Carry on.
You may be right that he will lose in court. However, you don't even have that right to go to court in a grand Jury or have a defense counsel attending. So the comparison to Grand Juries is not correct. The president still has a right to object and defend himself to a much greater degree than in a grand jury. I'll let our lawyers expand on this if they wish.the trial takes place in the Senate, not the House. Grand Juries can only indict, they do not sit for trials (I've been on one).
When did you stop beating your wife?
The transcripts for the depositions are now being released As they come out you all can download them here: https://intelligence.house.gov/ Talk about transparency!!!!
Not yet. All she has to do is quit watching Fox News. :DApparently you're only one of the few anti-Trumpers around here who have a sense of humor.
the trial takes place in the Senate, not the House. Grand Juries can only indict, they do not sit for trials (I've been on one).Non Sequitur.
The transcripts for the depositions are now being released As they come out you all can download them here: https://intelligence.house.gov/ Talk about transparency!!!!Thnaks for agreeing with me that impeachment in the House of Representatives is not the same as a Grand Jury. Testimony in Grand Juries has to be kept secret.
Alan G,Apparently the Democrats are so concerned they'll lose the election in 2020, they have to resort to impeachment to get rid of Trump. You'd think they'd trust the electorate to make the decision if he's so bad. That's what makes the thing seem so political. They don;t trust the voters. They want a couple of hundred politicians from the opposite party to "coup" him out of office. I guess their experience in 2016 makes them gun shy. So they've resorted to impeachment now going on three years to beat him. What a bunch of desperate cowards.
That isn't how the game is played. Now it will be; "They are trying this case in the court of public opinion. Those dirty Dems should keep all this damning information private."
Trump always has to be the victim.
Apparently the Democrats are so concerned they'll lose the election in 2020, they have to resort to impeachment to get rid of Trump. You'd think they'd trust the electorate to make the decision if he's so bad. That's what makes the thing seem so political. They don;t trust the voters. They want a couple of hundred politicians from the opposite party to "coup" him out of office. I guess their experience in 2016 makes them gun shy. So they've resorted to impeachment now going on three years to beat him. What a bunch of desperate cowards.You don't even know if he will be impeached. It may be at the end of the day that the House censures the President for obstruction of justice and malfeasance of office as pertains to the Ukraine withholding of aid. They will continue the investigations as the various subpoenas are upheld by the courts and various officials are forced to testify or go to jail. There will be an ample enough record built up by this process for even Elizabeth Warren to run a credible campaign about all the rot in the White House. You underestimate Speaker Pelosi who is very astute about all this. The Republican Senators will be campaigned against big time and it's not inconceivable that the Republicans could lose four or more Senate seats next year. Impeachment is not the end game here.
Not yet. All she has to do is quit watching Fox News. :D
Apparently the Democrats are so concerned they'll lose the election in 2020, they have to resort to impeachment to get rid of Trump. You'd think they'd trust the electorate to make the decision if he's so bad. That's what makes the thing seem so political. They don;t trust the voters. They want a couple of hundred politicians from the opposite party to "coup" him out of office. I guess their experience in 2016 makes them gun shy. So they've resorted to impeachment now going on three years to beat him. What a bunch of desperate cowards.
You don't even know if he will be impeached. It may be at the end of the day that the House censures the President for obstruction of justice and malfeasance of office as pertains to the Ukraine withholding of aid. They will continue the investigations as the various subpoenas are upheld by the courts and various officials are forced to testify or go to jail. There will be an ample enough record built up by this process for even Elizabeth Warren to run a credible campaign about all the rot in the White House. You underestimate Speaker Pelosi who is very astute about all this. The Republican Senators will be campaigned against big time and it's not inconceivable that the Republicans could lose four or more Senate seats next year. Impeachment is not the end game here.
So you acknowledge its all a Democrat plan to game the system for the elections. Keep smearing Trump and see if they can win more seats and the presidency as they gained in the 2018 election. I agree that's what they're up too. They're trying to make the vote about TRump as they did in 2018. After all, the economy and the country is doing pretty good. What else could they run on? Biden helping his kid? Warren false swearing her race? Sanders turning the country Marxist? Buttigieg checking with his husband what he should do?
The Democrats know the Senate will not convict. This is all about piling on as they have for the last three years. The question is whether the voters will be smart enough to figure this all out since the anti_Trump media will keep protecting the Democrats.
Alan,Actually I think there is some Russian blood in me. Maybe that's my problem? :)
You can sling shit with the best of them. Whataboutism works and is a favorite Russian propaganda technique. But the real question, for America, is did Trump (and others) conspire to interfere in the election.
That is what this is about.
Be careful before you respond. I'm setting you up.
Actually I think there is some Russian blood in me. Maybe that's my problem? :)
We must be getting to you already after one day. Now you're using curse words. And smearing me calling me a Russian apparently because you have no honest and logical response to my point. That Democrats are gaming the system to smear Trump for the election.
Getting back to your question, if the Senate finds Trump not guilty, than you'd have to acknowledge he did not conspire to interfere in the election.
Democracy rests not on some supreme power feeding only truth to the masses, but on the masses' ability to discern what is what. If they can't, they deserve what they got.
No. I would have to acknowledge that the Senate did not find him guilty. There is always a chance he did it and went free, or he didn't and was found guilty. To think otherwise is silly.The same is true of the Democrat House. They can find him guilty for political reasons. And the Republican Senate can find him not guilty also for political reasons. After all, if impeachment is a political act, then everyone can act politically. Frankly, I don't think that's what the public wants.
Which is precisely why all the shocking lies and disinformation we're seeing in the last few years is so dangerous to democracy. It's simply intentional muddying of the waters so that discerning "what is what" is much more difficult. In other words, "Truth Decay" is not accidental, it's intentional.
And that's why it's standard practice for despots, tyrants and dictators. It works.
Which is Trump? A despot, a tyrant or a dictator? After all, you are trying to smear him.
Which is precisely why all the shocking lies and disinformation we're seeing in the last few years is so dangerous to democracy. It's simply intentional muddying of the waters so that discerning "what is what" is much more difficult. In other words, "Truth Decay" is not accidental, it's intentional.
And that's why it's standard practice for despots, tyrants and dictators. It works.
Hallelujah, Peter. That is the truth, people don't realize that democracy worldwide is under an existential threat from disinformation/propaganda.That's true. Liberal media gives us a constant diet of fake news.
Which is precisely why all the shocking lies and disinformation we're seeing in the last few years ...
Alan,
Again, this gets to the heart of our democracy. We can't trust that free and fair elections are being held.
Up until a couple of months ago there was no formal impeachment inquiry. The idea was to do exactly as you propose, let the people decide. This scandal makes it clear that free and fair elections are at risk.
That's the same argument used against Trump for two years. That he won the election because he conspired (colluded) with the Russians, all proven untrue. So now you're trying to sell another conspiracy theory. You know the Martians will be landing any day now.
... In my world an argument is only won with the truth...
That all sounds cool and lofty, but what exactly is the truth is an increasingly complex issue. Rashomon comes to mind.The red herrings and non sequiturs aren't helping.
The red herrings and non sequiturs aren't helping.
That all sounds cool and lofty, but what exactly is the truth is an increasingly complex issue. Rashomon comes to mind.
... For instance the Mueller report clearly says it does not exhonerate Trump...
Well Slobodan, that is a classic propaganda technique. Flood someone with so much disinformation that it is too confusing , complicated, and tiring to delve the truth. The idea is to make it as if there is no truth.You are being disingenuous or you got your facts mixed up. You pulled a switcheroo on me. I was referring to the collusion with the Russians, that there was nt guilt found. Mueller's comments about not exonerating Trump had to do with obstruction of justice, not collusion.
Alan uses this flood of disinformation to similar effect. And thus he tries to get away with untruths. For instance the Mueller report clearly says it does not exhonerate Trump, but Alan happily parrots the Fox news line. I hope it is unwittingly.
Please give me and others here the same respect.
You are being disingenuous or you got your facts mixed up. You pulled a switcheroo on me. I was referring to the collusion with the Russians, that there was nt guilt found. Mueller's comments about not exonerating Trump had to do with obstruction of justice, not collusion.
I know you've just started here. And I've answered this point to others. Why do liberals and anti-Trumpers always feel that conservatives and TRump supporters always get their news and talking points from Fox? As if we don't know how to think for ourselves? And where do you get your talking points from? MSNBC and CNN?
How about if I make you a deal? I won;t accuse you of mimicking MSNBC and CNN if you won;t accuse me of mimicking Fox? I think you're bright enough to support your views about what you believe without media prejudice. Please give me and others here the same respect.
There are no lies and no disinformation outside fake news media. You just have to learn the jargon.
Having watched and listened to Trump for the last three years, I would label that comment as preposterous.
Anthony Scaramucci predicts Republican lawmakers will pressure President Trump to leave office by March 2020.
“When you talk to elected Republicans privately they can’t stand the president. They know the president is a lawless person and basically a criminal."
Scaramucci, a political insider who was part of Trump’s finance committee in 2016 and joined the administration for a brief 11-day run as communications director in 2017, says the president’s approval rating keeps falling as the impeachment inquiry uncovers more scandals within the White House. Scaramucci said Republicans can’t ignore the new polls from Fox News and NBC/Wall Street Journal which show a growing number of Americans, 49%, want Trump removed from office. “I predict that’s now going to have to go to 60 and when it’s 60, Republicans are going to have to cut and run.”
Anthony Scaramucci predicts that the other Republicans will force Trump to leave office by March 2020.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/president-trump-will-be-out-of-office-by-march-2020-says-anthony-scaramucci-210434593.html
There was no switcheroo. Your facts are wrong. Muller's comments were about the conspiracy. He was confident in the criminality of the obstruction, he didn't need a hedge for that.
Trumpers get their news from Fox or other similar propaganda outlets almost inevitably. It is a cult, a diversion from reality, they make you angry, afraid, the victim and only the great Trump can save you. None of the news I take in accuses other outlets of being "fake news", they don't have to.
How many hours a day of Fox do you watch? Or do you listen to Rush? I don't get TV and have only watched/listened about 10-20 hours of anything other than the PBS over the last year. I get my talking points from my values, honor, honesty and compassion. No TV station is going to dictate those to me.
You can accuse me of watching those channels, but as I explained above, you would be wrong. I think very few people come to the "values" that Trump represents without a corrupting influence like Fox/Rush/Breitbart. Maybe you are the exception, but I doubt it.
Now that I think about it, I'm sure I have spent just as much time with Fox/Rush as MSNBC/CNN over the last year.
Scaramucci may be aware of some rumblings in the republican circles which don't make it into the official news.Trump's not leaving and the Senate Republicans have to support him. If they don;t they'll lose both the presidency and the Senate. No Trump voter will vote for a Republican if they abandon him.
The right democratic candidate is another matter. But if Trump leaves the office in the next six months, there may be also some republican replacement.
... Trumpers get their news from Fox or other similar propaganda outlets almost inevitably. It is a cult, a diversion from reality, they make you angry, afraid, the victim and only the great Trump can save you...
They'll stay home election eve.That wouldn't be very smart.
Scaramucci may be aware of some rumblings in the republican circles which don't make it into the official news.
The right democratic candidate is another matter. But if Trump leaves the office in the next six months, there may be also some republican replacement.
After this, there is really no point in engaging in a debate with you.
OK. You pre-judged me without knowing who I really am. That's unfortunate. Now I know who you are.
... Could happen, you think?
After this, there is really no point in engaging in a debate with you.
That wouldn't be very smart.It wouldn't be very smart if Republican Senators throw Trump under the bus.
I doubt Scaramucci could find his ass with both hands and a flashlight, much less accurately assess "rumblings."
Here is something that has occurred to me. What if the impeachment proceedings, whatever your attitude toward them, make it appear that Trump will be a sure loser in 2020, even with a weak Democratic candidate. I think that's possible, because, let's face it, Trump is both a psycho and a criminal and I think that's about to be proven. (I say that somewhat tongue in cheek, to provoke, but I also happen to think that it's true -- but I'm not looking at a response to that.) If it looks like Trump is going down, and maybe going down big, why wouldn't the Senate Republicans make a simple calculation -- they find a relatively upstanding candidate (not Pence, who has all the charisma of a tennis shoe) and then go ahead and convict Trump, to clear the way for a conservative candidate who'd almost certainly beat the weak-ass Democrats and preserve the White House and Senate as Republican (and conservative) preserves? Or, better yet, send a delegation to Trump to tell him that he's going down, so he can magnanimously announce that it's time to stop the partisan warfare, and to prove his sincerity, he either resigns or announces that he won't be a candidate in 2020. If he did that, the Senate would acquit, for sure, but the Republicans would get a sane candidate, and Trump could go back to his golf courses and probably being a Fox TV star, which I''m pretty sure he'd like more than he likes being President. Could happen, you think?
Trump isn't a Republican or cares about the Republican party. He'll take them down with him. He doesn;t surrender. He takes prisoners. Haven't you learned anything about Trump in three years? When he faced bankruptcy, he told the banks to give him even more money or they'd go down with him. So the banks gave him more money and kept their fingers crossed. Politicians are no different than bankers.
It wouldn't be very smart if Republican Senators throw Trump under the bus.It's not so much throwing Trump under the bus as salvaging the situation.
I think the most disturbing part about him is that people of good conscience like you KNOW he's a con artist, a liar, and an asshole, yet you continue to support him because he's YOUR con artist, liar, and asshole. That's not right.Yes. He may be a bastard president. But he's our bastard president.
It's not so much throwing Trump under the bus as salvaging the situation.See my reply #1066.
Yes. He may be a bastard president. But he's our bastard president.
Yes. He may be a bastard president. But he's our bastard president.
That's a very sad rationalization. Some sixty years ago, a similar sanctification was made about another psycho and it didn't end well.You're over assuming my point which I made blunt for impact. Calling him a psycho is just a lot of hyperbole about a guy you don't like. Yes Trump is tough, and looks after number one and his country. But that's what we need in a president. The US president is President of America not the world. His first job is to protect the country not make political points with other two-timing leaders of other countries. He has to deal with the likes of Xi and Kim, al Baghdadi, and the rest of some of humanity's most unsavory people. It's not a job for the queasy. He has to know how to give it back not like our previous president who was feckless and wanted the world to love him. and got taken advantage of. Presidents are not running rectories. They have to be tough in a tough world. He's not naive.
It's not so much throwing Trump under the bus as salvaging the situation.
What is there to salvage? Economy is great, employment historically low, stock market historically high, illegal immigration down, wages up, ISIS decimated, gas prices low (sorry CA), water and air cleaner than ever, etc. What exactly is there to salvage?+1 The Republicans have to start boosting the good news about America. The problem is impeachment is sucking all the oxygen out of the room. This won't end until after the trial in the Senate. Then everyone can get back to the election and discuss other stuff like the economy.
What is there to salvage? Economy is great, employment historically low, stock market historically high, illegal immigration down, wages up, ISIS decimated, gas prices low (sorry CA), water and air cleaner than ever, etc. What exactly is there to salvage?
What is there to salvage? Economy is great, employment historically low, stock market historically high, illegal immigration down, wages up, ISIS decimated, gas prices low (sorry CA), water and air cleaner than ever, etc. What exactly is there to salvage?
Salvaging the impending impeachment situation and sinking Republican chances in the next election.Les, you didn't read my post. 1088. The way to salvage it is to circle the wagons and defend Trump against Democrat perfidy.
.... The problem is impeachment is sucking all the oxygen out of the room....
You're over assuming my point which I made blunt for impact. Calling him a psycho is just a lot of hyperbole about a guy you don't like. Yes Trump is tough, and looks after number one and his country. But that's what we need in a president. The US president is President of America not the world. His first job is to protect the country not make political points with other two-timing leaders of other countries. He has to deal with the likes of Xi and Kim, al Baghdadi, and the rest of some of humanity's most unsavory people. It's not a job for the queasy. He has to know how to give it back not like our previous president who was feckless and wanted the world to love him. and got taken advantage of. Presidents are not running rectories. They have to be tough in a tough world. He's not naive.
Actually, sometimes he can be quite cute and amusing. The problem is that he is ill suited to be a president. It's one thing to make quick decisions as unleashing 60 Tomahawks and then one night, as you say throwing the Kurds under the bus, and another thing to govern wisely with a long term view and building alliances instead of creating chaos and divisions.
And how quickly we forgot how the Clintons suicided yet another threat to them and their friends ;)
Well, than Americans can vote him out of office in the 2020 election if they don;t like what he's doing or his policies. We don;t fire Presidents midstream in their term in the US. We're not a parliamentary government. In any case, the country is doing great under his leadership. You may not like his style. But substance is what counts.
Here is my clear and final position: I won't vote for Trump.
Come to Chicago, where the dead vote up to 11 times. Why not live Canadians? ;)
Just awful. To accuse someone of murder so casually.
“There’s an old Chinese saying, ‘When there is crystal-clear water, there is no fish,’ ” said Yu-Chun Kao, a postdoctoral scientist at Michigan State University.
Well, than Americans can vote him out of office in the 2020 election if they don;t like what he's doing or his policies.
Here is my clear and final position: I won't vote for Trump.Well, I won't vote for Trudeau.
By that time Iran may have their Nuclear weapons. There is no time to waste.you can't vote so you'll just have to keep your fingers crossed. 😎
Drudge report shunned...
Who is or what is Drudge?
And how quickly we forgot how the Clintons suicided yet another threat to them and their friends ;)
It was unbelievable what we had [on] Clinton
What's the problem?
Well, than Americans can vote him out of office in the 2020 election if they don;t like what he's doing or his policies. We don;t fire Presidents midstream in their term in the US. We're not a parliamentary government. In any case, the country is doing great under his leadership. You may not like his style. But substance is what counts.
The Americans voted Trump "out" in 2016 by a large margin. The idiotic electoral college system voted him "in."
Country doing great? Please. The economic boom that Trump inherited started in 2010. So now we have the environment being screwed, migrants being put in concentration camps, American citizens being deported, allies being abandoned, the deficit blossoming, incompetent schmucks heading most branches of government, a trade war threatening the world economy, almost the entire GOP becoming sycophantic toadies, a perjuring rapist appointed to the supreme count, science being ignored, white supremacists being supported, daily--nay, hourly--lies from the White House, the military disrespected ……..
And you say the country is doing great?
The Americans voted Trump "out" in 2016 by a large margin. The idiotic electoral college system voted him "in."
Country doing great? Please. The economic boom that Trump inherited started in 2010. So now we have the environment being screwed, migrants being put in concentration camps, American citizens being deported, allies being abandoned, the deficit blossoming, incompetent schmucks heading most branches of government, a trade war threatening the world economy, almost the entire GOP becoming sycophantic toadies, a perjuring rapist appointed to the supreme count, science being ignored, white supremacists being supported, daily--nay, hourly--lies from the White House, the military disrespected ……..
And you say the country is doing great?
Listen to Amy Robach, ABC News anchor, on Epstein story and how it was suppressed for years.
She also said she is 100% convinced he did not commit suicide.
https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/videos/2587659368019327/UzpfSTc2NjU5NzIyMjoxMDE1ODIxNzEzMDQyNzIyMw/
Or:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfwkTsJGYA&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3D-p2DhMcwf7w3Kd3Hiy5SrI3qfMRcVHxggNj5naXIoCcmLbqdsg2y2Dw
Thank you, Mr. President!
Thank you, Mr. President!
In a general sense, I'm having a lot of trouble with the idea that denying refugees sanctuary is something to be proud of.
In a general sense, I'm having a lot of trouble with the idea that denying refugees sanctuary is something to be proud of.The question is who is a political refugee and who is an immigrant? Wanting to earn money by coming to America is not considered a refugee but rather an economic refugee or economic immigrant. These people are allowed in legally through a process where one million people come to America. But sneaking across the border does not make them an legal political refugee. The courts have to determine if they're an political refugee. THis seems to be a reasonable way of handling it. Otherwise, we could have millions of foreigners entering the country every year from around the world for any reason whatsoever. After all, a lot of people would like to come to America and get its benefits that it offers. The people have determined that one million is a reasonable amount for now.
His mom had very good manners. She taught Slobodan to always close the door behind him.That's a personal attack. Just make your point without the smear.
His mom had very good manners. She taught Slobodan to always close the door behind him.
In a general sense, I'm having a lot of trouble with the idea that denying refugees sanctuary is something to be proud of.
In a general sense, I'm having a lot of trouble with the idea that denying refugees sanctuary is something to be proud of.
...Now that even hard core Republican witnesses clearly admit the quid pro quo...
Anything but “clearly.” First, he changed his story.. “refreshed” his memory. He didn’t admit anything, other than what he thought. His opinions might be interesting, but they are just that, opinions, not proofs. Even then, what he actually said he conveyed to his Ukrainian counterpart is that the aid might be (note the conditional) linked to corruption issues. Exactly the same phrase Biden used for his demands: “you won’t get aid unless you tackle corruption.” Except Biden was quite specific, not just corruption in general, but firing a prosecutor who investigated the company his son was a bore member of. The rest of the ambassador’s testimony are simply his conjectures what was meant by “corruption.”Well, once the Democrats finish impeaching Trump, they'll go ahead an impeach Biden too. Maybe they'll share a cell together? Then Pence could pardon both of them after he becomes president. All constitutional, of course.
Anything but “clearly.” First, he changed his story.. “refreshed” his memory. He didn’t admit anything, other than what he thought. His opinions might be interesting, but they are just that, opinions, not proofs. Even then, what he actually said he conveyed to his Ukrainian counterpart is that the aid might be (note the conditional) linked to corruption issues. Exactly the same phrase Biden used for his demands: “you won’t get aid unless you tackle corruption.” Except Biden was quite specific, not just corruption in general, but firing a prosecutor who investigated the company his son was a bore member of. The rest of the ambassador’s testimony are simply his conjectures what was meant by “corruption.”
Anything but “clearly.” First, he changed his story.. “refreshed” his memory. He didn’t admit anything, other than what he thought. His opinions might be interesting, but they are just that, opinions, not proofs. Even then, what he actually said he conveyed to his Ukrainian counterpart is that the aid might be (note the conditional) linked to corruption issues. Exactly the same phrase Biden used for his demands: “you won’t get aid unless you tackle corruption.” Except Biden was quite specific, not just corruption in general, but firing a prosecutor who investigated the company his son was a bore member of. The rest of the ambassador’s testimony are simply his conjectures what was meant by “corruption.”
For what it’s worth, I have not come here as a refugee.
2. The request to fire the procuror in Ukraine was a joined action from Biden, the world bank and the european union...
.
... You are totally not a hypocrite now. ::)
... 1. He completely clearly admitted the Quid Pro Quo...
Jihadi Janes
That is logically impossible. One can admit only things one did. You can not admit for somebody else. Unless you are suggesting the QPQ was the ambassador’s idea? In which case he could indeed admit to it. Everything else is his opinion, interpretation, or conjecture of what was happening.
Can you support that with any citation? That the World Bank and EU specified the person who needs to be fired?
It's all over internet, this is just the first link I found: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-gas-tycoon-and-the-vice-presidents-son-the-story-of-hunter-bidens-foray-in-ukraine/2019/09/28/1aadff70-dfd9-11e9-8fd3-d943b4ed57e0_story.html
But again, this is completely irrelevant to the current Trump impreahcement by-partisan hearings.
Even if Biden did something illegal, which seems highly unlikely considering the context and worldwide consensus on this matter, this is in no way a reason for Trump to by-pass all legal processes and to send his private attorney to pressure a foreign power, and strategic ally of the US, to dig dirt against a political rival against the unlocking of military aid that had been approved and that was key to protect Ukraine against Russia.
Withholding military aid that was approved by Congress also made it a security violation for the USA.
Quid pro quo's with other countries are perfectly legal and done all the time to get them to do things. For example, Trump could hold back any economic support to Mexico until they commit to really investigating and finding the killers of 9 American Mormons. That's a quid pro quo. Perfectly legal.
You are part of a very small group of people thinking that way. Most people around you understand that what Trump did is a crystal clear violation of the constitution of the US, the same constitution Trump has sworn to protect when he made an oath as a president.
Cheers,
Bernard
The Democrat Obama administration investigated the Republican Trump election people based on the possibility there was collusion with the Russians. This was done before and after an election to the opposite party, a major political event. Similarly the Republican Trump administration asked for investigation of Democrat ex-VP Biden and his son on the possibility they violated US law. This was being done before an election to the opposite party, a major political event.
Administrations can walk and chew gum at the same time. Just because there is political fallout does not make the investigation any less legal. That's what Democrats have been claiming about the Trump collusion investigation. That there appeared to be some nexus of a crime. So that made the investigation legal regardless of the advantage to Democrats. Same with the Bidens.
Please point to the specific statute.
I have yet to see any specific law noted that he violated, especially considering aid was not withheld nor was the investigation initiated.
The fact is VP Joe Biden apparently used his position to get his son a job for $600,000 in a Ukrainian oil company that has been charged with corrupt practices even though he never worked in the oil field. Biden used his VP position to also get his son a job in a Chinese company. These things should be investigated. What illegal quid pro quos were agreed too to get his son the jobs? What emolument laws have been violated?
This is totally unrelated to the deeds of Trump.????
Cheers,
Bernard
The fact is VP Joe Biden apparently used his position to get his son a job for $600,000 in a Ukrainian oil company that has been charged with corrupt practices even though he never worked in the oil field. Biden used his VP position to also get his son a job in a Chinese company. These things should be investigated. What illegal quid pro quos were agreed too to get his son the jobs? What emolument laws have been violated?There is no truth to what you have written other than maybe FOX news or some Internet source. Hunter Biden was also appointed to the Amtrak Board of Directors by President GW Bush so maybe he is also complicit here. The fact is that relatives of politicians always are picked for a variety of jobs that they might not otherwise be qualified for. I used to own Wells Fargo stock and Elaine Chao, Mrs. Mitch MicConnell, was on the Board for a number of years. She had absolutely no background in the banking industry, something one might think would be necessary for an outside director. Needless to say I always voted against her each proxy season. Maybe we should be investigating this as well.
Says the guy who gets upset when his mom is mentioned.
Apparently it's only proper for Democrats to investigate Republicans for violating US laws. Republicans are not allowed to investigate Democrats for breaking similar US laws. The Republicans don't know how to fight dirty like the Democrats. What a bunch of sad sacks.Benghazi????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
.. This means that a deal was being made and this deal is called a Quid Pro Quo...
There is no truth to what you have written other than maybe FOX news or some Internet source. Hunter Biden was also appointed to the Amtrak Board of Directors by President GW Bush so maybe he is also complicit here. The fact is that relatives of politicians always are picked for a variety of jobs that they might not otherwise be qualified for. I used to own Wells Fargo stock and Elaine Chao, Mrs. Mitch MicConnell, was on the Board for a number of years. She had absolutely no background in the banking industry, something one might think would be necessary for an outside director. Needless to say I always voted against her each proxy season. Maybe we should be investigating this as well.You accuse the president of violating emolument clauses because foreign leaders check in to his hotels and pay for rooms there. Like he should sell his property because he's president and fire his children as well because they make money off of his hotels while he's president. You want to impeach him just for these things. Major news stories for three years still going on. Yet, when Democrats do similar stuff, well nothing to see. Just move on. It doesn't matter that Biden used his position to get his son a job in a corrupt corporation in Ukraine. What's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander.
If you cannot document statements, don't bother posting them.
Benghazi????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Well, every republican should be saying that Joe Biden used his Vice Presidential position to get his son a job in the Ukraine and should be investigated. Where are they? Maybe they are saying it. It's just that the anti trump media is not reporting their statements.
What deal? The aid was delivered and no investigation of the Bidens happened.But they should have been investigated. They're crooks. Trump should have followed through.
You accuse the president of violating emolument clauses because foreign leaders check in to his hotels and pay for rooms there. Like he should sell his property because he's president and fire his children as well because they make money off of his hotels while he's president. You want to impeach him just for these things. Major news stories for three years still going on. Yet, when Democrats do similar stuff, well nothing to see. Just move on. It doesn't matter that Biden used his position to get his son a job in a corrupt corporation in Ukraine. What's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander.I didn't accuse the President of violating the emolument clause at all. There are some ongoing court cases about that but I'm personally not involved. I don't have the power to imipeach the President on anything. In fact, I'm pretty much in agreement with Conservative WaPo columnist Marc Thiessen that a better approach is to censure President Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/05/why-dont-democrats-drop-impeachment-just-censure-trump/ . this will be a very awkward moment for Republicans in both the House and Senate as they would be forced to take a vote that the President clearly was engaged in wrong doing.
But they should have been investigated. They're crooks. Trump should have followed through.
I didn't accuse the President of violating the emolument clause at all. There are some ongoing court cases about that but I'm personally not involved. I don't have the power to imipeach the President on anything. In fact, I'm pretty much in agreement with Conservative WaPo columnist Marc Thiessen that a better approach is to censure President Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/05/why-dont-democrats-drop-impeachment-just-censure-trump/ . this will be a very awkward moment for Republicans in both the House and Senate as they would be forced to take a vote that the President clearly was engaged in wrong doing.
Please stop saying things that are patently untrue.
This is banana-talk.Apparently Democrats are doing "banana" talk. They've been calling for Trump's impeachment for helping his kids get rich due to his position as president. Maybe you've forgotten.
I thought you were so proud of the US constitution...
It's all over internet, this is just the first link I found: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-gas-tycoon-and-the-vice-presidents-son-the-story-of-hunter-bidens-foray-in-ukraine/2019/09/28/1aadff70-dfd9-11e9-8fd3-d943b4ed57e0_story.html...
“Joe Biden proudly fought for reform in Ukraine and his achievement of a goal the U.S., EU, IMF, and entire Ukrainian anti-corruption community all strongly supported was a profound victory for good government there,” Andrew Bates, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, said in a statement.
Joe,
Aid was being withheld at the time, this is the issue. But I am sure you understand that very well. A crime doesn't have to succeed to be a crime.
Trying to kill someone is a crime even if you don't succeed.
Cheers,
Bernard
What makes me a hypocrite?
Are you saying that a legal immigrant can not be against illegal immigration, open borders, and fake refugees?
Please point to the specific statute.
I have yet to see any specific law noted that he violated...
Similarly the Republican Trump administration asked for investigation of Democrat ex-VP Biden and his son on the possibility they violated US law. This was being done before an election to the opposite party, a major political event.
I don't know, maybe your upbringing. Or your life experiences. Or it could be Fox news. The other interesting bit to explore would be genetics, I think that may play a part. We could explore this if you like.Wow. It didn't take you long to get nasty and resort to personal attacks. What's with you?
This would be a much better argument if your chart was entitled "Fake Refugees".
No, they asked for a public announcement of an investigation. It is much less clear if they actually wanted it to occur.I shocked, simply shocked to hear that a politician may have been playing politics. Even if it was 100% political, we don't impeach presidents for doing political things.
I don't know, maybe your upbringing. Or your life experiences. Or it could be Fox news. The other interesting bit to explore would be genetics, I think that may play a part. We could explore this if you like...
Please point to the specific statute.
I have yet to see any specific law noted that he violated . . .
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
— Article II, §4
I don't know, maybe your upbringing. Or your life experiences. Or it could be Fox news. The other interesting bit to explore would be genetics, I think that may play a part. We could explore this if you like.
This would be a much better argument if your chart was entitled "Fake Refugees".
Because it is personal.
But not more offensive than your habitual racism.
But not more offensive than your habitual racism.
I'll save you the trouble, Jeremy, I'm done here, and unlike Alan I actually mean what I say. If Josh wants another alt-right echo chamber then he can go for it - it's not for me to stand in his way.
The one most-frequently cited with respect to the transcript of the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president that was released by the White House is 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."Chris, The argument that it's just a political act is a argument made recently for convenience by Democrats. The fact is there isn't much of a crime. So the Democrat's are lowering the bar. They couldn't prove collusion; Mueller saw to that. Obstruction fizzled away because again, Mueller wouldn't play ball when he testified in Congress. And paying off bimbos and declaring it a violation of campaign finance law seemed too unseemly for impeachment and too much like what President Clinton did to go that route. So now they lowered the bar willing to even sacrifice Joe Biden's run to get Trump. It's become a gutter fight.
However, no statutory violation is constitutionally required to support impeachment and removal from office.
Obviously, at the time the constitution was drafted, there were no federal statutes. Treason was explictly and very narrowly defined in the constitution itself (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii). The term bribery, as used in the impeachment clause, was the common law crime of bribery, although Congress subsequently has enacted explicit federal bribery statutes, e.g., 18 USC §201 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201).
High crimes and misdemeanors is also a common law term, one of the oldest (used in impeachments since the 14th Century), and might best be summarized as "abuse of power." It refers to a corrupt act that is inconsistent with an office-holder's responsibilities. It may or may not involve violation of a statute and every violation of a statute is not necessarily a high crime or misdemeanor. It's all but certain that the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" will be a subject of debate in the House of Representatives over whether to impeach Trump and, should it do so, in the Senate over whether to remove him from office.
I am not arguing that a specific statute needs to be criminally broken for impeachment. Just that impeachment, by design, is a political process where “high crimes and misdemeanors” are open to political, rather than judicial, interpretation.
The founders did not want impeachment to be a political act to get rid of presidents. They wanted elections to determine this short of an actual crime.
Speaking of sanctuaries:
https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/04/montgomery-county-backpedals-sanctuary-policy/
If you're interested in learning what the authors of the constitution actually intended—impeachment was one of the more extensively-considered issues, by the way—I would encourage you to read James Madison's* notes (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp) on the debates of the constitutional convention. They offer what amounts to an opportunity to eavesdrop on the representatives to the convention in real-time as they construct a system of government. Madison's journal is arguably the single most important document in U.S. constitutional history: an indispensable source for any serious study of the U.S. federal system.Chris I be interested in Reading with Madison had to say about impeachment. Do you know what dates he made his notes?
―――
*For those unfamiliar with Madison, he served as one of the Virginia delegates to the 1787 convention, was a principal drafter of the constitution that ultimately was adopted, and in 1808 was elected third president of the United States.
The Daily Caller? Shown to be extremely right-wing biased and often factually wrong. If they wrote that the sky was blue I'd go outside to check. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/
Chris I be interested in Reading with Madison had to say about impeachment. Do you know what dates he made his notes?
The People are the final court. If Congress makes a mockery of the impeachment process by making it about politics, they will be rewarded with defeat in the next election as Republicans found out with Clinton.Is that where the 2nd Amendment kicks in?
Is that where the 2nd Amendment kicks in?
<snip>
*For those unfamiliar with Madison, he served as one of the Virginia delegates to the 1787 convention, was a principal drafter of the constitution that ultimately was adopted, and in 1808 was elected third president of the United States.
Is that where the 2nd Amendment kicks in?You misread what I said. It must be the language barrier. I think you ought to read it three or four more times until you comprehend it.
Fourth. (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe...)
Fourth. (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe...)
I know. Your hands are clean. So how about asking your Democrat friends why they are complaining about Trump and emoluments and his kids? I don't buy your sudden fake innocence. You've supported these Democrat charges all along. To argue now that you're "not personally involved" or you "can't personally impeach the president" is just a weird argument. Is that the best you can do?Let me spell this out clearly for you so you might accuse me of things justifiably. Is Trump benefiting financially from being President? I don't know the full answer but look at his golf outings to Trump properties and his regular trips to Mar-A-Lago. I'm sure that the Secret Service and other agencies that service the President get billed for all this. We don't know whether they get billed at cost or cost +. I could care less about the Trump Hotel here in DC. Sure there are people staying there who think they are currying favor with the President. That's chump change for me. What is curious was the decision not to move the FBI building after all the years and RFPs for a new location that would bring them all under one roof. The current property is in prime downtown DC location and ideally suited for a large hotel. Did the fact that it is only a couple blocks from the Trump Hotel influence this decision, one doesn't know.
Then you should be just as anxious to know what Biden and his son were up to as well.
Then you should be just as anxious to know what Biden and his son were up to as well.They are irrelevant to the present situation. We already know.
One point: if it is true what Bided said that he learned about son's involvement only form the media, something is seriously wrong with our intelligence services.
On a less serious note, if only he asked the Russians about his son's whereabouts, he would have been much better informed ;)
They are irrelevant to the present situation. We already know.But if Biden's son got a $600,000 no show job so some Ukrainian corporation could buy access and protection through the Vice President, then that would be illegal and requiring an investigation, something that Trump called for. You do agree that the Vice President is not above the law, don't you?
But if Biden's son got a $600,000 no show job so some Ukrainian corporation could buy access and protection through the Vice President, then that would be illegal and requiring an investigation, something that Trump called for. You do agree that the Vice President is not above the law, don't you?
Quid pro so ;D
... and b) the international community wanted the official in question removed due to a widespread perception that he was *ineffective* in combatting corruption? ...
... (It's this last part that drives most ethical people nuts.)
Wait.. what?So why did VP Biden's son get a $600,000 no show job in a Ukrainian oil company never having worked a day in his life in the oil industry?
So now the allegation is that the Joe Biden and this Ukrainian company cooked up a deal where they hired Hunter Biden as a consultant in exchange for Joe Biden engineering the removal of a Ukrainian domestic official in order to protect the Ukrainian company? And this conclusion is based wholly on the facts that a) Hunter Biden was a well-paid consultant for the company; and b) the international community wanted the official in question removed due to a widespread perception that he was *ineffective* in combatting corruption?
Have I got that right? And the further tie in is that it was actually Ukraine that hacked DNC servers? And they still have a missing server that includes Hillary's emails, and this was all a set up to make Trump look bad from the get-go, and frame Russia and Trump for colluding during the last election?
This is (almost literally) insane.
Again, can you provide a single source for that claim?
So why did VP Biden's son get a $600,000 no show job in a Ukrainian oil company never having worked a day in his life in the oil industry?
... Here's a contemporary piece of reporting from Ireland[/url] from before Trump was even elected. Is this satisfactory?
As written millions of times already, whatever Biden may have done or not done is completely irrelevant to the on-going discussion about Trump’s impreachment.
Trump is under impeachment for wanting to know more what happened in Ukraine with the Bidens. How is then what happened in Ukraine irrelevant!? It is the very nexus of the impeachment.
Because he's connected. Do you think that's unusual or illegal? And are you under the impression that a 600K contract is unusual for serious lobbying efforts?
Because he's connected. Do you think that's unusual or illegal? And are you under the impression that a 600K contract is unusual for serious lobbying efforts?He wasn't paid as a lobbyist but as a member of the board of directors. It was his nexus to his father VP Biden that got him the job. What promises were made. Biden's son also got a deal from a CHinese guy who was later arrested by the Chinese government for corruption. Biden's son was given a 2.8 carat diamond as payment. He said he gave it away. VP Joe Biden was present and mer with officials from the Ukraine and CHinese corporation along with his son, Who promised what? Certainly worthy of an investigation. After all, you accused Trump of collusion for two years without any proof. Certainly Democrats should get the same treatment. That would only be fair.
... the methods that Trump tried to use to bury a political opponent....
Trump is under impeachment for wanting to know more what happened in Ukraine with the Bidens. How is then what happened in Ukraine irrelevant!? It is the very nexus of the impeachment.Which is why the impeachment will bury Biden's candidacy. Once the discussion in the House impeachment focuses on what Trump did in trying to investigate Biden, Republicans are going to raise the issue how Biden and his son were involved with a corrupt corporation and deserved to be investigated. "Sometin' phoney's goin' on here." will declare southern Senator Lindsey Graham. He will declare that Biden is not above the law. The Democrats are executing their own guy who's able to beat Trump in the general election. After the Senate declares Trump innocent, he'll have to face Pocahontas, a weaker candidate, defending herself why she made a mistake all her life calling herself an American Indian and advancing her career because of it.
Thanks for the link, James. It is somewhat satisfactory. It is after the fact, what I wanted to see are requests before he was fired by the US.
Here is what bothers me. The prosecutor claimed he was sacked for investigating Burisma. The Biden team says it is nonsense, as Burisma wasn’t under investigation at the time and that the prosecutor is fired precisely because he wasn’t active enough in investigating major players, among which is surely Burisma. In other words, Biden wanted Burisma investigated, in spite of the fact it would hurt his son’s cushy position. Quite commendable. If true, of course. So, here is what bothers me: if the Biden’s version is true, why was the investigation into Burisma dropped and never reopened under the new prosecutor? Isn’t that what all is supposed to be about? More active, not less active, investigation into corruption?
My interpretation is that no sane new prosecutor would dare to go against a company where a US Vice President’s son is sitting on the board. Especially not after witnessing the power the father just demonstrated in getting rid of the previous prosecutor.
Biden had two options before firing the prosecutor: 1) ask his son to step down 2) recuse himself. He did neither.
So what was the ultimate results of the whole Biden’s anti-corruption crusade? Prosecutor fired, but the main actor in the corruption game, Burisma, walked out scot-free. Much a do about nothing. Were there any other dramatic anti-corruption consequences after the firing? Or it was business as usual in the good old Ukraine?
Which is why the impeachment will bury Biden's candidacy...
After the Senate declares Trump innocent, he'll have to face Pocahontas, a weaker candidate, defending herself why she made a mistake all her life calling herself an American Indian and advancing her career because of it.
It shows.Of course. It appears Biden's corrupt. The average person can't follow the Barisma story, the different prosecutors, the whole sordid mess. It's all very confusing. And sordid. But it's not confusing when you learn Biden's son got paid $50K a month, why, because he was Biden's son. Who here makes $50K a month because of their father? Well, Trump's kids do too. And you know how corrupt they are. Seems like Hunter Biden is from the same mold. And that raises the issue about Trump. How can you impeach a president for going after a corrupt politician. Didn't Trump say he was going to clean up the swamp? Well, it appears that Biden was one of the swamp creatures.
It shows.
Let's assume this is true. Help me understand why Elizabeth Warren exaggerating her family heritage is problematic, while Donald Trump's background, which changes for expediency (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/03/trump-claims-father-born-germany-false-fred-trump) whenever he's complaining about the UN, is just ducky? I mean, seriously Alan, I should never, ever, have to hear a single complaint from a Republican about how any Democratic candidate is lying about something. It's absurd.Because everyone knows who Trump is. A loud-mouth, NYC real-estate tycoon who sold himself, yes lied about, and worked his butt off to make good. A bull in a China shop. But, he didn't change his race to get ahead. Rather he employed minorities. He wasn't a politician until becoming president. She's the one who claims she only does good. She's the one looking for minority votes. Yet, she used minority status that she didn't have to advance her career. Oh sure, Obama will come out and support her like he did the Canadian PM' faux pas regarding black face. But how many minorities will see through the facade and stay home rather than vote for her? How many people will see her too far to the left and get nervous about where she wants to take the country. No, Biden was a better match against TRump. A Mr. Nice Guy, centrist liberal, who union and other workers can identify with. These men and women, these deplorables, can't ID with Pocahontas flailing her arms around lecturing everyone like a college professor from Harvard. Oh wait, she is a college professor from Harvard.
Of course. It appears Biden's corrupt. The average person can't follow the Barisma story, the different prosecutors, the whole sordid mess. It's all very confusing. And sordid.
...can't ID with Pocahontas flailing her arms around lecturing everyone like a college professor from Harvard. Oh wait, she is a college professor from Harvard.
The fact that the "average" low information voter can't be bothered to learn the subtleties of what they're voting on doesn't mean that their simplistic view of what happened is correct.James, Frankly, the Barisma story isn't clear to me. I'm pretty confused about what happened and I'm a pretty astute fellow. Of course, it's being spun differently depending on which party is telling the story. But no one has to explain to low information voters that Biden's son got paid $50K a month working for a corrupt corporation and that Joe Biden got the prosecutor fired who was investigating that corporation. Why wasn't Biden investigated they will ask? Well, Trump tried to get that done although he made a rather weak attempt at it. They might ask why he didn't try harder?
Right. Because it makes perfect sense to have a guy who BK'd six companies run the nation "like a business," because you can't sit down and have a beer" with a college professor.
Jeebus, we're boned.
James, Frankly, the Barisma story isn't clear to me. I'm pretty confused about what happened and I'm a pretty astute fellow. Of course, it's being spun differently depending on which party is telling the story. But no one has to explain to low information voters that Biden's son got paid $50K a month working for a corrupt corporation and that Joe Biden got the prosecutor fired who was investigating that corporation. Why wasn't Biden investigated they will ask? Well, Trump tried to get that done although he made a rather weak attempt at it. They might ask why he didn't try harder?
But Alan - this is my point... despite being plugged into politics, and caring about these kind of things, the part you wrote that I bolded simply isn't factually correct. If you go back and look at the articles I posted for Slobodan that were written at the time, by journalists that had nothing to do with Biden or the US, it's crystal clear that getting rid of Shokin wasn't driven by Burisma or Hunter Biden, and everyone not affiliated with Trump acknowledges that. Yet you keep insisting that it just HAS to be true because Hunter Biden got a sweetheart deal.
Why should we believe that Biden didn't do something corrupt as well? After all, who gets paid $50K a month for nothing? It seems that Democrats know how to dish it out but don't know how to take it.
I don't see how. Regardless of whether Biden is Al Capone or Mother Theresa, it is irrelevant to the current discussion. What's under discussion are the methods that Trump tried to use to bury a political opponent.
If Biden is Al Capone, that's a separate issue. Feel free to go after him.
You're just trying to obscure things.
Because everyone knows who Trump is. A loud-mouth, NYC real-estate tycoon who sold himself, yes lied about, and worked his butt off to make good. A bull in a China shop. But, he didn't change his race to get ahead. Rather he employed minorities. He wasn't a politician until becoming president. She's the one who claims she only does good. She's the one looking for minority votes. Yet, she used minority status that she didn't have to advance her career. Oh sure, Obama will come out and support her like he did the Canadian PM' faux pas regarding black face. But how many minorities will see through the facade and stay home rather than vote for her? How many people will see her too far to the left and get nervous about where she wants to take the country. No, Biden was a better match against TRump. A Mr. Nice Guy, centrist liberal, who union and other workers can identify with. These men and women, these deplorables, can't ID with Pocahontas flailing her arms around lecturing everyone like a college professor from Harvard. Oh wait, she is a college professor from Harvard.
So why did VP Biden's son get a $600,000 no show job in a Ukrainian oil company never having worked a day in his life in the oil industry?Why did Elaine Chao (Mrs. Mitch McConnell) get a job on the Wells Fargo Bank board, receiving a health yearly stipend and stock despite having no expertise in the banking industry. She is still getting paid for this: https://morningconsult.com/opinions/as-ethics-probes-build-will-elaine-chao-answer-for-wells-fargo-fraud-scandal/ Amazingly she was on the Board when the bank was doing a lot of nasty stuff to consumers and the Board totally was lost at sea. Her compensation for all this 'fine' work makes Hunter Biden look like a piker. Do you think her position had something to do with her husband???
You're right. It is insane.
Ay, chihuahua. I feel like we've been over this before.Now you know how Trump supporters feel when the president gets accused of crimes based on rumor and political hijinks. :)
Why did Elaine Chao (Mrs. Mitch McConnell) get a job on the Wells Fargo Bank board, receiving a health yearly stipend and stock despite having no expertise in the banking industry. She is still getting paid for this: https://morningconsult.com/opinions/as-ethics-probes-build-will-elaine-chao-answer-for-wells-fargo-fraud-scandal/ Amazingly she was on the Board when the bank was doing a lot of nasty stuff to consumers and the Board totally was lost at sea. Her compensation for all this 'fine' work makes Hunter Biden look like a piker. Do you think her position had something to do with her husband???
I was a Wells Fargo shareholder until last year and voted against Ms. Chao in every proxy season. She was inept.
... I feel more and more sorry for Slobodan and Allan to have to self inflict this continuous stream of lies and disinformation...
Well, it appeared that Trump colluded with the Russians. Yet, it took a two year investigation to prove he didn't. Why should we believe that Biden didn't do something corrupt as well? After all, who gets paid $50K a month for nothing? It seems that Democrats know how to dish it out but don't know how to take it.
This is an odd question, "Why should we believe that Biden didn't do something corrupt as well?" Why should you believe he did.Because VP Biden was physically present in the room holding his son Hunter's hand winking at the corrupt officials who ran the corrupt corporation when they met them. Then Hunter Biden gets a $50K a month job from these same people. Very coincidental, wouldn't you think. Then the prosecutor is fired who was investigating the corporation that his son worked for. And the VP was warned by other US officials that having his son working for them is just too much. In fact, a week or so ago, Hunter finally quit his overseas jobs to protect his father. It's all just too convenient.
In answer to your other question, unfortunately lots of people get paid money for doing nothing useful. He wouldn't be the first nor the most egregious.
If Trump thought that Biden had done something illegal/unethical/suspect, all he had to do was make use of the many 3- and 4-letter security-related bodies that he has at his disposal to find some evidence and then proceed from there. You have on several occasions tried to portray Trump as a poor helpless victim, but he is the President, what is stopping him from issuing those orders to those agencies? You can't be a tycoon, independent, not afraid of critics, willing to say it like it is, AND at the same time be a helpless victim of the media and Democrats. Your characterization of him is not credible.
This is an odd question, "Why should we believe that Biden didn't do something corrupt as well?" Why should you believe he did.
In answer to your other question, unfortunately lots of people get paid money for doing nothing useful. He wouldn't be the first nor the most egregious.
If Trump thought that Biden had done something illegal/unethical/suspect, all he had to do was make use of the many 3- and 4-letter security-related bodies that he has at his disposal to find some evidence and then proceed from there. You have on several occasions tried to portray Trump as a poor helpless victim, but he is the President, what is stopping him from issuing those orders to those agencies? You can't be a tycoon, independent, not afraid of critics, willing to say it like it is, AND at the same time be a helpless victim of the media and Democrats. Your characterization of him is not credible.
Because VP Biden was physically present in the room holding his son Hunter's hand winking at the corrupt officials who ran the corrupt corporation when they met them.
Then Hunter Biden gets a $50K a month job from these same people. Very coincidental, wouldn't you think.
Then the prosecutor is fired who was investigating the corporation that his son worked for.
And the VP was warned by other US officials that having his son working for them is just too much. In fact, a week or so ago, Hunter finally quit his overseas jobs to protect his father. It's all just too convenient.
America can't investigate in Ukraine. That's up to their government. That's why Trump asked them to follow up. It's no different than what's happened in Mexico with the killing of nine Americans. What are we supposed to do? Send in the US marines?
He was?
Not at all - Hunter Biden was placed on the board of a company because of who his father is. That's not illegal, or even unusual.
Are you deliberately missing the fact that the prosecutor was removed for NOT investigating corruption? And that Joe Biden was just one of many who were pressuring the Ukrainian government to make a change? Please - go back and look at the articles I posted from when Shokin was still in office. They are articles written by International journalists, with nary a mention of the United States, Joe Biden, or even Burisma for the most part. The only people pushing this narrative are people trying to justify Trump's unethical actions.
Yep - it's a bad look. These things usually are. You don't seem to care when Trump does it, and he does it directly, obviously, and proudly. Biden, by all impartial observation, doesn't do it at all, yet you insist that the corruption is obvious.
Not true. Trump was specifically and explicitly pressuring them to make a public statement that Hunter Biden was under investigation, despite the fact that the alleged underlying issues had already been investigated, and dismissed. That serves no purpose except to harm a political opponent.
Could you please direct me to where this is stated.
I only recall Trump asking for an investigation of overall corruption to be started. No where did I see a request for a public statement.
"In fact, Ambassador Sondland said, 'everything' was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance," Taylor wrote.
If Trump thought that Biden had done something illegal/unethical/suspect, all he had to do was make use of the many 3- and 4-letter security-related bodies that he has at his disposal to find some evidence and then proceed from there.
He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
—Article II (excerpt) (https://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment), adopted 28-10 by the Committee on Judiciary of the House of Representatives, July 27, 1974
Sondland's testimony, (https://www.npr.org/2019/11/05/776170895/read-the-deposition-by-gordon-sondland-u-s-ambassador-to-the-european-union) corroborated by Volker. (Sorry for the formatting - that's direct from the Sondland transcript.)
Specifically,
""1r. Giuliani emphasized that the
President wanted a public statement from Pres'ident Zelensky
5
committing Ukraine
J
to look into anti-corruption issues.
Mr. Gi u1i ani speci f i cally ment j oned the 201.6 elect'ion,
6
7
8
9
server, and Buri sma as two anti corruption
investigatory topics of importance for the President. Let me
be clear..."
William Taylior said the same... (https://www.npr.org/2019/10/22/772444556/highlights-top-u-s-diplomat-in-ukraine-delivers-explosive-statement-to-congress)
So just to be clear, you are siting the same Sondland who admitted to never talking directly with Trump in the same exact testimony?
This is hearsay.
Just to be clear, I'm citing Sondland, Taylor, Volker and Sondland's "revised" testimony where he "remembered" conversations previously forgotten, that everyone else apparently remembered well.
Well, ok. 'Cept oddly enough, a lot of different people are "hearing" the same "say."
Just to be clear, I'm citing Sondland, Taylor, Volker and Sondland's "revised" testimony where he "remembered" conversations previously forgotten, that everyone else apparently remembered well.The problem is none of this helps Biden. The more discussion you have on the matter, the more confusing it gets to the average voter and Biden looks like he did something wrong with his son. Right now we're mainly hearing from the Democrats who are focusing on Trump. But once the hearings get going, the Republican congressmen will be cross examining witnesses making Biden look even worse. It a no-win situation for Biden. He must be pulling out his plugs.
Well, ok. 'Cept oddly enough, a lot of different people are "hearing" the same "say."
Just to be clear, I'm citing Sondland, Taylor, Volker and Sondland's "revised" testimony where he "remembered" conversations previously forgotten, that everyone else apparently remembered well.
Well, ok. 'Cept oddly enough, a lot of different people are "hearing" the same "say."
At the end of the day, Giuliani is going to take the fall for this whole mess and Trump will come out clean as a whistle, along with Biden going down with the ship.I can't see Schumer denouncing Warren. He'll support the Democratic candidate just as many Republicans supported Trump during the 2016 election.
It's Trump M.O., find someone to blame. Not that I think that is a particularly moral thing to do, but I pretty sure this is how this will work out. And Giuliani has partly himself to blame; he is no longer the shrewd lawyer he use to be. (I still cant believe this is the same Giuliani who took down the mob.)
Then it will be Trump vs. Warren, and we all know how that will work out. It will be another pick the lesser evil situation, and Trump is certainly the lesser evil in that choice.
It came out the other day, many prominent Democratic donors told Schumer they will refuse to donate to any senate campaigns unless that senator specifically and publicly denounces Warren.
It really appears both sides have a giant mess on their hands.
Then it will be Trump vs. Warren, and we all know how that will work out. It will be another pick the lesser evil situation, and Trump is certainly the lesser evil in that choice.
Based on the latest trends, it may well be Trump vs Buttigieg and that race could turn out quite interesting.
Based on the latest trends, it may well be Trump vs Buttigieg and that race could turn out quite interesting.I don't think Americans are yet ready for a first lady who's the president's husband.
Based on the latest trends, it may well be Trump vs Buttigieg and that race could turn out quite interesting.
He was?
Not at all - Hunter Biden was placed on the board of a company because of who his father is. That's not illegal, or even unusual.
Are you deliberately missing the fact that the prosecutor was removed for NOT investigating corruption?
Not true. Trump was specifically and explicitly pressuring them to make a public statement that Hunter Biden was under investigation, despite the fact that the alleged underlying issues had already been investigated, and dismissed. That serves no purpose except to harm a political opponent.
I can't see Schumer denouncing Warren. He'll support the Democratic candidate just as many Republicans supported Trump during the 2016 election.
If Biden goes down, the Democrats will only have themselves to blame. They hate Trump so much, they're willing to sacrifice their most viable candidate to try to get him.
Buttigieg has been my top (or close to top - I liked Harris as well) choice from the start. It's great to see him start making some impact.
I don't think Americans are yet ready for a first lady who's the president's husband.
What's True
Articles of impeachment were introduced against five of the six Republican presidents who have served since President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
I don't think Americans are yet ready for a first lady who's the president's husband.
Not ready for lots of things. That too.
Living in denial, and getting even seems to be more important to a segment of voters.
A funny fact:
The Democratic party has tried to impeach every Republican president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Now, the usual domestic terrorist organizations (a.k.a. fact checkers) labeled this claim "mostly false." Their explanation:
So, 5 out of 6, or 83% correct, justifies "mostly false" instead of "mostly true"!? ;D The only one they didn't try to impeach is Gerald Ford, an unelected president anyway, and mostly because he served only 2.5 years, not enough time to fabricate the reason for impeachment, I guess.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dems-impeach-gop-presidents/
I don't think Americans are yet ready for a first lady who's the president's husband.
Imagine bumper stickers:
Mary Buttplug for President!
It would be interesting, but who are you listening to that it could be Buttigieg? Because only Buttigieg has come out and said he is in the lead or close to it. National polling has him in 7th right now. Of course that could change, but just goes further to prove the point that all of the Dems are weak candidates.
In a presidential race, when people keep on switching around on who the front runner is, it is obvious all of them are weak. Same thing happened in 2012 with the Republicans. A strong candidate asserts himself in the beginning and creates momentum, like Trump and Obama.
Iowa Democratic Presidental Caucus - Nov 5, 2019 polls:
Warren - 21.8, Buttigieg - 17.5, Sanders - 15.8
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html
I didn't know Senator McConnell was running for president.Don't you want to root out corruption in all parts of the US Government. You've already gone after Adam Schiff.
Iowa Democratic Presidental Caucus - Nov 5, 2019 polls:Where's Biden?
Warren - 21.8, Buttigieg - 17.5, Sanders - 15.8
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html
Where's Biden?
I don't think Americans are yet ready for a first lady who's the president's husband.
After Trump, Americans are ready for anything. More importantly, how does Vladimir Putin view the candidates?something else to thank Trump for. 😃
A bit adolescent but not unexpected.
But no one who directly communicated with Trump about the event(s) in question. It's pretty weak testimony.
I'll will say that Trump is handling his defense pretty horribly, but that does not mean the Dems have the goods.
Considering that all the facts point to the obvious truth that he is guilty as hell, I would say that Trump is handling his defense remarkably well since you are others are seemingly convinced that he is innocent...
Or is it that you would support him whatever the facts simply because you consider this as a political fight while in reality it is one between Trump and the constitution?
Cheers,
Bernard
... never talking directly with Trump in the same exact testimony? ???
This is hearsay...
Well... there is one guy who did talk to Trump directly. And so far he is sticking to his original story: he didn't feel pressured nor quid pro quo - the president of Ukraine.
Only Mr. Trump could unlock the aid, he had been told by two United States senators, and time was running out. If the money, nearly $400 million, were not unblocked by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, it could be lost in its entirety.
In a flurry of WhatsApp messages and meetings in Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, over several days, senior aides debated the point. Avoiding partisan politics in the United States had always been the first rule of Ukrainian foreign policy, but the military aid was vital to the war against Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, a conflict that has cost 13,000 lives since it began in 2014.
By then, however, Mr. Zelensky’s staffers were already conceding to what seemed to be the inevitable, and making plans for a public announcement about the investigations. It was a fateful decision for a fledgling president elected on an anticorruption platform that included putting an end to politically motivated investigations. . . .
A tug-of-war ensued between a senior aide to Mr. Zelensky, Andriy Yermak, and another of Mr. Trump’s envoys to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, over the wording of the proposed public statement. Mr. Volker went so far as to draft a statement for Mr. Zelensky that mentioned both investigations. . . .
Finally bending to the White House request, Mr. Zelensky’s staff planned for him to make an announcement in an interview on Sept. 13 with Fareed Zakaria, the host of a weekly news show on CNN.
Though plans were in motion to give the White House the public statement it had sought, events in Washington saved the Ukrainian government from any final decision and eliminated the need to make the statement.
Word of the freeze in military aid had leaked out, and Congress was in an uproar. Two days before the scheduled interview, the Trump administration released the assistance and Mr. Zelensky’s office quickly canceled the interview.
That's true: publicly, during a September 25 joint television appearance with Trump in New York, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky denied he felt pressure, and he has not retracted what he said.
However—and I understand this probably won't be credible to those who consider traditional journalism to be "fake news"—Andrew Kramer of the New York Times, reporting from Kyiv, has what appears to me to be a well-sourced account documenting the pressure Zelensky felt and the debate among his aides about how to respond to it (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/world/europe/ukraine-trump-zelensky.html).
I suspect many of the details will be corroborated by other sources, including, perhaps, the two senators involved, now that other reporters undoubtedly are chasing this story.[...]
That's true: publicly, during a September 25 joint television appearance with Trump in New York, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky denied he felt pressure, and he has not retracted what he said.
However—and I understand this probably won't be credible to those who consider traditional journalism to be "fake news"—Andrew Kramer of the New York Times, reporting from Kyiv, has what appears to me to be a well-sourced account documenting the pressure Zelensky felt and the debate among his aides about how to respond to it (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/world/europe/ukraine-trump-zelensky.html).
I suspect many of the details will be corroborated by other sources, including, perhaps, the two senators involved, now that other reporters undoubtedly are chasing this story.
I encourage those of you with subscriptions to the Times, or who haven't used up your monthly free access to the newspaper, to read Kramer's piece in its entirety. It's the best piece of enterprise reporting I've read about the attempt to get Ukraine to conduct the investigations Trump and Giuliani were demanding.
Why would anyone think this is a political fight?
I don’t, you and Slobodan act as if it were one.The Democrats don't care about truth. They only care about power. Theirs.
Cheers,
Bernard
The Democrats don't care about truth. They only care about power. Theirs.
The Democrats don't care about truth. They only care about power. Theirs.
I don’t, you and Slobodan act as if it were one.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, then Michael Bloomberg joining the race may be a good thing.
Well, then Michael Bloomberg joining the race may be a good thing.Well, Bloomberg's like Trump, ruthless, but with a smooth exterior. After two terms of being mayor, the most allowed by law, he got the city counsel to change the law so he could run a third time - and won. He was resented a lot for that though by a lot of New Yorkers. He may be a bigger narcissist and egomaniac than Trump. But isn't a loud mouth like him. Also, his wealth makes Trump look like a pauper. When he began his mayoralty, he was only worth $5 billion. Twelve years later he was worth $45 billion. Not bad for being mayor. Like Trump, he let others handled his day-to-day business operations, claiming he never looked in. Sure. But he was kind like Trump and forfeited his mayor's salary or gave it to charity. What a guy.
As opposed to Republicans, who... what? If you're about to argue that Republicans are somehow on the side of Truth in the Trump era, I'm not really sure I can ever take anything you say seriously ever again.They're all only concerned with power. After all, that's why politicians become politicians. Anyway, you should (not-edit) take anything I say too seriously. Life is too short. :)
Possibly, maybe he can actually win.I heard him say on TV that he'd be willing to pay $20 billion in taxes. But since she wants all of his $100 billion, well, she just can't have it. He's putting his foot down. I mean, after all, there's a limit. How would he be able to afford any more Perry Como sweaters?
Lets see, when Bill Gates, a lifelong Dem, comes out and basically says he would not vote for Warren, I think the Dems are pretty much open to anything right now.
Mayor Bloomberg with Mayor Pete as a running mate?I wouldn't use the word "mate". People might get ideas.
Indeed, could be a touchy situation.
So multi-billionaire, three term ex-Mayor of NYC. Michael Bloomberg, throws his hat in the Democrat ring for nomination to president of the US. It's getting more interesting.Someone who is also older than me and perhaps you. Thanks, but no thanks!!!
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-bloomberg-idUSKBN1XH2X0
The Dems desperately need this be about the 2020 election, because if it was about 2016 corruption, they have nothing. Schiff is shrewd enough to know this.
The President and Republicans have been claiming for months this is all a coordinated effort to take down Trump. Schiff lying several times about having contact with the whistleblower just adds to this defense, but the Dems have been good at mitigating it. However, now that one of their key witnesses who is claiming it was about the 2020 election was just caught not only lying to congress but it has also come to light she most likely met with Dems before this even went public.
If it was an innocent meeting, why lie about it ... to congress ... under oath?
This will only add to the Republican claim that this whole thing is coordinated with fabricated testimony and evidence. Schiff could be facing an impeachment investigation of his own soon.
Well, it seems like Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself in congress.As one who has testified on a half dozen occasions to various Congressional committees (twice under oath as that was the tradition of the House Energy and Commerce Oversight subcommittee under John Dingell) I never told a lie!!! ;D
Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you sure seem to have a double standard about what constitutes unacceptable behavior for Democrats and unacceptable behavior for the Trumpers. I gave the example earlier, but I'll repeat - on one and you have a cheating spouse, but you're seemingly more concerned with the horror of the other spouse reading the cheater's text messages.
I don't get it. You're making the "If it's innocent, why lie?" but totally ignoring that this administration is, literally, refusing legal, Constitutionally tried and tested oversight, and claiming that the executive is above the law. Yet you persist in attacking the Democrats because a third party may have come to them with information.
What if a Schiff staffer had said, in response to an allegation of wrongdoing inside the administration, "If it's what you say it is, I LOVE it.." then taken a meeting and lied about that. Is that ok? If not, why?
Furthermore, going to your oversight claim, the President has executive privilege to withhold things from congress. This has been held up in the courts and until it is again argued at the Supreme Court, it is not illegal. Granted, it may not sound good, politically, but it is not illegal, yet.
Well, it seems like Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself in congress.I will take this seriously when there is a second source other than Tucker Carlson who is in the words of Ford Maddox Ford, "...an unreliable narrator..." [note: the term was coined by literary critic Wayne Booth and there are numerous literary examples. My favorite and hence the use above is Ford's "The Good Soldier", a book well worth reading and is free on Project Guttenburg (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2775).]
At no where did I say I excuse Trump's behavior.
I am merely pointing out that one of the key witnesses that the Dems are hanging this on was just caught lying under oath. It is a very big deal.
Furthermore, going to your oversight claim, the President has executive privilege to withhold things from congress. This has been held up in the courts and until it is again argued at the Supreme Court, it is not illegal. Granted, it may not sound good, politically, but it is not illegal, yet.
I agree. I'm just noting that you seem less than convinced that equivalent behavior amongst Republicans is a "very big deal." You basically blew off the fact that Sondland totally changed his testimony a few days back, which is undeniably a much bigger deal than Tucker Carlson claiming that Yavanovich maybe tipped off Democrats to what was, regardless of her reporting it or not, seriously questionable behavior.
It was basically litigated in the Nixon era, but whatever. Besides, my point is more that you are attaching the "if it doesn't matter, why lie" to Dems, but blowing off the "if it doesn't matter, why create a Constitutional crisis" issue that comes from ignoring the House's duly authorized subpoenas. Yes, Executive priveledge exists, but blanked immunity for everyone, everywhere, at the whim of the President, doesn't. And that's basically what's being claimed. (As per some of the arguments that have come before the court already.)
Considering the two years of angst and charges of treason Trump was put through by the Democrats with the phony Russia collusion charge,[...]
As one who has testified on a half dozen occasions to various Congressional committees (twice under oath as that was the tradition of the House Energy and Commerce Oversight subcommittee under John Dingell) I never told a lie!!! ;D
Remind us, how many of his campaign staff are in prison right now?
And the Mueller report did not say that Trump was in the clear, just that a sitting president cannot be charged.
Remind us, how many of his campaign staff are in prison right now?
And the Mueller report did not say that Trump was in the clear, just that a sitting president cannot be charged.
Furthermore, going to your oversight claim, the President has executive privilege to withhold things from congress.
It was basically litigated in the Nixon era, . . .
...also were *aware of* Russian interference but it could not be proved that they *participated in* said interference.
Whatever interference there was, it was under Obama/Biden's watch.
Buttigieg has been my top...
... And are you under the impression that a 600K contract is unusual...
"The average annual compensation for non-executive directors at S&P 500 companies rose 2 percent to $304,856 last year, topping $300,000 for the first time and 43 percent higher than it was 10 years ago, according to a new report released by executive headhunters Spencer Stuart."
If that interference was so serious, wouldn't it behooved Obama to interfere in the interference? For more than one reason (the public one would be national security, the real one to stop Trump from coming to power, if they thought Russian interference was so effective - but they didn't, because it wasn't - it was only after the lost election that they started crying for excuses).
To put things into perspective:
Zlochevsky's event has featured such speakers as Prince Albert II of Monaco; Romano Prodi, a former Italian prime minister; Joschka Fischer, a former German foreign minister; and other past and present luminaries from European and U.S. politics.
Zlochevsky also continues to buy favor with his support for the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank.
Regarding Board of Directors compensation here in the US, I would say it is all over the map. I have a fair number of individual stock holdings in my portfolio and carefully look at the BODs during proxy season so that I can cast an itelligent vote. Companies such as Berkshire-Hathaway compensate BOD members quite low as that's in keeping with Buffett's philosophy. Compensation includes more than the yearly monetary remuneration and can include stock and stock options as well. I mentioned Elaine Chao's presence on the Wells Fargo board in an earlier post and that's the gift that keeps on giving as she received another payout earlier this years because of stock option. Now maybe she donated this to charity to avoid any conflict of interest but that has not been disclosed. We have a good friend who was a US Trade Representative in a past administration who served on Intel, Estee Lauder, and one other board that I cannot remember. That person's yearly compensation excluding stock and stock options was $950K/year and this was back in 2014 when I looked at the data.But the Democrats have complained for three years that Trump's kids are taking advantage of their daddy's political position to line their pockets. So now you can;t make excuses when Democratic VP Biden's kid does the same thing. Especially when Joe Biden met with some of these guys personally. It's going to sink his candidacy as people realize that Biden is also part of the swamp.
In the US, a lot of people go on BODs for political reasons and quota filling. Sometimes they have an understanding of the company and sometimes not.
Regarding Board of Directors compensation here in the US, I would say it is all over the map. I have a fair number of individual stock holdings in my portfolio and carefully look at the BODs during proxy season so that I can cast an itelligent vote. Companies such as Berkshire-Hathaway compensate BOD members quite low as that's in keeping with Buffett's philosophy. Compensation includes more than the yearly monetary remuneration and can include stock and stock options as well. I mentioned Elaine Chao's presence on the Wells Fargo board in an earlier post and that's the gift that keeps on giving as she received another payout earlier this years because of stock option. Now maybe she donated this to charity to avoid any conflict of interest but that has not been disclosed. We have a good friend who was a US Trade Representative in a past administration who served on Intel, Estee Lauder, and one other board that I cannot remember. That person's yearly compensation excluding stock and stock options was $950K/year and this was back in 2014 when I looked at the data.
In the US, a lot of people go on BODs for political reasons and quota filling. Sometimes they have an understanding of the company and sometimes not.
I live in a town with lots of board-of-directors types, who do very well from it. It's part of the way many people live off what I consider to be "rigged" money, rather than "work" money. The circle works like this: the board and the CEO, who is sometimes chairman of the board and sometimes not, pay each other extremely well, the intention being that any board member who is collecting big bucks for doing almost nothing is not going to vote against the CEO, who probably recruited them, and who may be collecting huge bucks with the board's approval (and actually doing quite a bit of work, but not always well.) There's virtually no way to break that circle, especially with big companies, when voting for the board is rarely a serious matter. Occasionally, a hedge fund or buy-out company may force a board change, but that's usually so the hedge fund or buy-out company can make already bigger bucks that they're already making, for doing not much except arranging large loans of money made easy by the Fed. I've now served on three boards, all non-profits, which are not the same kind of deal, although even there, the board is often rigged in favor of the President or CEO. (See Wounded Warrior.) What I have found is that boards are usually recruited by the CEO, perfunctoraly approved by the other board members, and so the CEO almost always has a majority of the board on his side, no matter how corrupt the operation may be or become. I have to say, I was absolutely astonished when the McDonald's board fired their CEO for having a consensual, but forbidden, relationship with an underling. What astonished me isn't that CEOs are occasionally fired for such a thing, but that the said CEO almost doubled the stock price in five years...and that the board must have known that the firing would produce an immediate drop in the stock price, which it did.So you're confirming that ex-VP Joe Biden's kid got paid $50,000 a month for being just a pawn on the board of the Ukraine corporation. Now why couldn't my daddy be a political big-wig?
I live in a town with lots of board-of-directors types, who do very well from it. It's part of the way many people live off what I consider to be "rigged" money, rather than "work" money. The circle works like this: the board and the CEO, who is sometimes chairman of the board and sometimes not, pay each other extremely well, the intention being that any board member who is collecting big bucks for doing almost nothing is not going to vote against the CEO, who probably recruited them, and who may be collecting huge bucks with the board's approval (and actually doing quite a bit of work, but not always well.) There's virtually no way to break that circle, especially with big companies, when voting for the board is rarely a serious matter. Occasionally, a hedge fund or buy-out company may force a board change, but that's usually so the hedge fund or buy-out company can make already bigger bucks that they're already making, for doing not much except arranging large loans of money made easy by the Fed.Most of the shares in US corporations are owned by institutional investors. Although some of these have proxy policies, they usually vote for management. Hedge funds are another case and people like Nelson Peltz have forced their way onto BODs and made significant changes (Peltz was largely responsible for the duPont-Dow merger and more recently Procter & Gamble restructuring). Larry Fink who is CEO of Black Rock, a firm that runs a bunch of ETFs and funds with an aggregate investment of $6.84T (yes, trillion) has been most outspoken about corporate management needing to reform. I don't know if they have translated this down to proxy voting.
So you're confirming that ex-VP Joe Biden's kid got paid $50,000 a month for being just a pawn on the board of the Ukraine corporation.
It's a bit of a leap to arrive at that conclusion from what John Camp wrote. :)
It's a bit of a leap to arrive at that conclusion from what John Camp wrote. :)If I'm right, he's toast. We'll know pretty soon.
But the Democrats have complained for three years that Trump's kids are taking advantage of their daddy's political position to line their pockets. So now you can;t make excuses when Democratic VP Biden's kid does the same thing. Especially when Joe Biden met with some of these guys personally. It's going to sink his candidacy as people realize that Biden is also part of the swamp.
Here it comes:
"House Republicans add Hunter Biden, whistleblower to impeachment hearing witness wishlist"
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/469728-house-republicans-name-hunter-biden-whistleblower-on-impeachment-hearing (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/469728-house-republicans-name-hunter-biden-whistleblower-on-impeachment-hearing)
Here it comes:
"House Republicans add Hunter Biden, whistleblower to impeachment hearing witness wishlist"
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/469728-house-republicans-name-hunter-biden-whistleblower-on-impeachment-hearing (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/469728-house-republicans-name-hunter-biden-whistleblower-on-impeachment-hearing)
The key word in that headline is "wishlist."Well the Democrats who control the House won;t let the Republicans call him. They wouldn't wind to embarrass VP Biden. Of course, the trial will be held in the Republican controlled senate where he will be called to testify. Of course, he might not show up. VP Joe Biden must be beside himself.
Of course, the trial will be held in the Republican controlled senate where [Hunter Biden, former Vice President Biden's son] will be called to testify.
. . . the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate.
— Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials, VII (https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf)
Probably not. Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial if the House of Representatives adopts articles of impeachment. While an impeachment is not a judicial proceeding, the Senate rules imply that the usual legal standards for determining what evidence is to be heard apply in impeachment trials.What if Hunter Biden could testify to the corruption he was aware of in the Ukrainian corporation he worked for and what knowledge his father had of the situation? That would go to the heart of why the president wanted the Ukrainian president to investigate corruption and justify any quid pro quo, the basis up the impeachment charge? Of course, the Chief Justice could rule that it's not relative. But the discussion in the news would remind everyone of Biden's involvement where his kid got a $50K a month job because his father was a political big shot. Wasn't one of the claims that Trump wanted the Ukrainian president to make the decision to investigate very public? Well, what better way to make it public than to bring it into a discussion regarding a president's impeachment trial?
There is no plausible legal theory under which the testimony of Hunter Biden (or his father, for that matter) would be relevant to a determination of whether President Trump abused the power of his office by asking the Ukrainian president to investigate the Bidens (père or fils). While the senators theoretically might override a ruling by the chief justice, I think it's very unlikely that would ever happen.
As expected, Schiff ruled out the whistleblower from testifying and earlier ruled out Biden from testifying.
As expected, Schiff ruled out the whistleblower from testifying and earlier ruled out Biden from testifying. The Democrat Commissar has spoken. The Star Chamber Trial continues. The anti-Trump media will continue to support the protection of Biden.When will you understand that there is NO trial. The trial on takes place after the Impeachment articles are adopted by the House and ONLY THEN does a trial take place over in the Senate. Everything right now is simple posturing by both sides and Speaker Pelosi will make the final call on whether they move to full impeachment articles.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/09/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower-impeachment-inquiry/index.html
Indeed, as expected. Hunter Biden is not under investigation and he has played no part in replacing a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine. There is no point in hearing the whistleblower, as actual witnesses have appeared since then.Amazing how someone living in The Netherlands knows more about the American political process than some of those who liver here!!
The only (nasty) reason is to make it less likely that anyone with a sense of justice will ever raise his hand again. And that's exactly why whistleblower protection has been created, and this proves how valuable and necessary it is. It protects the Constitution.
And yes, it's a mere distraction from the thread's topic, and very predictable given the overwhelming evidence and witnesses..
Amazing how someone living in The Netherlands knows more about the American political process than some of those who liver here!!
... Hunter Biden is not under investigation and he has played no part in replacing a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine...
That’s an interesting angle. And how do you know that? How do you know that he didn’t go to his daddy and said: “Daddy, daddy, can you please get that nasty man off our backs, pretty please?” And daddy said: “Don’t you worry, kiddo, I’ve been in politics for 40 years, I surely know how to do that without leaving any trace, and how to make it look like I had no idea you were involved.”Of course. The whole point of the Trump request to Ukraine's president is to clean up any corruption in the Ukraine including corruption that the Bidens may have been involved in. To find out if the request had some basis of legitimacy would go to the heart of deciding whether the president should be impeached. Only Democrats wanting to impeach regardless of the evidence and wanting to protect their presidential candidate would dismiss testimony from the Bidens.
That’s an interesting angle. And how do you know that?
... to replace the prosecutor with one that would become more active in fighting corruption.
The investigation into Burisma had already stalled before Hunter Biden was employed. That was one of the reasons that the international community, including the USA, have pressured Ukraine to replace the prosecutor with one that would become more active in fighting corruption.
If they did collude to use the VP office to protect Barisma, then the president was perfectly right in asking for an investigation and he should not be impeached.And if they did not collude for such purpose, he should be impeached?
And if they did not collude for such purpose, he should be impeached?No. If the president had a reason to ask for an investigation, that would be acceptable as well. After all, the purpose of an investigation is to find out the facts. You can't know what happened until you investigate. Isn't that what the whole Mueller investigation was about?
No. If the president had a reason to ask for an investigation, that would be acceptable as well. After all, the purpose of an investigation is to find out the facts. You can't know what happened until you investigate. Isn't that what the whole Mueller investigation was about?That's the whole "are you still beating your wife" rationale you like to quote. You make an unfounded allegation, and then say you need a investigation to determine the facts. Which is exactly what the Biden thing is about. You have to ask with all the corruption everywhere in the world, why is he only interested in investigating alleged corruption of the son of the political rival he consistently loses to in the polls. Witch hunts are okay as long as he is the one pursuing them.
That's the whole "are you still beating your wife" rationale you like to quote. You make an unfounded allegation, and then say you need a investigation to determine the facts. Which is exactly what the Biden thing is about. You have to ask with all the corruption everywhere in the world, why is he only interested in investigating alleged corruption of the son of the political rival he consistently loses to in the polls. Witch hunts are okay as long as he is the one pursuing them.So why was it OK for Obama to launch an investigation of Trump a political rival based on a dossier prepared by Trump's adversary, Hillary Clinton, a Democrat? In any case, the Trump request was rather benign and mild compared what happened to him when the whole secret forces of the US government were directed against him and still are three years later in the current impeachment. Yet, you have no concern with these attacks.
If you are going to quote me, don't change my words.What are you talking about? I quoted your entire post.
And how is that going? Any change? Why wasn't the investigation into Burisma reopened then?
It was, by the subsequent Prosecutor General who later exempted Mr. Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma, from the suspicions.It doesn;t explain why Biden was paid $50,000 a month? It wasn;t for his good looks. I'd want to know what his father VP Joe Biden knew about his involvement in Barisma and whether he would help out.
It was, by the subsequent Prosecutor General who later exempted Mr. Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma, from the suspicions.
It doesn;t explain why Biden was paid $50,000 a month? It wasn;t for his good looks. I'd want to know what his father VP Joe Biden knew about his involvement in Barisma and whether he would help out.
It doesn;t explain why Biden was paid $50,000 a month? It wasn;t for his good looks. I'd want to know what his father VP Joe Biden knew about his involvement in Barisma and whether he would help out.
It would be even worse if an American company paid him for such services that kind of money. In such a case, it could come indirectly from your own pocket.I just looked at the proxy statement for a pharma company whose stock I hold. Average compensation for BOD members is $330,000/year. there are 10 outside directors so the company is paying over $3M/year. Yes, that does come out our pocket but is a small amount. I have no idea how many directors that Ukraine company has and what the compensation is for them. Taking a quick look at some of my other holdings the range seems to be $330K to $380K per year for serving on a BOD. I also quickly looked at JP Morgan Chase (biggest bank in the US) and their BOD member average about $440K/year. Nice work if you can get it.
Nice work if you can get it.That is largely what the pushback is about. A person envious because he is not being paid to be on a board of directors so it must be corruption.
Recently obtained State Department emails, made public through a FOIA request, indicate Burisma’s consulting firm noted “two high profile U.S. citizens (including Hunter Biden as a board member) affiliated with the company” when requesting a meeting with State Department officials to discuss the validity of the U.S. government’s classification that their client, Burisma, was corrupt.
In Hunter's defense, it is hard to resist the call for such an easy cash, although a Heinz grandson thought it is a bed idea and declined himself. The offer to join the board may or may not came with the expectations of father's influence. Just a mere presence of such a name on the board serves several useful purposes, without anything illegal involved.
. . . Hunter Biden’s activities struck many of the officials working on Ukraine policy as an unnecessary distraction, or worse. Mr. Biden’s own aides were so worried about the optics, they enlisted State Department officials to gather facts to determine how to handle the story, according to people who worked with his office.
Yet few, if any, had raised the issue with Mr. Biden directly when it first arose. Most viewed the revelation — unseemly, but not illegal or a violation of ethics rules — as simply not worth risking a scolding from Mr. Biden, who had reacted angrily when Mr. Obama’s aides raised the issue of his son’s lobbying during the 2008 campaign. One person who briefly discussed the matter with Mr. Biden said he was anguished by his son’s personal problems and unsure how to help him recover.
In Hunter's defense, it is hard to resist the call for such an easy cash, although a Heinz grandson thought it is a bed idea and declined himself. The offer to join the board may or may not came with the expectations of father's influence. Just a mere presence of such a name on the board serves several useful purposes, without anything illegal involved. It might give a certain credibility to clients, partners, creditors. auditors, etc. It might serve as a deterrent to outside meddling by the authorities (obviously worked, though not illegal). For those familiar with the post-Soviet practice, there are several unspoken rules that everyone understands and obeys.Your father wasn't the Vice President. :)
A personal example (and no, it doesn't involve a $600K to me): while working as a finance guy for an internet startup about 20 years ago in Barcelona, I was invited by the CEO to accompany him to Milan to meet the auditors (one of the big four). We flew first class. At the meeting, after the CEO introduced me in English and I exchanged a couple of pleasantries with the Italian hosts, they quickly switched to Italian and forgot about me. I was wondering why I was there? Then it dawned on me: bringing a gray-hair guy who until then worked for one of the biggest US blue-chip multinationals was supposed to give credibility to the start-up and the young CEO. That was about it. I got the first-class flight and a dinner in a nice Milan restaurant out of it (wish it was $600K, alas ;) )
Your father wasn't the Vice President. :)And the crime is?
Not illegal or a violation of ethics rules, perhaps, but according to in a piece by Glenn Thrush and Kenneth Vogel published today in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/politics/joe-biden-ukraine.html), an "unnecessary distraction" sufficient to warrant concern in the Department of State.How do you know, Chris? Are you a mind reader? Let Hunter Biden testify and swear under oath and legal penalty if he falsely testifies that there were no corrupt actions by either he or his father and that his father played no part in him getting the job in Ukraine or China. After all, if he testifies as such, that could even convince republicans that the president's quid pro quo was only to hurt a political rival and could convince the Senate to find him guilty. Short of testifying, the question remains open to many people who will also ask, what did Hunter fear from testifying? You see, you can't have it both ways.
Actually, according to the Times report, some State Department officials eventually did raise the issue of his son Hunter's activities in Ukraine with Vice President Biden—the Times was not able to persuade them to reveal the response they received from the vice president—but "former administration officials . . . , speaking on the condition of anonymity, cited one reason above all others for backing off: the vice president’s shaky emotional state over [his elder son] Beau’s illness and death."
That's not to imply that the activities of Hunter Biden are relevant to the issue of whether President Trump abused the power of his office by asking his Ukrainian counterpart to launch an investigation into the Bidens. Nothing Hunter Biden or his father did plausibly could have any significance in determining Trump's culpability―which would be based solely on his own motives and actions.
I think Hunter Biden was recruited to the BOD because his father was vice president, and the Ukrainians were hoping to get something out of it. Hoping to get something out of it, and actually getting something out of it, are two different things, and nobody alleges the latter. Hunter Biden was a troubled adult, who was exploited by the Ukrainians who, I imagine, felt even the appearance of a connection to Joe Biden was worth $50,000 a month, or whatever it was.
A lot of Presidents have had close relatives and friends who embarrassed them -- Jimmy Carter's brother, Ronald Reagan's gay son, Bill Clinton's wife and girlfriend ( 8-) ). No way to stop that.
None of that has anything to do with Trump's attempted extortion.
<snip> Sworn testimony by Hunter Biden would reveal the facts.
There's something you don't se every day -- Alan's admitting he'd accept sworn testimony from an admitted cokehead.There are plenty of sober people who lie on the stand. So why can't a person with a drug problem tell the truth? In fact if he's in treatment, he may feel compelled to tell the truth to stay sober. So we actually get honest testimony. In any case, if he had drug problems, even more the reason he should answer how he deserved $50,000 a month and whether there were anything untoward about the relationship he and his father had with Ukraine and China. Was he selling his father's office for drug money he needed?
I think if Trump had said, "Listen, pal, you should look into Hunter Biden's presence on the gas company board," there wouldn't have been an impeachable problem.
What may be impeachable is a somewhat more complex issue, but your hypothetical would appear to involve a violation of 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit . . . [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."Chris, What contribution from a foreign national did Trump solicit?
Chris, What contribution from a foreign national did Trump solicit?
This conversation is absolutely insane.My question that I never asked before was addressed to Chris, who made the statement, not you. Your smart-aleck response is tiresome.
The answer to this question has already been provided tens of times in this thread.
The conversational tactics of Allan, which consist in ignoring the previous answers in an attempt to reset the conversation in a way aligned with the disinformation he is continuing to try to spread, is just incredibly tiresome.
Cheers,
Bernard
This conversation is absolutely insane.. just incredibly tiresome.
My question that I never asked before was addressed to Chris, who made the statement, not you. Your smart-aleck response is tiresome.
It is absolutely insane and tiresome that you present hearsay, conjectures, what you or somebody else thinks and believes, as unquestionable facts and proof of guilt.
How is exactly does the point you are discussing from Chris differ from the core argument discussed at length in the 60 previous pages of this thread Alan?I asked Chris to explain how Trump violated the law he quoted. If you know Chris's explanation, you;re a better mind reader than I am. The law seems to constrain foreign nationals not the president of the US.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, the only group of people who keep denying the facts at hand are hard core Republicans who seem to think it’s preferable to keep supporting Trump at any cost over a possible loss to Democrats... everybody else, inside and outside the US, has done the very simple thing which is to acknowledge the facts.Facts are not determined in newspapers or by talking heads on cable news programs. Nor are they determined by a political leader, Congressman Schiff, who has the authority to select who the witnesses are, what types of cross-examination the defence may do, and who can be called to testify or not allowed to testify. That's how the Soviet Union's star chamber trials preceded when they wanted to convict the defendant.
Those facts are indisputable, they have been confirmed by all those who testified under oath, Republicans or not. Some of them by Trump himself.
But... I thought the point being debated by Alan with Chris was completely different? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Btw, the rules surroundings whistle blowing should be easily understandable by anyone with common sense.
If the identity of the current whistle blower were revealed this would most probably prevent future whistle blowers from doing what the law forces them to do, which is to inform higher authorities of a possible problem.
Besides, its identity is completely irrelevant because the White House themselves confirmed his/her claims when they published the transcripts.
Not to mention the fact that countless witnesses under oath have confirmed his/her claims also.
This is all driven by pathetic political plays attempting to demonstrate that this case is an unfair political move by Democrats. The hope of those requesting that his/her identity be reveaied are just hoping that he/she is a Democrat. Which, even if true, would only just confirm that Democrats did follow a law voted in by Republicans...
Cheers,
Bernard
I asked Chris to explain how Trump violated the law he quoted. If you know Chris's explanation, you;re a better mind reader than I am. The law seems to constrain foreign nationals not the president of the US.
[quote from: Chris Kern on November 10, 2019, 08:49:11 pm
What may be impeachable is a somewhat more complex issue, but your hypothetical would appear to involve a violation of 52 USC §30121: "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit . . . [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."
Facts are not determined in newspapers or by talking heads on cable news programs. Nor are they determined by a political leader, Congressman Schiff, who has the authority to select who the witnesses are, what types of cross-examination the defence may do, and who can be called to testify or not allowed to testify. That's how the Soviet Union's star chamber trials preceded when they wanted to convict the defendant.
In America, facts are arrived at by sworn testimony by witnesses selected by both sides, Other evidence is presented in a fair hearing where both sides can ask questions and cross-examine witnesses and question the evidence. It's the way to arrive at truth. Only a dictator says the truth is indisputable. Your argument shows just how much your lack of understanding the American jurisprudence system and our constitution are. It's a lynch mentality of "getting the guy" regardless of what the facts are. It's just an extension of the two year insane hysteria of how Trump colluded with the Russians, subsequently disproved. This is just more of the same, only worse.
Impeachment of a president has constitutional priority over any congressional laws. Getting rid of a president is of such a substantial undertaking that a president has a right to defend himself. He represents the people of the USA and has constitutionally been elected to be president. That's no small thing. A president has never been removed from office in over 200 years of our Republic. We can;t take that removal lightly. If the witness is required to reveal any facts that may affect the impeachment, his testimony will take priority over any whistleblowing laws. He may have been protected in less important situations. But should not be in this situation.
Secondly, you pulled a switch on us. In the first case you say, or others have said, that impeachment is strictly a political act. So now you say that there are facts that seem to show that the whistleblower's testimony has already been revealed in facts presented elsewhere, particularly the transcript. But if the impeachment is political in nature as many argue, then the president's defenders have a right to see if the whistle blower had political reasons to have "whistle blown" in the first place. After all, you're the one saying it's political. So making the whistleblower testify is not to reveal facts, but to reveal his political beliefs and whether he was influenced to file complaints based on his political beliefs. And we don;t know what his political beliefs are at this point. Only his testimony in Congress will reveal that so he must testify for a fair hearing.
It may because English isn’t my mother language, but in the sentence above reads: it’s illegal for the “person” (the President Trump) to request something of value (a public announcement that a corruption investigation is on-going on Biden, a political rival of Trump) from a foreign national (the president of Ukraine).Trump wanted the president of the Ukraine to make his investigation public to force him to actually do the investigation. I'm sure Trump has heard plenty of verbal agreements, yes men, in his career that were broken before the sun set. The Ukrainians are so crooked, they;ll make promises one minute and break them the next. So he wanted Ukraine to make it public to force them to comply and actually do the investigation of their corruption. Obama should have thought of having them make it public when he asked them to investigate. Trump is smarter than Obama on things like this. He's dealt with New York contractors like I have. They all lie. Ukraine's no different.
How is that not a confirmation that what Trump did is illegal?
Cheers,
Bernard
The facts I am talking about are indeed those provided by witnesses under oath in front of a by-partisan hearing.
Exactly what you write is required.
Cheers,
Bernard
You are the one claiming the impeachment is political, I am not.It's nothing but political. The Democrats have spent three years trying to impeach Trump. Actually they no longer want to impeach him just damage him enough so he loses re-election in 2020. Hopefully, the Democrats can also take the Senate. That's what it's all about. Power. The rest is just conversation.
I am saying the exact opposite.
The impeachment is based on a clear violation of the constitution, it’s NOT a political play.
Cheers,
Bernard
All testimony has mainly been held in secret until now. Democrats who were in charge of the hearings have released only parts of it that make Trump look bad. There is no impartial judge who makes decisions about these things.
The open hearing regarding impeachment starts next week. It's then that the public will be able to hear testimony that's not in secret. However, Democrat Congressman Schiff who still controls the process because Democrats have more members in the House of representatives, has already refused to allow the whistleblower and Hunter Biden to testify. There still will be no judge or hearing officer making impartial decisions. The Democrats will decide what happens just like in a Star Chamber Soviet trial. So the opposition party, the Democrats, already have their thumbs on the scale of justice. They will not allow a fair hearing where both sides can present their witnesses and cross examine them. It's a farce.
It's nothing but political. The Democrats have spent three years trying to impeach Trump. Actually they no longer want to impeach him just damage him enough so he loses re-election in 2020. Hopefully, the Democrats can also take the Senate. That's what it's all about. Power. The rest is just conversation.
Trump wanted the president of the Ukraine to make his investigation public to force him to actually do the investigation. I'm sure Trump has heard plenty of verbal agreements, yes men, in his career that were broken before the sun set. The Ukrainians are so crooked, they;ll make promises one minute and break them the next. So he wanted Ukraine to make it public to force them to comply and actually do the investigation of their corruption. Obama should have thought of having them make it public when he asked them to investigate. Trump is smarter than Obama on things like this. He's dealt with New York contractors like I have. They all lie. Ukraine's no different.
The facts I am talking about are indeed those provided by witnesses under oath in front of a by-partisan hearing...
This is your view.
The reality is that a President in office has violated the constitution...
My question that I never asked before was addressed to Chris, who made the statement, not you. Your smart-aleck response is tiresome.A lot of us have answered your question multiple times. You are transfixed by what Hunter Biden may or may not have done. that is not the question on the table for the impeachment hearing at all. There is ample documentation that VP Biden AND the EU (or countries within the EU) were trying to get rid of a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor. The EU has no stake at all in the impeachment inquiry but do provide justification about what the US did with respect to the prosecutor in question. Hunter Biden is just a smoke screen in another attempt by the anti-impeachment inquiry folks to try to deflect what the President is documented to have done. You likely will not agree with this; the lead editorial in the NY Times today has a listing of all the defenses of the President that have been put on the table to date (we have not see the ET alien or PTSD defense yet but I suspect those are coming): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/opinion/republicans-trump-impeachment.html
All testimony has mainly been held in secret until now. Democrats who were in charge of the hearings have released only parts of it that make Trump look bad. There is no impartial judge who makes decisions about these things.For what may be the 200th time, do you not understand that the inquiry is NOT a trial???? the trial takes place in the Senate. You may not like that the Democrats can set the rules but that's the way things are! It was the same with Benghazi when the Republicans set the rules and Secretary Clinton testified at length when those hearing went on. Other than a few good people most Trump appointees are stonewalling this. What do they have to hide????
The open hearing regarding impeachment starts next week. It's then that the public will be able to hear testimony that's not in secret. However, Democrat Congressman Schiff who still controls the process because Democrats have more members in the House of representatives, has already refused to allow the whistleblower and Hunter Biden to testify. There still will be no judge or hearing officer making impartial decisions. The Democrats will decide what happens just like in a Star Chamber Soviet trial. So the opposition party, the Democrats, already have their thumbs on the scale of justice. They will not allow a fair hearing where both sides can present their witnesses and cross examine them. It's a farce.
What may be impeachable is a somewhat more complex issue, but your hypothetical would appear to involve a violation of 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit . . . [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."
It may because English isn’t my mother language, but the sentence above reads: it’s illegal for the “person” (the President Trump) to request something of value (a public announcement that a corruption investigation is on-going on Biden, a political rival of Trump) from a foreign national (the president of Ukraine).
A lot of us have answered your question multiple times. You are transfixed by what Hunter Biden may or may not have done. that is not the question on the table for the impeachment hearing at all. There is ample documentation that VP Biden AND the EU (or countries within the EU) were trying to get rid of a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor. The EU has no stake at all in the impeachment inquiry but do provide justification about what the US did with respect to the prosecutor in question. Hunter Biden is just a smoke screen in another attempt by the anti-impeachment inquiry folks to try to deflect what the President is documented to have done. You likely will not agree with this; the lead editorial in the NY Times today has a listing of all the defenses of the President that have been put on the table to date (we have not see the ET alien or PTSD defense yet but I suspect those are coming): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/opinion/republicans-trump-impeachment.htmlWe need Hunter Biden to testify and swear under legal penalty that he and his father have either conspired to get the 50000 month by offering a deal with the Ukrainian Corporation or they hadn't. If they made a deal, then Trump was correct in asking for an investigation and the impeachment won't happen.
We need Hunter Biden to testify and swear under legal penalty that he and his father have either conspired to get the 50000 month by offering a deal with the Ukrainian Corporation or they hadn't...
Alan, this isn't how these things work. Nobody would make such a deal on either side that would leave a trace of it, nor admit it. Such things are done with unspoken rules that everybody involved understands. There is nothing technically illegal about accepting a cushy position on the board. It stinks in the court of public opinion, though.
Such a game is played much more subtly. Never directly. Never open quid pro quo. Things often appear the opposite of what they are. A smart player would not fire a prosecutor for investigating a company. They would make it look like they are firing him for NOT investigating the company. Appearances are deceiving. Never mind the company continues un-investigated after the "heroic" firing.
So, let me see.
- The State Department thought Burisma is corrupt.
- The EU thought Burisma is corrupt.
So what is Burisma to do? They put a son of the US Vice-President on board and pay him $600K. Smart move, however you look at it.
1. If Burisma knew they are corrupt and the Biden move worked, then that was a small price to pay.
2. If Burisma knew they are innocent, then the Biden move was a costly, but ultimately worthy, price to pay.
My bet is on #1.
We need Hunter Biden to testify and swear under legal penalty that he and his father have either conspired to get the 50000 month by offering a deal with the Ukrainian Corporation or they hadn't. If they made a deal, then Trump was correct in asking for an investigation and the impeachment won't happen.Trump can ask for an investigation and he can also direct the Justice Department to investigate this. What he CANNOT to is use a quid pro quo of holding up or preventing Congressionally appropriated funds. This is the case, not whether Hunter, VP Biden, or even Rudy Guiliani did anything wrong (though Rudy looks to be skating on very thin ice these days and that's why he has retained outside counsel).
If you don't believe me that Biden's toast, ask Bloomberg.
“I think he [Bloomberg] would be better for the markets because he would represent more fiscal responsibility,” Brown Brothers Harriman Chief investment strategist Scott Clemons said on Yahoo Finance’s The First Trade. “One of the most interesting things — and discouraging things — about this administration over the past two or three years is that we are running trillion dollar deficits in a period of relatively good economic activity. I am a long-term investor, so I worry what that means in the longer term when the economy turns down again.”
Trump can ask for an investigation and he can also direct the Justice Department to investigate this. What he CANNOT to is use a quid pro quo of holding up or preventing Congressionally appropriated funds. This is the case, not whether Hunter, VP Biden, or even Rudy Guiliani did anything wrong (though Rudy looks to be skating on very thin ice these days and that's why he has retained outside counsel).Trump has held up foreign aid to Pakistan when they didn't meet what he thought were anti-terrorist requirements. DIsputes between Congress and the president go through a process called impoundment if they can't agree on situations where a president hold back foreign aid. If they can't come to an agreement it could go before the Supreme Court to decide. But these are not impeachable offenses, just normal disagreements between these two branches of the government. In any case, Trump only delayed payments to Ukraine. They got the money after a few weeks.
I think Trump would beat Bloomberg. Sad to say, Bloomberg, a Jew, would push all those alt-right, white supremecist, anti-semitic, anti-big-city, anti-media buttons that make up Trump's base; and as a moderate liberal, he'd all piss off all the progressive Democrats who are pulling for Warren or Sanders, and they just might sit on their hands if Bloomberg snatched the nomination away from them. At this point, a Biden/Klobuchar ticket seems to be the Democrats best bet. Joe may be too old and a little dumb, but he'd just be a caretaker anyway, until 2024. The #1 task of the 2020 election, IMHO, is to get rid of Trump, who is essentially the head of an organized crime family. I don't care who does it, conservative Republican, centrist, liberal Democrat. We just have to keep our eye on the ball, and get rid of heel spurs.Klobuchar is already at the bottom of Davy Jones locker and Biden is sinking fast. Regarding Bloomberg, while there are anti-semites and other despicable people who support Trump, their numbers are probably smaller than number of Communists who support Sanders. It's not like in Europe where the multi party system allows for marginal parties of extremes. In America, you either support the Democrat Party or you support the Republican Party. So each party is stuck with their crazies.
Your statement is completely misleading. You are implying that republicans were not in the loop, which has been demonstrated to be completely untrue.
Not only during the open heardings, but during the initial phase also. Republicans were totally involved in the hearings.
Cheers,
Bernard
For what may be the 200th time, do you not understand that the inquiry is NOT a trial ??? ? the trial takes place in the Senate. You may not like that the Democrats can set the rules but that's the way things are! It was the same with Benghazi when the Republicans set the rules and Secretary Clinton testified at length when those hearing went on. Other than a few good people most Trump appointees are stonewalling this. What do they have to hide? ???
this continued argument is getting to be quite pointless. We'll see what the public process brings and ultimately what Speaker Pelosi decides.
Being involved is not the same as being given fair treatment.Joe, this whole thing isn't about impeachment. It's about damaging Trump enough so he will lose reelection and possibly give the Senate to the Democrats. They saw what happened in 2018 when they picked up a lot of anti-Trump seats in the House. They figure lighting will strike twice.
As Alan said, it is a farce. Schiff is not allowing wintnesses to be called by the Republicans, including the whistle blower whom Schiff was very excited about having testify before it came to light that his staff met with him 18 days before filing the report. Additionally, Schiff has been coaching witnesses and censoring Republican questions.
It is not a fair process by any stretch.
The other Alan is right though on his opinion of it not being the actual trial. If it gets that far, which I doubt it will since it will coming crashing down on the Dems, Republicans will be given a fair trial. However, I doubt it reaches that far. In order to prove it is an impeachable offense, they need to prove intent to that it was for the 2020 election, not the continuing 2016 election corruption investigation, which will be impossible to do. So if it goes to the Senate, Trump wins and comes out strong, then the Dems loose.
With this, it is hit or miss what happens. However, with all of the moderates coming into the race in the Dems, and Biden's candidacy shot, Warren looks like the winner, and then the looser. In recent polling by the NYTs, she looses in all of the swing states to Trump, even with the impeachment noise.
All the Dems had to do was not go crazy, and on a local level that is what they did and won, but on the national level they have totally lost their minds.
Oh. I forgot about Hillary. She's not done. She's probably warming up another email server right now, licking her chops as she sees Hunter Biden, the Ukraine Grifter, drag his father down to oblivion. She's probably lining up the superdelegates as we speak ready to pounce when the two mayors, the Indian and the Marxist scare the Democrats to hell and go pleading at Hillary's doorstep in upstate New York to save them. She'll be cackling all the way back down.
I've wasted too many bytes in offering replies to this thread. Here is my parting prediction. Nancy Pelosi is too clever for the President and she will carefully read the tea leaves before deciding to move ahead with an impeachment vote. The rank and file Republican legislators really don't like the President other than a hard core 12-24 in the House and I'm not sure there are any in the Senate. They are going to figure out a way to kick Trump out after this term one way or another. The Republican nominee for President and odds on favorite to win given the economy will be.................................wait for it..............................................................Nikki Haley!!!!!! First woman President. You can book mark this and see if I'm correct.Alan G., you mean we won't hear from you until Nov 2020? No. There's too much that's going to happen before then to keep you in here. :)
Have fun continuing this "dialogue." Ich habe genug.
I've wasted too many bytes in offering replies to this thread. Here is my parting prediction. Nancy Pelosi is too clever for the President and she will carefully read the tea leaves before deciding to move ahead with an impeachment vote. The rank and file Republican legislators really don't like the President other than a hard core 12-24 in the House and I'm not sure there are any in the Senate. They are going to figure out a way to kick Trump out after this term one way or another. The Republican nominee for President and odds on favorite to win given the economy will be.................................wait for it..............................................................Nikki Haley!!!!!! First woman President. You can book mark this and see if I'm correct.
Have fun continuing this "dialogue." Ich habe genug.
Being involved is not the same as being given fair treatment.
As Alan said, it is a farce. Schiff is not allowing wintnesses to be called by the Republicans, including the whistle blower whom Schiff was very excited about having testify before it came to light that his staff met with him 18 days before filing the report. Additionally, Schiff has been coaching witnesses and censoring Republican questions.
It is not a fair process by any stretch.
The other Alan is right though on his opinion of it not being the actual trial. If it gets that far, which I doubt it will since it will coming crashing down on the Dems, Republicans will be given a fair trial. However, I doubt it reaches that far. In order to prove it is an impeachable offense, they need to prove intent to that it was for the 2020 election, not the continuing 2016 election corruption investigation, which will be impossible to do. So if it goes to the Senate, Trump wins and comes out strong, then the Dems loose.
With this, it is hit or miss what happens. However, with all of the moderates coming into the race in the Dems, and Biden's candidacy shot, Warren looks like the winner, and then the looser. In recent polling by the NYTs, she looses in all of the swing states to Trump, even with the impeachment noise.
All the Dems had to do was not go crazy, and on a local level that is what they did and won, but on the national level they have totally lost their minds.
The process is following the rules set forth by Republicans for such cases. No more, no less. At least we have now cleared the lies that Republicans were not involved. We are progressing towards an objective understanding of the situation. ;)Bernard, any person over 13 years old realizes that the Biden's look like they were on the take. Getting $50,000 a month for a no-show job smells fishy. It warranted an investigation. His supporters are going to fade away. Apparently Bloomberg came to that conclusion and decided to run in Biden's stead. And now another person is stepping up to the plate to take Biden;s place as well as the liberal/centrist, Deval Patrick, former governor of Massachusetts. Like I said, Biden's toast. I suspect that Democrat bigwigs behind the scene have approached Patrick to urge him to run seeing no way they can win with Biden.
The expectation that it should be "fair" is misleading if "fair" means that Republicans should be allowed to accuse Democrats not currently in office of whatever they feel like accusing them of (including getting to testify on unrelated matter to spread misinformation). The expectation for symmetry is not aligned with the nature of the situation at hand. Previous impeachment processes were no more symmetric, and rightfully so.
Why so? Because the focus of this process is the current President of the US, nothing else. Your logic is circular in that it uses a political ploy as an hypothesis to drive the conclusion that it's a political ploy. The snake is biting its own tail.
Per this wicked logic, a raper should be allowed to accuse his victim of stealing a short dress that made her appealing... whether she did it or not (she in fact bought the dress). And they both should be given equal rights.
As far as Democrats going crazy, let me turn this the other way around. I find it crazy that Republicans senators support a clear violation of the constitution by a Republican President. This is partisanship at its worse where politics take precedence about the constitution. Democrats did their job, the whistle blower (whether he is Republican or not) did his job. The Republicans senators aren't doing their at all.
Cheers,
Bernard
Let me modify my last post. Words added in bold at end of sentence: "... I suspect that Democrat bigwigs behind the scene have approached Patrick to urge him to run seeing no way they can win with Biden...,Warren, Sanders, Buttgieg and all other current nominees."
Alan,Les, I was aware and usually use Modify to correct spelling and other grammatical errors. But since I was adding something of substance, I thought it better to add another post. The original post is only mailed out once, I believe. Modified posts are not mailed a second time. So if people are reading only their emails, they would miss this kind of a change. Thanks.
do you know that you can modify your existing post directly? (without adding a new post). Use the Modify option (just above your original post on the right side). In situations like this, it's easier to have all the information in one post, rather than trying to combine it mentally from two different places.
Bernard, any person over 13 years old realizes that the Biden's look like they were on the take. Getting $50,000 a month for a no-show job smells fishy. It warranted an investigation. His supporters are going to fade away. Apparently Bloomberg came to that conclusion and decided to run in Biden's stead. And now another person is stepping up to the plate to take Biden;s place as well as the liberal/centrist, Deval Patrick, former governor of Massachusetts. Like I said, Biden's toast. I suspect that Democrat bigwigs behind the scene have approached Patrick to urge him to run seeing no way they can win with Biden.
PS What are you doing up so late? I hope I'm not keep you from getting some sleep. :)No, I was just going for my midnight walk. Fresh snow, crunching under your feet, feels like early Christmas.
The process is following the rules set forth by Republicans for such cases. No more, no less. At least we have now cleared the lies that Republicans were not involved. We are progressing towards an objective understanding of the situation. ;)
The expectation that it should be "fair" is misleading if "fair" means that Republicans should be allowed to accuse Democrats not currently in office of whatever they feel like accusing them of (including getting to testify on unrelated matter to spread misinformation). The expectation for symmetry is not aligned with the nature of the situation at hand. Previous impeachment processes were no more symmetric, and rightfully so.
Why so? Because the focus of this process is the current President of the US, nothing else. Your logic is circular in that it uses a political ploy as an hypothesis to drive the conclusion that it's a political ploy. The snake is biting its own tail.
Per this wicked logic, a raper should be allowed to accuse his victim of stealing a short dress that made her appealing... whether she did it or not (she in fact bought the dress). And they both should be given equal rights.
As far as Democrats going crazy, let me turn this the other way around. I find it crazy that Republicans senators support a clear violation of the constitution by a Republican President. This is partisanship at its worse where politics take precedence about the constitution. Democrats did their job, the whistle blower (whether he is Republican or not) did his job. The Republicans senators aren't doing their at all.
Frankly, Trump might have been better off leaving things as they were as it may have been easier to run against a confused Biden than someone who has all their faculties.
You got to love it when foreigners want so desperately to impeach the President of the United States.
You got to love it when foreigners want so desperately to impeach the President of the United States.
It's a pretty harmless sport.
The process is following the rules set forth by Republicans for such cases. No more, no less. At least we have now cleared the lies that Republicans were not involved. We are progressing towards an objective understanding of the situation. ;)
The expectation that it should be "fair" is misleading if "fair" means that Republicans should be allowed to accuse Democrats not currently in office of whatever they feel like accusing them of (including getting to testify on unrelated matter to spread misinformation). The expectation for symmetry is not aligned with the nature of the situation at hand. Previous impeachment processes were no more symmetric, and rightfully so.
Why so? Because the focus of this process is the current President of the US, nothing else. Your logic is circular in that it uses a political ploy as an hypothesis to drive the conclusion that it's a political ploy. The snake is biting its own tail.
Per this wicked logic, a raper should be allowed to accuse his victim of stealing a short dress that made her appealing... whether she did it or not (she in fact bought the dress). And they both should be given equal rights.
As far as Democrats going crazy, let me turn this the other way around. I find it crazy that Republicans senators support a clear violation of the constitution by a Republican President. This is partisanship at its worse where politics take precedence about the constitution. Democrats did their job, the whistle blower (whether he is Republican or not) did his job. The Republicans senators aren't doing their at all.
Cheers,
Bernard
Huh? Only Congres plus the Senate can impeach the US president.
I've wasted too many bytes in offering replies to this thread. Here is my parting prediction. Nancy Pelosi is too clever for the President and she will carefully read the tea leaves before deciding to move ahead with an impeachment vote. The rank and file Republican legislators really don't like the President other than a hard core 12-24 in the House and I'm not sure there are any in the Senate. They are going to figure out a way to kick Trump out after this term one way or another. The Republican nominee for President and odds on favorite to win given the economy will be.................................wait for it..............................................................Nikki Haley!!!!!! First woman President. You can book mark this and see if I'm correct.
Have fun continuing this "dialogue." Ich habe genug.
2020 winning ticket: Trump-Haley.
You got to love it when foreigners want so desperately to impeach the President of the United States.
You've got to love it when the only answer left is to categorize your interlocutor as a foreigner...It seems strange to me as well that foreigners get so involved as if they live here. What difference does it make to you if our president builds a wall, doesn;t build a wall? raises taxes, doesn;t raise taxes? Asks Ukraine to investigate? Doesn't ask Ukraine to investigate? To argue so vociferously for his impeachment seems over the top even for Democrats. But foreigners? Don't you have better things to do?
Cheers,
Bernard
It seems strange to me as well that foreigners get so involved as if they live here. What difference does it make to you if our president builds a wall, doesn;t build a wall? raises taxes, doesn;t raise taxes? Asks Ukraine to investigate? Doesn't ask Ukraine to investigate? To argue so vociferously for his impeachment seems over the top even for Democrats. But foreigners? Don't you have better things to do?If the USA would be dominant in the world as the Jamestown, we would not be so interested;
It seems strange to me as well that foreigners get so involved as if they live here.
If the USA would be dominant in the world as the Jamestown, we would not be so interested;
However this president reversed a lot of treaties that were only some years old and that effect us and many other countries, making the US not trustworthy.
So your interest in impeaching the president is not to help Americans or America but to help your own country and your own people. That I can understand. Thanks for your honesty.
It's really frustrating when my fellow countrymen insist on acting like international relations are a zero-sum game. My apologies to my friends in the EU, Central, and South America, and beyond. :-[
It's really frustrating when my fellow countrymen insist on acting like international relations are a zero-sum game. My apologies to my friends in the EU, Central, and South America, and beyond. :-[The problem with a lot of Americans, they think because foreigners say they don't like Trump, that they are also on America's side and not their own country's side. I don't fault them for what they say. I would expect nothing less for a patriot to support his own country's interest. But don't be fooled as everyone supports their own interests.
...making the US not trustworthy...
If the USA would be dominant in the world as the Jamestown, we would not be so interested;The Netherlands isn't trustworthy. Your country promised to spend 2% of your GDP on defense. You're only spending 1.35% in 2018. Why should Americans spend our social funding on defending your country? Why don;t you keep your word. That's what friends do.
However this president reversed a lot of treaties that were only some years old and that effect us and many other countries, making the US not trustworthy.
It seems strange to me as well that foreigners get so involved as if they live here. What difference does it make to you if our president builds a wall, doesn;t build a wall? raises taxes, doesn;t raise taxes? Asks Ukraine to investigate? Doesn't ask Ukraine to investigate? To argue so vociferously for his impeachment seems over the top even for Democrats. But foreigners? Don't you have better things to do?
It's an international web site and the topic was started so people joined in. If you don't want to hear the opinions of non-Americans, you're in the wrong forum.They can say what they like as can I. I'm cautioning Americans to take what they say with a grain of salt.
Is the final impeachment vote (in the Senate, is it?) a secret ballot?How could you prove what the results were if it's secret? I suppose that Democrat Nancy Pelosi can say there were enough votes to impeach by taking an oral vote. "All in favor say "aye". Etc. Then say there were enough votes.
How could you prove what the results were if it's secret?
Is the final impeachment vote (in the Senate, is it?) a secret ballot?
On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and nays shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately; and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered; but if the person impeached shall be convicted upon any such article by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, the Senate shall proceed to the consideration of such other matters as may be determined to be appropriate prior to pronouncing judgment. Upon pronouncing judgement, a certified copy of such judgment shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State. A motion to reconsider the vote by which any article of impeachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order.
— Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials, XXIII (https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf)
No, it is public, with each senator's vote ("yea" or "nay") separately recorded.QuoteOn the final question whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and nays shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately; and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered; but if the person impeached shall be convicted upon any such article by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, the Senate shall proceed to the consideration of such other matters as may be determined to be appropriate prior to pronouncing judgment. Upon pronouncing judgement, a certified copy of such judgment shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State. A motion to reconsider the vote by which any article of impeachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order.
— Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials, XXIII (https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf)
CHris, I only skimmed the rules. Could the Senate, theoretically, change their own rules and allow a secret vote?
More importantly, I didn't see very much the the Chief Justice does. It seems that the presiding officer (who's that, McConnell), pretty much can set a lot of the rules as to who is called to testify, especially since the Republican have a majority. Is this correct or am I misreading the rules?
An example of Democrats colluding with foreigners ;)
I didn't see very much the the Chief Justice does. It seems that the presiding officer (who's that, McConnell), pretty much can set a lot of the rules as to who is called to testify, especially since the Republican have a majority. Is this correct or am I misreading the rules?
The chief justice serves as the presiding officer of the Senate during the impeachment of a president or vice president. The presiding officer makes decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132282.msg1138552#msg1138552), although the senators may vote to overturn those decisions.So if the CHief Justice rules that calling Hunter Biden is not acceptable, then the Republican led Senate could overrule him and demand that he be called to testify?
Is the final impeachment vote (in the Senate, is it?) a secret ballot?
It would take just three Republican senators to turn the impeachment vote into a secret ballot. It’s not hard to imagine what would happen then.
In speaking about the initiative on Tuesday, Trump told the crowd that hundreds of private sector employers were providing “over 14 million skills and career training opportunities for U.S. workers.” He then called himself “very proud” of Ivanka’s role.
“She wants to make these people have great lives,” Trump said. “When she started this two and a half years ago, her goal was 500,000 jobs.”
Linking her efforts to private sector job creation, Trump added that “she’s now created 14 million jobs. And they are being trained by these companies. The greatest companies in the world. Because the government can’t train them,” he added.
The White House’s website states that 5.3 million jobs were created between Trump’s election and his second State of the Union address, a figure consistent with official jobs data.
Pete Buttigieg has pulled to the top of the pack of Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa for the first time after drawing increased support from nearly every demographic group, according to a Monmouth University poll released on Tuesday.
Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, leapfrogged past former Vice President Joe Biden since Monmouth’s Iowa poll in August to lead in the state that will in February host the first nominating contest. Buttigieg gained 14 percentage points during that time and now has support from about 22% of likely Democratic caucusgoers. During the same time period, Biden dropped 7 points to 19% support; U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts dropped 2 points to 18% support; and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont gained 5 points, with 13% support, according to the poll.
It isn't but it can be. That's a not-so-secret hope of Democrats.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911
. . . unless someone could be impeached for gross exaggerations.
Buttigieg on the roll. Winning in Iowa polls with 22% support.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-iowa/buttigieg-rises-in-iowa-to-lead-democratic-white-house-pack-poll-idUSKBN1XM2GZ
As much as I really want Warren to win, since that pretty much ensures a republican victory, I think she blew it with the release of her medicare for all plan and not to mention she is a loathsome off-putting person who happens to be a big liar.
Annnnnnnnnnnd...... yet, you vote for Trump.
D Fuller,
Although I read these forums quite regularly, I don't post much anymore, but I just had to come back to say, your most recent post/response is about the funniest thing I have read in awhile. Just about spit out a mouth full of water I happened to be drinking. Priceless.
And on a more somber note, a bit disappointed I was not taken to a bunch of photos of airstream trailers when I clicked your link......
Marv
Back to photography:
If you want to take your mind off the daily impeachment news cycle and all the endless details that you'll forget by next Tuesday, here's an interesting read for you: The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis. It's largely about the transition in governance during Trump's first year in the various US government departments. It's clarifying to take your mind away from the Twitter nonsense and all the pseudo-legal political mumbo-jumbo going on at the moment and instead focus on actual real-world problems.Let me guess. It's anti-Trump.
Let me guess. It's anti-Trump.
One day I'm going to write a pro-Trump book and tell of the time he once helped an old lady cross the street. It'll be rather short. I wonder if anyone will believe me?
Well, why don't you read it and find out. Are you worried that you might find something out you don't like or don't want to know?I already read segments and the reviews. It's totally anti-Trump. It's bad enough people here want me to read short anti-Trump articles. Now you want me to read a whole book. I'd rather blow my brains out than waste time like that. :) (Can't wait for the people who are on the moderator's "take a time out break" list come back and have something to say about my comment.) :)
In all seriousness, I don't care if you read it or not. This is public discussion forum and I came across something that I thought people might find a lot more interesting than day-to-day political minutia. The post was not directed at you. I gather from your tone that you've already made your mind up about it anyway, without knowing its contents, as per usual, and I'd hate to ruin your worldview.
So no Alan, don't read it. Please don't read it. Don't get a free copy from the library and don't read any reviews. Stay away from it, please. :)
I don't think anyone ever said that he wasn't nice to old ladies. People are mostly concerned that he's incompetent at his job. I'm sure he's good at something. :)
- Destroyed ISIS, Killed al Baghdadi
- Stock market at its highest ever.
- Rebuilding military
- Lowest unemployment rate ever for blacks, Latinos and everyone else.
- Got Europe to increase their defense spending
- Reduced many regulations crushing businesses
- Improved America trade advantages with Mexico and Canada and others
- Working On improving them with China
- Stopped North Korea from testing nukes and ICBM's.
- Got us out of Paris Accord
- Got us out of Iran agreement
- Help American fossil fuel industries
- Building Mexico wall
- Got new tax bill to reduce taxes and expand business
- Annoying Democrats and making them neurotic :)
- Destroyed ISIS, Killed al Baghdadi
- Stock market at its highest ever.
- Rebuilding military
- Lowest unemployment rate ever for blacks, Latinos and everyone else.
- Got Europe to increase their defense spending
- Reduced many regulations crushing businesses
- Improved America trade advantages with Mexico and Canada and others
- Working On improving them with China
- Stopped North Korea from testing nukes and ICBM's.
- Got us out of Paris Accord
- Got us out of Iran agreement
- Help American fossil fuel industries
- Building Mexico wall
- Got new tax bill to reduce taxes and expand business
- Annoying Democrats and making them neurotic :)
This unrelated to this presidency
- Destroyed ISIS, Killed al Baghdadi
- Stock market at its highest ever.
- Lowest unemployment rate ever for blacks, Latinos and everyone else.
There is nothing to rebuilt;
- Rebuilding military
Are you serious? the opposite is true
- Stopped North Korea from testing nukes and ICBM's.
All bad decisions
- Got us out of Paris Accord
- Got us out of Iran agreement
- Help American fossil fuel industries
- Building Mexico wall
Is there a Trump troll resource site where you can copy/paste this stuff on demand? Instead of repeating yourself, just give us the link. :)First off I didn't tread the book just a summary. I'm sure there were plenty of transition problems. There always are since first term presidents never were presidents before. In Trump's case he never was a politician before, knew none of the niceties, (Still doesn't and doesn;t care). He had no connection to Washington DC and even the Republicans were ticked off that an outsider won. But he was voted in as a disruptor. People were tired of the "same old, same old". They wanted him "drain the swamp". Clear out the old brush that had grown stale following their own ways of doing stuff to make themselves more powerful and rich. The fact he ignored the intelligentsia and traditional DC insiders and procedures are what his supporters wanted and want. It's like what Canon owners say about Nikon Cameras and vice versa. They're screwed up, don;t work right and no one should buy them. :) Oh, and by the way, have you seen their menus?
But going back to that Michael Lewis book, are you saying that you think the transition went well? Do you think Lewis made it all up?
1. ISIS is not destroyed, and most of the damage to them was done by the Kurds, whom we have since abandoned. And Baghdadi was killed by our military with intelligence from the Kurds, not by the bone spur boy
2. Trump has nothing to do with the stock market, which started going up in 2010 under Obama.
3. Rebuilding how? By taking money from the military for his asinine wall.
4. Again, nothing to do with Trump, unemployment has been going down since—you guessed it—2010 under Obama.
5. True, but the world needs less defense spending, not more.
6. As the economy under Obama showed, business was doing just great with all these nasty regulations. And most of the regulations Trump removed were in place to protect the environment, workers, and consumers.
7. The new agreement with Canada and Mexico is essentially identical to the old one, so big whoop.
8. To the detriment of American farmers, workers, and consumers and 0 results to show.
9. According to Foreign Policy magazine, “Trump’s growing impulsiveness and unilateral decision-making may signal to Kim that he can get precisely what he wants.” So Kim is doing what’s best for him and The Orange One is taking credit.
10. Stupidest thing ever. No one with the wits of an oyster doubts anthropogenic climate change any more.
11. Second stupidest thing ever. Essentially every nuclear weapons expert agreed that this was a good agreement that would reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation, and without the agreement Iran has resumed work toward a bomb. Thanks, Donny, Iran is going to get the bomb.
12. Why? Dumb as dirt. Fossil fuels need to fade into history, the sooner the better.
13. The wall? Gimme a break. Why this hatred of the immigrants? And does Trump not know that the Central Americans have ladders and shovels?
14. What nonsense. Trump added $1.5 trillion to our debt and ladled it out almost entirely to the wealthy and businesses. And businesses, who in theory were going to use it for investment and hiring, instead spent most of it on stock buybacks, which further enrich stockholders.
15. You got me here—Trump is certainly good at this.
This unrelated to this presidencyWell, if you don;t like his policies, then you can vote him out of office next year. Oh wait. You're not an American and can't vote. ???
There is nothing to rebuilt;
The US already spends more than the sum of the second nine most spending countries in the world.
they should spend money on more sensible things;
I agree it employs a lot of people and it fuels a lot of wars in the world that keep that industry going strong.
Are you serious? the opposite is true
All bad decisions
Iran is starting to get their nukes because of this and only a total Middle East War can prevent that.
After that trump will visit Iran as he did with North Korea...
The fossil fuels are from the 20 century- It is thanks to the progressive states like California that the US will not miss the boat.
Fracking the soil contaminates it and may pollute groundwater for decennia.
there is no wall - a few Miles only and it will not help against immigration...
It will be just an ugly reminder of the the Trump era.
Walls did not help the Warschau pact...
1. ISIS is not destroyed, and most of the damage to them was done by the Kurds...
... 14. What nonsense. Trump added $1.5 trillion to our debt and ladled it out almost entirely to the wealthy and businesses. And businesses, who in theory were going to use it for investment and hiring, instead spent most of it on stock buybacks, which further enrich stockholders...
Well, if you don;t like his policies, then you can vote him out of office next year. Oh wait. You're not an American and can't vote. ???After 'Grab them by the pussy' Only the US would vote for man...
After 'Grab them by the pussy' Only the US would vote for man...
Quote from: kers on Today at 11:57:50 am
After 'Grab them by the pussy' Only the US would vote for man...
And the rest of the world doesn't do that? How do you think the humanity is created?I can't imagine Pete Buttigieg doing that. Not even Mike Pence.
I can't imagine Pete Buttigieg doing that. Not even Mike Pence.
I can't imagine Pete Buttigieg doing that. Not even Mike Pence.Mike Pence is so afraid that he will do it that he won't have a one-on-one meeting with a woman unless his wife is present. The Billy Graham rule.
I'm sure there were plenty of transition problems.
And the rest of the world doesn't do that? How do you think the humanity is created?
... And here I thought that the dinosaurs were extinct.
And the rest of the world doesn't do that? How do you think the humanity is created?I guess we think different on this topic...
After 'Grab them by the pussy' Only the US would vote for man...President Obama used his power over the Internal Revenue Service to go after and silence his political opponents before the 2012 re-election campaign. The IRS can destroy people and organizations financially and even send them to jail. You couldn't vote in that election either, but I don't recall any complaints about that constitutional violation from you. Did you call for Obama's impeachment? There was deafening silence from your side.
No, we cannot vote but still he influences a lot around here for the bad.
If this man is not impeached the US constitution does not work properly.
He simply mis-used his Presidential power, as a tool to dirt his opponent for the next election.
After 'Grab them by the pussy' Only the US would vote for man...
I guess we think different on this topic...
You my friend need to do some research into the former prime minister of Italy.
Top 25 Quotes By Silvio Berlusconi Quotes (https://www.azquotes.com/author/19693-Silvio_Berlusconi)
Joe, I just can't believe he said that. Did you really hear him say it or did someone tell you he said it? :)
There is an audio clip of him actually saying that! Really, you can look it up, it may even be a video clip.Well, democrats must feel that impeachment of a president falls into that hearsay category? Now Pelosi wants to accuse him of bribery. I guess she figures high crimes and misdemeanors are too "loosy goosy" to convince the skeptical public. But bribery is one of the words mentioned in the constitution regarding impeachment.
PS
Just looked it up, and yes it is a video clip of him saying this during the actual hearing. Obviously he realizes that the entire testimony was nothing by hearsay (and not to mention most of it was hearsay of hearsay with some being hearsay of hearsay of hearsay) and is trying to make the excuse that in certain instances hearsay is allowed by the courts, so all this testimony should matter here and have weight.
However, what he failed to note was that there are very few instances where hearsay is allowed. The only two I found was dying declarations given to police officers and when a party is providing hearsay evidence against itself but the witness needs to be a member of that party. None of what the Dems presented even come close to meeting these qualifications.
The more I read this thread, the more I feel that some here - that I assume are honestly thinking what they are writing - are being held hostage by a logical fallacy.
This fallacy is the belief that the truth necessarily falls in the middle of extremes.
By far the best example is the belief that the vast majority of media are anti-Trump because they report negative news about Trump (not the other way around...).
This relies on the belief that if media were fair, they would average be 50% for Trump and 50% anti-Trump. But... this a priori rules out the possibility that Trump may be less than 50% good.
So the claim that media in the US are overall leaning to the left is simply the result of lack of objectivity about who Trump is and what he does.
The media is not objective because it doesn't agree with your own imbalanced view of what Trump is.
In other words, due to this logical fallacy, media can only be assessed as being to the left if they report objectively about Trump... :)
There are many other examples here. When sports papers report time and again that Roger Federer is a better tennis player than Jack Socks, nobody calls them anti-American... but according to the logic complaining that media leans to the left, sports papers should split 50-50% between those thinking that Federed is better vs those thinking that Jack Socks is better.
Similarly, media should have shared opinions about the size of the US vs the size of Belgium. If more than 50% of media think the US is the larger country, that must mean they are anti-Belgian. And... they all keep writing that the US is larger... I am revolted by the degree of racism against Belgium!
I wonder why this isn't the case...
Cheers,
Bernard
However, what he failed to note was that there are very few instances where hearsay is allowed. The only two I found was dying declarations given to police officers and when a party is providing hearsay evidence against itself but the witness needs to be a member of that party. None of what the Dems presented even come close to meeting these qualifications.There are twenty three exceptions to the hearsay rule. Google will find them for you. And impeachment hearings are not governed by the federal rules of evidence. Many of the individuals with first hand knowledge are ignoring subpeonas at Trump's insistence. Does anyone disbelieve the so-called hearsay testimony?
This relies on the belief that if media were fair, they would average be 50% for Trump and 50% anti-Trump. But... this a priori rules out the possibility that Trump may be less than 50% good.
So the claim that media in the US are overall leaning to the left is simply the result of lack of objectivity about who Trump is and what he does.
The media is not objective because it doesn't agree with your own imbalanced view of what Trump is.
In other words, due to this logical fallacy, media can only be assessed as being to the left if they report objectively about Tru
There are twenty three exceptions to the hearsay rule. Google will find them for you. And impeachment hearings are not governed by the federal rules of evidence. Many of the individuals with first hand knowledge are ignoring subpeonas at Trump's insistence. Does anyone disbelieve the so-called hearsay testimony?
The more I read this thread, the more I feel that some here - that I assume are honestly thinking what they are writing - are being held hostage by a logical fallacy.
This fallacy is the belief that the truth necessarily falls in the middle of extremes.
By far the best example is the belief that the vast majority of media are anti-Trump because they report negative news about Trump (not the other way around...).
This relies on the belief that if media were fair, they would average be 50% for Trump and 50% anti-Trump. But... this a priori rules out the possibility that Trump may be less than 50% good.
So the claim that media in the US are overall leaning to the left is simply the result of lack of objectivity about who Trump is and what he does.
The media is not objective because it doesn't agree with your own imbalanced view of what Trump is.
In other words, due to this logical fallacy, media can only be assessed as being to the left if they report objectively about Trump... :)
There are many other examples here. When sports papers report time and again that Roger Federer is a better tennis player than Jack Socks, nobody calls them anti-American... but according to the logic complaining that media leans to the left, sports papers should split 50-50% between those thinking that Federed is better vs those thinking that Jack Socks is better.
Similarly, media should have shared opinions about the size of the US vs the size of Belgium. If more than 50% of media think the US is the larger country, that must mean they are anti-Belgian. And... they all keep writing that the US is larger... I am revolted by the degree of racism against Belgium!
I wonder why this isn't the case...
Cheers,
Bernard
. . . there are very few instances where hearsay is allowed.
Come on now Bernard.
First, the case is weak at best. The Dems have not provided any testimony that with direct evidence. It is all hearsay of hearsay and conjecture on the part of those testifying.
On top of that, the witnesses have provided information that helps Trump. Kent yesterday noted theories that Trump wanted investigated that had nothing to do with the Bidens and everything to do with 2016. Admirably, a couple of them are conspiracy theories with no evidence to back them up, but Trump wanted them investigated. He gave credence to these even if the evidence was very questionable, the same thing you are claiming about with any evidence for the Bidens. These investigations got all lumped together, implying intent was about 2016 corruption, not for 2020.
On top of that, the witnesses also implied that Giuliani was getting bad information, and then feeding it to Trump, from two nefarious individuals that had an ax to grind. Once again, Trump acting on bad information is not impeachable. It may be ignorant, especially on Giuliani's part, but not impeachable.
Last, even some of the Dem's witnesses had call for, during these hearings, further investigation into Burisma itself.
For all intents and purposes, the intent appears to be investigating 2016 election corruption that Trump thought Biden could be a part of.
Unless either Giuliani or Bolton or Mulvaney testify that Trump's intent was for help in the 2020 election, the Dems have nothing.
Lets also not forget all of the lies the Dems are spreading around with the biggest one being that Schiff claims he does not know the name of the whistle blower, while at the same time threatening that if you say his name during the hearings he will shut you done. LOL. That in itself destroys his credibility.
"Oh yes, my staff met with the whistle blower, but I refused to be in the room and covered my ears whenever his name was spoken." Sure. ;D (FYI, this quotation was a parody; I'll admit to it before I am called out on it, unlike Schiff. Thankfully I'm not under oath.)
Comon now, how naive do you need to be to think that Trump would, at this point in time, devote such an amount of energy himself to investigate something that happened 3 years ago for any reason but to use this information against Biden for the 2020 elections?
Cheers,
Bernard
Comon now, how naive do you need to be to think that Trump would, at this point in time, devote such an amount of energy himself to investigate something that happened 3 years ago for any reason but to use this information against Biden for the 2020 elections?
Indeed, and in addition, why didn't he mention the issue of "corruption" but instead asked for making a public statement about an investigation into the Bidens? And why the bribery, witholding Congress appoved funds for Military aid (in the interest of the USA). Bribery is an impeachable offense in the Constitution, and jeopardising the (military) safety of the USA by witholding funds for defense to an advanced post that's in a battle with Russia (people die almost every day in that combat zone). And why the bypassing of Congressional oversight by Giuliani as instructed by Trump. And why the hiding of the phone transcript in the first place, on a server that's only used for the highest confidentiality class of documents. And why the instructions to witnesses to not cooperate (=obstruction of justice).
The case for impeachment is getting stronger with each action trying to frustrate the legal process. And the public hearings have only just started.
He was trying to clear his name against the accusation that he won due to election interference.
And how much energy did he really donate? Apparently not that much. We are talking about a few conversations in which he flirted with withholding aid but ultimately gave in and sent the aid even though none of the investigations where commenced.
Who cares, he won the electoral college vote.
The fact that he failed, doesn't excuse the effort. The attempted bribery is an impeachable offense on it's own.
Secondly, are you saying that people should not be concerned about their legacy? People should not be concerned about clearing their names?
Secondly, are you saying that people should not be concerned about their legacy? People should not be concerned about clearing their names?What does investigating the Biden's have to do with clearing his name?
What does investigating the Biden's have to do with clearing his name?
Comon now, how naive do you need to be to think that Trump would, at this point in time, devote such an amount of energy himself to investigate something that happened 3 years ago for any reason but to use this information against Biden for the 2020 elections?The whole collusion investigation against TRump was to politically damage him for the 2018 election when democrats re-took the house of representatives because of their and the press's smear campaign. The whole impeachment thing is about the same for the 2020 elections. It's all about smearing him. Yet, I don't see you objecting to democrats doing all of this for political reasons. To argue they're doing it for some noble constitutional reason is about as believable as Trump's reason for investigating the Biden's. It's political hijinks on both sides. But as long as they're some nexus to possible illegality, in both situations, then calling for and having investigations are legal, despite the fact they is political fallout. That's American politics. But we don;t impeach for it.
Cheers,
Bernard
Who cares, he won the electoral college vote.You're spouting Pelosi's nonsense. There was no bribery. You're slandering our president.
The fact that he failed, doesn't excuse the effort. The attempted bribery is an impeachable offense on it's own.
There was no bribery.
Please show the exact Bribery statue he violated . . .
Presumably what Nancy Pelosi and several other members of Congress are referring to is 18 USC §201 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201). While this statute establishes that a crime is committed when "a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for . . . being influenced in the performance of any official act," employing it in an article of impeachment against President Trump strikes me as questionable for two reasons. First, although I can't be certain, my impression is that although solicitation alone technically is sufficient, prosecutions typically are initiated under this statute only when the official has already accepted something of value or was apprehended in the act of accepting it.
Rod Blagojevich[1][2][3] (/bləˈɡɔɪ.əvɪtʃ/, born December 10, 1956) is an American politician who served as the 40th Governor of Illinois from 2003 until his impeachment, conviction, and removal from office in 2009.
A Democrat, Blagojevich was a state representative before being elected to the United States House of Representatives representing parts of Chicago. He was elected governor in 2002, the first Democrat to win the office since Dan Walker's victory 30 years earlier and won reelection to a second term in 2006.[4] Blagojevich was impeached and removed from office for corruption; he solicited bribes for political appointments, including Barack Obama's vacant U.S. Senate seat after Obama was elected president in 2008. Blagojevich was convicted and sentenced to 14 years in federal prison.
Second, demonstrating that the Ukrainian government was prepared to accede to a demand to make a public statement about investigating the Bidens would put that government in precisely the position it has been trying to avoid—in the middle of a U.S. political dispute—which would be undesirable from a policy perspective.
If the members of Congress favoring impeachment feel they must charge a statutory violation to establish abuse of power with respect Trump's request to Ukrainian President Zelensky, 52 USC §30201 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121) would seem to be a more appropriate choice, since it explicitly applies to soliciting something of value from a foreign national and does not require evidence that the foreign national intended to accede to the request. Moreover, Trump's own words in the White House transcript of his July telephone conversation with Zelensky establish a prima facie case that he violated that law.
And, of course, any articles of impeachment may include the statutory crime of obstruction of justice, multiple instances of which were documented in Volume II of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report (https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf).
For three years we've been hearing how Trump's kids have taken advantage of their father's presidential position to advance Trump business interests. Yet, I haven't heard any similar complaints about Vice President Biden's son garnering a no-show job for $50K a month with a corrupt Ukrainian corporations (and Chinese also).
Presumably what Nancy Pelosi and several other members of Congress are referring to is 18 USC §201 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201). While this statute establishes that a crime is committed when "a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for . . . being influenced in the performance of any official act," employing it in an article of impeachment against President Trump strikes me as questionable for two reasons. First, although I can't be certain, my impression is that although solicitation alone technically is sufficient, prosecutions typically are initiated under this statute only when the official has already accepted something of value or was apprehended in the act of accepting it. Second, demonstrating that the Ukrainian government was prepared to accede to a demand to make a public statement about investigating the Bidens would put that government in precisely the position it has been trying to avoid—in the middle of a U.S. political dispute—which would be undesirable from a policy perspective.So when Obama said on an open microphone to the Russian ambassador that he will go light on Russia after the election but has to show forcefulness now before the election, and that Russians should stay quiet during the election season, he could have been brought up on similar charges. So anytime a president says to a foreign leader it would be nice for him to say something nice about the president to help in with the public, the president could be accused of soliciting something of value.
If the members of Congress favoring impeachment feel they must charge a statutory violation to establish abuse of power with respect Trump's request to Ukrainian President Zelensky, 52 USC §30201 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121) would seem to be a more appropriate choice, since it explicitly applies to soliciting something of value from a foreign national and does not require evidence that the foreign national intended to accede to the request. Moreover, Trump's own words in the White House transcript of his July telephone conversation with Zelensky establish a prima facie case that he violated that law.
And, of course, any articles of impeachment may include the statutory crime of obstruction of justice, multiple instances of which were documented in Volume II of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report (https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf).
You may have a point but Biden's family didn't work for the White House.Doesn;t matter. If the Biden's solicited $50,000 a month "fee" and got a wink and a nod from the Vice President, than that would be a bride, exactly what Blagojevich went to jail for. Certainly something worthy of investigating.
You must be happier now that the impeachment proceedings have entered a new public phase and that deliberations are no longer being held behind closed doors.
... This relies on the belief that if media were fair, they would average be 50% for Trump and 50% anti-Trump. But... this a priori rules out the possibility that Trump may be less than 50% good...
Who cares, he won the electoral college vote.
The fact that he failed, doesn't excuse the effort. The attempted bribery is an impeachable offense on it's own.
This is why they suddenly changed terms and proves that it is nothing but political.
If I'm not mistaken, Rod Blagojevich was impeached and removed from office for corruption . . .
I don't think that it is correct to say that it "proves that is nothing but political". It just proves that they're using polling data to help decide on a strategy. On the surface it seems like a bizarre way to proceed, it's not clear to me what public opinion has to do with it....
This whole little diatribe rests on a false premise:
No, media will not be "fair" if 50% are pro-Trump and 50% are anti-Trump. To be objective, media should neither be pro, nor against Trump (or anyone else for that matter), but report the news matter-of-factly. And then let me, or you, or anyone else decide what we want to be: pro or against.
As for your "possibility that Trump may be less than 50% good"... that is circular reasoning - you first determine that he is not good, take that as granted and absolute truth, and then asses media based on that. Just another false premise.
Although I'm not an expert, I do doubt that. If I'm not mistaken, Rod Blagojevich was impeached and removed from office for corruption:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich)
Surely, Alan K. wouldn't want a different treatment for a Republican official.
But they managed to resist. It even took a (prepared by USA officials) statement to be read on CNN, which was cancelled just in time before the Fareed Zakaria interview was aired. So it was obviously not what President Zelensky wanted to do.
We'll have to see what the actual indictments will be.
Yes, that might be added but would not be enough by itself, and at the same time it has to be simple enough for the general public to understand.
Cheers,
Bart
Nor a Democrat. Remember it was a democrat, Hunter Biden who received $50K a month for doing nothing [...]
Please, cut the crap. What evidence do you have that Hunter Biden:Making such a naive statement and demand on me reduces your credibility to ZERO.
a. received $50k a month
b. for doing nothing.
Not answering those, will reduce your remaining credibility to ZERO.
Making such a naive statement and demand on me reduces your credibility to ZERO.
The government only has to believe there's corruption to open an investigation. That's how evidence is produced.
Clear. Your statements deserve no credibility whatsoever then. That even doesn't qualify you for an ignore list. That would be too much of an honor.Well in that case, I apologize for keeping you up so late in the Netherlands for no reason at all. What time is it there anyway?
Thanks for confirming though, it saves me some time having to point out how ludicrous the statements are each and every time and time again.
I don't think that it is correct to say that it "proves that is nothing but political". It just proves that they're using polling data to help decide on a strategy. On the surface it seems like a bizarre way to proceed, it's not clear to me what public opinion has to do with it. I doubt that most people understand the nuances of what's being discussed in the first place.
But as I've said before, I have no oar in this water. I couldn't care less if he's impeached or not. I think the better long-term strategy would have been to keep pointing out all the repulsive things he's done since taking office in the view of tossing him out at the next election. I would have made that priority 1, but other people are different ideas. Maybe their thinking was that if Trump was kept busy worrying about impeachment, it would distract him from doing other harm. :)
Well in that case, I apologize for keeping you up so late in the Netherlands for no reason at all. What time is it there anyway?
You make me yawn.Well, it's hard to be funny this late in the night. :o
I'm finishing a report on airpollution, and I needed a comic relief. Disappointed again.
Please, cut the crap. What evidence do you have that Hunter Biden:
a. received $50k a month
b. for doing nothing.
Not answering those, will reduce your remaining credibility to ZERO.
Take a chill pill, Bart. I know ignorance is bliss, but one can take that principle too far.
Media, congress, etc: Trump did X and it's illegal.The Bidens are corrupt so they should be investigated. That's not illegal. I thought you were opposed to corruption.
Trump: I didn't do X.
Media, congress, etc: Here's proof that you did it
Trump: OK I did it but it's not illegal or wrong.
Media, congress, etc: Here's proof that its wrong/illegal.
Trump: OK, so what. Witch hunt!!!
The Bidens are corrupt so they should be investigated. That's not illegal. I thought you were opposed to corruption.
The democrats will impeach regardless because they want to win the presidential election in 2020 and need to smear Trump because they got nothing else to run on or anyone except Biden who might win.
It appears as if Trump tried to use the power of the state to force someone (the guy in Ukraine) to help Trump in a personal political battle. He didn't try to use American muscle to accomplish a foreign policy objective or fix some trade problem or accomplish some national security objective, he did to enhance his own political fortune. He didn't do it for the country.Corruption in government is the concern of government. You can;t seem to see that there could be two operating contingencies working here. One, corruption of the VP and a foreign country that we need to prosecute and political fallout that benefits a politician. Politicians make all sorts of legal decisions with one eye on political fallout in their favor or against them for that matter. Obama pulled American troops out of Iraq in 2011 to help him win re-election knowing that he would create a vacuum for ISIS and cost thousands of more lives in extending the war that he could have avoided. You seem more concerned about $50,000 a month payoffs that the death of people. No one called for the prosecution of Obama as it was his prerogative to do what he did even though he did it with his eyes on the election.
What I cannot understand is why you don't think this is problem.
Trump's political aspirations ARE not the concern of the state. The USA is NOT Trump. You don't seem to be able to separate these concepts. Except I think you probably can but choose not to, or pretend not to. Explain to us how your behaviour is any different to that of a paid-for troll.
Only a paid-for-troll couldn't see that.
One thing seems certain: The predicted political backlash over impeachment that Democrats were frightened about will not be taking place. Republicans won't have an easy time employing the standard partisan witch hunt argument.
The case that House Democrats are making to the public about how Trump and his inner circle abused presidential power, skewed foreign policy for personal gain and then tried to hide and obstruct the investigation that followed the revelations is becoming overwhelming. The President himself keeps helping Democrats build their case through his tweets and public statements. His inclination to attack and seek to destroy might work in less frenzied times but now it registers differently in the middle of a formal investigation.
So, now it looks like the impeachment circus won't hurt the Democrats.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/16/opinions/democrats-backlash-impeachment-zelizer/index.html
It's an opinion piece.
Look at polling, those in the swing states are not for the impeachment hearings. It is in the swing states where it matters.
At February's physical exam, Trump weighed 243 pounds, four pounds more than the previous year's exam. His blood pressure was measured as 118/80, and results showed he had increased his daily dose of rosuvastatin, a medication used to treat high cholesterol, according to the exam results. The examination took "approximately four hours" and did not require any sedation or anesthesia, according to the President's physician, Dr. Sean Conley, who performed and supervised the exam. Last year's exam revealed that Trump has a common form of heart disease and high cholesterol.
Then-White House physician Dr. Ronny Jackson recommended that the President get on a diet, start exercising and set a goal of losing a dozen pounds, but sources told CNN in February that Trump had made only minor changes to his diet and exercise regimen since his 2018 exam. Jackson also revealed that Trump underwent a coronary calcium CT scan as part of his routine physical exam. Trump's score was recorded as 133, and Gupta noted at the time that anything over 100 indicates plaque is present and that the patient has heart disease.
1. When Democrats have to use focus groups just to figure out what to charge Trump with ;D
2. When everything else fails, they hope they’ll annoy him enough, so he’ll die from a heart attack before they lose another election ;D
1. When Democrats have to use focus groups just to figure out what to charge Trump with ;D
2. When everything else fails, they hope they’ll annoy him enough, so he’ll die from a heart attack before they lose another election ;D
But it could hurt Trump on another level. As recently reported, he underwent an unscheduled health exam on Saturday.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/16/politics/trump-annual-physical-walter-reed/index.html
Want a wall-related laugh? Although the laugh is ultimately on the taxpayers.Good thing that three years in they haven't actually built any of it.
1) Smugglers have shown that with a $100 reciprocating saw from Home Depot they can cut a hole in the wall fairly quickly.
2) It's been demonstrated that the wall can be scaled by someone as young as 8 in in 15 seconds.
3) Wall specs say it will be tunnel-resistant down to 6 feet. Six feet is nothing when these folks decide to dig a tunnel.
... 1) Smugglers have shown that with a $100 reciprocating saw from Home Depot they can cut a hole in the wall fairly quickly.
2) It's been demonstrated that the wall can be scaled by someone as young as 8 in in 15 seconds...
Want a wall-related laugh? Although the laugh is ultimately on the taxpayers.Well, if it cuts cross border crossing by 90%, than it's doing a good job. Frankly, I don't think we need a wall. All we have to do is arrest and jail a few employers. Then the job market for illegals would dry up overnight and they'd stay home. Cheaper and more efficient. Then we could issue one year job visas for enough migrant workers to handle any jobs we need them to take. Employers would have to sponsor and pick up health insurance for them so they don;t become a burden for the American taxpayer while they're here. Who could complain about this?
1) Smugglers have shown that with a $100 reciprocating saw from Home Depot they can cut a hole in the wall fairly quickly.
2) It's been demonstrated that the wall can be scaled by someone as young as 8 in in 15 seconds.
3) Wall specs say it will be tunnel-resistant down to 6 feet. Six feet is nothing when these folks decide to dig a tunnel.
Who could complain about this?Stephen Miller?
Another good reason to electrify the fence.
But it could hurt Trump on another level. As recently reported, he underwent an unscheduled health exam on Saturday.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/16/politics/trump-annual-physical-walter-reed/index.html
Americans, I have unbounded admiration for your doctors, who can undertake an examination lasting "approximately four hours" during a presidential visit which ended when "[a]fter a little more than two hours at Walter Reed, Trump returned to the White House". That's hard work at its best.Some of us have come to disbelieve anything coming out of the White House. Twelve thousand false or misleading statements and counting.
Another good reason to electrify the fence.
Well, if it cuts cross border crossing by 90%, than it's doing a good job. Frankly, I don't think we need a wall. All we have to do is arrest and jail a few employers. Then the job market for illegals would dry up overnight and they'd stay home. Cheaper and more efficient. Then we could issue one year job visas for enough migrant workers to handle any jobs we need them to take. Employers would have to sponsor and pick up health insurance for them so they don;t become a burden for the American taxpayer while they're here. Who could complain about this?
It's been shown many, many times that immigrants add more to the economy than they take. This "burden on the taxpayer" crap is just that, crap.
It's been shown many, many times that immigrants add more to the economy than they take. This "burden on the taxpayer" crap is just that, crap.Americans pay $200 billion annually in illegal immigration costs
All immigrants (including illegal aliens) or just legal immigrants? Not trying to wise, just asking.
I know with the latter, this is true, since legal immigrants tend to be more risk adverse. But if you are implying the former as well, please site sources.
If you were right, wouldn't this be a great case for turning illegal immigrants into legal ones?
Cheers,
Bernard
If you were right, wouldn't this be a great case for turning illegal immigrants into legal ones?
Interesting logic. Law abiding citizens are risk adverse too. Sounds like a great case to open prison doors and turn criminals into law abiding citizens.
Not necessarily. Legal immigrants do not break the law, which could imply a great sense of character.
This is why I asked for sources.
Article suggests that undocumented people may have a greater positive impact than “legal” immigrants in aggregate. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy).The cost to America figures are bogus. Where I live in New Jersey it costs $19,000 a year to educate a child in public school. MUltiply that by two, three or more kids and the cost is huge. You do the math. 65% of my property taxes are used to pay for public education for other family's children including illegals. It's similar in the county next to me where there is even a larger immigrant (and illegal) population. This is similar in many parts of the country. The article doesn;t explain the costs, but you can bet that it only covers direct payments and not incidental related expenses these families cost such as $19,000 per kid for education.
The cost to America figures are bogus. Where I live in New Jersey it costs $19,000 a year to educate a child in public school. MUltiply that by two, three or more kids and the cost is huge. You do the math. 65% of my property taxes are used to pay for public education for other family's children including illegals. It's similar in the county next to me where there is even a larger immigrant (and illegal) population. This is similar in many parts of the country. The article doesn;t explain the costs, but you can bet that it only covers direct payments and not incidental related expenses these families cost such as $19,000 per kid for education.
It's all about getting them legalized so they can vote because most vote Democrat. It's about getting power to the Democratic party. So you get article after phony article how illegals don;t cost the country anything. It's just not true. It's a Democrat political campaign to convince the America public to legalize the illegals.
Why do people worry if undocumented workers don't pay taxes (assuming that's true) but they're ok for the government to hand over billions to Big Corn or provide tax concessions to Amazon warehouses while Amazon pays little corporate tax?I don;t agree that big corn should get handouts if they do. But one thing has nothing to do with the other. Why should American citizens support foreigners who are here illegally? Additionally, they force wage rates downs and take jobs away from American citizens who are poor and at the lower end of the pay scale. How is that fair to these people? Don't you care about poor Americans? Well, you are Canadian, so I suppose not. Maybe we should send our illegals to Canada so you can support them up there. :)
If anything, undocumented workers fit onto the current scene quite well. Since the objective is to crush unions and pound down wages, it's handy having people around that you don't have to pay decent wages to or provide many benefits for. Saves companies lots of money and helps to increase profits. I wonder if Trump hotels ever use undocumented workers. Just sayin'. :)
... every single public testimony so far has confirmed in minute details ...
Isn't it amusing that all of a sudden the discussions in this thread aren't focused on impeachment anymore... :)
But to cut a long story short, every single public testimony so far has confirmed in minute details all the things I and others have been writing for weeks.
So it looks like this wasn't the press being unfair to Trump, it was the facts being reported accurately.
Cheers,
Bernard
If the Democrats who run the House allowed Republicans to call the whistleblower Eric Ciaramella to testify, they would find there was a democrat political conspiracy or at least that he was biased and the whole thing was a setup like the Russian collusion charge. Also, the Democrats are preventing the Republicans from calling ex-VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden to testify about the possible collusion they were involved with Burisma, a corrupt corporation in Ukraine, which would reasonably and legally justify the investigation called for by the president of the US. The Democrats and anti-Trump press are protecting the Bidens.
You left out Hilary and Obama. :)
You left out Hilary and Obama. :)If they worked for Burisma, absolutely. :)
And George Soros.Him too. :)
What are Democrats going to talk about next year before the election?
The progressive ones will talk about the night-mode on the upcoming 5G iPhone 12.
... someone’s hearsay, or what someone perceived, or what someone thought Trump had in mind. And what you’ve been saying for weeks is just wishful thinking.
If the Democrats who run the House allowed Republicans to call the whistleblower Eric Ciaramella to testify, they would find there was a democrat political conspiracy or at least that he was biased and the whole thing was a setup like the Russian collusion charge. Also, the Democrats are preventing the Republicans from calling ex-VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden to testify about the possible collusion they were involved with Burisma, a corrupt corporation in Ukraine, which would reasonably and legally justify the investigation called for by the president of the US. The Democrats and anti-Trump press are protecting the Bidens.
...What are you afraid of?...
Wasting my time?
On what is clearly a political charade from the beginning.
... when Clinton was the subject), but the idea that it’s an illegitimate inquiry is silly.
It was started by a Trump IG responding to an internal report (now corroborated by multiple witnesses) that said IG deemed credible and appropriately and legally referred to Congress.If the IG has the authority so does the president because the IG works for the President. It's the same if your immediate boss fires you. If he can do that, the CEO of the corporation can fire you because authority flows upwards. It's the same with deflassifying material. The president can override the usual procedures and declassify anything he wants because he's the president. If the president wants to call for an investigation because he feels the Bidens are crooks, the constitution gives him that authority. Infact, who would ask Ukraine to investigate other than the president? He doesn't have to depend on some underling to approve it first.
You can claim that the Democrats haven’t proven their case (and I can counter with the fact that it hard to do when the primary witnesses refuse to testify), or you can claim that Trump’s behavior doesn’t rise to the level of impeachable conduct (and I can counter with about eleventy billion Republicans talking about what was “clearly” grounds for impeachment when Clinton was the subject), but the idea that it’s an illegitimate inquiry is silly.
Since I always thought Clinton's* impeachment was silly...
* at least we knew who his whistleblower was ;)
Republican senator Graham sent a shot across the bow of the Democrats in the House.LOL!!! Lindsey Graham on Joe Biden (https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1197837291554775040) "“If you can’t admire Joe Biden as a person, then probably you’ve got a problem; you need to do some self-evaluation. Cause what’s not to like?” Graham said at the time. “He is as good a man as God ever created.”
Let's investigate Don Jr. $50K from the University of Florida student government for giving a speech. Nice work if you can get it. Impeachment proceedings agains U of Fla Student Body leader (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/opinion/donald-trump-jr-university-of-florida.html)
These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes. President Putin and the Russian security services operate like a Super PAC. They deploy millions of dollars to weaponize our own political opposition research and false narratives. When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us against each another, degrade our institutions, and destroy the faith of the American people in our democracy.
For those who didn't read or watch the testimony of former U.S. National Security Counsel specialist and intelligence analyst Fiona Hill before the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, her opening statement (especially pages 5-7) (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6556216-2019-11-21-Fiona-Hill-Opening-Statement-FINAL34.html) is well worth a few minutes of your time.
In it, she provided some interesting detail that I don't recall reading elsewhere that Russia invested large amounts of money to support its covert effort to influence the 2016 election. This, in addition to its creation of user accounts on social media that purported to be those of American political activists and groups, is how Russian intelligence operatives have been able to inject self-serving fictions into right-wing media―such as the narrative that it was Ukraine rather than Russia that was trying to manipulate the 2016 election result, which President Trump repeated yet again today.
Hill's points reportedly have been independently made during classified (i.e., secret) briefings given in recent weeks to members of the U.S. Senate—not surprising, since Hill is one of the few individuals to testify who would have had access to the classified information about the Russian program of political disruption that has been collected by the U.S. government and its intelligence partners.
Hill said Russia currently is "gearing up" for covert operations to influence the 2020 election. While her comments were intended to apply to Russian operations within the United States, no doubt there have been and will continue to be similar efforts to influence elections in the United Kingdom and continental Europe.
Republican senator Graham sent a shot across the bow of the Democrats in the House. If they go ahead and impeach Trump, then both Bidens will be called to testify as to their corruptionin the Ukraine at the Senate trial for Trump. Like I said previously, the democrat impeachment will destroy Biden's chance for the presidency. The democrat are still playing checkers while Trump is playing chess.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/21/graham-ukraine-state-department-biden-072692
Not so much the impeachment, as the Buttigieg's candidacy.Why Buttigieg? You lost me.
Why Buttigieg? You lost me.
LOL!!! Lindsey Graham on Joe Biden (https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1197837291554775040) "“If you can’t admire Joe Biden as a person, then probably you’ve got a problem; you need to do some self-evaluation. Cause what’s not to like?” Graham said at the time. “He is as good a man as God ever created.”Politicians always say nice things about other politicians just before they stab them in the back. So what's your point?
Buttigieg's polls going up, Biden's downAfter the Bidens are called to testify by the Senate, Joe Biden's ratings will sink like the Titanic.
Let's investigate Don Jr. $50K from the University of Florida student government for giving a speech. Nice work if you can get it. Impeachment proceedings agains U of Fla Student Body leader (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/opinion/donald-trump-jr-university-of-florida.html)Don Jr. can speak English. Hunter Biden can't speak Ukrainian.
$50k a month is a lot, but $50k for a single speech? It's huge ...
I think Pelosi will shut down the impeachment hearing saying something along the line that it would be better for the public to decide the fate of the president in the election then Congress and let it go at that. That way Biden can continue to run for the nomination.Can you imagine listening in to the phone call between Joe and the Speaker of the House?
For those who didn't read or watch the testimony of former U.S. National Security Counsel specialist and intelligence analyst Fiona Hill before the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, her opening statement (especially pages 5-7) (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6556216-2019-11-21-Fiona-Hill-Opening-Statement-FINAL34.html) is well worth a few minutes of your time.
In it, she provided some interesting detail that I don't recall reading elsewhere that Russia invested large amounts of money to support its covert effort to influence the 2016 election. This, in addition to its creation of user accounts on social media that purported to be those of American political activists and groups, is how Russian intelligence operatives have been able to inject self-serving fictions into right-wing media―such as the narrative that it was Ukraine rather than Russia that was trying to manipulate the 2016 election result, which President Trump repeated yet again today.
Hill's points reportedly have been independently made during classified (i.e., secret) briefings given in recent weeks to members of the U.S. Senate—not surprising, since Hill is one of the few individuals to testify who would have had access to the classified information about the Russian program of political disruption that has been collected by the U.S. government and its intelligence partners.
Hill said Russia currently is "gearing up" for covert operations to influence the 2020 election. While her comments were intended to apply to Russian operations within the United States, no doubt there have been and will continue to be similar efforts to influence elections in the United Kingdom and continental Europe.
Politicians always say nice things about other politicians just before they stab them in the back. So what's your point?
Et tu Brutus.
I think Pelosi will shut down the impeachment hearing saying something along the line that it would be better for the public to decide the fate of the president in the election then Congress and let it go at that. That way Biden can continue to run for the nomination.
Wasting my time?
On what is clearly a political charade from the beginning.
... for Trump just because he is Republican...
You have an answer for everything.What's your point about my point? So Lindsay Graham said nice things about a former fellow senator Joe Biden. What's that got to do with the Senate investigating the Bidens for corruption to prove Trump was right in calling for an investigation in Ukraine?
I see in the other post that you managed to blame Obama for the previously unimportant FAKE Russian meddling.
The fantasy world in which you appear to be living is drifting away from reality at an increasingly high speed Alan.Sure the Democrats have been scratching to impeach. They've had that itch for three years. But I like thinking out of the box. I'd take 5 to 1 odds that Pelosi will pull the plug on the impeachment to help Biden. It's in his interest to get this behind him. Meanwhile, Bloomberg is getting into his "moderate" lane to peel of more votes from Biden as my last post shows.
Cheers,
Bernard
Neither he, nor I, are Republicans.
What's your point about my point? So Lindsay Graham said nice things about a former fellow senator Joe Biden. What's that got to do with the Senate investigating the Bidens for corruption to prove Trump was right in calling for an investigation in Ukraine?
He apparently was too busy tapping Trump's telephone.
Simple, there is no corruption. There is only disproven Russian propaganda that Trump clings to. What is it, with Russia and Trump?
What's your point about my point? So Lindsay Graham said nice things about a former fellow senator Joe Biden. What's that got to do with the Senate investigating the Bidens for corruption to prove Trump was right in calling for an investigation in Ukraine?
Regarding blaming Obama, the Russians meddled in our 2016 presidential election that you said Trump colluded with them which was proven false by Mueller. However, it still is true that Obama was president while the Russians meddled and did nothing to stop it. He apparently was too busy tapping Trump's telephone.
Simple, there is no corruption. There is only disproven Russian propaganda that Trump clings to. What is it, with Russia and Trump?Obama, long before Trump became president, demanded that Ukraine clean up their corruption, same as Trump did in the now famous call to the Ukraine president. Wasn't VP Biden who worked for Obama as concerned when he had Ukraine's investigator fired? Of course, that investigator also happened to be investigating the corrupt firm Burisma, the company Biden's son was working a no-show job for earning $50,000 a month. But, hey. That's just a minor detail.
Wasn't this also already debunked loooong ago? It was not Trump's phone that was tapped but someone else's who called Trump, or something to that effect.
Sadly, corruption is widespread both in Ukraine and in Russia, on all levels in the society and business.
Buttigieg's polls going up, Biden's down
Name one country where it is not.
If there's a difference, it's the point at which we start killing people.
:-(
The fantasy world in which you appear to be living is drifting away from reality at an increasingly high speed Alan.
Cheers,
Bernard
Not really. Support for impeachment is decreasing amongst independents, especially in the swing districts. Plus, behind the scenes, reports are showing vulnerable Dems are wavering on an impeachment vote.
I still give it a greater then 50/50 chance the vote will happen, but it will be a fool's errand. Like I said, it is the independents you need to convince and most are wavering, not to mention no one is really pay attention to this show. The Dems in swing districts will, at the end of the day, not get Trump convicted and then realize they have not passes any legislation that means anything, and will have nothing to campaign on next year.
That's an interesting perspective that needs some filling out.
Or is it a fake news test?
;-)
Ain't this the truth!We don't impeach elephants. :)
Obama, long before Trump became president, demanded that Ukraine clean up their corruption, same as Trump did in the now famous call to the Ukraine president. Wasn't VP Biden who worked for Obama as concerned when he had Ukraine's investigator fired? Of course, that investigator also happened to be investigating the corrupt firm Burisma, the company Biden's son was working a no-show job for earning $50,000 a month. But, hey. That's just a minor detail.
Regarding tapping Trump's phone, you;re still repeating the media's knowing refusal to admit that Trump was using slang for saying that he and/or his people and campaign were being surveilled by secret forces (FBI, CIA) of the US government under the Obama administration. OF course, we learned about the FISA warrant, the perjured evidence provided to the FISA court just yesterday by an Obama FBI agent who was biased against TRump, and all the other surveillance stuff later. That Trump was right. Of course the damage to Trump had already been done. Even you still believe it. The same lies and bias have been applied to him for three years already and continue to this day.
I have to admire your tenacity in trying to make the impeachment about Biden.But, Robert, the impeachment is about Biden. Aren't the Democrats saying that Trump's attempt to use his influence to go after Biden is an impeachable offense? If so, then whether Biden was in fact corrupt or appeared that way is critical for justifying or not justifying Trump's action. IF Trump reasonably believed the Bidens committed a crime, then his call for an investigation is perfectly legal. On the other hand, if it could be shown that wasn;t the case, then you could get support from Republicans for impeachment. As long as Democrats hide the Bidens, it looks like it's a only a Democrat political act to damage Trump. The people aren't stupid. They know politics when they see it. The Democrats have to play fair and allow the Trump side to present evidence to convince the public what actually is going on. If Schiff won;t allow that in the HOuse process, you can be sure that the Republican who control the Senate will allow it during the trial, if there is one.
Your belief in the deep state is interesting. Trump has been President for 3 years and for 2 of those he had the benefit of GOP majorities in both houses, but somehow they did not manage to dismantle the deep state that is so ubiquitous yet so well-hidden that no one except you can see it.
Attorneys for Lev Parnas, Guiliani's associate who has been indicted for illegal campaign contributions to Trump, say he is prepared to testify that Nunes meet with Ukrainians in late 2018 to dig up dirt of the Bidens. If true, it looks like Nunes was part of the plot, which would be keeping in line with his role as Trump's water carrier. There are call for Nunes to recuse himself.Nunes only needed a little shovel.
Name one country where it is not.
If there's a difference, it's the point at which we start killing people.
:-(
America sent hundred of millions of American taxpayer dollars to Ukraine. We would like to be sure that money is not siphoned off by corrupt government and civil authorities. We want it to be used for its intended purpose. So demanding Ukraine clean up their corrupt act is in our interest.
Corruption wasn't mentioned in the phone call. Biden was, because Trump feels his reelection is more important than Ukranian lives.Trump asked the Ukrainian president for an investigation of possible Ukrainian and/or Russian interference in the 2016 election as well as the Bidens.
Trump tried to have the Ukraine act in a corrupt way, when their new government was elected to promote anti-corruption.
The point that keeps getting swept under the Klein carpet is not that Trump bribed Ukraine to help America, but that he bribed Ukraine to help Trump.That's the Democrat side of the impeachment hearings. The Democrats should allow the Bidens to testify to see of Trump had a reason to ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. The accused should be allowed to call his own witnesses to provide testimony in his defense. That's how things normally work in America. What we have now in the Democrat controlled House is a Star Trial where the prosecution is also the judge andjury. It's acting like the Soviet show trials of the past in its unfair one-sidedness.
That's the Democrat side of the impeachment hearings. The Democrats should allow the Bidens to testify to see of Trump had a reason to ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. The accused should be allowed to call his own witnesses to provide testimony in his defense. That's how things normally work in America. What we have now in the Democrat controlled House is a Star Trial where the prosecution is also the judge andjury. It's acting like the Soviet show trials of the past in its unfair one-sidedness.
You forgot to include "witch hunt" and "hoax." You're slipping.
I'll just leave this here:The Bidens are pikers compared to the Clintons.
So although Trump is a Republican and represents the republican party, many of his tendencies are Democrat.
Not only that. It's fake news! :)
...
- Is lying multiple times day a "Democratic tendency?" No.
- Is surrounding himself with sycophantic yes-men a "Democratic tendency?" No.
- Is grabbing women (your wife or daughter?) by their private parts a "Democratic tendency?" No.
- Is cheating your creditors out of money you owe them a "Democratic tendency?" No.
- Is using a fake letter from a doctor who owes your father a favor to avoid the draft a "Democratic tendency?" No.
How can a seemingly serious person post such ridiculous non-sequiturs!?Manize? Boyize? Are those new words Slobo? Maybe I'm getting old. But I've never been manized to the point it bothered me. :)
Are you suggesting that Democrats do not lie, cheat, womanize, manize, boyize, steal, swindle, dodge draft, etc.!?
Manize? Boyize? Are those new words Slobo? Maybe I'm getting old. But I've never been manized to the point it bothered me. :)
Looks like Nancy Pelosi has been reading my posts. She may drop impeachment charge going for a simple censorship as support for impeachment craters with independents.
"Whom," Bart...
According to who?Me.
Looks like Nancy Pelosi has been reading my posts. She may drop impeachment charge going for a simple censorship as support for impeachment craters with independents.
According to who?
"Whom," Bart. (Yeah. There I go again with the Nazi language corrections. Hahaha. I'll NEVER stop!)
Actually, according to practically every news source in the U.S. that's not printing or pumping out fake news. I don't think anyone knows what Nancy's gonna do, but it's clear that support for impeachment is falling to a very low level.
In Nancy's case, I think she's worried about what'll happen in the Senate if the House impeaches. All of a sudden we'll have a situation where Republicans can require crooks like Schiff to testify under oath. Won't be good for the Dems.
How can a seemingly serious person post such ridiculous non-sequiturs!?
Are you suggesting that Democrats do not lie, cheat, womanize, manize, boyize, steal, swindle, dodge draft, etc.!?
They're so blinded by their hatred of Trump, they're making silly errors in judgment about how seriously corrupt the Bidens look.Can you outline the Bidens' corruption for the uninitiated.
Not Democratic presidents--at least in modern times.Let's see, Bill Clinton had fellatio performed on him in the Oval Office, FDR had his secretary girlfriend, and JFK slept with Marilyn Monroe and other bimbos as well. When he got tired of them, he gave them to his brother RFK, the Attorney General. Gee I wonder what Lincoln was up too? Oh wait, he's a Republican.
Can you outline the Bidens' corruption for the uninitiated.Read my earlier posts.
"Whom," Bart. (Yeah. There I go again with the Nazi language corrections. Hahaha. I'll NEVER stop!)
Actually, according to practically every news source in the U.S. that's not printing or pumping out fake news. I don't think anyone knows what Nancy's gonna do, but it's clear that support for impeachment is falling to a very low level.
In Nancy's case, I think she's worried about what'll happen in the Senate if the House impeaches. All of a sudden we'll have a situation where Republicans can require crooks like Schiff to testify under oath. Won't be good for the Dems.
Actually Russ, I looked it up before posting, and based on that decided to use 'who' instead of 'whom'. Another way to phrase it could be; Who says he committed corruption?I hope Pelosi follows your advice and keeps digging. She's digging a grave for Biden.
It took Nanci Pelosi a long time to decide whether or not to start an investigation leading up to impeachment. She also knew in advance that the chance that an indictment could actually be steered through the Senate (because of the Republican majority of the members of the Senate) is small. With almost every testimony, however, the issue becomes more serious (and why the obstruction of the law? What is there to hide?). Her only concern now is whether the 'average Joe' still sees the illegal behavior as serious enough to take a risk with Mike Pence for the rest of the term.
As each new sworn statement seems to add new evidence, Pelosi is more likely to keep digging until no new destructive evidence of unlawful conduct by Trump can be added. It then comes down to the Senate Republicans to either act in a non-partisan manner and honor the Constitution, or sell their souls to the devil ...
I hope Pelosi follows your advice and keeps digging. She's digging a grave for Biden.
Take a chill-pill, Bart. It's hard enough for people here in the US to separate the facts from the BS, so we really don't need the long-distance noise.
Biden is a bad candidate. No loss.That gives hope to Hillary.
That gives hope to Hillary.
"I'm baaack."
More on the phoniness of the Russian Collusion investigation supports Trump's claim the Democrats have been using impeachment to gain a coup.. FBI lying to the FISA court.
Former FBI lawyer under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/politics/fbi-fisa-russia-investigation/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/politics/fbi-fisa-russia-investigation/index.html)
You act as if Fox News doesn't exist. They are constantly tooting Trump's horn.
The more I read this thread, the more I feel that some here - that I assume are honestly thinking what they are writing - are being held hostage by a logical fallacy.
....
I wonder why this isn't the case...
Cheers,
Bernard
Meanwhile, Republican Senators have grown a set and are threatening they will call the Bidens to testify at a Senate trial if the democrats do impeach in the House.
Let's see, Bill Clinton had fellatio performed on him in the Oval Office, FDR had his secretary girlfriend, and JFK slept with Marilyn Monroe and other bimbos as well. When he got tired of them, he gave them to his brother RFK, the Attorney General. Gee I wonder what Lincoln was up too? Oh wait, he's a Republican.
How about Michelle Obama ...?
Lets just point out that the public does not know what was changed on the document, only that the changes were improper. For all we know it could have been something as minor as spelling corrections and given that no details of what the changes were have leaked, it likely means that the changes themselves are not nearly as exciting as the news of the changes.But the country went through two years of angst which continues today because of the charge of collusion with the Russians. We had half the country calling the president a traitor because of adulterated FISA court evidence and bias of people at the top in the FBI including this man who changed the document that went to the FISA court. The president wasn't charged with spitting on the street. You can be executed for treason in the US, never mind being impeached and thrown out of office. We shouldn't be so nonchalant about these things.
There's been a good psychological analysis of this.I voted for Trump and don't appreciate being called a racist. I'm not one. You've personally attacked me and my integrity and I don't like it one bit.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/trump-doesnt-really-love-america/595231/
and more ...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/07/evangelical-americans-trump-supporters-progressives
but I can't find the story I want.
The reason for Trump being defended so widely and deeply by many in what seems to defy logic is rooted in social constructs. She votes for Trump so therefore I will too. My husband will vote for Trump so therefore I must too. People vote for him not because he's good or like what he stands for but because they don't want to not vote for him. If you spend some time with google and read, you'll find many stories about why Trump got elected and almost none of them have to do with real policy. It is largely all about racial divide except nobody wants to openly admit to being racist - unless you're Donald Trump.
Why are Americans obsessed with who their politicians have sex with? I mean, seriously, who cares. It's none of anyone's business who people have sex with.
Why are Americans obsessed with who their politicians have sex with? I mean, seriously, who cares. It's none of anyone's business who people have sex with.
I voted for Trump and don't appreciate being called a racist. I'm not one. You've personally attacked me and my integrity and I don't like it one bit.
But Stephen Miller is, and it’s problematic that he’s in a position of influence.Strawman. The poster called me and all Trump voters racist.
Strawman. The poster called me and all Trump voters racist.
Do you believe Stephen Miller should be fired?I don;t know anything about him other then he works for Trump.
But the country went through two years of angst which continues today because of the charge of collusion with the Russians.
The president wasn't charged with spitting on the street.
I voted for Trump and don't appreciate being called a racist. I'm not one. You've personally attacked me and my integrity and I don't like it one bit.
The poster called me and all Trump voters racist.
Some sample questions Hunter Biden can expect at a Senate trial of the president:
... you'll find many stories about why Trump got elected and almost none of them have to do with real policy. It is largely all about racial divide except nobody wants to openly admit to being racist - unless you're Donald Trump.
If you don't like how all this feels then maybe next time you should give more thought to what it means to vote for someone. As an American, you can legally choose not to vote.
Implying that a participant in this forum - many participants, in fact - are racists because they support Trump is an unacceptable slur, and repeating the accusation more directly is disgraceful. Apologise immediately.
Jeremy
Which leads to the question: what if they are racist, and also, if they are, don't they have a right to their opinions, and if they do, are those rights only applicable if muffled?
I find the entire matter of opinions and politically tied views quite fascinating. No idea how they work (as in legality) in the USA, nor, really, in Britain, but don't you find something quite frightening about attempts to have people's minds purified? I went through some of that third degree in boarding school; more than once it crossed my mind in later years that it was a reaction to puritans that helped steer me towards fashion and calendar photography. So actually, perhaps in a perverse sort of way, the puritans did me some good.
By the way, this is not an attempt to interfere with your Moderator function at all, it is a genuine puzzlement at what society considers or does not consider apt. It seems to me that society sometimes makes rules that are totally unrealistic.
I voted for Trump and don't appreciate being called a racist. I'm not one. You've personally attacked me and my integrity and I don't like it one bit.
Another one bites the dust https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/24/politics/read-navy-secretary-richard-spencer-resignation-letter/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/24/politics/read-navy-secretary-richard-spencer-resignation-letter/index.html).Trump runs the show. Why should a president hang on to people who disagree with his policies? After all, the secretary of the Navy was not elected and was in fact hired by Trump. The president was elected by the people, and responds to their wishes. If the Secretary disagrees with his boss's policies, he should resign which is what he did in a proper way. He wrote a resignation letter to the president telling him that a president deserves a secretary who can follow his president. Just like you follow your boss's orders.
Trump really has a lot of trouble hanging onto people, doesn't he?
Trump runs the show. Why should a president hang on to people who disagree with his policies? After all, the secretary of the Navy was not elected and was in fact hired by Trump. The president was elected by the people, and responds to their wishes. If the Secretary disagrees with his boss's policies, he should resign which is what he did in a proper way. He wrote a resignation letter to the president telling him that a president deserves a secretary who can follow his president. Just like you follow your boss's orders.
Also, did you complain when Obama fired his generals? Isn't this just politics? You just don't agree with anything Trump does.
By the way, I happen to agree with the Navy in this case though. He should let them run their affairs for the most part even though he's the Commander-in-Chief. But this whole case has been politicized on both sides. So Trump is responded to what he sees are his supporters wishes and isn't listening to his Admirals. Obama did the same thing when he didn't listen to his General and pulled out too early in Iraq in 2011 leading to ISIS. He did it for the 2012 elections.
Maybe we should have one term presidents or president for life. :)
How many has it been now, I've lost count.Trump demands loyalty and excellence from his workers. Why do you object to that? Aren;t your complaints just politics? Other presidents put up with just average subordinates. Trump wants excellence in his people and won't accept less. "you're fired" is his style.
Trump demands loyalty and excellence from his workers. Why do you object to that? Aren;t your complaints just politics? Other presidents put up with just average subordinates. Trump wants excellence in his people and won't accept less. "you're fired" is his style.
Look at Trump properties. They represent the finest in materials and execution. Why do you think 500 companies have done business with Trump using the Trump name on their hotels on other properties. Most of these are not Trump properties. They are owned by others. Trump sells them his name. These developers know his name drawers richer people willing to spend more on elegance and class as well as power.
Your posts are just hilarious.You're pretty funny too. :)
Other presidents put up with just average subordinates. Trump wants excellence in his people and won't accept less.
Oh good grief, Alan. I don't think anyone actually *believes* deep down inside that this is true. Or perhaps more accurately, there's a serious disconnect between what Trump defines as "excellence" and what a sane person defines as such.James you cherry picked one sentence from two posts I made regarding this issue. I said that Trump wants loyalty as well as excellence. Obviously loyalty comes first and most alpha leaders insist upon it. Everything else is second. I never said the Secretary of the Navy was an average administrator. What I said was his policy was in conflict with the presidents and he had to go. I even agreed with the Navy in this situation opposing Trump's action that the military should decide. But that part is politics.
I mean, no one that's serious defines Sara Sanders, Ken Cuccinelli and Kris Kobach as "excellence." The problem with Trump, and to a lesser extent, hard-right Republicans is that they give far too much credence to ideologues and populists who have no grounding in reality or policy, but are trained to advance basic "common sense" emotionally-based solutions to what are actually incredibly complex problems. Which is why you have guys like Hannity and Steve Doocy (God help us - when I was growing up in DC he was the "wacky personality segment guy on the local NBC affiliate IIRC) as de facto policy directors, and why here in Texas and in Ohio we elected idiot AM radio philosophers (Dan Patrick and Mike Pence, respectively) to critical positions in their respective states, and of course Donald Trump to the presidency. There's no "excellence" there, at least insomuch as we're talking about governing a nation...
I know that I'm probably perceived as a loony lefty here, but I'm really not. I'm not a Warren guy or a Bernie guy - hell, I didn't even vote for Obama in 2012 (I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, even though his VP candidate was woefully unprepared), but I just don't understand why some segment of the electorate is so susceptible to simplistic messaging and, frankly, policy developed not with any experience or analysis, but by what some bozo on TV tells them when you know damn well that bozo's goal is to craft the least objective argument possible.
Implying that a participant in this forum - many participants, in fact - are racists because they support Trump is an unacceptable slur, and repeating the accusation more directly is disgraceful. Apologise immediately.
Jeremy
And it's Trump's style to not put up with mediocrity or disloyalty especially if it affects his wealth and power.
The point is Trump has had stars as well as dim bulbs working for him. And it's Trump's style to not put up with mediocrity or disloyalty especially if it affects his wealth and power.
Name a few of his "stars", please. And tell us why you think they are so.General/Secretary of Defense Mattis who left, Secretary of State Pompeo seems to be pretty effective, his economic advisors. Mainly, it's Trump himself. He's a hands on leader who makes the decisions. He'll defer as long as the subordinate is effective and follows his policies but will grab back the reins if that deviates. He's use to leading from the top due to the Trump Organization. At the end of the day, how are things going? The economy is doing well, unemployment is at its lowest, ISIS was defeated for all practical purpose (I see the EU shut down their online ability yesterday). That's how leaders are measured. No one remembers who worked for them. No one's going to vote for or against Trump in 2020 because of who his subordinates were.
A friend sent me this link https://deadstate.org/rick-perry-trump-is-gods-chosen-one-much-like-king-david-and-solomon/ (https://deadstate.org/rick-perry-trump-is-gods-chosen-one-much-like-king-david-and-solomon/), which reports that Rick Perry likens Trump to King David or Salomon and that he was chosen by god.
My question is how does he know that Trump isn't instead the punishment for some sin? :)
Re. your last paragraph, Jeremy: I specifically stated that I had no intentions of challenging your decisions as Moderator, and indeed, my entire post has been - or at least is intended to be - addressed to the wider matter of how society can or should judge things like racism and, in fact, whether or not society making such decisions part of law makes sense at all.
General/Secretary of Defense Mattis who left, Secretary of State Pompeo seems to be pretty effective, his economic advisors. Mainly, it's Trump himself. He's a hands on leader who makes the decisions. He'll defer as long as the subordinate is effective and follows his policies but will grab back the reins if that deviates. He's use to leading from the top due to the Trump Organization. At the end of the day, how are things going? The economy is doing well, unemployment is at its lowest, ISIS was defeated for all practical purpose (I see the EU shut down their online ability yesterday). That's how leaders are measured. No one remembers who worked for them. No one's going to vote for or against Trump in 2020 because of who his subordinates were.
So, virtually nobody, then. :) Mattis bailed because he couldn't stand working there. Pompeo remains to be judged in the light of current developments. His "economic advisors" have done little, other than steal a trillion dollars from America's future to give to her top 1%Peter I get it. You don't like Trump or his policies. So don't vote for him.
Listing Trump as one of Trump's "stars" seems a little like a self-licking ice cream cone, really.
So, virtually nobody, then. :) Mattis bailed because he couldn't stand working there. Pompeo remains to be judged in the light of current developments. His "economic advisors" have done little, other than steal a trillion dollars from America's future to give to her top 1%
Listing Trump as one of Trump's "stars" seems a little like a self-licking ice cream cone, really.
General/Secretary of Defense Mattis who left, Secretary of State Pompeo seems to be pretty effective, his economic advisors. Mainly, it's Trump himself. He's a hands on leader who makes the decisions. He'll defer as long as the subordinate is effective and follows his policies but will grab back the reins if that deviates. He's use to leading from the top due to the Trump Organization. At the end of the day, how are things going? The economy is doing well, unemployment is at its lowest, ISIS was defeated for all practical purpose (I see the EU shut down their online ability yesterday). That's how leaders are measured. No one remembers who worked for them. No one's going to vote for or against Trump in 2020 because of who his subordinates were.
The disgrace is how people can support (by voting for) a president that is both a racist and a misogynist yet themselves pretend not to be either.
How can you claim to not be either yet support and vote for someone that is?
Democrats can no more turn the clock back to the 1990s, than Republicans can return us back to the 1950's.
Just as people say "you are what you eat", so too "you are who you vote for." Own it.
And who you work for. Hence why people resign from the Trump administration.
I think it's a little less black or white, because some of them were just against Hillary Clinton, regardless of the consequences. That reeks of desperation, not good judgment.Oh, so we're not quite racists. It's a little less black or white, eh? We're just desperate enablers lacking in good judgment. Gee. I feel better already.
In this context I kind of like a remark made by Pete Buttigieg:
Although I'm not a fan of his, two and a half years ago Bill Maher summed up what you suggested quite nicely and with a little more humor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVavyvMoe8o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVavyvMoe8o)
Some people will go down in history as enablers...
You owe it to yourself to read the first chapter of Michael Lewis' The Fifth Risk. You need that information for your own good. I know you don't have an open mind about any criticism of Trump, but still, set aside your prior beliefs and read just that chapter.
Don't be afraid, it won't hurt you.
Oh, so we're not quite racists. It's a little less black or white, eh? We're just desperate enablers lacking in good judgment. Gee. I feel better already.
"It's the economy, stupid."
The point is, people have a choice. Choices have consequences.And I chose not to listen to Hillary's cackle for 4 years. You shouldn't complain. You'd have to listen to it too. :)
That's one measurement, of course.Robert, You;re conflating a number of things. Lowering business tax rates does help the rich. They own big shares. But it also helps the rest of the country by increasing business. So more jobs are created and salaries go up, which helps everyone. Lower business taxes also means more income for regular investors who own stock, and increasing valuation of that stock for them as well, not just the rich. Pension plans for teachers and other "regular" people invest in companies, individual stock ownership etc. Look at where the stock market is.
I was listening to an economist on some podcast the other day (sorry, can't remember which one right now) who said that the yearly interest on the federal government debt is currently on the same order of magnitude as military spending, and if things continue as they are now (which they rarely do, of course) those two items will crowd out everything else in the budget in another 20 years or so. That's a little sobering.
It's funny how "conservatives" preach belt-tightening and living within one means while running for office, then do something different when in power. Trump's tax changes were touted to allow entrepreneurs to keep more of their money so that they could invest in the economy and thus create more jobs. (Funny, I thought you guys already did that trickle-down thing under Reagan, why do you need to do it again?) The implication was that there was something stopping them from doing so previously, that somehow they weren't getting to keep enough of the money they made because of onerous tax and regulatory requirements. Except that all that occurred during a period of time when wealth creation among the already well-to-do was at historic highs. What an odd combination that is, the 1% making unprecedented amounts of money yet at the same time pleading poverty.
The point is, people have a choice. Choices have consequences.
And we like our choices and consequences.
If you say so.Bart, you're always knocking America. Putting it down. It nevers stops. Why don;t you clean up Netherland's house first where black-faced painted Santa helpers are acceptable before you point fingers at others. This goes for most of Europe. America has been through its difficulties of course. And our problems are not all solved. But we are legions ahead of Europe when it comes to accepting people of different races, cultures, ethnic backgrounds, social status, religion, etc.
Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2019
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history (https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history)
Note also Figure 3 at the end of the article, which explains some of the disputed assumptions about the motives of the voters in this thread.
And here's the article that's being referred to:
Study: racism and sexism predict support for Trump much more than economic dissatisfaction
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/4/14160956/trump-racism-sexism-economy-study (https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/4/14160956/trump-racism-sexism-economy-study)
Bart, you're always knocking America. Putting it down. It nevers stops. Why don;t you clean up Netherland's house first where black-faced painted Santa helpers are acceptable before you point fingers at others. This goes for most of Europe. America has been through its difficulties of course. And our problems are not all solved. But we are legions ahead of Europe when it comes to accepting people of different races, cultures, ethnic backgrounds, social status, religion, etc.The tradition of 'zwarte Piet' has not the same meaning here that 'black face' has for Americans- It has a different background and goes centuries back...
https://travelnoire.com/what-it-means-to-be-black-in-amsterdam (https://travelnoire.com/what-it-means-to-be-black-in-amsterdam)
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/12/black-pete-christmas-zwarte-piet-dutch/ (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/12/black-pete-christmas-zwarte-piet-dutch/)
...
The tradition of 'zwarte Piet' has not the same meaning here that 'black face' has for Americans- It has a different background and goes centuries back...
For the vast majority of Dutch people it was not connected to any kind of racism. It had lost its connection to slavery and the character was adopted as part of a fairytale, but of course there was a connection.
By exposing it and giving much publicity to it, we now have to redefine the 'zwarte Piet' and so we do.
'Zwarte Piet' always climbs through chimneys to deliver presents to children, so that is why they are black and now they are played by people with strikes of black in the face instead of totaly black.
Like Bart I am not against Americans at all, but against Trumps behaviour and decisions as a President and before.
When you state that "the US are legions ahead of Europe when it comes to accepting people of different races" i cannot agree.
We have no Klu Klux Klan, we have no cops that shoot black people in the back - without even a penalty. Europe has always been crowded with very different cultures that have to live together.
Yes there are problems with some nations of Europe that are so Christian they are afraid of moslims entering their country...
It is certainly not optimal, but not worse than the US. Living in Amsterdam I can say we are with a hundred and more nationalities and we accept all gendertypes.
Bart, you're always knocking America. Putting it down. It nevers stops. Why don;t you clean up Netherland's house first where black-faced painted Santa helpers are acceptable before you point fingers at others. This goes for most of Europe. America has been through its difficulties of course. And our problems are not all solved. But we are legions ahead of Europe when it comes to accepting people of different races, cultures, ethnic backgrounds, social status, religion, etc.
https://travelnoire.com/what-it-means-to-be-black-in-amsterdam (https://travelnoire.com/what-it-means-to-be-black-in-amsterdam)
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/12/black-pete-christmas-zwarte-piet-dutch/ (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/12/black-pete-christmas-zwarte-piet-dutch/)
Britain has its own problems.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/04/boris-johnson-urged-to-apologise-for-muslim-women-letterboxes-article (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/04/boris-johnson-urged-to-apologise-for-muslim-women-letterboxes-article)
Why do you deliberately confuse criticism of Trump with criticism of America?
Robert, You;re conflating a number of things. Lowering business tax rates does help the rich. They own big shares. But it also helps the rest of the country by increasing business. So more jobs are created and salaries go up, which helps everyone. Lower business taxes also means more income for regular investors who own stock, and increasing valuation of that stock for them as well, not just the rich. Pension plans for teachers and other "regular" people invest in companies, individual stock ownership etc. Look at where the stock market is.
Where I do agree with you is that neither Republicans nor Democrats are doing anything about spending. Politicians of all stripes don;t see a government program they don;t like or can;t support. If it could buy them votes, well, they're for it.
Middle-class income has been stagnant for a generation. No rhetoric is going to change that.That's true but not Trump's fault. I believe going off the gold standard which causes inflation, higher taxes, deficit spending, has hurt. Loss of jobs overseas has also hurt. We've gone from the biggest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation in the world. Look what's happen to our photo industry due to digital, loss of film, etc. I'm sure there are people here who could tell us how they lost their career or have taken huge hits in salaries and gigs. When I go to my photo club, the other members ask me where I buy film; where I get it developed. It used to be on the corner. Now I have to ship it to California or NYC. America has a lot of competitors today that are driving down wages and our wealth. I really don't know the answer except we're going to have to get use to having less in the future. I'm retired. A senior. A boomer. So it's going to be our youth who have to figure it out and deal with the consequences. Their parents have been greedy, demanding stuff from the government beyond our means to pay for it. There is no free lunch. Your kids and mine are going to suffer.
There are approximately 58 black senators and representatives in Congress roughly 10% of the 535 total. Blacks make up 14% of the total US population. The last president was black and served and was elected twice. Where's the racism?
How many of those have an (R) by their name?Very few. What's your point?
Very few. What's your point?
Don't you find the discrepancy curious?No. What's your point?
Don't go there. You're better than that.
Let me be clear - I'm not in the camp of "all Republicans are racist," or "all Trump supporters are racist." I think both of those generalizations are unfair and harmful. I do think it's problematic that the deepest red parts of the nation are also some of the states with the highest black populations, but the lowest black Congressional representation. Why? I'm not sure, but it's not great, we can probably agree.I understand your concern and there's a certain amount of truth. Much of it is caused by democrat party traditionally calling everyone racists if they don;t support the "Black agenda", whatever that is. So it drives people to the other side because everyone wants political protection. If Democrats push them away, they go to the other party. Of course then what happens is the other party, republican, may do things that appeases the concerns of some of their members. It becomes a circle. That's why playing the race card is so dangerous because it divides people along racial lines for political power. Politicians use it for their own desire for power. It's very hurtful to the country. After Obama was elected, I was hopeful it would stop. It actually got worse.
In a larger sense, I do think that parts of the Trump platform play on racial and ethnic fears, and I do think it attracts some portion of the Republican base.
How many of those have an (R) by their name?
The tradition of 'zwarte Piet' has not the same meaning here that 'black face' has for Americans- It has a different background and goes centuries back...
For the vast majority of Dutch people it was not connected to any kind of racism. It had lost its connection to slavery and the character was adopted as part of a fairytale, but of course there was a connection.
By exposing it and giving much publicity to it, we now have to redefine the 'zwarte Piet' and so we do.
'Zwarte Piet' always climbs through chimneys to deliver presents to children, so that is why they are black and now they are played by people with strikes of black in the face instead of totaly black.
Like Bart I am not against Americans at all, but against Trumps behaviour and decisions as a President and before.
When you state that "the US are legions ahead of Europe when it comes to accepting people of different races" i cannot agree.
We have no Klu Klux Klan, we have no cops that shoot black people in the back - without even a penalty. Europe has always been crowded with very different cultures that have to live together.
Yes there are problems with some nations of Europe that are so Christian they are afraid of moslims entering their country...
It is certainly not optimal, but not worse than the US. Living in Amsterdam I can say we are with a hundred and more nationalities and we accept all gendertypes.
There are approximately 58 black senators and representatives in Congress roughly 10% of the 535 total. Blacks make up 14% of the total US population. The last president was black and served and was elected twice. Where's the racism? ]http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/
http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/What do your statistics have to do with racism?
African Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate that is 5.1 times the imprisonment of whites. In five states (Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wisconsin), the disparity is more than 10 to 1.
In twelve states, more than half of the prison population is black: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Maryland, whose prison population is 72% African American, tops the nation.
In eleven states, at least 1 in 20 adult black males is in prison.
In Oklahoma, the state with the highest overall black incarceration rate, 1 in 15 black males ages 18 and older is in prison.
States exhibit substantial variation in the range of racial disparity, from a black/white ratio of 12.2:1 in New Jersey to 2.4:1 in Hawaii.
Latinos are imprisoned at a rate that is 1.4 times the rate of whites. Hispanic/white ethnic disparities are particularly high in states such as Massachusetts (4.3:1), Connecticut (3.9:1), Pennsylvania (3.3:1), and New York (3.1:1).
This is not about a hundred ultra right people shouting out loud, but about a structural problem in the whole USA.
What do your statistics have to do with racism?
That's true but not Trump's fault. I believe going off the gold standard which causes inflation, higher taxes, deficit spending, has hurt. Loss of jobs overseas has also hurt. We've gone from the biggest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation in the world. Look what's happen to our photo industry due to digital, loss of film, etc. I'm sure there are people here who could tell us how they lost their career or have taken huge hits in salaries and gigs. When I go to my photo club, the other members ask me where I buy film; where I get it developed. It used to be on the corner. Now I have to ship it to California or NYC. America has a lot of competitors today that are driving down wages and our wealth. I really don't know the answer except we're going to have to get use to having less in the future. I'm retired. A senior. A boomer. So it's going to be our youth who have to figure it out and deal with the consequences. Their parents have been greedy, demanding stuff from the government beyond our means to pay for it. There is no free lunch. Your kids and mine are going to suffer.
Of course Robert, you're Canadian so things are better up there. But you're not immuned. Canada depends a lot on America. If we get a cold, you sneeze, as does most of the world.
And you said I was in denial?You made the jump from statistics to racism, not me. Prove it. This is just more playing the race card. Enough already. You know, most black criminals do criminal acts against other black people in black neighborhoods. Are you suggesting that blacks who are law abiding who are a majority do not want police protection and criminals to go to jail? Are you suggesting that most black criminals in jail are innocent, that their trials were staged, that the jurors, black and white, 12 out of 12, all found them guilty while they were actually innocent. It's your kind of charges of racism that drives the country in dividing us up rather than addressing the causes and looking for solutions for the social problems we have.
Where does this non-sequitur come from? It's the equivalent of a school yard taunt, "Oh yeah, my dad is bigger than your dad."It was a follow-up to my reply #1733.
And you said I was in denial?Oh I just realized I should forgive your error because you're Dutch and live 3000 miles away. All your read is the liberal America media's viewpoints which spout the race card of things here in America and you believe everything you read. Why would you see things differently? You guys still think America is like it was before our Civil war of 1861.
And you said I was in denial?
I didn't blame Trump. What has become known as neo-liberalism (Reagan+Thatcher) has helped rich people a lot and has more or less gutted the middle-class. Where I do fault Trump is that he said he was going to fix this long-term structural problem, or more precisely, lots of people inferred that he was going to do that. I am saying that is not even remotely true.Robert I'm not sure what you mean by neo-liberalism helping the rich and hurting the poor. How does that work? I do feel and described earlier how lower taxes for business that Trump and COngress implemented helps America and everyone who lives here - rich and poor and the middle class.
You write "America has a lot of competitors today that are driving down wages and our wealth." I don't understand your point, I thought competition was good. Anyway, it was corporate economic policy to destroy unions and promote globalism. Are you now saying that the US cannot compete against the rest of the world?
Let me be clear - I'm not in the camp of "all Republicans are racist," or "all Trump supporters are racist." I think both of those generalizations are unfair and harmful. I do think it's problematic that the deepest red parts of the nation are also some of the states with the highest black populations, but the lowest black Congressional representation. Why? I'm not sure, but it's not great, we can probably agree.
In a larger sense, I do think that parts of the Trump platform play on racial and ethnic fears, and I do think it attracts some portion of the Republican base, and I wish y'all would speak up about it more. I referenced Stephen Miller several posts back. That guy has no business being anywhere near the corridors of power, and it doesn't reflect well on your party that he is.
There is a common misnomer that if an ethnic group gains political representation that economic success will follow. This is a false premise, first proved by the Irish in the late 1800s and currently by the black community.What happens is you depend on your job from political connections rather than entrepreneurialism. In NYC, you'd go to Irish run Tammany Hall back when to find work or get a job in government rather than in the street where you had to fight with other business people and private workers to succeed . Owners eat better than their workers and bring in more wealth to their communities.
If you look at all ethnic groups that came to this country, with the exception of the Irish, they all gained economic success first and then went into politics. It is not the case that you need political representation to be successful as a group, which is still evident today by Japanese Americans who have almost no political representation but are extremely successful.
Furthermore, it actually appears that the direct opposite happens. The Irish tried to short cut their success by engaging heavily in politics. However it actually took them a couple of generations more than everyone else to gain economic success.
(FYI, if you don't believe, many studies of this have been conducted on this. Thomas Sowell has researched and written on this.)
Now why this seems to happen, I can not say. But political representation seems to have little, or maybe even the opposite effect, on the success of an ethnic group when they are poverty stricken then what people think it should.
What happens is you depend on your job from political connections rather than entrepreneurialism. In NYC, you'd go to Irish run Tammany Hall back when to find work or get a job in government rather than in the street where you had to fight with other business people and private workers to succeed . Owners eat better than their workers and bring in more wealth to their communities.
I understand your concern and there's a certain amount of truth. Much of it is caused by democrat party traditionally calling everyone racists if they don;t support the "Black agenda", whatever that is.
I didn't hear much protest from Republicans when the 3 female members of Congress, AKA "The Squad", were told to go back to where they came from, a common racial euphemism.It's not a racial comment but rather one of nationality and immigration and ignorance of American ways. What the expression is saying is, If you don;t like it here in America the way we do things, then go back from where you came. It's a dismissive put down that in effect reminds them they are a foreigner and acting like an ignorant immigrant who hasn't learned the ways of America. It can also is used against people who are the same color and background as you are when you disagree with their viewpoints. It was a comment my friends and I would use against each other when I was a kid. The idea being that they are acting like an ignorant immigrant even though they're not an immigrant. I couldn;t expect you to understand American English idiomatic expressions. But your understanding of it is wrong based on the Democrats deliberate misuse and misinterpretation of words. They make everything into a racial comment when they aren't. It's an example of the race card.
What do your statistics have to do with racism?
Can you seriously ask that question? This is almost the definition of racism--people being treated differently because of their skin color and ethnicity.Your logic is misinformed.
Your logic is misinformed.
It's not a racial comment but rather one of nationality and immigration and ignorance of American ways. What the expression is saying is, If you don;t like it here in America the way we do things, then go back from where you came. It's a dismissive put down that in effect reminds them they are a foreigner and acting like an ignorant immigrant who hasn't learned the ways of America. It can also is used against people who are the same color and background as you are when you disagree with their viewpoints. It was a comment my friends and I would use against each other when I was a kid. The idea being that they are acting like an ignorant immigrant even though they're not an immigrant. I couldn;t expect you to understand American English idiomatic expressions. But your understanding of it is wrong based on the Democrats deliberate misuse and misinterpretation of words. They make everything into a racial comment when they aren't. It's an example of the race card.
I'm sure you have expressions that are negative about immigrants in your country as well.
Race started to become promoted as ooh! and wow! with the advent of another tv show (the name of which I forget) where an old guy plays a low-class white character who is blatantly racist but is usually shown up as being very ignorant.
Can you seriously ask that question? This is almost the definition of racism--people being treated differently because of their skin color and ethnicity.
Oh, come on. Everyone knows what he meant and so do you.So you know what I meant too, I suppose. I guess I'm just one of Hillary's deplorables. You know every time you play the race card you remind lots of people just how hateful and insulting the left really is.
It's not a racial comment but rather one of nationality and immigration and ignorance of American ways. What the expression is saying is, If you don;t like it here in America the way we do things, then go back from where you came. It's a dismissive put down that in effect reminds them they are a foreigner and acting like an ignorant immigrant who hasn't learned the ways of America. It can also is used against people who are the same color and background as you are when you disagree with their viewpoints. It was a comment my friends and I would use against each other when I was a kid. The idea being that they are acting like an ignorant immigrant even though they're not an immigrant. I couldn;t expect you to understand American English idiomatic expressions. But your understanding of it is wrong based on the Democrats deliberate misuse and misinterpretation of words. They make everything into a racial comment when they aren't. It's an example of the race card.
I'm sure you have expressions that are negative about immigrants in your country as well.
Correlation does not imply causation. One of the main tenants of Sociology.
Say it with me now, "Correlation does not imply causation."
There, now that we have that out of the way, a social study showing statistical disparities related to peoples races does not mean that racism had anything to with the disparities. You need to do a little more research to get to that point.
Making that assumption is the same exact way anti-vaxxers came up with the idea that vaccines cause autism. This is literally exactly how the anti-vax movement started.
Another example, women only make 10.4% of the prison population. I guess that means the criminal justice system is sexist against men. Oh wait, oops, that's right, correlation does not imply causation. My bad.
Of course you have to go a layer deeper, but no one here is writing a thesis ;) Thing is, you don't have to go THAT much deeper at all if you're trying to ferret out evidence of institutional racism, anecdotal counter-examples like Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson etc. aside.
As for your question about how whether or not the criminal justice system is biased against men? Well, yes, it does seem to be. (https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx) Do you need me to dig up studies showing institutional disparities in criminal sentencing for minorities, or disparities in hiring equally qualified candidates? I mean, you know I can, but do you really not believe it?
Also, back on topic, "Rudy? Yeah.. he did some lawyer stuff for me, but I have a lot of lawyers. The BEST lawyers. I really don't know any of them that well." (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-giuliani-ukraine-call-impeachment-hearing-a9220851.html)
Will no one rid him of this meddlesome mayor??
;D :o ::)
No, that was pretty much a racist comment, Alan, and Bart has the idiomatic understanding exactly right. As I said, I don't believe all conservatives/Republicans/Trump voters are racists in the slightest. But some are, and some of Trump's public actions play to that. This is one instance that certainly did.Wrong. I used the expression exactly as I described. If an immigrant comes here and disrespects America, then they should go back where they came from. It's got nothing to do with race. If a Muslim immigrated to the Netherlands and disrespected the Dutch and the Netherlands, I would expect Dutch citizens to feel similarly. Who needs unpatriotic people among us. It's one thing if they were born here. You have to put up with their hatred. But if they came here looking to be Americans, then they should show some gratitude and appreciation and loyalty. Otherwise who needs them. They should go back where they came from. Now what Trump said and meant, I don;t know. I'm not getting in his head only describing my understand of the idiom.
Not a surprise, not that I am justifying it, I was just expecting this sooner or later.What did Rudy do that could land him in jail? There may be political fallout. But what legal jeopardy is he in?
Wrong. I used the expression exactly as I described. If an immigrant comes here and disrespects America, then they should go back where they came from. It's got nothing to do with race. If a Muslim immigrated to the Netherlands and disrespected the Dutch and the Netherlands, I would expect Dutch citizens to feel similarly. Who needs unpatriotic people among us. It's one thing if they were born here. You have to put up with their hatred. But if they came here looking to be Americans, then they should show some gratitude and appreciation and loyalty. Otherwise who needs them. They should go back where they came from. Now what Trump said and meant, I don;t know. I'm not getting in his head only describing my understand of the idiom.
Can you seriously ask that question? This is almost the definition of racism--people being treated differently because of their skin color and ethnicity.
I was referring to Trump’s usage, not your explanation.I went back and checked what he said. See below. It's not racist but exactly as I described it to mean. The mistake he made though was that only one of the four were foreigners originally. But the meaning was as I described. Now you may not agree with his accusation. You may feel that they are loyal and I can see where people are upset calling congresswomen those names. I don;t like it either to attack congresswomen as they were elected by their consituency. Just as Trump was elected by his voters. But the comment was not racist but rather nationalistic. There's a difference. Trouble is the Democrats and left turn every comment into a racist trope. They play the race card so often, they can't see that there can be other things driving people's opinions. We can't have a conversation about anything without it turning into an argument about race.
Pleaseeeeeeee!!!
Nobody is treated differently because they belong to a group with a different skin color, but because they belong to a group that is disproportionately criminal.
I went back and checked what he said. See below. It's not racist but exactly as I described it to mean. The mistake he made though was that only one of the four were foreigners originally. But the meaning was as I described. Now you may not agree with his accusation. You may feel that they are loyal and I can see where people are upset calling congresswomen those names. I don;t like it either to attack congresswomen as they were elected by their consituency. Just as Trump was elected by his voters. But the comment was not racist but rather nationalistic. There's a difference. Trouble is the Democrats and left turn every comment into a racist trope. They play the race card so often, they can't see that there can be other things driving people's opinions. We can't have a conversation about anything without it turning into an argument about race.
"“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, “now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run.”
Mr. Trump added: “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.”"
And why do you suppose that group is considered "disproportionately criminal?" And if, in fact, they are, what makes them that way?Maybe we should just leave race discussions for another topic. It's only going to create a lot of hard feelings and argument and isn't directly related to impeachment.
No, that was pretty much a racist comment..
You're not addressing the obvious - why did he assume/believe that the three American women were foreigners?Except for AOC who also grew up in my Bronx, I also thought at least two maybe three of the four were immigrants. But that's all beside the point. Read the words he said. They speak of foreigners who come here telling America what to do from countries that are so screwed up that's why they came here in the first place. They're here a few years and can tell us everything that's wrong with us. Now I don;t think he should have used those words. But again, they're nationalistic words not racist. Muslim is not a race. Puerto Rican is not a race.
Your logic is misinformed.
Please, James!
I’ve been recently told that I am a Johnny-come-lately ( referring to my recent citizenship) by a guy who flaunted his family’s 100-year status, I was told to go the f&$k back where I came from. He is a black alum from my business school. I didn’t reciprocate the insults and we turned out to be friends shortly after that. Not everything is racism, even if it looks like one.
Maybe we should just leave race discussions for another topic. It's only going to create a lot of hard feelings and argument and isn't directly related to impeachment.
Well, I'm an SAR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_the_American_Revolution), you y'all can BOTH go back ;)True story. My grandmother on my mother's side came from Eastern Europe in the early 1900's from some small town that no longer exists either in Poland or Russia depending on what century you;re talking about. The territory kept moving back and forth depending whose armies were more powerful. She never really learned English and didn't get naturalized like her husband did. Yearly, she had to file papers with the government as an alien.
And yes, I agree - everything isn't racism, and FWIW I also agree that when some people DO claim everything is, they do a great disservice to what actually is racism. But that doesn't mean that *nothing* is racism either, and I think it's critical that when you see a distinctive *correlation* (that's for Joe ;) ) you need to go back and see if there's some causation that's related to the overwhelmingly obvious distinction, and why that might be the case.
Well, I'm an SAR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_the_American_Revolution), you y'all can BOTH go back ;)I agree. It's like the boy who cried wolf. After a while everyone ignores it who's not affected directly even when it's real. And when the race card is played with a wide brush, it alienates the very people who also want racism to stop but they're accused also of racism when they're not. It drives them away from helping. It's a terrible charge and demeaning to be labeled as such when it's not true. People become afraid about talking about real issues and ways to help because whatever they say might be called racist and often is. So they close their eyes totally, shrug their shoulders and walk away from the whole deal. Sometimes they react in kind and strike back but wouldn't if the politicians would stop riling up everyone. The race card is terribly destructive and hurts everyone except the politicians who use it to gain power. There the ones who make me sick.
And yes, I agree - everything isn't racism, and FWIW I also agree that when some people DO claim everything is, they do a great disservice to what actually is racism. But that doesn't mean that *nothing* is racism either, and I think it's critical that when you see a distinctive *correlation* (that's for Joe ;) ) you need to go back and see if there's some causation that's related to the overwhelmingly obvious distinction, and why that might be the case.
Democrats pointed out that while Guevara was a mass murderer, he really needs to specifically come out as allowing murder up to and including the moment of birth if he's going to be accepted as a mainstream Democratic candidate. They also demonstrated that his brand of totalitarianist terror was a fine starting point, but he needs to show his willingness to silence anyone who even seems to slightly disagree with the left if he's going to get any traction.
"I just looked up the Wikipedia article on Che," Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted while she was supposed to be working. "I don't see anything about him addressing climate change and wanting to destroy an entire economy based on wild-eyed apocalyptic predictions. I might have to throw away my Guevara T-shirts, to be honest."
You can put me down as an "enabler," Bart. Here are some of the things my vote has enabled: https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments. As James Carville said in 1992: "It's the economy, stupid."Breaking Radio Silence to address the Big Lie that continues to be perpetrated. Here is the GDP quarterly growth data from just wen Obama took office to the most recent quarter. You can see that thee continued to be a dip as the country came out of the Great Recession and then the line continues upward at a steady pace. there has been NO great leap forward since President Trump took office and the 'humongous' tax cut that was enacted a couple of years ago has not resulted an major growth despite what the President's advisors might want you to think. Real data is often inconvenient and often disregarded by this Administration. the Administration has also trumpeted a lot of deregulation but much of that was already underway before the President took office (certainly the FDA stuff that they trumpet was being worked on during the last two years of the Obama Administration; rule-making takes a while to do).
Happy Thanksgiving Day everyone - Americans and our overseas friends as well. Today we celebrate and give thanks for all we have despite the arguments and problems we all face in life. There's a lot we all can be thankful for.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
I am grateful to have the ability and opportunity to freely agree or disagree with all of you, left or right. This is such a valuable trait that those who enjoy it by birth often take it for granted.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
In the meantime...If Obama went to Afghanistan they'd be talking about how caring and brave and dedicated he is all day yesterday and today. The press has been like this for decades - anti-Republican, pro-Democrat, pro-liberal. That's why there is such a positive reaction to Trump's calling them "fake news". He's only reflecting what many American have known for decades. Unfortunately, headlines count. The left always has a leg up because of it and the country and world only get a distorted view of American politics. The world see us through the distorted glass of a biased press.
After spending 13 hours in the economy class, even with a chef among the crew (Turkish Airlines), I thought it is a torture. Sixteen hours in a bare-bones military plane must be something else. In particular when haters are gonna hate, no matter what you did.
I will conclude this post by noting that someone does not know the meaning of the word perpetrated.
The first thing I'd claim is that I am young, thin, rich, and handsome.
When, actually, you're none of those things. . . Old, fat, poor, and ugly?
Baby Yoda averages 1,671 social interactions per story, Axios reports, compared with 850 for Bernie Sanders, 839 for Joe Biden and 600 for Pete Buttigieg.
If Obama went to Afghanistan they'd be talking about how caring and brave and dedicated he is all day yesterday and today. The press has been like this for decades - anti-Republican, pro-Democrat, pro-liberal. That's why there is such a positive reaction to Trump's calling them "fake news". He's only reflecting what many American have known for decades. Unfortunately, headlines count. The left always has a leg up because of it and the country and world only get a distorted view of American politics. The world see us through the distorted glass of a biased press.
Denigrating the press is a time-honoured tactic of demagogues, despots and dictators.
Denigrating the press is a time-honoured tactic of demagogues, despots and dictators.
Joe, The last Republican the NY Times endorsed for president was Eisenhower in 1956. That was 15 elections ago. Their paper has always been biased to Democrats and the left but never so noticeably until recently. Their bias against Trump is just a knee-jerk reaction like putting jam on toast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidential_election_endorsements_made_by_The_New_York_Times
Joe, The last Republican the NY Times endorsed for president was Eisenhower in 1956. That was 15 elections ago. Their paper has always been biased to Democrats and the left but never so noticeably until recently. Their bias against Trump is just a knee-jerk reaction like putting jam on toast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidential_election_endorsements_made_by_The_New_York_Times
So what’s the immediate reaction by <insert usual suspects here> to my “demagogues, despots and dictators” post?
Why denigrating the press, of course! No wonder I come here for the LOLs. :)
The Defense rests.
I notice that EU NATO countries are contributing 60-70 billion more in their defence as required by the 2% agreement. All have increased their budget for 2019 except cheapskate Germany which has stayed the same and Canada which has gone down. What's with Canada? Greece has gone down but they're over the 2% already and doing what they promised.
Trump's pressure a couple of years ago on NATO countries about their not meeting their obligations has paid off.
... Trump had little to do with it, other than proving to be an unreliable partner (which motivated to continue increasing the spending)...
I'm not sure whether the European NATO partners will meet the deadline and gradually move closer their pledge of dedicating 2% of their GDP on defense in time, in 2020. Instead of spending more than Russia, perhaps one needs to spend it more effectively, like putting more emphasis on Cyberwarfare and Drones than on traditional equipment.
No matter how often you repeat it, it remains bullshit and it's incorrect. The goal has been to gradually grow to 2% of GDP in 2020 since it was agreed upon, under President Obama. Trump had little to do with it, other than proving to be an unreliable partner (which motivated to continue increasing the spending). The level of US military spending is also a subsidy to the US defense industry, instead of spending it on road maintenance or alternative energy, or affordable health care. It's a choice, not gospel.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_06/20190625_PR2019-069-EN.pdf (https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_06/20190625_PR2019-069-EN.pdf)
You realize you are contradicting yourself in a single sentence?
There is no contradiction. 'Little to do' is not the same as 'nothing to do' with it.They've been treading water.
If you read the NATO report that I linked to, there was a gradual increase of expenditures since 2012. That has nothing to do with Trump, at all.
...
The French president asked how it was possible to be a member of the Nato alliance and for Turkey to purchase the Russian S-400 air defence system. “Technically it is not possible,” he said.
Macron, in common with most Nato states’ leaders, maintains that a Russian defence system inside Nato will expose its military hardware, including the F-35 fighter jets, to Russian military intelligence.
Pressed by a reporter about whether the US was going to sanction Turkey for buying the S-400 as the US Congress was demanding, Trump said he was looking at the issue.
He then claimed, incorrectly, that Turkey had been forced into looking at the S-400 because Barack Obama had refused to let Turkey buy the US patriot defence system. “Turkey for a long period of time wanted very much to buy the Patriot system,” Trump said. Obama, he said, “wouldn’t sell” it.
In fact the Obama administration offered the weapon to Turkey repeatedly but Erdoğan refused because the US deal did not include the Patriot’s underlying technology.
...
It looks like 75% of the law professors asked about the impeachment relevance clearly think that Mr. Trump clearly violated the constitution in unprecedented ways...75% of what? Who picked them? What does it mean? What did other say about it? The fact is Democrats have been trying to impeach the president since the day he was inaugurated three years ago. They've been looking for something, anything, to try to pin a crime on him but have only come up with political hijinks, maybe. Even if he's guilty of it., it doesn;t rise to an impeachable offence. It's all about politics. Even the lawyers who claim this or claim that are politically motivated. Lawyers are use to taking sides and lying through their teeth. That's what they do.
But I assume that the usual whiners will claim that they aren't objective about the situation? ;)
Which is of course akin to saying that they have no ethical values and just let their supposed political inclination drive their expert opinion. The funny thing is that doubting the honesty of the higher form of legal expertise in the US is basically saying that nobody in the US can be trusted... which is a philosophical suicide of the worst kind in that you end up having to claim that the country you love has absolutely no value whatsoever just for the sake of promoting your own political bias.
Unless of course you agree with their expert opinion and finally admit that Trump indeed violated the constitution in a major way.
Cheers,
Bernard
It looks like 75% of the law professors asked about the impeachment relevance clearly think that Mr. Trump clearly violated the constitution in unprecedented ways...
But I assume that the usual whiners will claim that they aren't objective about the situation? ;)
Which is of course akin to saying that they have no ethical values and just let their supposed political inclination drive their expert opinion. The funny thing is that doubting the honesty of the higher form of legal expertise in the US is basically saying that nobody in the US can be trusted... which is a philosophical suicide of the worst kind in that you end up having to claim that the country you love has absolutely no value whatsoever just for the sake of promoting your own political bias.
Unless of course you agree with their expert opinion and finally admit that Trump indeed violated the constitution in a major way.
Cheers,
Bernard
It looks like 75% of the law professors asked about the impeachment relevance clearly think that Mr. Trump clearly violated the constitution in unprecedented ways...
With a claim like this, it is customary to provide a source. Never mind that it resembles the 98% certainty that Hillary would win on the day of the election.
Whether the constitution is violated is for the courts to decide, including the SCOTUS, not someone’s opinions, even if law professors. Never mind that professors in general are mostly loonie left. Impeachment is not a legal matter for the courts, but clearly political, decided by senators’ votes, i.e., laymen opinions.
That's a kind of pat on the back, in a way. If profs have bright minds... but then one man's loony is another man's hero.
Profs tend to live in ivory towers, or model-worlds, as my Econ professor calls it. And yes, I am aware of the irony.
Amazon.com Inc. claims it lost a Pentagon cloud contract valued at as much as $10 billion because of political interference by President Donald Trump, according to the judge overseeing the case.
“Plaintiff contends that the procurement process was compromised and negatively affected by the bias expressed publicly by the president and commander in chief Donald Trump against plaintiff,” Campbell-Smith said in a recording of a status hearing released Thursday by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington.
The judge’s comments were the first public confirmation that Amazon cited bias by Trump as grounds to overturn the award to Microsoft. Trump has long criticized Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on everything from the shipping rates his company pays the U.S. Postal Service to his personal ownership of what Trump calls “the Amazon Washington Post.”
Their arguments have nothing to do with it, Bart. It's all "he said, she said."
Huh? The interviews were about the legal aspects of the Constitution.
They can argue about that all they want, Bart, but if they're actually going to impeach anyone -- especially the president -- they're going to have to come up with some provable offenses on his part. After more than two years of a crookedly established coup attempt on the part of a special prosecutor they were unable to do that. Now they're rattling their heads about what they heard from somebody else who heard it from somebody else, and pretending that's evidence. The House can have at it, but once the thing gets to the Senate they're dead in the water. The House will vote to impeach, though the Dems will lose the votes of some of their members from districts that went for Trump three years ago. Those Dems with shaky support will lose in the next election and the Republicans will take back the House, but for now the vote will be to impeach. On the other hand, since none of these idiots have been able to come up with an impeachable offense, there's a reasonable chance that the Senate will reject the impeachment out of hand and not even discuss it or vote on it.So basically the constitutional scholars who testified yesterday don't have any idea what they are talking about?
So basically the constitutional scholars who testified yesterday don't have any idea what they are talking about?
So basically the constitutional scholars who testified yesterday don't have any idea what they are talking about?
It looks like 75% of the law professors asked about the impeachment relevance think that Mr. Trump clearly violated the constitution in unprecedented ways...I believe 75% of the law professors invited to testify before the House were invited by Democrats. I only heard part of what they said, but in the part I heard they hedged, saying only something like "if Congress concludes that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for personal gain, then that is an impeachable offense". They did not actually claim that Trump committed an offense, they only said that if he committed the offense, it would be impeachable.
I believe 75% of the law professors invited to testify before the House were invited by Democrats. I only heard part of what they said, but in the part I heard they hedged, saying only something like "if Congress concludes that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for personal gain, then that is an impeachable offense". They did not actually claim that Trump committed an offense, they only said that if he committed the offense, it would be impeachable.
I believe 75% of the law professors invited to testify before the House were invited by Democrats. I only heard part of what they said, but in the part I heard they hedged, saying only something like "if Congress concludes that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for personal gain, then that is an impeachable offense". They did not actually claim that Trump committed an offense, they only said that if he committed the offense, it would be impeachable.
I believe 75% of the law professors invited to testify before the House were invited by Democrats. I only heard part of what they said, but in the part I heard they hedged, saying only something like "if Congress concludes that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for personal gain, then that is an impeachable offense". They did not actually claim that Trump committed an offense, they only said that if he committed the offense, it would be impeachable.
If the president asked Ukraine to investigate its government and the Bidens for corruption because it appears there was corruption by the Bidens, then it's not impeachable even if there's political fallout in the president's benefit. Otherwise a president, any president, who likewise legitimately directs a government agency to investigate something where there is associate political fallout, could be accused of an impeachable offense. So a president would be prevented from operating in his constitutionally granted powers.
In other words, if Biden wasn't running for president, would it have been proper for a president to call for his investigation because there appears to be some corruption going on and hold back money (quid-pro-quo) from the country until they agreed to investigate? If there answer is yes, then there can be no violation of the constitution.
Alan,The Bidens may be guilty of what the Democrats are calling the president guilty of. Bribery. VP Biden's son receive $50K a month for a no show job in Ukraine and his father got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for investigating the company his son was working for. 1+1=2.
You make me think of this man who keeps claiming that 1+1=3, hoping that after all the other sane people around him die he’ll finally be right...
Cheers,
Bernard
The law professors called by the Democrat opposition party, at least some of them, did opine that Trump committed an impeachable offense. They acted like a jury listening to evidence presented by the prosecution with no formal rebuttal or cross-examination. Neither was the president allowed to call his own witnesses to defend himself. It is a Star Chamber hearing where the prosecution is also the judge and jury. The law professors should have their licenses to practice law revoked for allowing themselves to be sucked into a political lynching. See how they condemned the president about 2/3 down the page.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/karlan-feldman-turley-gerhardt.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/karlan-feldman-turley-gerhardt.html)
We'll see how they'll squeal like stuck pigs when the Republicans who will run the Senate trial play the same games as the Democrats did in the House. Then you'll hear them complain about how one-sided the trial was. All phonies.
Again, more circular thinking from you Alan.Bernard, You don;t understand the adversarial relationship. It exists in legal applications as well in political situations. It's biased but that doesn't make it corrupt. You expect a prosecutor to provide jurors with his side of the issue. The defense provides the opposite side and the jurors decide. Likewise in political forums like Congress or parliament. Adversarial relations are normal, not corrupt. It only becomes corrupt when the standards of fair play, a level playing field, are removed like in a dictatorship. We see that happening currently in a Democrat controlled House regarding impeachment. We may see it it in a Republican controlled Senate during a trial, although the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who's supposed to act non-politically, will preside. If too many games are played by either side, the voters will get their say in the matter during an election. So they are the ultimate deciders of fairness and will decide if anyone oversteps the bounds of acting too corrupt. Additionally, some complain a biased press corrupts the process as well. Hopefully, the people see through its bias. But I'm not convinced if that as of yet.
As I predicted your own bias according to which everyone acts according to political motives is shaping your views of the world and confirming your bias in the kind of endless loops that sends planes crashing to the ground.
In the process you are calling your own country corrupt to the core without even realizing it.
Cheers,
Bernard
The Bidens may be guilty of what the Democrats are calling the president guilty of. Bribery. VP Biden's son receive $50K a month for a no show job in Ukraine and his father got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for investigating the company his son was working for. 1+1=2.
I believe 75% of the law professors invited to testify before the House were invited by Democrats. I only heard part of what they said, but in the part I heard they hedged, saying only something like "if Congress concludes that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for personal gain, then that is an impeachable offense". They did not actually claim that Trump committed an offense, they only said that if he committed the offense, it would be impeachable.
Bravo and thank you.
the American people are tired of cronyism in politics.Weird that Mrs. Mitch McConnell, aka Elaine Chao, got plum Board of Director positions that paid big money for no expertise other than being Mrs. Mitch McConnell. there is also the inconvenient fact of her family's shipping company getting preferential treatment. There are other examples that can be cited as well, Wilbur Ross among them.
Then, since McConnell has already stated he will be making this a long trial and the trial will more then likely be January through March, all of the remaining strong Dem candidates, who are senators, will be pulled off the campaign trail during the most important part of the primary.
Fact is, the Senate will force the trail to follow the rules of evidence, which state no hearsay or conjecture. This means, out of all the witnesses called by the Dems, only one witness will be able to testify during the trial, Sondland. All others testified on hearsay and conjecture. Then, with Trump calling Schiff and the whistleblower, and the Bidens, he will be able to present his case against a pretty weak case brought forth by the Dems. Considering how the Dems have been reversing on the whistleblower, this testimony will play to the idea this was a Dem coup all along.Any statement on witnesses is just conjecture. I will defer to the lawyers about whether the whistleblower can be compelled to testify in person (and of course he/she is totally irrelevant to the case at this point in time. We also don't know if the move to a trial in the Senate whether any of those who have refused to testify will be compelled to do so. If John Bolton shows up to present evidence things may turn out in a way that nobody can anticipate. Additionally, nobody knows what the Impeachment points are at this point.
Weird that Mrs. Mitch McConnell, aka Elaine Chao, got plum Board of Director positions that paid big money for no expertise other than being Mrs. Mitch McConnell. there is also the inconvenient fact of her family's shipping company getting preferential treatment. There are other examples that can be cited as well, Wilbur Ross among them.
Any statement on witnesses is just conjecture. I will defer to the lawyers about whether the whistleblower can be compelled to testify in person (and of course he/she is totally irrelevant to the case at this point in time. We also don't know if the move to a trial in the Senate whether any of those who have refused to testify will be compelled to do so. If John Bolton shows up to present evidence things may turn out in a way that nobody can anticipate. Additionally, nobody knows what the Impeachment points are at this point.
At least in America, impeachment is done with decorum, more or less. In France, they're rioting in the streets against President Macron.
If the president asked Ukraine to investigate its government and the Bidens for corruption because it appears there was corruption by the Bidens, then it's not impeachable even if there's political fallout in the president's benefit.
Fact is, the Senate will force the trail to follow the rules of evidence, which state no hearsay or conjecture.
This combined with the fact the Dems have not passed a single major piece of legislation will kill the Dems chances of keeping the house. I know a lot of Union people, who typically vote for Dems, that voted for Trump last time around, and all of whom are pissed the USMCA bill is just collecting dust on Pelosi's desk for months now.
The Republicans may want to brush up their understanding of what "hearsay" is.
Time to compare with the height of the pile of legislation on Moscow Mitch's desk...
Bravo and thank you.Slobo, The three lawyers did take a position and said the president was guilty and deserved to be impeached. See my post #1846.
Weird that Mrs. Mitch McConnell, aka Elaine Chao, got plum Board of Director positions that paid big money for no expertise other than being Mrs. Mitch McConnell. there is also the inconvenient fact of her family's shipping company getting preferential treatment. There are other examples that can be cited as well, Wilbur Ross among them.No one cares about McConnell. He isn't running for President and is not involved in the charges regarding the Ukraine. Bidens is. On both scores.
Any statement on witnesses is just conjecture. I will defer to the lawyers about whether the whistleblower can be compelled to testify in person (and of course he/she is totally irrelevant to the case at this point in time. We also don't know if the move to a trial in the Senate whether any of those who have refused to testify will be compelled to do so. If John Bolton shows up to present evidence things may turn out in a way that nobody can anticipate. Additionally, nobody knows what the Impeachment points are at this point.
Which is the whole point you keep missing, only an announcement of an investigation was requested (and the text for the announcement was provided), and the announcement was planned to be broadcast on CNN. on Fareed Zakaria's "Global Public Square". The sole purpose was to create doubt about Biden's credibility as a political opponent.The president didn't want Ukraine to renege on the investigation so wanted them to publicly announce they were going to do an investigation of their corruption. To suppose your logic, it's just too much to impeach a president for something so inconclusive. This isn't a parking ticket you;re talking about. You want to reverse the election of a US president something that has never happened, and tell 65 million Americans their votes don;t count.
The president didn't want Ukraine to renege on the investigation so wanted them to publicly announce they were going to do an investigation of their corruption.
Hearsay: information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.+1 hearsay. Of course, if the Dems can get someone who actual heard the president say that he wanted to investigate Biden to destroy him politically, then there could be a severe price to pay. But I don't think there is more than the transcripts already show which is Trump wanted the Ukrainians to investigate corruption in their country including what the Bidens may have done.
I think it is pretty clear Bart. None of the witnesses called, with the exception of Sondland, spoke about any direct conbversations with Trump. They were either recounting what they heard from someone, or conjecture. Those individuals will not be allowed to testify.
Second, there might be a pile of legislation on McConnells desks, just like with Pelosi, but unlike with Pelosi, the Republicans actually passed bills in the last few years. Pelosi has not even though they campaigned that they could work with the other side to get stuff done. They have nothing to campaign on whereas the republicans do, such as tax cuts.
Wrong again. The word corruption was not mentioned, only an announcement of an investigation was used as a bribe.Investigate corruption. Of course. That's what Obama called for and that's what Trump called for. You're playing word games.
And by the way, the Congressionally approved aid is apparently still not fully released (something like 14% is still withheld) to a country at war with Russia. WHY?
+1 hearsay. Of course, if the Dems can get someone who actual heard the president say that he wanted to investigate Biden to destroy him politically, then there could be a severe price to pay. But I don't think there is more than the transcripts already show which is Trump wanted the Ukrainians to investigate corruption in their country including what the Bidens may have done.
There was a whole group of people listening in on the call.I said that. If the Dems can get someone to say that he asked the Ukrainians to investigate to destroy Biden, then he's in trouble. But the transcript is out and it doesn;t say that. So I don;t think that even people listening to what he said will come up with something different. After all, the transcript says what he said. People testifying can only say what they thought the president said which could be refuted by the transcript. The Democrats are arguing they have the transcript that the whistleblower has no importance. Well, they can't go back now and say the transcript isn;t valid. They can't have it both ways. UNless someone can be found to testify that off the record and not in the transcript, Trump said something condemning, there isn't anything more than the transcript. It's what the Democrats are relying on to impeach. Their interpretation.
I said that. If the Dems can get someone to say that he asked the Ukrainians to investigate to destroy Biden, then he's in trouble. But the transcript is out and it doesn;t say that. So I don;t think that even people listening to what he said will come up with something different. After all, the transcript says what he said.
And that's why it was attempted to hide it on a different server. The people who heard the actual call were upset by what they had witnessed.So if the transcript doesn;t have condemning evidence, what are the democrats impeaching on? Are they just guessing he did wrong. You impeach a president on what you think? Sounds very political to me. Not very legal.
The document that Trump released when he was caught, is not the full transcript.
And that's why it was attempted to hide it on a different server. The people who heard the actual call were upset by what they had witnessed.
The document that Trump released when he was caught, is not the full transcript.
We've gone over this before, several times. It has been reported, even by the New York Times on more then one occasion before this whole impeachment thing started, that it became common practice in the Trump administration of putting information on secure servers due to the high number of leaks in the beginning of his presidency.
If this was the only item kept in this server you might have a point. But it was not.
It was the only one that didn't routinely warrant such restricted access. Other calls with foreign leaders were not stored there.
Are you sure about this? What credible information/reporting is out there that suggests no other calls with foreign leaders were not stored there? I have not seen any that I can recall.I seem to recall that some (like his calls with Putin) but not all of his calls with foreign heads of state were kept on the secret server. We'll never know for sure. The White House is not cooperating in the investigation.
I seem to recall that some (like his calls with Putin) but not all of his calls with foreign heads of state were kept on the secret server. We'll never know for sure. The White House is not cooperating in the investigation.Who would cooperate with politicians of the opposite party who are trying to crucify you?
Who would cooperate with politicians of the opposite party who are trying to crucify you?Legal obligation. Court recently ruled their is no "absolute immunity" for Executive Branch employees from testifying pursuant to Congressional subpoenas. Legislative branch has duty of oversight. Hence Don McGahn has to testify. There is no stay during the appeal. Second ground of impeachment is going to be obstruction of Congress. Nixon eventually had to give up the tapes.
I seem to recall that some (like his calls with Putin) but not all of his calls with foreign heads of state were kept on the secret server. We'll never know for sure. The White House is not cooperating in the investigation.
But, until the refusal is challenged in the courts and the courts says that person must testify, there is nothing illegal about not testifying.Illegal activity is not inchoate until ruled on by a court.
Illegal activity is not inchoate until ruled on by a court.
Slobo, The three lawyers did take a position and said the president was guilty and deserved to be impeached. See my post #1846.
It is not obstruction to not testify until you are ordered to by the courts. You are allowed to challenge subpoenas.
The illegal activity, is this case, does not begin until there is refusal to follow a court order.
The courts have not ruled on any challenges to subpoenas by Trump surrogates.
As of matter of fact, the only subpoena that has been challenged that is now in court is Bolton's. No other refusals have been brought to the courts by the house. I don't even think the house brought Bolton's to the courts, but that Bolton went to the courts himself to see if he can testify, admittedly not a good sign if this is the case.
Since common sense seems to be something you value highly, how do you typically judge people who try to escape testimony under oath?You're assuming the impeachment hearing was fair, honest and above board. Trump or anyone else would be a fool to testify in a hearing where the people in charge are your enemy, who act as prosecutor, judge and jury. If Democrats in Congress had nothing to fear, then they would let Republicans bring their own witnesses to the impeachment hearing and allow certain cross-examination that they refused the Republicans to have. Maybe Trump should go to Congress with a rope to make it even easier for the Democrats to hang him.
Let me answer that for ya... you see them as having something to hide.
By far the easiest way to debunk a political plot if it were one would have been to accept the requests to testify and to just tell the truth. What’s to be afraid of?
Cheers,
Bernard
Do you understand the difference btw a lawyer and a professor of law in the world’s top universities?So Bernard, you agree with me that the professors said that Trump should be impeached. They defended the Democrats position to impeach and opposed Trump. Would anyone expect these biased professors to say anything different since they were invited by the president's enemies, the Democrats, to testify?? It's only politics. Duh!
And no, contrary to what you are saying, they have not formulated any partisan opinion about Trump’s guilt. They have just explained what the law says. And it says that the deeds Trump is accused of are impeachable.
Cheers,
Bernard
Since common sense seems to be something you value highly, how do you typically judge people who try to escape testimony under oath?
Let me answer that for ya... you see them as having something to hide.
By far the easiest way to debunk a political plot if it were one would have been to accept the requests to testify and to just tell the truth. What’s to be afraid of?
Cheers,
Bernard
Hearsay: information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
Seems Biden campaing is done even before it started. The culprit? No, not Ukraine. One word.
Joe Biden’s ‘No Malarkey!’ Tour ☘️
Malarkey...seriously? Sounds like a word from a 1930s/40s B&W movie.🎥 He must be going after the 90-something Irish-American vote. ;D ;D ;D
So Bernard, you agree with me that the professors said that Trump should be impeached. They defended the Democrats position to impeach and opposed Trump. Would anyone expect these biased professors to say anything different since they were invited by the president's enemies, the Democrats, to testify?? It's only politics. Duh!
Common sense ...... no.
Logic ... yes.
Although you could argue that it is common sense that a person who does not want to testify is guilty, it certainly is not logical. Actually it is referred to as the "presumption of guilt" fallacy, with fallacy being the key word there. Presuming someone is guilty, especially if they do not choose to testify, is an universally logical fallacy that even the world court upholds.
The problem is there have been lots of cases where someone does not testify only to be found undeniably innocent later on.
And lets not forget that the Maranda rights state that everything can and will be used against you. If it is obvious that a large portion of those coming after you have been seething for this moment, why give them anything? ??? It is actually considered smart to to shut your mouth and lawyer up.
It is not obstruction to not testify until you are ordered to by the courts. You are allowed to challenge subpoenas.
The illegal activity, is this case, does not begin until there is refusal to follow a court order.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
[...]
The problem is there have been lots of cases where someone does not testify only to be found undeniably innocent later on.
Why would there be something to give if you have nothing to hide?
Apologies Joe, I fail to see any logic in your statements. You can certainly come up with some sort of unknown falacy to justify just about anything. It doesn’t make it the most likely story.
The plain and simple story is that if they had nothing to hide it would be overwhelmingly in their interest to testify.
I applaud the intellectual effort to try to go around this, that’s good fun, but isn’t it ample time to concede to the obvious truth by now?
Cheers,
Bernard
What would it say about US democracy if this had not been uncovered and Trump had been able to use the power of office to coerce another nation into causing political harm to one of his opponents? Do you think this is good thing? Do you think he should be allowed to get away with trying to do this? Do you really believe that protecting "your" guy is that important?
Just because you win an election doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
The impression that is left is that Trump supporters don't actually want democracy. That's how it looks from the outside.
Sure, that would be a problem, but it has not been proven. Only Sondland has given direct testimony and he did not provide evidence that that was the intent.While that is true in terms of those who testified before the House Intelligence Committee, you and others cannot ignore the damning statement of Mullvaney who admitted on television to the quid pro quo. Of course he tried to back track this later on when he realized that he had given the game away. How this is used in the Articles of Impeachment remains to be seen. None of us know what the Judiciary Committee will do with this and a lot of other information. Maybe you and others don't see this as incriminating. Some of us do and it is clearly not "second hand" information.
While that is true in terms of those who testified before the House Intelligence Committee, you and others cannot ignore the damning statement of Mullvaney who admitted on television to the quid pro quo. Of course he tried to back track this later on when he realized that he had given the game away. How this is used in the Articles of Impeachment remains to be seen. None of us know what the Judiciary Committee will do with this and a lot of other information. Maybe you and others don't see this as incriminating. Some of us do and it is clearly not "second hand" information.
As Speaker Pelosi said the other day, this is all about Russia. Ukraine is their proxy. BTW, there is still about $60M of aid to the Ukraine that still has not been delivered.
As Speaker Pelosi said the other day, this is all about Russia. Ukraine is their proxy.
But the witnesses are not being indicted.Why would anyone trust Congressman Adam Schiff to treat them fairly? You'd have to be out of your mind. He'd twist anything you said into something to his and the democrats advantage not caring if he destroyed your life in the process.
But the witnesses are not being indicted.Why would anyone trust Congressman Adam Schiff to treat them fairly? You'd have to be out of your mind. He'd twist anything you said into something to his and the democrats advantage not caring if he destroyed your life in the process.
It's not easy to formulate a simple, comprehensive, non-technical definition of the hearsay rule (https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/) in U.S. federal procedure, but the basic idea is that, by default, the court will not admit as evidence the testimony of a witness regarding a statement the witness heard from a third party if the testimony is offered to prove the truth of the third-party statement. However, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule.But Chris, most of the witness testimony so far would be considered hearsay and not admissible in a trial in the Senate. The witnesses just repeated what other people told them. The other side cannot cross examine since the second parties never really heard or saw what happened. That's classic hearsay testimony. The Chief Justice would not allow that into evidence.
It is important to remember that an impeachment is not a criminal trial. It is not judicial proceeding. It is a legislative process that was designed to provide a check against abuse of power by the president, vice president, and other "civil officers" of the United States (e.g., federal judges, cabinet members and other appointive officials, etc.).
If hearsay evidence is offered during a Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, the presiding officer―U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts―would need to rule on whether the evidence is admissible. I would expect Justice Roberts to be generally guided by the federal rules of evidence in situations such as this, but also for him to exercise considerable discretion in applying the rules, especially if the White House continues to prevent knowledgeable witnesses from testifying. And since this would only be the third removal proceeding for a U.S. president, I think any attempt to predict how he would rule on any particular proffer of evidence amounts to pure conjecture.
That could be the case, I'll let lawyers decide that, but it's not in line with the oath of office, is it? To support and defend, is not the same as to frustrate the process.
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
What would it say about US democracy if this had not been uncovered and Trump had been able to use the power of office to coerce another nation into causing political harm to one of his opponents? Do you think this is good thing? Do you think he should be allowed to get away with trying to do this? Do you really believe that protecting "your" guy is that important?
Just because you win an election doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
The impression that is left is that Trump supporters don't actually want democracy. That's how it looks from the outside.
While that is true in terms of those who testified before the House Intelligence Committee, you and others cannot ignore the damning statement of Mullvaney who admitted on television to the quid pro quo. Of course he tried to back track this later on when he realized that he had given the game away. How this is used in the Articles of Impeachment remains to be seen. None of us know what the Judiciary Committee will do with this and a lot of other information. Maybe you and others don't see this as incriminating. Some of us do and it is clearly not "second hand" information.
As Speaker Pelosi said the other day, this is all about Russia. Ukraine is their proxy. BTW, there is still about $60M of aid to the Ukraine that still has not been delivered.
Aren't the democrats in the House of Representatives using the power of their office to go after the President politically using the appearance of Trump acting politically against the Bidens? How is that different than what you accuse the president of?
Trump involved a foreign power in his machinations, that's how.Corruption doesn;t stop at our borders. If a VP seems to be abusing his office to gain financial returns for his son, that should be investigated. It's legal for an administration to ask a foreign power to investigate when an American commits a crime overseas that may have violated US law. We do it all the time. All countries do the same thing. The fact that there may be political failout is Biden's problem no less than it was Trump's problem by making it seem to democrats in congress that he colluded with Russia. Neither the president or the VP is above the law.
That is not how the rule of law works. You need to prove guilt, not innocents. As of now, there is not proof of intent, which is necessary for the bribery (or what ever they call it). And the obstruction charges are completely non-existent since the courts have not ruled on any challenges yet.
The case is very weak, and even the Dems know it. That is why you have Schiff saying things like, "we cant afford to wait for the facts to come out!" Perhaps because the facts dont back up the claims. And then you have other Dems insisting "hearsay evidence can be much better then direct evidence." Much better, really, who would have thought.
Also, let's not forget exactly how unscrupulous Schiff has been. He made up his version of the phone conversation and read it, with out explaining it was a made up, to the country during congress. He lied about not knowing the identity of the whistleblower, and if you actually believe him I have a very nice bridge to sell you real cheap too. He was just caught spying on the phone records of political rivals and reporters who do not cover the impeachment favorably for Dems. It is obvious how corrupt he is; why even work with him.
But regardless of how you feel about Trump's guilt or innocents, look at it politically.
You are a foreigner, so you certainly are not seeing the day to day status of the Democratic party, but it is completely fractured between the progressives and the moderates, and no one has the ability to unite them like Obama did. I have a lot of Dems in my family, moderates and progressives, and they are at each others throats more then they are with me. So this issue is only going to break up the party more, which is already evident with moderate Dems showing 2nd thoughts. Add to that absolutely no republican support; as a matter of fact, unlike the Dems, this issue has completely united the Republicans, even never-Trumpers in the party. Also, according to recent polling, there is a drop in support in the purple districts, and swing states, amongst independents. Last, when this moves to the Senate, the Dems will be giving up control to the Republicans, and Cocaine Mitch's house horrors will go into full swing, whom (let's be honest) is a master strategist. Everyone knows how the Senate will vote at the end of it, which has some Dems out there now saying that there is no limit to how many times you can impeach a president, and they will simply find something else after this is over. (I can see that quote being quite the effective RNC campaign ad come next year.)
It is going to be a political disaster, especially considering the Dems have no legislation to campaign on next year. If you cant see this, then you are simply allowing your ideology to blind your logic. But the thing is, censure would have accomplished the direct opposite. It would have united Dems (at least on this), fractured the Republicans, and then given the Dems some time left over to pass legislation.
Fractured parties don't win national elections, and the rift forming in the Democratic party is immense. It's making me think of the McGovern campaign.
Aren't the democrats in the House of Representatives using the power of their office to go after the President politically using the appearance of Trump acting politically against the Bidens? How is that different than what you accuse the president of? After all, the VP isn;t above the law any more than the president is. Shouldn't Biden be investigated for possible crimes as well considered what he and his son did in the Ukraine?? If it's OK for one side, it should be OK for the other.
Political infighting is normal. Using the power of the state to benefit you personally is not.Just curious if you complained when Obama used the IRS to go after political opponents? How about when the Democrats went after TRump for colluding with the Russians where people like you accused him of treason?
I know that you understand this, stop pretending that you don't.
As I (and others) have said before, if Biden did something wrong, then sure, go after him too, what do I care about Biden. But whether or not Biden did anything wrong is immaterial. If Trump really thought Biden was dirty, he had plenty of investigative power and agencies at his disposal, all he had to do was do it.
Btw, I see from his statements at the NATO talks that Trump thinks that the oil in Syria or anywhere else is his. Do you not have a problem with this? Why not?
So not 10-15 flushes instead of once.Read my post. It's in plain English. Nothing fancy.
You have absolutely not answered to my point.
If there is only one direct testimony it’s because the other guys who would confirm the story have refused to testify under oath.
And this further reinforces the strong suspicion that they are refusing to testify because they have major things to hide.
I am sorry, but you refusing to admit this casts a clear doubt about the honesty of your opinions.
Cheers,
Bernard
No it does not.Joe, you know you'd be crazy to take legal advice from anyone here. You'd wind up in jail quicker than Flynn. Even Trump's own lawyer didn;t know to keep his mouth shut and wound up getting three years. What bozos. :)
Schiff has proven himself to incredibly corrupt. He made up his own version of the phone call, selectively leaked info to the press, refused to even allow certain lines of questioning, lied about not knowing the whistleblower, and is now spying on republican lawmakers and conservative reporters.
There is no reason I can think to cooperate with him. He is running a kangaroo court.
Trump's latest conspiracy theory:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/07/politics/trump-americans-flushing-toilets-intl/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/07/politics/trump-americans-flushing-toilets-intl/index.html)
I guess Trump's followers believe this is a real and pressing problem for the American people. Anyone here flushing their toilet 10-15 times instead of once?
No it does not.
Schiff has proven himself to be incredibly corrupt. He made up his own version of the phone call and only admitted to it when he was called out outside of congress, selectively leaked info to the press, refused to even allow certain lines of questioning, lied about not knowing the whistleblower after it came out his staff worked with the WB full 12 weeks before this whole thing started, and is now spying on republican lawmakers and conservative reporters.
There is no reason I can think to cooperate with him. He is running a kangaroo court that already determined the verdict. Anything Trump would have done would have been spun by Schiff regardless of how innocent it was.
Provide a fair arbitrator and you'll have a different opinion from me, but Schiff was far from fair. He residing over the hearings help a lot with half the country becoming disillusioned with the inquir.
In his signature fashion, he exhagerates. It is more like 5-6 times. I just caught myself doing it exactly that many times recently, on a toilet that had those two positions that are supposed to save water.
No it does not.
Schiff has proven himself to be incredibly corrupt. He made up his own version of the phone call and only admitted to it when he was called out outside of congress, selectively leaked info to the press, refused to even allow certain lines of questioning, lied about not knowing the whistleblower after it came out his staff worked with the WB full 12 weeks before this whole thing started, and is now spying on republican lawmakers and conservative reporters.
There is no reason I can think to cooperate with him. He is running a kangaroo court that already determined the verdict. Anything Trump would have done would have been spun by Schiff regardless of how innocent it was.
Provide a fair arbitrator and you'll have a different opinion from me, but Schiff was far from fair. He residing over the hearings help a lot with half the country becoming disillusioned with the inquir.
What does that have to do with anything?Not true. Clinton was impeach and Nixon would have been because both parties in COngress saw real impeachable actions by the presidents. With TRump, it's been all about Democrats finding something for the last three years to make an impeachment stick. That's political and has nothing to do with wrongdoing. It's just politics. Hopefully the people will see it as such, as least the independents.
He could be the devil himself, he will still ask questions and get answers from people under oath. And these answers will confirm that Trump did or didn't do what he is accused of (we already have at least one clear testimony that he did...).
Refusing to testify conveys the clear message that you have something to hide.
You realize that, by your logic, a president will never get impeached right? Since the process is by definition led by the party not being in office, you will always claim it is political (I assume whether it' a Republican or Democrat president being accused)... and this claim will always push you to refuse to testify, rendering the current impeachment process (defined by Republicans... you've got to love the irony) useless. Which is unconstitutional because the great founders have clearly made ground for the possibility of an impeachment.
You claim you love logic, I hope that you will have the honesty with yourself, if not with me, to acknowledge that you are caught in circular thinking.
Cheers,
Bernard
Almost as bad as in Cuba.Well, there, it's just bad plumbing. :)
Political infighting is normal. Using the power of the state to benefit you personally is not.Trump never said Syrian oil is ours. As usual, the press interprets his words in a negative way. He means that we won;t let ISIS grab it, that we'll protect it. We don't need Syrian oil. Nor would we take it. You're insulting him and us. We're the world's largest producer of oil here at home in the USA. Did we take Iraqi oil when we conquer that country?
I know that you understand this, stop pretending that you don't.
As I (and others) have said before, if Biden did something wrong, then sure, go after him too, what do I care about Biden. But whether or not Biden did anything wrong is immaterial. If Trump really thought Biden was dirty, he had plenty of investigative power and agencies at his disposal, all he had to do was do it.
Btw, I see from his statements at the NATO talks that Trump thinks that the oil in Syria or anywhere else is his. Do you not have a problem with this? Why not?
The only thing the impeachment of Clinton shows is that Democrats have a higher understanding of their duty to respect the intent of the founders. Instead of attempting to prevent the process at every step of the way.No. You're wrong. Again. Clinton was found guilty of lying under oath. His license to practice law was taken away from him because he perjured himself.
Cheers,
Bernard
No. You're wrong. Again. Clinton was found guilty of lying under oath. His license to practice law was taken away from him because he perjured himself.
In the Nixon case, which you didn;t respond to, Republicans were the ones who told Republican President Nixon that he had to resign because Republicans were going to vote to impeach him. That's not happening with Trump because this impeachment is all political. The Democrats have been trying to impeach him for three years without any crime. They've been on a witch hunt. Republicans understand their phoniness. It's only Democrats who want to impeach showing how weak their case for impeachment really is. This was not true in the Nixon and Clinton situation although personally, I didn't;lt think Clinton should be impeached even for perjury because he was lying about cheating on his wife, lying which is understandable if illegal.
Some of y’all apparently need to have a look at your diets ;)
Another great example of the failed "drain the swamp" policy!! Medicare chief Seema Verna requested that taxpayers reimburse her for $47K for items stolen from an SUV that took her to a speech (left unsaid is why anyone would be so foolish to leave such valuable items that included an Ivanka Trump pendant in a car). The property was not insured and the government ended up reimbursing for only $2K (a real bargain). https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/07/medicare-chief-asked-taxpayers-to-cover-stolen-jewelry-077761 This is on top of the over $2M she wanted to spend on public affairs consultants to "burnish her brand."
Just curious if you complained when Obama used the IRS to go after political opponents? How about when the Democrats went after TRump for colluding with the Russians where people like you accused him of treason?
Trump never said Syrian oil is ours. As usual, the press interprets his words in a negative way. He means that we won;t let ISIS grab it, that we'll protect it. We don't need Syrian oil. Nor would we take it. You're insulting him and us. We're the world's largest producer of oil here at home in the USA. Did we take Iraqi oil when we conquer that country?
Ok, I acknowledge I was wrong on Clinton.
But... wait... to be able to lie under oath... he had to have accepted to testify right?
Is there something in the law that forces a president to testify or was that a voluntary move?
If it’s the latter we have indeed obvious evidence that the Democrats, starting with a President himself, had a behaviour much more respectful of the intent of the founders.
Oh, please, Bernard, your desire to twist the facts to fit your narrative has become comical. Clinton didn’t “accept” to testify or did it voluntarily during the impeachment process. He was impeached for lying under oath in an earlier sexual harassment case. It was a civil case brought by one of his many paramours. In that case, he was deposed under oath. Not during impeachment.
You're assuming I take you at your word that Obama did that. Why wasn't he impeached at that time then if it was so well known.Obama was smarter than Trump. He knew to keep direct fingerprints off of the crime. His administration blamed overzealous employees of the IRS for doing the dirty deed.
When did I accuse Trump of treason? WTF are you talking about, making stuff up again.
Here's the news item I saw, pretty damning quotes. OTOH, I am beginning to doubt he understands what he is saying most of the time, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/donald-trump-syria-oil-kurdish-turkey-trudeau-1.5387900 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/donald-trump-syria-oil-kurdish-turkey-trudeau-1.5387900), which would normally be worrying, but it's the new normal now for the US President to say batshit crazy things.I told you he meant that America is protecting that oil from falling into the hands of our enemies like ISIS. Looking for other meanings is the media pastime for looking for anything that they can twist into something negative about TRump. Do you really think Trump is going to send oil trucks and ships into Syria to extract the oil and send it back to America? No wonder you believe everything the press says. Use a little discernment. You're smarter than that.
I told you he meant that America is protecting that oil from falling into the hands of our enemies like ISIS.
Didn't he say that ISIS had been defeated? Then why stay?
Didn't he say that ISIS had been defeated? Then why stay?
Well this is an inconvenient truth: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/12/08/sotu-meadows-full.cnn Lengthy interview with Congressman Mark Meadows, one of the President's chief advocates in the house. Dana Bash gets to the point with the following:The president is responsible for foreign policy and implementing the laws of the US, not Congress. Only the president could ask a foreign leader to investigate and use the hammer of withholding foreign aid to get them to comply. Who's negotiating with Xi? With Kim? With NATO leaders? With Iran? With the Ukrainian president? For example it is the president who has the power to impose trade sanctions on Iran and tariffs on China and European countries, not Congress. What Congress should be doing is passing the USMCA trade bill with Canada and Mexico. The fact is Congress is out to lunch most of the time.
BASH: You were in the majority in the House. You're on the committee that oversees this.
Why didn't you investigate if it was so wrong then?
MEADOWS: Well, one, I didn't -- I didn't know about it at the particular time.
And when -- when you look at things, as things come up, you would...
BASH: But it was public information.
MEADOWS: What was public information?
BASH: That Hunter Biden was on the board of this company.
MEADOWS: Well, I -- I don't know about you. I'm -- I don't know that any of your viewers go and look through Burisma's notice that Hunter Biden was there.
I think all of us can admit that we didn’t know that Hunter Biden was getting $50,000-plus a month from a corrupt Ukrainian company.
This is from a Congressman who was on the relevant committee that could do oversight and yet did not. He flails with the lame excuse that this was not public information despite the fact that Hunter Biden's position was covered early on by a lot of mainstream and political media before they became "fake news." This whole charade is too laughable and historians in the future will be scratching their heads in wonderment.
The president is responsible for foreign policy and implementing the laws of the US, not Congress. Only the president could ask a foreign leader to investigate and use the hammer of withholding foreign aid to get them to comply. Who's negotiating with Xi? With Kim? With NATO leaders? With Iran? With the Ukrainian president?
Let me guess; Rudy Giuliani?????
The president is responsible for foreign policy and implementing the laws of the US, not Congress. Only the president could ask a foreign leader to investigate and use the hammer of withholding foreign aid to get them to comply. Who's negotiating with Xi? With Kim? With NATO leaders? With Iran? With the Ukrainian president? For example it is the president who has the power to impose trade sanctions on Iran and tariffs on China and European countries, not Congress. What Congress should be doing is passing the USMCA trade bill with Canada and Mexico. The fact is Congress is out to lunch most of the time.
I'm not at all sure what your response has to do with what Alan G. wrote. You behave a lot like politicians do, just keep re-stating memorized talking points regardless of the current topic.Robert, You;re all over the place. I did respond to Alan G's comment. The congressman doesn't have the authority to do what the President did. In any case, what Congress does or doesn;t do has nothing to do with the president. He's his own man and has his own responsibilities and authorities.
But let me see if I can summarize. Congress is out to lunch. All of the normal media is fake. Foreigners are all ignorant and have no right to voice an opinion. I can't remember if you ever said anything about the Senate. So, Trump is the only person who knows what's going on, is he?
You don't actually believe in democracy, do you?
I'm not sure if you ever responded to the idea that if Trump really thought that the Bidens had done something wrong, then why hadn't he acted by asking one of the many security/investigative departments at his disposal to look into things? They, at least, have to obey his orders. Trying to either ask or coerce a foreign power to do this on his behalf is so fraught with peril that it is a particularly dumb way to go about it, seems to me.
And as an aside, did Trump show any interest in Biden before Biden started his Presidential bid? If he really thought that Biden was crooked, he had at least two years or so to get someone to look into it. Did he?
... I'm not sure if you ever responded to the idea that if Trump really thought that the Bidens had done something wrong, then why hadn't he acted by asking one of the many security/investigative departments at his disposal to look into things?...
Already asked (by you), and already answered (by Chris Kern), post #1234In any case, since the "corruption" was done in the Ukraine by a Ukrainian corporation and Ukrainian officials and business people, it would need Ukrainian cooperation and investigators to investigate. The FBI can't investigate on their own in foreign nations.
Already asked (by you), and already answered (by Chris Kern), post #1234PS I just read Chris's post. I believe it does not apply in the Trump situation. WIth Nixon, forces of the government under the president's control committed a burglary and then tried to hide that fact. They broke into Democratic campaign headquarters, an illegal act. They were not investigating anything that was a crime committed by the Democrats. They were only seeking political information about the Democrats.
Already asked (by you), and already answered (by Chris Kern), post #1234
WIth Nixon, forces of the government under the president's control committed a burglary and then tried to hide that fact. They broke into Democratic campaign headquarters, an illegal act.
Slobodan, I think that you and I really should try harder to get a life outwith this room...
If Trump is fully justified in his demands by Ukraine for an investigation, why did he keep it secret? Why didn't he ask for a public investigation?
And why does he forbid release of any (subpoenaed) documentation about what did happen?
You are conflating the Watergate burglary with the accusation of misuse of federal investigative agencies in the citation from one of the Nixon articles of impeachment (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132282.msg1138188#msg1138188) that I posted earlier.I'm not sure what you mean or what the law requires. Maybe you can expand on it? Certainly, if an American politician is suspected of committing a crime, the FBI can investigate. Numerous politicians have gone to jail.
... WIth Nixon, forces of the government under the president's control committed a burglary and then tried to hide that fact. They broke into Democratic campaign headquarters...
He didn't keep it secret? He released the transcript when asked for it calling it "perfect" once his private conversation with Ukraine's president was made public by the whistleblower. Before that, why would the president announce that he called for an investigation? These are usually kept confidential. Was the investigation of Trump campaign by the FBI kept secret for many months? Why didn't Obama release to the public that Trump was being investigated? Additionally, private conversations between the president and foreign leaders are not usually made public. The president would never be able to make any deals if foreign leaders knew their private conversations with the president would become public. That's not how things work. Remember how everyone made a big deal about Trump's private conversation with Putin?
It wasn’t “forces of the government” that did the burglary, but people related to Nixon’s re-election campaign.OK> But I believe forces of the government (justice department) tried to hide that fact. Didn't the AJ go to jail?
None of which relates to or answers my question(s).I answered your first question. Fully. I'm not familiar with your claim in the second question. I would need more details from you.
I'm beginning to agree with Rob.
So the initial investigation of the Trump campaign was OK. But everything that followed was a deliberate attempt to keep the investigation going using all sorts of nefarious methods and misinformation to the FISA court to make the investigation legal subsequently.
Horowitz report is damning for the FBI and unsettling for the rest of us
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473709-horowitz-report-is-damning-for-the-fbi-and-unsettling-for-the-rest-of-us (https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473709-horowitz-report-is-damning-for-the-fbi-and-unsettling-for-the-rest-of-us)
Well, no, not exactly. But you'll get zero argument from me that the FISA process, secret courts with little or no oversight, and poor, negligent, or outright fabricated "evidence" are a larger institutional problem that was a problem long before Donald Trump.Frankly, I can see them doing this kind of dangerous investigation for the average guy. Everything gets rubber stamped and moved along in the process. No one is really watching the store. But this case concerned a presidential candidate and president inaugurated to office. All the so-called errors, fabrications, and misapplications seem suspicious. You'd think meticulous care would have been taken to make sure everything was above board. But then I'm being naive because there were obviously political machinations going on. People decided to fudge it so it so the investigation would continue.
FWIW, I've had a problem with this process since it was instituted under the PATRIOT Act in a knee-jerk reaction to terrorism, had a problem with it when Obama promised to address the issues and didn't, and still have a problem with it.
Slobodan, I think that you and I really should try harder to get a life outwith this room...
:-)
I think we need one of these for LuLa:
In what has to be one of the stranger comments from our President, the following statement came out this morning from @realDonaldTrump, "I don’t know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me. With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!"
Sounds like the President was up late last night reading the over 300 page report!!! I don't think the 'Fox and Friends' group would have read it. I wonder how long FBI director Wray will be in his job.
Is Trump going to be requested to testify?
Is he going to accept?
Is he going to lie under oath?
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg is at the COP25 climate conference in Madrid. He says he's there for a simple reason: "I am here because President Trump is not."
...
So now, everyone is legitimately concerned that Trump is investigating Biden for political reasons only. They want to impeach him over it. Yet, what was done to Trump was actually worse and caused a two year investigation damaging him, the presidency and the country in general.
Can you be more specific? What would you like him to testify about? What kind of question would you ask him that would trick him or force him to lie under oath?
I dont know how anyone can take this seriously after today.
For the last two months, I have had to listen to all democratic politicians insist that Trump was guilty of an illegal quid pro quo, which then turned into extortion and bribery (because it worked better with focus groups). And if any conservative or independent or even objective democrat, such as Jon Turley, said that the burden of proof was not met for those crimes, the Dems branded that person as a foolish ideologue who just was not paying attention. Literally, bribery was forced down the country's throat for two months, and then ... poof.
There were no charges of bribery nor extortion nor illegal quid pro quo this morning. Instead, we got two absolute absurdities.
The first, abuse of power, that was so vaguely defined that literally any action taken by a president that could potential benefit him politically but that you have a disagreement with on policy could be massaged to fit. Take for example Obama removing troops from the middle east in 2012. This was clearly done to benefit his re-election campaign and it had some objectively real consequences that threatened our national security, such as the creation of ISIS, albeit after the election. Should Obama had been impeached over this?
The second, obstruction, which can not have legally happened yet. Everyone, including the president, has the right to challenge a subpoena in court. It is only until after a judge tells you to testify and you refuse, that you are guilty of obstruction. In Trump's case, not a single challenge has been ruled on yet, which mean obstruction could not have happened yet. By defining that obstruction takes place merely by refusing to testify, even if no court has ruled on the case, means pretty much every past president was guilty of obstruction. Obama did not play along with congress on the IRS or the Fast & Furious hearings. Should he have been impeached?
I am not one to hap hazardously hit "all republican" when I vote, but after this.
The fact is this whole thing is a political farce being use to not only damage Trump, but to also help build the case to agrue that, if Trump is re-elected, that the election was illegitimate. Nadler was on Meet the Press over the weekend and pretty much stated as much.
When the Dems, in 2016, insisted that Trump would not except the election results if he lost and how that action would damage the country, I agreed with them. I now still feel that if a political party does not except the results of an election, it is still a damage to the country, even if the Dems do it as well. The fact is the Dems have shown how willing they are to do so with Stacy Abrams, and it is a dangerous road to go down.
Can you be more specific? What would you like him to testify about? What kind of question would you ask him that would trick him or force him to lie under oath?
- Mr. President, did you use your office for personal gain?
- No
- Mr. President, did you use Ukraine aid to harm your political opponent?
- No
It won't make a damned bit of difference, Bernard. The House will impeach him, with or without his testimony,
the Senate will refuse to convict him,
and he'll be reelected next year in December -- if he chooses to run.
If not, another Republican will be elected. There's not a single sane candidate on the left. You can argue about Trump's sanity. You even can claim he hasn't improved the economy beyond anyone's expectations. But if you do that, the facts will demonstrate that you're either ignorant or a liar -- or possibly both.
... we all know...
... Why on earth would anyone want to reelect Trump? Especially as a Republican?...
Can you be more specific? What would you like him to testify about? What kind of question would you ask him that would trick him or force him to lie under oath?
- Mr. President, did you use your office for personal gain?
- No
- Mr. President, did you use Ukraine aid to harm your political opponent?
- No
Then what?
I am sure that you et al would consider such answers “lying under oath,” but that’s not how these things work. You can’t prove that those are lies, as yes or no answers to the above questions are simply opposing political opinions, not facts.
1. Abuse of power: this corresponds to the previous claims of bribery/extortion/illegal quid pro quo. I am not sure what's not clear. Instead of boring us with several examples, they have grouped them into a single category encompassing the previously discussed deeds,
2. Obstruction: this is quite obviously the case since we have ample evidence that Trump prevented key witnesses to testify (we all know they would have confirmed the accusations). This is clearly not supportive of the on-going investigation and therefore not supportive of the intent of the founders of the US. As far as I know, the Supreme court was a lot tougher on Nixon.
Cheers,
Bernard
There is no bribery charge, no extortion charge, and no quid pro quo charge. The Dems lost and, more or less, admitted defeat when they dropped these three charges that they insisted on so stringently Trump was guilty of committing, even as of two days ago.
Barbara Tuchman once said, "satire is a wrapping of exaggeration around a core of reality." So I'll leave this topic with a appropriately mordacious article illustrating the aggregate effect of the last two months.
Trump's Popularity Surges After Nation Learns He May Have Obstructed Congress (https://babylonbee.com/news/trumps-popularity-rises-after-revelation-he-obstructed-congress)
During a summer 2019 hunting trip, Donald Trump Jr. killed a rare argali sheep. The Mongolian government issued him a hunting permit retroactively and he met with the country’s president.
...
“What are the chances the Mongolian government would’ve done any of that to someone who wasn’t the son of the United States’ president?” asked Kathleen Clark, a professor specializing in legal ethics at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. She said that though Trump Jr. is not a government employee, he’s nonetheless politically influential, incentivizing foreign officials such as the Mongolian leader to treat him favorably out of a “desire on the part of a foreign government to curry favor with the president’s family.”
Did he kill it because the said sheep was going to testify in the impeachment hearing? After all, that bleating wouldn’t be much different from what we heard so far.
Something with a little more veracity, Newsweek.
DONALD TRUMP BEATS EVERY DEMOCRAT FRONTRUNNER IN THREE KEY BATTLEGROUND STATES AMID IMPEACHMENT: POLL (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-beats-democrats-battleground-states-2020-poll-1476382)
The Democrats wil have a closed convention after no one wins the nomination out right They will pick the candidate ro run against Trump not the voters.
Let me guess... Hillary? ;)Maybe. Let's face it. The whole impeachment thing is about the Democrats not winning the 2016 election. After not being able to use Russian collusion, they have to settle on the Ukraine issue.
While on the subject of politician's sons, Trump's son recently engaged in killing a protected and endangered sheep in Mongolia. He wasn't paid for it $50K, but that adventure must have cost him a similar amount.Well when Biden wins the presidency he could have the Mongolian government investigate the Trump's. You know the Deep state is at Deep work when they're killing animals without permits.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-donald-trump-jr-went-to-mongolia-got-special-treatment-from-the-government-and-killed-an-endangered-sheep
The Democrats wil have a closed convention after no one wins the nomination out right They will pick the candidate ro run against Trump not the voters.
Trump tweeted today that a "big deal" with China is "getting very close".
Can he be trusted and should I get back into the stock market?
Why in heaven's name would you be out of the stock market? Oh, I see, you listened to NYT's Paul Krugman, who said the stock market would collapse if Trump was going to be the president. How did that work out for you then?
The Dow was up 221 points today.
Trump is getting nothing from the Chinese.
As an independent, i couldn't care less about the Republican Party. Especially it’s establishment that did everything they could to prevent Trump’s nomination.
Never listened to that gentleman. Actually, I am more a contrarian, seldom pay attention to the experts and influencers, and do my shopping when the crowds are selling. But I'd like to know when Trump gets off Bezos' case and AMZN starts moving up again.
Why should they compromise now with a US President who may not be there much longer when his successor, be it Democrat or Republican, will be more aligned with the traditional US values of open trade?The Democrats three year effort to impeach him for political reasons has weakened his negotiation hand. The Democrats have hurt America and other countries who suffer from unfair Chinese trade practices.
Cheers,
Bernard
The Democrats three year effort to impeach him for political reasons has weakened his negotiation hand. The Democrats have hurt America and other countries who suffer from unfair Chinese trade practices.
... The Chinese economy wouldn’t be at 10% of its current power had US companies not massively invested in China...
(A couple of other notes, not relevant to this thread: based on the exit polls, it appears to me that the SNP swept the Scottish constituencies. Might this be the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom? And, by the way, what happened to the Liberal Democrats?)
... The Democrats have hurt America and other countries who suffer from unfair Chinese trade practices.
President Trump takes advantage of his bully pulpit (aka, Twitter) to go after............wait for it................Greta Thunberg. Her 'crime' was being named Time's Person of the Year. Said the President, "So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem and then go to an old fashion movie with a friend! Chill Greta! Chill!" First Lady Melania Trump who has taken on bullying as a cause has no statement on the President's words against a 16 year old with Asperger's Syndrome. Fortunately, Ms. Thunberg came back with a quick retort to the President and maybe, just maybe, the President is in need of some anger management therapy.
Although I do not condone Trump's twitter feed, I do feel that it was kind of ridiculous to name a 16 year old person of the year. (Unless perhaps if she was an actual martyr for a noble cause, such as Anne Frank.) No one at 16 has any clue of how anything truly works. I mean really, how can you when you have only had the ability of abstract thought for just 2 or 3 years (basic human psychological development) and almost no meaningful life experiences. Not to mention, it is more then likely the case that your opinions on major topics merely mirrors your parents at that age. In her case, this is then compounded by the fact that she is protesting by skipping school, which surely is not adding to her intellect or understanding on the subject, not to mention sets a bad example.It is not just about her.
It was a foolish, yet obliviously political, pick, but not the most so. If you feel climate change should have been the topic, a climate scientist with actual credentials and research experience who could articulate the subject matter would have been a better pick. Picking a snarky 16 year old who just yells turns off more people, which is not a good thing considering the state of things.
News sources are reporting that the Republicans aren't going to call any witnesses at the trial in the Senate. No Joe Biden, no Hunter Biden, no whistleblower, no Adam Schiff. What a disappointment.I guess they figure the Biden's would refuse to appear so what's the point? I thought it was better to do it the way a trump wants it done. But maybe I'm wrong. Then they'd have to call other witnesses and allow the Democrats to call theirs making more of a spectacle of it. This way they could claim the whole thing is a farce and vote to dismiss the phoney charges. The way Biden is doing in any case, it may be better for Trump to run against him anyway.
News sources are reporting that the Republicans aren't going to call any witnesses at the trial in the Senate. No Joe Biden, no Hunter Biden, no whistleblower, no Adam Schiff. What a disappointment.
It is not just about her.Nothing wrong with her activities or the rest of these teenagers. But once a person, regardless of their age enters the political arena, they're open to criticism. You can't have it both ways.
Greta Thunberg represents the large group of teenagers around the world that find climate change a real endangering issue,
even important enough to strike from school to go demontrate for measures that will produce a better climate.
Young people can think really well, better than 70 + year old; a lot of mathematicians have peaked very young.
Trumps tweet is that of an cynic old respectless man...
It is not just about her.
Greta Thunberg represents the large group of teenagers around the world that find climate change a real endangering issue,
even important enough to strike from school to go demontrate for measures that will produce a better climate.
Young people can think really well, better than 70 + year old; a lot of mathematicians have peaked very young.
Trumps tweet is that of an cynic old respectless man...
You really need to take the 10,000 foot view on this. Can a person with no degree, no lab experience, no research experience really be able to argue on the issue? Although this may be the case with mathematics, and computer science, which has very little to do with the real world and operate within self-defined artificial realities where you choose to believe independent axioms or not (and in which negating any axioms does not create an invalid mathematical system, only one that is different and unique) is completely different that needing to understand very real world complex interactions that rely on a lot of research and experiments.
Ignoring this 10,000 foot view is why Elizabeth Holmes got away with her scam for so long. People thought that since young people can revolutionize silicon valley, why not with medical science? Because it takes years of knowledge and research and experiments to amass the intellectual base required to excel in this field. You can't just create a new human body like you can a mathematical system.
As noted in other threads, I am not a climate change denier and I do feel the climate is changing due to humans. I however greatly disagree with the notion we should be using a snarky teenager who yells at people, while protesting by hanging out on her parent's yacht, as the face for change. It is a pretty loosing strategy and certainly, and rightly so, opens up the legitimate case for criticism from climate change deniers.
And as Alan just noted, the left's notion that Greta should be free of critique because she is a child just does not cut it. She may be a child, but she is in the political sphere now, and open to receiving political harassment.
Perhaps the biggest reason this is a loosing strategy is because, at some point, she will no longer be a child. If we continue to use her as the face for climate change, we will eventually end up with a face of a person who is now an angry adult that has no degrees behind her name, and therefore no legitimacy.
I can see why you prefer Trump;
A 70 year old and still respectless man with LAB experience? ... that knows everything - including everything about climate change and its causes and he does not need to consult anybody ( scientist) to know he has got it right
70 years of golf experience? and still not able to pay respect to a 16 year old or any other person because he himself would like to be Time's person of the year...
Ahhh, yes, nice ad hominem. By the way, I play golf too. Does that mean my opinion drops even more, since, you know, I share a hobby with the president?
LOL At least I'm not a hunter and have no chance of accidentally shooting a person in the face, so you cant lump me together with Cheney.
And to then ignore the fact that I have come out, several times on this forum, in support of climate science is more of a refection of your skills then mine. By the way, if you really want to talk about the left's strategy of using wind power and solar power, and whatever other rainbows sprout out of unicorns, all I just need to do is point Germany with their abject failure in decreasing emissions while at the same time greatly increasing the cost of energy.
And the idea that I should elect individuals who want to completely change the entire economy to a system that has been proven to fail everywhere it was implemented, namely socialism, is kind of absurd. Just like it is absolutely absurd to imply someone should vote only on one subject, as you just did here. Get out there and resurrect some Blue Dog Dems who are pro-capitalist, and you could lure me back to your side.
But getting back to the point, let's say little Greta was instead super interested in medical science and wanted to be a doctor. She spent her days looking at medical books and was just as enthusiastic on the subject. Would you abandon your medical doctor and start taking advice from her? Would you feel it would be appropriate to use her as the face of medical science?
You would have to be a fool to do so, in either case. She would not have the necessary experience, even if she had a pretty expended knowledge base on anatomy, to qualify as a person to give medical advice. And using her as the new face of doctors would greatly decrease the public standing of the profession.
Same thing here. Use a climate scientist with years of research to back his/her arguments to defend climate change and the need for action.
Sorry i am not trying to offend you, but i just do not agree with your points...
It might help not to call every opinion a politcial one- i do not think left vs right at all.
your idea of socialism is a caricature - even the US under Trump is a mix of Socialism and Capitalism.
Paying tax is a kind of socialism- needed to get certain things done, like building roads.
When looking at alternatives for fossil fuel; Wind and solar energy are already economically concurring with fossil fuel in many fields.
Even more if you calculate the pollution fossil fuels produce. No unicorns and rainbows needed.
Advanced studies on the economics of wind and solar do not show them being economically viable alternatives.
I have gone over this before. It has been shown in nearly every circumstance, that when wind and solar start supplying around 12% of the power supply, the viability of them drop significantly and the overall price for energy starts to raise. If you look at Germany, which gets about 23% of their power from wind and solar (with around 50% capacity of production), electricity cost is nearly three times that of France.
The only two real life cases of this not being the case is in TX and AZ. With TX, the natural gas boom has greatly decreased the price of natural gas, which is offsetting the increase in cost from solar/wind. In AZ, the fact that nearly 80% of the state is owned by the Federal government, the cost of land for solar and wind farms, which is a huge part of the cost, is extremely low and those farms can be located near major metro areas, decreasing the need for long distance lines, another major cost. Neither of these cases can be applied to anywhere else though, especially in Europe.
Even in the case of solar panels on house roof, it is twice as expensive to get electricity from roofing panels then from solar farms. On top of that, increase in urbanization means the roof space per capita is greatly decrease in time, eliminating this as a viable alternative. Not to mention, roof panels would never be able to supply the needed power for commercial usage.
Furthermore, even if you ignore the direct cost of solar/wind, the indirect cost of storing is extremely high as well. All batteries loose at least 20% of energy when you store energy with in them to extract later, but could be as high as 40%. On top of that, the shear amount of batteries, which are expensive, you would need to make this work is huge, which would cause even more damage due to the drastic increase in mining necessary to get the raw materials. CA has been trying to lead here, but still has less then 6 minutes of battery usage in the entire state, even if you count every single battery in the state (like those in flashlights). Also, all other energy storage solutions have enormous pit falls, such as the idea of storing water in dam like structures. Here, the obvious problem is you need an area to build an dam like structure, and there are limited areas to build such things. On top of that, you need to use fresh water and only 1% of the world's water is fresh water, so it is a limit resource.
The only solution that could be an alternative is nuclear. Unlike wind and solar, it uses very little land. As an environmentalist, one of the biggest gripes I have with wind/solar the shear amount of land you need, all of which is destroyed. Nuclear is very different. Nuclear fuel is incredibly power dense, so you don't need to use a lot of it per capita. Nuclear waste is completely self contain. Unlike wind or solar, it can produce energy on demand and a plant can operate 80+% of the time. Best case, solar and wind only produce energy 30% of the time. Additionally, unlike geothermal where you need geothermal vents nearby to use, nuclear can be implemented anywhere.
Overall I hear the left demonize nuclear (with the exception of Bill Gates, but I cant invest in his company yet), whereas the right does not, albeit some are afraid of it. So I will vote for where the workable solution is, and until the left starts excepting nuclear as the only main alternative, it's not there.
You must realize that we are only at the starting point of this green economy; The period of the first FORD so to speak; It seems you only can think of a faster carriage with more horses, not knowing what a car is.
Many problems you mention - like energy storage, are just a matter of time to be tackled; Already viable ideas are tested.
If you put solar panels on all the roofs, making them solar roofs you have already tackled one big area problem you mentioned. (decentralizing energysupply has some benefits)
The problem with nuclear power is that in that case the cost of nuclear waste storage and the dismantling of such a reactor is always left out of the economic equation. Not to mention when something goes really wrong.
I am not saying that we can tackle all energy needs with wind and solar, but a lot of them. Also we are learning to make our energy slurping devices much more efficient. We waste a lot of energy.
To move around our-80KG-selves, we drag along a car of 2000KG powered by gasoline; How stupid that sounds.
The Chinese are investing a lot of money in green energy; They look 50 years ahead instead of 4, and know it is the only solution to create a future China where you can live.
In Europe we are at the start of a green deal; we all have to find out what will become of that, but the intention is there and a lot of money will be invested in it.
In 2050 Europe has to be climate neutral. A lot of positive thinking crazy people here; that is a good start. You need that otherwise you stay stuck with burning carbon things.
The Democrats three year effort to impeach him for political reasons has weakened his negotiation hand. The Democrats have hurt America and other countries who suffer from unfair Chinese trade practices.
I guess they figure the Biden's would refuse to appear so what's the point? I thought it was better to do it the way a trump wants it done. But maybe I'm wrong. Then they'd have to call other witnesses and allow the Democrats to call theirs making more of a spectacle of it. This way they could claim the whole thing is a farce and vote to dismiss the phoney charges. The way Biden is doing in any case, it may be better for Trump to run against him anyway.
All physicists that I have listened on the topic of increasing efficiency of solar wind power all agree we are far past the point of diminishing returns. Wind and solar has been around for decades, but only just started to be implemented due to higher fuel costs in the last decade. Increases in efficiency will be minimal unless a new technology is developed. Not to mention there is the large downside that neither wind nor solar produce energy on demand.
Insofar as alternate storage devices, none of them have been proven to work on a large scale. Maybe there is some hope here, but since wind/solar are so energy dilute and intermittent, if we can not get those to work, none of that really matters.
If you disagree, please show me examples of countries that have greatly increased their wind and solar reliance with prices going down. Like I said, I only know of TX and AZ, and in each case there is a factor outside of the wind/solar economy that can not be replicated in other geographies which made that happen. Whereas with nuclear, Franc gets 96% of their electricity from it and they have fairly low electricity prices. Energy runs the economy; if the price goes up, GDP will be greatly effected.
Insofar as your car issue, increases in urbanization is handling that issue more effectively then changes in energy production. And as I stated before, when people start living in apartment building, solar roof panels start to loose their advantage. Large single family houses is where that makes sense. I dont know what it is like where you are, but suburbia is loosing it appeal.
With nuclear power, when something goes really wrong, often the effects are not nearly as bad as it is made out to be. With Chernobyl, all of the initial deaths were caused by the explosion and fire, and only about 120 deaths are estimated to have had happened from exposure with nearly all happening long after the fact from thyroid cancer. With Fukushima, the only cause of death was from mass hysteria from a not needed evacuation.
The Chinese do invest a lot in nuclear as well.
Kind of off topic, but I am a little weary on China though. As with all urbanized countries, their birth rate is below the 2.1 children per female needed to maintain the population, plus they are very restrictive on immigration and the one child policy created a situation where there are many more males in prime age then female, all of which will bring a crash in their population in the next decade or two. Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson have some interesting research on this. I would say, better to look to India then China, at least with investments.
Or, more realistically, they know that Biden would be found to be innocent of any of the fantasy crimes the Republicans have been daydreaming about. Which would have further confirmed the fact that what Trump is accused of can only be true.
The smart play of the Democrats would be to have Biden testify. How great would that not be? I can imagine the Republican clan shaking at this thought.
Cheers,
Bernard
Joe,
About Fukushima, I was there, you have no idea what you are talking about... yet you are talking about it with a great degree of confidence...
There was no mass histeria and even less a mas histeria that caused people to die. Evacuation was obviously needed although people didn’t want to evacuate.
I don’t disagree about the value of well designed and state ran nuclear power though. Fukushima has been the obvious proof that private operators cannot deal with the consequences of accidents and there is no reason why citizens should let them ripe the benefits without dealing with the actual costs. A sound society must be built on accountability.
Cheers,
Bernard
Not really.
Biden testifying would (edit, could) certainly hurt him, even though it was not illegal. It is pretty obvious, or that is the perception, Hunter was selling White House access; there is no way around this. This is technically not illegal to do with foreign companies, but still not a good look. Same thing with the Chinese firm, and Biden really has some explaining to do about it. It is like the Hillary email thing, if she had owned up to it and apologized, it would not have become such a big issue.
Answer me this - it's a totally honest question, and I truly don't know the answer (and am genuinely curious). Why is this such a problem for Biden, when half of Trump's campaign team was neck-deep in Russian influence (forget about "collusion" - I'm just talking about acknowledged, publicly know work like what Manafort was doing)? And why does Hillary's email issue matter, when it's widely acknowledged that Trump, Pompeo, Sondland etc. have been continuously loose with communications security protocols?James that's a great question. Let me answer it with a question. Why can the Democrats spend 2 1/2 years looking to impeach the president accusing him and his sons of using his office fir monetary gain, without proof or charges other than their own, yet Trump can't play the same political games going after Democrat political leaders like Biden and his son who appear to have use Biden's office for monetary gain? At worse, this is all political hijinks. Not something we impeach presidents or vice presidents for.
Basically, I don't think anyone denies that Trump (and let's restrict it to these two issues for the sake of clarity) and his team do everything Hunter Biden is being accused of with regard to foreign entanglements, and everything HRC was accused of ("lock her up!!!") on a more frequent and less secure basis.
So why is this such a killer for Biden/Hillary but a nonissue for Trump?
Answer me this - it's a totally honest question, and I truly don't know the answer (and am genuinely curious). Why is this such a problem for Biden, when half of Trump's campaign team was neck-deep in Russian influence (forget about "collusion" - I'm just talking about acknowledged, publicly know work like what Manafort was doing)? And why does Hillary's email issue matter, when it's widely acknowledged that Trump, Pompeo, Sondland etc. have been continuously loose with communications security protocols?
Basically, I don't think anyone denies that Trump (and let's restrict it to these two issues for the sake of clarity) and his team do everything Hunter Biden is being accused of with regard to foreign entanglements, and everything HRC was accused of ("lock her up!!!") on a more frequent and less secure basis.
So why is this such a killer for Biden/Hillary but a nonissue for Trump?
James that's a great question. Let me answer it with a question.
Why can the Democrats spend 2 1/2 years looking to impeach the president accusing him and his sons of using his office fir monetary gain, [...]
... The investigations were about foreign meddling in the 2016 elections, and people were expelled or went to jail...
On unrelated charges.
I understand that a lot of people actually believe that stuff, but the real revelations are things like the state of the U.S. economy, and the fact that the unemployment rate for minorities is lower than it's ever been.
It is the first time since the early 1980s that the budget gap has widened over four consecutive years. The figures reflect the second full budget year under U.S. President Donald Trump, a Republican, and come at a time when the country has an expanding tax base with moderate economic growth and an unemployment rate currently near a 50-year low.[...]
The annual budget deficit had been reduced to $585 billion by the end of former President Barack Obama’s second term in 2016 and Republicans in Congress during that time criticized Obama, a Democrat, for not reducing it further.
Since then, the budget deficit has jumped due in part to the Republican’s overhaul of the tax system, which in the short term reduced revenues, and an increase in military spending. By the end of fiscal 2019, corporate tax payments were up 5%. Customs duties, which have been boosted by the Trump administration’s levying of tariffs on China and others, were up 70% year-on-year to a record high.
As Casey Stengel said, Bart, "You could look it up."
No, why not answer that great question with an answer?
Wrong. Democrats didn't but, unlike the Republicans (?), instead they did their sworn duty, i.e. to protect the constitution. The investigations were about foreign meddling in the 2016 elections, and people were expelled or went to jail.
What candidate Trump at the time did or did not do, would not be ground for impeachment (because he was not the President yet).
I really appreciate this thread. If I start feeling down for any reason I can read the thread and roll on the floor laughing.
I can tell almost exactly what y'all are reading. I can't tell what the publications are, but I can tell what kind of reporters and editorial writers the publications have. Bottom line: what you're reading is no different from the crap that gets thrown around on U.S. publications lik
e the Washington Post and Associated Press. It's all left-wing speculation and propaganda, pretending to be news and reportage. I understand that a lot of people actually believe that stuff, but the real revelations are things like the state of the U.S. economy, and the fact that the unemployment rate for minorities is lower than it's ever been. Things like that are facts. What you're reading is opinion. But you accept it as fact. That's called "gullibility."
From Wiki, "A May 2012 United Nations committee report stated that none of the six Fukushima workers who had died since the tsunami had died from radiation exposure. According to a 2012 Yomiuri Shimbun survey, 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
It was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986,[10] and the radiation released exceeded official safety guidelines. Despite this, there were no deaths caused by acute radiation syndrome. Given the uncertain health effects of low-dose radiation, cancer deaths cannot be ruled out.[11] However, studies by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University have shown that no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected."
And why does it always have to be state-run? It is not like state run entities are incapable of disaster. Chernobyl was state run. And since when were companies not being held accountable? The last major energy screw up in the USA was the BP oil spill. They were ordered to pay out $5.5B; that sounds like a pretty serious dose of accountability.
And are government run entities always held accountable?
Oh, for God’s sake! This glorification of state-run things!? Are you serious?
... The State is nothing but the citizens. The State is you...
Comrade Bernard, you are making Lenin real proud.
Comrade Bernard, you are making Lenin real proud.
... the value of enforcing state control for Nuclear operators...
Ah, now you are weaseling out. Nobody is against a reasonable state oversight for nuclear plants. However, you were clearly raging against private nuclear plants and arguing for state-run ones.
At 76 feet high and 15 feet in diameter, a self-contained NuScale reactor would take up just 1% of the space of a conventional reactor. Buried deep in the earth and surrounded by millions of gallons of water, one reactor could power a remote region. Twelve modular reactors, stacked up like beer cans in six packs, could serve a city.
"The minute you get rid of two-thirds of the stuff, there's less stuff to buy and install, less stuff to operate and maintain, less stuff to break and go wrong," says Colbert. "It becomes safer, more cost-effective, easier to build." To save on construction costs, NuScale plans to use a standardized design, mass producing modules in factories, transporting them to sites, and installing them in the ground. Colbert says they'll also be cheaper to operate.
The problem is that the States are hopelessly incompetent when it comes to approval of the new, small and safe nuclear plants. In USA, only one new reactor has been licensed in the last 25 years.
(https://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2019/09/0918TruckTransportGraphic-1000x475.jpg)
https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2019/09/18/nuclear-power-miniaturization-new-technology
I have no issue with the State using private contractors to design/deploy/operate the plants. The key aspect is ownership and accountability for the good of the general public.
Cheers,
Bernard
Unfortunately, there is very little accountability and motivation when the electric utility is owned and administered by the government.
State or private: rocks and hard places.Public service unions in America cannot strike for the most part. But some like teachers unions are very powerful in any case. Their power to assist candidates running for office gets those candidates to provide great benefits and higher salaries than many private workers. Who needs to strike when you get what you want anyway?
The state enterprises end up in the grip of the trade unions, where unions know very well their paralysing power to strike and how govts. of all colours fear that, and how it can impinge on elections next time around; the private ones end up mired in the profit principle, where you can bet corners get cut in direct response to bottom lines. And of course, where we speak of public essentials such as power and water, the strike muscle is the same for both alternative systems.
My gut tells me that state makes sense if you can get and guarantee no strike agreements. Britain has this fight over rail. It's been in both systems, and both seem to suck. I was watching a report on this very thing a day or two ago on the news, and the cost of commuting is horrific. If the new government in the UK can do one thing, let's hope it's to encourage good local job opportunities where folks no longer need to sit in trains for three hours every day just to get to and from work.
As impeachment hearings on Capitol Hill debate whether Trump abused his power as president to investigate a political opponent, Amazon’s AMZN, +0.03% complaint argues that Trump’s public bias against Bezos led him to compromise a major government contract for the Department of Defense. The timeline Amazon laid out includes the firing of a defense secretary, shifting requirements for the contract to specifically target Amazon Web Services, and a sham recusal at the last minute by the official Trump put in charge amid his demands for the contract to go to anyone but Amazon.
Just as an aside, when Trump makes remarks about various private corporations, I wonder if anyone in various regulatory offices is monitoring the trading practices of himself, his family and any associates. In the past, public figures in powerful positions have usually been circumspect in making public statements that could have effects on financial markets. It would too easy, and too tempting for the unscrupulous, to take advantage of advance notice of the guy's tweets to make some cash. I mean, if you're going to argue that you need to investigate Biden because his son got himself a cushy job, then you'd think you'd want to look into possible insider trading scams. Not to mention the effects that these pronouncements might have on any innocent third-party investors.
If some knew a few hours before all Trump tweets about the China trade positive and negative announcements, they could have made some serious money in the stock market. Buying and selling.
So blantanly corrupt.
Unfortunately, there is very little accountability and motivation when the electric utility is owned and administered by the government.
Case in point: Ontario Hydro was formed in 1950 and used to be a Crown corporation owned by the Ontario government until it was privatized in 1999 and since then split into 5 different companies and restructured a few times (I lost track of all new company names), because the utility ran up a $34 billion debt, mainly because of overbuilding costly nuclear plants and wasting tremendous sums for maintenance, administration and extremely generous salaries and other employee perks. In their early years, the electricity price was very low, but due to many wrong decisions by the corporation over the years the prices were raised significantly.
Ontario Hydro was the first provincially owned electric utility in Canada and it was the largest public electric utility in North America. Its generation and transmission system included 69 hydroelectric, 8 fossil-fueled and 4 nuclear power stations, along with over 130,000 km of transmission and distribution lines. In 1992, the utility had a $34 billion debt, largely because of overbuilding costly nuclear plants. Some of the nuclear plants were stopped, mothballed, and later restarted again at enormous costs. All large coal-generating plants were decommissioned between 2005 and 2014. In the eighties, I designed and implemented software for several of their nuclear and coal generating plants, so I was able to observe some of their problems on my own eyes and from conversations with the employees.
https://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/7165441-a-look-at-the-long-complicated-history-of-ontario-hydro/
Stuff happens.
Maybe, but safety of Nuclear facilities is an order of magnitude more important than optimal operation. Again, I have lived the Fukushima story first hand.
The cost when something wrong occurs is hundreds of time more than the possible non optimality's resulting from gov operation vs private ones focused no profit.
Once you take that into account, a safety focused governmental operation is a total no brainer.
All the demonstration showing that private operation is optimal for Nuclear make a totally unrealistic assumption that things will not go very wrong... because they just cannot, because the plant is run by a private entity who would go bankrupt if things went very wrong... so they will do what it takes for things not to go very wrong... by definition.
Well, guess what? We have one obvious example with Fukushima where it didn't go that way... at all.
This is the same kind of circular thinking used by those supporting Trump, he cannot be guilty because it's a political plot.
Cheers,
Bernard
Exactly, stuff always happens and it's irresponsible to put in place frameworks assuming that it won't...
And what makes you think stuff won’t happen under state ownership or control?
And what makes you think stuff won’t happen under state ownership or control?
Les made a hypothetical statement. Markets barely blinked on the announcement.
Every quid pro quo (Chernobyl vs. Fukushima) has the same value as any other anecdotal evidence: entertaining. What matters is that state-run economies are inferior to market economies, globally and historically.
But I don't believe that it has anything whatsoever to do with left or right: I believe it just makes sense on its own merits.
...
Leftists live in their own world, never bothering to determine whether or not the evidence supports their defective view of reality. No amount of argument and no showing of evidence will change their minds. If they're successful we'll all have to live through history's lessons all over again.
Why are you lefties all of a sudden running away from that descriptor? Until very recently, you were so proud of your “progressiveness.” What happened? Corbyn lost in a landslide? Time to pretend your were always just “common sense”?
If you refer to me...
I think it's ironic that Soviet Russia learned the lesson of Communism and Europe learned nothing.Well, from the perspective we have to learn from Russia... (?)
Unfortunately I think America hasn't learned anything either.
I think it's ironic that Soviet Russia learned the lesson of Communism and Europe learned nothing.
Unfortunately I think America hasn't learned anything either.
In its place hyperbole can be fun, but this is truly bizarre. Do you honestly think that European countries and the US are communist? Give it a rest.It's where we're going. Just look at AOC, Sanders, Warren. The Democrat Left. If the Dems take the senate and presidency especially if it's with someone on the left America is in for big changes.
It's where we're going. Just look at AOC, Sanders, Warren. The Democrat Left. If the Dems take the senate and presidency especially if it's with someone on the left America is in for big changes.
Conflicts of Interest - 18 U.S.C. § 208
This statute prohibits a Government employee from participating personally and substantially, on behalf of the Federal Government, in any particular matter in which he or she has a financial interest. In addition, the statute provides that the financial interests of certain other "persons" are imputed to the employee (that is, the interests are the same as if they were the employee's interests). These other persons include the employee's spouse, minor child, general partner, an organization in which he or she serves as an officer, trustee, partner or employee, and any person or organization with whom the employee is negotiating or has an arrangement concerning future employment. There are limited regulatory exemptions authorized by the Office of Government Ethics, an exception for certain financial interests arising solely out of Native American birthrights, and a very limited waiver authority.
Supplementation of Federal Salary Prohibited - 18 U.S.C. § 209
This statute prohibits a Government employee from receiving any salary, or any contribution to or supplementation of salary; or anything of value from a non-federal entity as compensation for services he or she is expected to perform as a Government employee.
Impartiality in Performing Official Duties - 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502
You must take appropriate steps to avoid any appearance of loss of impartiality in the performance of your official duties. Beyond the conflict of interest law discussed at 18 U.S.C. § 207, ethics regulations require all employees to recuse themselves from participating in an official matter if their impartiality would be questioned. The regulations identify three circumstances where employees should carefully consider whether their impartiality is subject to question: 1) where the financial interests of a member of the employee's household would be impacted; 2) if a party or party representative in an official matter has a "covered relationship" with the employee; and 3) any other time the employee believes his or her impartiality may be subject to question. The term "covered relationship" includes a wide variety of personal and business relationships that an employee or his family members may have with outside parties. Employees who find that a party or representative of a party is a person with whom the employee or a family member has a personal or outside-of-work/unofficial business relationship should consult with their ethics counselor before taking official action in a particular matter.
Fortunately, we... who are all left from you... have the oracle RSL on our right side, to guide us through these dark times...
That would matter, Peiter, if leftists were capable of learning anything from observation or experience, but as I pointed out, they're not.
And what makes you think stuff won’t happen under state ownership or control?
France seems to be dealing with nuclear pretty well. Why not follow their lead?
Yes.
https://www.edf.fr/groupe-edf/espaces-dedies/investisseurs-actionnaires/l-action-edf/structure-du-capital
EDF is state owned with a max of 30% private investment.
Cheers,
Bernard
I guess that means there's room for improvement.
Fukushima looked pretty bad on TV with a plant blowing up into the sky. Would government ownership have changed anything though? Wasn't the fact they were next to the ocean and a tsunami hit the main problem? Didn't thre government approve the location?
Joe,
Apologies, but I don't think you have demonstrated sufficient understanding of the Fukushima situation to make your opinion on this a relevant one... I understand your philosophical inclination in favor of the absence of state intervention in the business arena, but facts have clearly demonstrated that this doesn't work for Nuclear power.
I don't think you know people who have had to host refugees for months, if not years, because the private operator who messed up wasn't able to deal with the consequences of their mistakes. I happen to know such people. The same refugees who happened to fund the country house of Tepco's CEO throughout the years when they didn't invest what they should have in the safety of the Fukushima Dai 1 power plant.
Cheers,
Bernard
Comedy really did die in November of 2016.
... Does that mean that all attempt of socialism fail?...
According to the latest Fox news survey, 50% of Americans think Trump should be impeached and removed from office.
I wonder which of the Republican Senators will go against the will of the people...
Yes.
No, they will go for the will of the other 50% of the people, or 100% of the people they represent.
That sounds like a great democracy!
I think Slobodan has tried before to argue that the United States is not a democracy... .
Certainly not a media-polling democracy.
Puzzling, since you also were in favor of populism...
I don’t even know what that is, let alone be in favor of it. If that means doing what people want, expressed in elections, than, yes, I might be a populist. Doing what people want, isn’t that the very essence of democracy?
Populism is basically telling people what they want to hear instead of the reality. It's rooted in deception and lies...
Typical examples include blaming economic issues on foreigners, lie about the degree of immigration, claim to be in for the modest people and lower taxes for the richest,...
In other words, Trump is a perfect example of a populist.
Russ,
I am wondering to what degree you are able to deal with complexity.
Hum... how does that work when Trump got 49% of votes in 2016 and only 40% of people are against the impeachment?
It would appear that you are missing 9% of of people at this point... which is more than 10 million people whose opinion will not be taken into account by their representatives.
That sounds like a great democracy!
And that is assuming that Fox survey number represent the reality of the situation... which would be a bit surprising considering the vested interest they have in showing Trump in good light.
Cheers,
Bernard
... Give me a single example of a success by socialism. There simply aren't any....
Russ,
Apparently, Bernard et al found a way to weasel out of the historic embarrassment (actually, more like tragedy) that socialism was and is by pretending that, e.g., Sweden is a socialist country ;D
But, I forgive him, given that he, by his own admission, has no clue what socialism is.
I think the best example against state run power is Venezuela's state run oil program. Venezuela sits on the largest oil reserves in the world, but as soon as it was nationalized, oil production steadily fell. Forbes has a great article on this.
But anyway, enough with energy talk; back to the irony of the era of Trump. Have we all lost our minds, or are the media and liberals really this easy to manipulate?
OK sign is under siege: How the squeaky-clean hand gesture was twisted by trolls and acquired racist undertones (https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-life-ok-sign-racist-05282019-story.html)
I wonder how much longer before Apple removes it from their list of emojis?
Venezuela is neither socialist, communist nor capitalist: it is a simple dictatorship where labels are used as suits the boss to disguise the reality. It is a land held hostage to a gang of thugs. It's in good company right across the third world.
Rob, there is no way for socialism to work without a dictatorship, or at the very least a totalitarian government....
... There's nothing complex about the problem I cited. Give me a single example of a success by socialism. There simply aren't any. That's not complex ...YES it is complex...
Good one, Peter. What you're describing is otherwise known as the "deep state."Deepstate ? on the front page?
You (all of you) are being pretty circular, arent'cha? You (Slobodan) are starting with the premise that socialism is something that doesn't work, and then essentially stating that if it does work it can't be socialism. Bart and others are identifying things that work and assigning the term "socialism" due, I assume, to a heavy degree of public (i.e government or non-private-owned) involvement. Within that construct, it's no surprise that the people here that dislike "liberal" policies simply define them as "socialism" as a convenient way of dismissing varying degrees of government oversight/regulation/control, even though, in the context of this discussion, really only Bernie Sanders and potentially Elizabeth Warren seem to be actively advocating for state-ownership of a major facet of the US economy.Communism socialism and liberalism just represent varying degrees of government power and control over individual freedom. All government has that effect. Every rule and regulation reduces personal, economic, and political liberties.
Carry on.
I am sorry you think this is joke material.
Cheers,
Bernard
YES it is complex...
And there exists in this real world no pure Socialism nor pure Capitalism...
Deepstate ? on the front page?
Not so long ago we used to call that just a different political opinion... It was allowed.
Good one, Peter. What you're describing is otherwise known as the "deep state."
But there are many dictatorships without socialism ... So what is your point ?
You (all of you) are being pretty circular, arent'cha? You (Slobodan) are starting with the premise that socialism is something that doesn't work, and then essentially stating that if it does work it can't be socialism. Bart and others are identifying things that work and assigning the term "socialism" due, I assume, to a heavy degree of public (i.e government or non-private-owned) involvement. Within that construct, it's no surprise that the people here that dislike "liberal" policies simply define them as "socialism" as a convenient way of dismissing varying degrees of government oversight/regulation/control, even though, in the context of this discussion, really only Bernie Sanders and potentially Elizabeth Warren seem to be actively advocating for state-ownership of a major facet of the US economy.
Carry on.
Give me a single example of a success by socialism.
;D ;D ;D
Oh, I dunno. Just off the top of my so-called head:
How about the Apollo Program?
Or, the military? Not exactly a private enterprise success (Blackwater anyone?)
Or libraries (imagine THEM under the current IP rules)
Or police forces?
Or the fire department?
Or entire families not going bankrupt because someone got sick?
Not really sure what your point is here, or is if you are giving way to the classic fallacy of the converse. Although it is possible to have dictatorships that have not arisen out of socialism, it is not possible to have socialism without a dictatorship.
(Kind of like, if it is snowing outside, then it is freezing. But it is not true that if it is freezing, then it must be snowing. Simple example of the fallacy of the converse.)
As I said before, this is because people don't just freely hand over their property, it must be taken by force. And regardless if a socialist leader is elected in, like Chavez, he quickly needs to become a dictator to make the transition to socialism happen.
You took a quote from Rob, but what you said did not relate to it; it made no sense...
Alan is the specialist in this field...
What? I mean, those ARE all examples of public services or entities that do their jobs with varying degrees of competence.
No one here is using "socialism" in terms of arguing for the glory of the Soviet state, or for the wholesale nationalization of private property, and while that may be the definition you and some others are using, it's disingenuous to place that definition on others' usage of that term when you know damn well that's not what they mean. :)
If you want to provide a definition that we can all talk from, that would probably be more productive.
;D ;D ;D
Yes, Peter, three of these are legitimate functions of government. The Apollo program was not.
Boo. Your heart's not even in trolling today. ;D
James, I am stil in the midlle of settling in Belgrade, thus without my desktop and a proper keyboard that made composing longer responses much easier. So bear with me for a while :)
Oh cool! How long are you there? Hope you'll be posting pics!
Looks like for good. If you are coming this way, ping me.
I posted some in the Without Prejudice thread, but I think I will open a separate ongoing thread in the User Critique.
P.S. for those who often complain about acrimonious debates here, it shall be noted it is mostly rhetorical. We can be quite friendly IRL. In addition to James (who I know comes to these regions) everyone is cordially invited to ping me if coming here, for business or pleasure (including Bernard ;) )
Rob, you must have access to a proper keyboard, right? :)
Seriously, lighten up. It was pretty obvious my "there is room for improvement" comment was just a quip.
But anyway, getting back to your private vs. state argument, what would the state have done differently to avoid the humanitarian crisis? Would they have built a whole new, but unoccupied, city, just waiting in the wings for a catastrophe?
I just cant see how having the state owning the power company would have made the humianrtian crisis any less severe.
I was making the point that socialist countries always devolve into dictatorship.
Oh cool! How long are you there? Hope you'll be posting pics!
Boo. Your heart's not even in trolling today.
James, I am stil in the midlle of settling in Belgrade, thus without my desktop and a proper keyboard that made composing longer responses much easier. So bear with me for a while :)
So you consider the whole of Europe not to be socialist countries?
If your definition of socialist is equal to communist, then perhaps. But that's not at all the universally accepted definition of socialism.
Socialism is about the redistribution of the wealth...
Of course. There is precisely zero socialist countries in Europe.
Well, your “universally” accepted definition is anything but. Pretty much sounds like a feel-good definition you invented.
You can spend more on social functions precisely because we have to spend more on defense, as we have to provide protection for your sorry asses.
Well, then let's just agree that I am using the wrong word.
What I am referring to as socialism isn't communism, it's the modern embodiement of social wealth redistribution implemented in European countries. And it's in that context that state run ownership/control of Nuclear operators is the right solution.
How do you want to call that?
I think it already has the name: social democracy.
And if American commies, Karla Marx and Angry Birdie, would call for a social democracy in the States, they might even have a point and more followers. But no, Angry Birdie never shied away from extolling virtues of certain aspects of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Venezuela, praising even lines for bread.
Seriously?
Let me give you one obvious hint... by funding the rebuild of houses for the people who had to leave theirs as a result of the melt down of Fukushima reactors?
Cheers,
Bernard
;D ;D ;D
Property Insurance?
So you consider the whole of Europe not to be socialist countries? Or do you consider all European countries to be on the verge of dictatorship?
If your definition of socialist is equal to communist, then there are no more soclist countries and we agree it doesn't work... But that's not at all the universally accepted definition of socialism.
Socialism is about the redistribution of the wealth to ensure that the poorest citizens who have not been provided with the right opportunities get a chance to make a decent living. This includes first the universal right to healthcare because we, citizens of socialist countries, think it's an absolute failure of civilization when people die on the street out of easily curable diseases. I see socialism as a structural embodiment of empathy. As explained before, this is in no way opposed to free enterprise and market developments. As it turns out, Europe is a lot more aligned with free market principles than the US under Trump.
The level of taxation in Europe is higher than in the US, not the difference isn't that large. The key differences are how money is being spent and the structure of taxation as a result of the level of wealth (and taxation on income vs on assets). On the former, the US focuses a lot of expenditures on its defense lobby without this being subject to much public debate as far as I can tell, while Europe uses its taxes to deliver services to its citizens, starting with proper healthcare, good public transportation,... this is the result of an incredible turn of fate in which private corporations in the US (again centered on the defense lobby) have formed to public mindset to be both anti-state and pro-defense spending... which when you think of it is a totally loosing proposition for most citizens. You pay a lot of taxes and are not getting anything out of it unless you are invested in the defense lobby... and you are super happy about that. Very smart...
in the mean time black kids die everyday in the ghettos of Los Angeles out of drug abuse, drugs that are being let in by supportive police forces... the US having a rate of people in jail 5 times higher than any other developed country (an incredible 0.7% of the population in the US is in jail), against mostly black people. So that non social state is working great for the poorest citizens in the country... very impressive. From a European standpoint we wonder... how do you justify to yourself on moral grounds the support to a system based on selfishness that results in such a high % of your fellow citizens left out to die in prisons? Do you think it's they fault? Don't you think you would be better off with a little less money and more happy fellow citizens?
So yes, it is complex. Not even close to the oversimplification of the world between lefties and righties.
Cheers,
Bernard
Not applicable.
And you understand that housing is just one example among many others right? I have not spoken about the impact on businesses and many intangible assets also.
The situation is that a whole area was written off the map. Pretty much forever.
Any way you look at it, a private corporation is completely unable to deal with the consequences. By a factor of hundreds or thousands.
Which means that a business model for private ownership of Nuclear operation can only be built ignoring these aspects. Which is not a good solution.
All other business are built taking into account the possible costs if something goes wrong. When the battery of an iphone explodes and injures someone apple deals with the costs. And their business model is built in such a way as to factor in the costs of such risks. When you buy an iphone, you pay for the risk that batteries may explode.
This just doesn't fly for Nuclear.
Cheers,
Bernard
My God man.
If an entire area is wiped off of the map, there is no way to deal with that that would mitigate the impact one bit, regardless if it the power plant was state run or privately run.
All anyone could do would be to provide the capital to rebuild elsewhere, whether it be government or private insurance companies. Furthermore, the idea that only one company would have to cover the cost is absurd. Like I alluded to, many property insurers would be involved from having property owners in the area owning coverages.
Yes, Peter, three of these are legitimate functions of government. The Apollo program was not. Libraries are not.
Nor are programs that take from one group of people to give to another group of people. That last function was once done much more effectively by local charity, but government wiped out local charity.
Nobody in America wants nuclear whether run by government or private. So thre argument is moot.
... Just so you know, whatever your intent was with the three laughing faces, it came across as condescension.
I guess Joe isn't American then...
1. There is a conservative radio host in the USA named Dennis Prager who is found of saying, I don't need agreement, I just need clarity. You provided some nice clarity, until you got to talking about black kids in ghettos. Why not just people in ghettos? Lets keep skin color out of it, or I will need to start siting psychological studies on the effect of single parent households, including the recent landmark study that showed even if you are raised in a dual parent household but in a neighborhood with a majority of single parent households, you still will not escape the effects. Then we will need to start talking about cross racial statistics on the rate of single family households and the history in the rates of decline, pointing out that in fact one particular racial group had higher rates of dual parent households prior to the 1960s but now has the highest rate in single parent households. Then that leads to what happened in the 60s that encouraged this devolution.
2. It becomes a whole can worms.
3. But anyway, getting back to your other points. It is not nice to see people die on the streets from easily curable diseases, but that is not what I see. As a matter of fact, I dont see much of anyone living or dying on the street. Philadelphia does not have a big homeless problem. I see the occasional vagabond staking out a spot on Callowhill Street, under 676, but we have a lot of privately operated shelters in the city. I've actually been hire to photograph a couple. On top of that, it is illegal to live on the streets in Philly, which helps officers to get these people to except help and go to the shelters. Now in LA or San Fran, I hear a lot of discouraging news. But it appears to be brought on by giving people too much carrot and not using enough stick. Of course, using too much stick and not enough carrot has it's problems, which is why I support private shelters.
4. On defense, I agree we spend way too much on defense. If I was in charge, we would be a near isolationist country. I would have us pull out of NATO and the middle east, and mostly anywhere else. Perhaps provide help to Israel when needed, but they bested three countries at once in the 1967 War and appear to be able to handle themselves, and a few other choice allies.
Insofar as the prison debate, as I alluded to above, I believe the route cause to much of the increase in the prison rate to be related to the increase in single parent households along with the devolution of family structure and basic societal structures, like church. (Note, I am an atheist and cant stand the hocus pocus of any religion, so it is quite difficult for me to side with the conservative right on this. I do believe the increase in non-secularism is a contributing factor, even though I have no plans of joining any churches.) So, by the time they reach adulthood, it is kind of baked into the cake. Now I am not an Inspector Javert here and feel redemption is beyond possibility,
5. but I do insist on holding adults responsible for there actions and expect them to pay for their sins. (I am also for the death penally in case you are wondering.) Money and time would be better spent on trying to instill basic societal structures, like promoting marriage and raising kids in in two parent households. However, many elites promote the idea that marrage does not need to be for everyone and two parent households are not necessarily needed, even though most (83%) reap the financial benefits of being married.
In America’s most “socialist” state, California, showing us what to expect if the disease (of socialism) spreads to the whole US:
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/man-caught-pooping-in-aisle-of-san-francisco-safeway/
In America’s most “socialist” state, California, showing us what to expect if the disease (of socialism) spreads to the whole US:
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/man-caught-pooping-in-aisle-of-san-francisco-safeway/
You’ve got to wonder how those crazy Californian lefties generate twice as much economic power as the second closest state in the union...
Cheers,
Bernard
Give it time; it was pretty recently that CA was a republican run state. As Margaret Thatcher said, socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.
Plus, CA has seen 5 million residents move in the last decade with a net loss of 1 million. A big part of it are quality of life issues, such as this. There's only so much crap you take. 8)
As Margaret Thatcher said, socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.America et al already reached that bottom... many times ...and it was not socialism that caused it...
Rob, BTW, not everything in teh 60s was about sex, drugs and rock and roll. Let's get our mind out of the gutter. ;)
I was alluding to certain social programs put in place in the USA.
Thanks for giving me credit for three, even though you asked us for one.
So, why was the Apollo program not a legitimate function of government? It was certainly successful.
And why are libraries not legitimate? They, too seem very successful.
But that basically disables ALL forms of taxation. How do you pay for those three items that you do think qualify?
People talk about "wealth redistribution." Well, you want to know what is the oldest and most successful wealth redistribution system ever devised? The corporation, which takes wealth created by workers and redistributes part of it to owners and executives. Now that's the way corporations are supposed to work, and is the foundation of pretty much every economy. But it's telling that conservatives think it's fine and dandy when wealth is redistributed to them (dividends, increased stock prices) but get all bothered when wealth is distributed away from them (taxes for food stamps and welfare).
That would be an example of language complexity, Bernard ;)Yes that's what I meant. The same nobody's who don't go there anymore are the same nobody's who also don't want nuclear. 😂
You see, “nobody” is known as a hyperbole, a favorite of Trump, so no wonder you don’t get it ;)
I guess your head would explode upon encountering Yogi Berra: “Nobody comes here anymore. It is too crowded.”
People talk about "wealth redistribution." Well, you want to know what is the oldest and most successful wealth redistribution system ever devised? The corporation, which takes wealth created by workers and redistributes part of it to owners and executives. Now that's the way corporations are supposed to work, and is the foundation of pretty much every economy. But it's telling that conservatives think it's fine and dandy when wealth is redistributed to them (dividends, increased stock prices) but get all bothered when wealth is distributed away from them (taxes for food stamps and welfare).My wife agrees with you. She believes in wealth redistribution and socialism too. She always tells me what's hers is hers and what's mine is hers as well.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with it being a socialist state, it has everything to do with the increase of the cost of living thanks to the inflation of salaries from the GAFA and co.My wife and I just spent 9 days in California. 5 in San Diego and now we're in Los Angeles. Prices are out of sight. I don't know how people can afford to live here and I'm from NYC not exactly a cheap area. Gasoline is 50% higher. Average homes are over a million. Restaurants 40% higher. It's nuts! Well, if you could afford them.
Btw Schwarzy was the worst leftie among the Republicans! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Hello, Peter,
First, I probably could be convinced that at the time the Apollo program was a legitimate expenditure of taxpayer money -- if it could be connected convincingly to the cold war.
What’s the difference between a public library and an opera?Any operas I've attended required you to purchase a ticket in order to attend. This is not true for a library. Thus, opera is at least partially supported by free enterprise. (something I support, BTW. The success of free-enterprise SpaceEx is notable.)
Why, exactly, should taxpayers be forced to support a library?Because if they don't, hardly anybody will. Can you imagine today's publishing industry supporting the idea of libraries? Or authors thinking libraries were a good idea?
Don’t get me wrong, I love libraries and before the web matured I used to spend a lot of time in libraries.
Unfortunately, I see cases where taxpayer money is being used nowadays to support operas. The NEA is an abomination when you consider that Joe, the guy who works in the Chrysler press plant, and will never go to the opera, is having his pocket picked by his government to support the opera.
We can discuss your “entire families going bankrupt because someone got sick” if you want to, but it’s a complicated subject that leads to people not needing to work as long as taxpayers are being forced to provide them with everything they need.
The bottom line is the question of whether or not it’s moral to force people to give up their earnings for a “program” YOU think is a good idea.
There’s no such thing as government money. It all comes from you and me and the rest of the taxpayers.Actually, I think we all know this. We don't need this particular bell rung over and over and over.
And no, it doesn’t “disable all forms of taxation” as legitimate. A society needs the other three things in order to survive as a society. Without a military the society will be invaded. Without police forces the society will degenerate into a shambles. You can see the beginnings of that one in New York, Chicago, LA, San Francisco... And without a fire department you’re dependent on your garden hose.
First, thanks for your detailed response. A substantially more useful contribution to the discussion than three smilie faces...
That the Apollo Program was a response to Russian space sucesses is a matter of historical fact. The same goes for NASA's success. Have you never seen an image of the moons of Saturn and felt a little twinge of awe? Or pride?
Any operas I've attended required you to purchase a ticket in order to attend. This is not true for a library. Thus, opera is at least partially supported by free enterprise. (something I support, BTW. The success of free-enterprise SpaceEx is notable.)
Because if they don't, hardly anybody will. Can you imagine today's publishing industry supporting the idea of libraries? Or authors thinking libraries were a good idea?
Absent "enforced" (your words, not mine) public support, libraries would never exist.
Thus rendering inexplicable your lack of support for funding them.
FWIW, I'm not an opera fan. I do think, however that the total dollar figure "picked from the pockets" of the boys in the Chrysler plant to support opera is vanishingly small.
Another vanishingly small percentage, yet one frequently cited by the right. In the Socialist Hell that is Canada, there are very very few who refuse to work, yet are treated "for free." And no families go bankrupt because somebody got sick. It's just a better, more efficient, more fiscally responsible, more caring idea to look after each other, healthwise. Most western democracies realize this.
Actually, it's usually programs that are supported by the voters. We've just easily identified five. There lots more.
Can you imagine a free-enterprise highway system? Ain't gonna work. We've both experienced the highway systems in areas where supportive taxes are low. I think they're actually corruptly financed by the shock absorber industry. :)
Actually, I think we all know this. We don't need this particular bell rung over and over and over.
My position is that there are far more than just "three things" that society needs in order to survive that are supported by taxes It's just that the anti-tax-at-all-costs faction refuse to see them.
Right-side-of-the-spectrum Alberta, for instance, recently fired a few thousand nurses and cut many more essential services in order to balance their provincial budget. Other than the outlier-case of Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories) Alberta is the only province which refuses to invoke a sales tax.
In the U.S. you can walk in to a clinic and get a cat scan within the hour. How long does it take in Canada?
ROTFL!!!! I'd like to pass this one up, but I just can't. Peter, please describe for us exactly what you think a corporation is.
It's an organization that redistributes wealth from workers to owners, as I can well attest to when I see my dividends listed on my tax statements, money I have done nothing to earn.
In the U.S. you can walk in to a clinic and get a cat scan within the hour. How long does it take in Canada?
It's an organization that redistributes wealth from workers to owners, as I can well attest to when I see my dividends listed on my tax statements, money I have done nothing to earn.If you get dividends, that means you're an owner of the corporation which makes you a corporatist.
If you get dividends, that means you're an owner of the corporation which makes you a corporatist.
Bernard, are you saying you are making a very good living by chance?
... Man often attribute their success to their abilities and their failures to bad luck. I think the opposite is often true.
That I can fully agree with.
It's an organization that redistributes wealth from workers to owners, as I can well attest to when I see my dividends listed on my tax statements, money I have done nothing to earn.
...
That I can fully agree with.You two gentlemen made my day!
What’s the difference between a public library and an opera? Why, exactly, should taxpayers be forced to support a library? Don’t get me wrong, I love libraries and before the web matured I used to spend a lot of time in libraries. But the question has to do with forcing people who don’t use libraries to support them with their hard-earned money. Unfortunately, I see cases where taxpayer money is being used nowadays to support operas. The NEA is an abomination when you consider that Joe, the guy who works in the Chrysler press plant, and will never go to the opera, is having his pocket picked by his government to support the opera.
As a general comment, isn't it astonishing what mental gymnastics people are willing to go through to prove to themselves how correct they must be. When you reach the point of declaring that California is a socialist failure waiting to happen, shouldn't you take a step back and re-examine your assumptions about the world.
I mean, seriously, California?
Look up at the sky. It's blue, stop listening to fantasists who tell you it must be yellow.
Hey, we agree on something. Now you know how I feel when government gives "tax incentives" to pro sports franchises or builds them stadiums. Or hands over a "helping hand" to Amazon so that can "create" jobs. Or passes financial sector laws lobbied for by the financial sector so that can more easily fleece the unsophisticated.
In general though, your libertarian ideal never existed anywhere, certainly not in the US, not even before FDR. Mayberry only existed on TV and was slightly less fake than reality TV, except for Floyd the barber, he was real. Your minimalist view of government works fine in textbooks, I'm sure, but so do a lot of other ideas. You're making a common philosophical mistake, you confuse insurance with lack of freedom. It is insurance, more generally the sharing of risk, that has created the wealthy cultures we live in.
Do you really think it's a mistake to have government-backed standards bureaus, to pick one example, or do you think it is really better that we each have to hire an electrical engineer when we buy a toaster to be sure it doesn't burn down our houses? Do you really believe it is inefficient to have public procedures in place to protect consumers from scam-toaster builders or fraudulent mortgage vendors? You do what communists do, you have latched onto one or two simple ideas, convinced yourself of their correctness, and think that everything fits that mold.
You are confusing mythology with how people actually live.
But let’s talk about government-backed standards bureaus. Government has several legitimate functions. Defense is one of them. Keeping public utilities delivering clean water and disposing of sewage is another. Maintaining roads is another. Police action to prevent crime is another. A standards bureau – or something like it – is a legitimate function of police activity. But it’s the kind of function that can get out of control quickly once it’s taken over by people with a dictatorial mentality or who profit from deciding who meets the standards. An example: cities where only a government-approved taxi company is allowed to operate. Denver went through that for decades while I lived in Colorado. New York currently is fighting ride-hailing as the “value” of its taxi medallions plummets.
. . .should be publicly or privately funded.
There's that term, "funded" again...The term, "funded," always tells me there's a government scam involved.
Sadly, your link(ed picture) came without introduction or comment to discuss. I thought that was not allowed by the moderator ...
What term would you prefer?
An awful lot of people out there are dumb enough actually to believe that.
Actually, "funded" is okay as long as you precede it with "taxpayer." The problem is that government agencies want you to believe that they are doing the "funding." An awful lot of people out there are dumb enough actually to believe that.
There's no, or minimal, danger in displaying an image.
If there are some people dumb enough to believe that, that can only be the result of a lack of properly funded public school ensuring that all citizens have the required knowledge and skills to live together as grown ups.
There is nothing secret about my taxes being used to that end in Japan. And I would hate the country to leave the top 10 of world's best educated countries because I know that it is thanks to this that living in Japan is such a pleasant experience. Safe, inhabited by well behaved people who have an understanding of the cost of living together in peace.
A society is not a collection of people living next to one another without rules. That's anarchy. And an essential rule at the core of developed societies is the understanding that there is global value - cascading down to individuals - about devoting some of one's money to the good of the collectivity. This is the same reason why all developed countries but the US forbid weapons. Because they have understood that the private right to defend oneself has overall negative impacts on society. It takes education to understand that. The mental models that shape these behavious require a certain level of acquired intelligence.
Note that it's a natural extension of the concept of nation by which you get to feel a sense of belonging with people with whom you factually have nothing in common with. There is a fundamental incoherence between feeling American (which derives from the recognition that the man made object called nation exists and is important enough to shape your life) and not acknowledging the fact that you are bound by a tight set of rules that include the redistribution of money through taxes. You cannot both be American and refuse the reality that America exists thanks to its taxation system. That's like living with dad and refusing to follow the rules of the house.
Cheers,
Bernard
In other words, politicians give you a "feeling of belonging." Right, Bernard?
If there are some people dumb enough to believe that, that can only be the result of a lack of properly funded public school ensuring that all citizens have the required knowledge and skills to live together as grown ups.America is a great nation in spite of taxation not because of it. It's private capital that's made us powerful and rich.
There is nothing secret about my taxes being used to that end in Japan. And I would hate the country to leave the top 10 of world's best educated countries because I know that it is thanks to this that living in Japan is such a pleasant experience. Safe, inhabited by well behaved people who have an understanding of the cost of living together in peace.
A society is not a collection of people living next to one another without rules. That's anarchy. And an essential rule at the core of developed societies is the understanding that there is global value - cascading down to individuals - about devoting some of one's money to the good of the collectivity. This is the same reason why all developed countries but the US forbid weapons. Because they have understood that the private right to defend oneself has overall negative impacts on society. It takes education to understand that. The mental models that shape these behavious require a certain level of acquired intelligence.
Note that it's a natural extension of the concept of nation by which you get to feel a sense of belonging with people with whom you factually have nothing in common with. There is a fundamental incoherence between feeling American (which derives from the recognition that the man made object called nation exists and is important enough to shape your life) and not acknowledging the fact that you are bound by a tight set of rules that include the redistribution of money through taxes. You cannot both be American and refuse the reality that America exists thanks to its taxation system. That's like living with dad and refusing to follow the rules of the house.
Cheers,
Bernard
... Does anyone really think that the US is better off with Trump...
Anybody watch tonight's Democratic debate?
Millions of people think so.
According to you, they are just uneducated and with lower intelligence. The deplorables, in other words.
Your words, not mine...
... It takes education to understand that. The mental models that shape these behavious require a certain level of acquired intelligence...
Nope. I was paraphrasing you.
By inference, those who do not agree with your views on society are uneducated and have not reached the “certain level of intelligence.”
“Acquired intelligence”, gained through education and maintained through objective information collected from plural sources..l
And again you imply that only you et al are educated enough and read plural sources, and Trump supporters are not.
When are you going to accept that we read the same info, have the same intelligence, and surely my education is not inferior to yours, never mind that I have much broader life experience, and yet we draw vastly different conclusions. People think differently and have different world views, you know. And yours is not superior to mine. You lot at least should appreciate diversity, not just in skin color, or which entrance your prefer, back or front.
America is a great nation in spite of taxation not because of it. It's private capital that's made us powerful and rich.
I am amazed but delighted--Christians actually acting like Christians.
. . . the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.
The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.
Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.
To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?
And again you imply that only you et al are educated enough and read plural sources, and Trump supporters are not.
When are you going to accept that we read the same info, have the same intelligence, and surely my education is not inferior to yours, never mind that I have much broader life experience, and yet we draw vastly different conclusions. People think differently and have different world views, you know. And yours is not superior to mine. You lot at least should appreciate diversity, not just in skin color, or which entrance your prefer, back or front.
Isn’t that a great opportunity for you to share your values and what aspects of Trump and Trump’s policies meet those values?
My view that Trump supporters lack access to objective information sources is superbly backed up by the totally biased views they have of his impeachment. Any way you look at facts he is guilty as hell. I don’t see how you can both claim he isn’t and asert that you are objective about him.
Cheers,
Bernard
Any way you look at facts he is guilty as hell.
Cheers,
Bernard
Only one fact witness actually testified, Sondland, and he did not incriminate Trump. This is why, after all this time, he was not charged with an actual crime even though they had been pushing bribery, etc., for so long. The case is beyond weak.
The Dems could have censured him, and gotten bipartisan support. The call was in fact not perfect. However, they went full hog and pushed for impeachment. More then likely the thought from Pelosi was to protect her current majority from be primaried by radicals who would not be able to win in the general, and that irrefutable evidence would be found if an inquiry began. This would then increase public support, decreasing his chances of winning re-election. This went well for about a month.
However, she never took into consideration what would happen if no strong evidence was found and that having her majority vote for weak articles of impeachment without any crime in a solely partisan way would radicalize them in the eyes of the public. It was a total screw up on her part, and she is now making it worse by refusing to the send the articles to the Senate.
I am not so sure what she is thinking. Pretty much every republican in the Senate does not want to receive these articles. Her threat of holding onto the articles has no leverage. Plus the longer she holds on to them, the more and more this looks partisan.
What he's "guilty as hell" of, Bernard, is beating Hillary when she was supposed to be a shoo-in. That's what this whole Kabuki performance in the House has been about. In the end it's going to cost the Democrats the presidency and the House. People here in the U.S. are pissed.
I don't know what kind of propaganda you're getting out of your news media there in Japan, but don't depend on what you're reading or seeing on TV.
Joe,
Pretty much every line in what you write does’t match available public evidence:
- sondland’s testimony did clearly support the claims laid by Democrats about what Trump is being impeached for
- had the white house not refused to follow the intent of the impeachment process by refusing more witnesses to testify there would be more confirmation of this
- Trump was just impeached for that and it’s the worst possible punishment defined by the law at this stage of the procedure
- the refusal of a bipartisan approach is clearly a Republican decision. Had they respected their oath to the US and US citizens they would have cooperated.
- the clear refusal of Republican leaders to make de senate a fair trial is another nail in the coffin of the US institutions
The only thing you are doing with your obviously biased reading of facts is to support my claim that Trump supporters are either ill informed or unable to be objective about him.
Cheers,
Bernard
LOL Bernard.
Sondland, during cross examination (that did not get that much media attention) admitted that he was told by Trump there was to be no quid pro quo. He also admitted that he did not think Trump had intentions for a quid pro quo. So his testimony did not support the Dem's narrative.
As I said before, every one, including the President, has the right to refuse a subpoena by congress. Then congress has to make the decision whether or not to take that person to court. This is excepted practice, and the fact is congress did not follow through with any of the subpoenas to a court. As a matter of fact, Bolton voluntarily went to court to get a judge's opinion on if he should or should not testify, and the Dems pulled the subpoena at this point. They did not even want to argue there case after the courts were already looking at it.
Once again, according to noble law professor Noah Feldman, whom the Dems had so much respect for they called him to testify, does not agree Trump has been impeached until the articles are delivered. He wrote an opinion piece on this in Bloomberg News, another source so objective they openly admit they will not investigate any Dems running for president.
Insofar as bi-partisanship, well the Dems decided to engage in a lot of it during the inquiry. And the fact is they could have postponed the vote and went to court to get these same witnesses they suddenly want to testify in the trial. They did not.
Merry Impeachmas!
What are the odds that the whole world is wrong and Fox is right? ;)
Aren’t you able to smell something fishy?
Cheers,
Bernard
Only one fact witness actually testified...
https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.amp.html
Sorry your understanding of the implications of Sonderland testimony doesn’t seem aligned with facts.
Cheers,
Bernard
Why?
Because the Dems did not want to go through the process of challenging the President in court.
The executive and congress are separate bodies, and one does not have to follow the others requests. If one side feels they have a case to force the other side to do so, they can then take their case to the courts. But until that happens, there is no impropriety.
As I stated before, Bolton went to the courts himself to see if he should or should not testify, and the Dems then pulled the subpoena. They refused to argue the case.
If the Dems actually felt so strong about their case, why did they not follow through with it and go to the courts?
Why?
But getting back to Sondland. I have looked at his cross examination and he specifically states there was no quid pro quo. This was not heavily reported on, and it is no wonder why.
Gordon Sondland says Trump wanted ‘nothing’ from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky (https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/gordon-sondland-says-trump-wanted-nothing-from-ukraine-president-voldymer-zelensky/)
Insofar as the tactics Pelosi has employed thus far, I am in agreement with you, I cant possibly understand why she is doing what she is doing. Especially with her leaving for the holidays without sending the impeachment articles. I have no idea what leverage she thinks she has with McConnell, but there does not appear to any. Plus McConnell is perfectly happy without getting the articles and needing to spend time on a trial.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Sorry - public school educated... Gotta Google that. BRB. :D
I am amazed but delighted--Christians actually acting like Christians.
https://www.axios.com/christianity-today-evangelicals-supports-impeachment-92956ccb-241c-48d7-bad3-d3e4ddd2d64d.html
Those commies are still at it? Blabbering about the future without billionaires, planes, and kids?
Yet another example of a valuable contribution to the discussion.
As I said before, every one, including the President, has the right to refuse a subpoena by congress. Then congress has to make the decision whether or not to take that person to court. This is excepted practice, and the fact is congress did not follow through with any of the subpoenas to a court.
Your words, not mine. My view is that they are mostly very poorly informed by the media outlet they are following.That's funny. It's exactly what I think of people on the left.
They are kept in the dark.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's funny. It's exactly what I think of people on the left.You are so far to the right, even people on the right are to the left of you, which really limits the number of media you deem not fake news.
Leave it to Karla Marx to explain what the impeachment is really about (and, of course, she is stupid enough not to realize Democrats shouldn’t be saying it publicly):
The full Christianity Today editorial (https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html) is interesting. It argues, inter alia, thatSo major parties in parliamentary countries like yours join forces with communists and fascists to get a majority in parliament. So evangelicals support a sinful man who is sinful like Hillary Clinton and the rest of us because he otherwise supports policies they agree with him on. Politics make strange bedfellows.
And while it urges evangelical Christians to abandon Trump, and explicitly calls for his removal from office, the editorial is (pardon the expression) agnostic about the best way to do this:
While Trump remains quite popular among potential voters who identify themselves as Republicans, the support of many of his more prominent defenders has always been a matter of expedience—a transactional arrangement, as the news commentators like to point out, where they put up with his often bizarre behavior and contempt for facts and the law in return for specific policy or political objectives. In the case of the evangelicals, the most important of these has been the nomination of "conservative" federal judges who, they hope, will reverse the secular trend of recent appellate rulings on issues such as abortion and gay rights. There is a similar implicit bargain, no doubt, among many Republican members of Congress, including senators who will vote on whether to remove him from office assuming an impeachment trial takes place, who reportedly revile him in private but support him publicly so as not to offend his core populist supporters, whose defection could threaten their own continuance in office. If I were religious, myself, I'd be tempted to say they have made a pact with the devil.
...blatant disregard for the Constitution...
I'm a bit shocked to see you say this. There is a lot of private capital all over the world and there always has been, nothing uniquely American about that. Th US implemented explicit separation of executive and judicial powers, permitted individual freedom (sort of, in fits and starts), structured things so that upward mobility was not unduly hampered although access to very cheap new land helped a lot with that (made conveniently cheap because you chose not to pay market rates for the land opting instead for indigenous genocide but that discussion is for another day). In the past you have expressed repeated reverence for the constitution so I'm surprised that you now express the idea that rich people make you great. ;)Private Capital comes from poor and middle class as well as Rich. When you take part of your savings and put it in the bank for savings account, that money goes to capital for companies and corporations to be used to expand their businesses or stay them. Likewise when have a retirement plan and buy stock. That's capital for is for corporations. The idea that Starbucks started as a huge corporation from very rich people is silly. It started small with very small private investments. Then grew big. That's how capital and private wealth grows. People don't start off rich. private Capital comes from you and middle class as well as rich.
Joe,The impeachment looks and is political because the Democrats have been trying to impeach him for 3 years long before the Ukrainian issue even came up. So that's why people are ignoring what the Democrats are trying to do on the Republican side. They see it is strictly political which is what it is.
Pretty much every line in what you write does’t match available public evidence:
- sondland’s testimony did clearly support the claims laid by Democrats about what Trump is being impeached for
- had the white house not refused to follow the intent of the impeachment process by refusing more witnesses to testify there would be more confirmation of this
- Trump was just impeached for that and it’s the worst possible punishment defined by the law at this stage of the procedure
- the refusal of a bipartisan approach is clearly a Republican decision. Had they respected their oath to the US and US citizens they would have cooperated.
- the clear refusal of Republican leaders to make de senate a fair trial is another nail in the coffin of the US institutions
The only thing you are doing with your obviously biased reading of facts is to support my claim that Trump supporters are either ill informed or unable to be objective about him.
Cheers,
Bernard
Which article or part of the Constitution he would be disregarding?
... (But he is wantonly violating is oath of office.)
Ah, but THIS part makes perfect sense. McConnell and others have already publicly stated they have no interest in a fair trial on the facts. I think in this case she's actually being straightforward - why send it over when she knows the process is rigged? And Graham and McConnell gave her the perfect opening.
Bernard, your self-righteousness borders with religious fanaticism.
You seem to believe that if I support Trump that something must be wrong with my value system. I have no intention to justify my value system and world view to you. You seem to believe that it is duty of innocent people to prove their innocence. I, and the whole western judicial system, strongly disagree. Your stance reminds me of the religious theory that atheists can not be moral people, as the only possible morality comes from belief in God.
That's funny. It's exactly what I think of people on the left.
You know it’s very simple. It’s a statistical thing.
When 99% of the media, in the US and outside the US, say the same thing, most reasonable people disagreeing with their views start to question their own system of belief.
Instead you keep entrenching yourself deeper and deeper.
Cheers,
Bernard
No offense, but have you lost your mind? ???
I cant imagine a worse way to screw the pooch on this. Setting aside the fact that I am not for impeachment and feel it is only going to hurt the Dems (as opposed to censure that would have probably helped them), this creates so many headaches.
First, think about how this would have played if they followed procedure. Presumably they would have spent Thursday deciding on who the managers would be and organized delivery for Friday. Doing so would have kept the noise to a minimum from distracting from the debate and gave Republicans the least amount of time to organized and respond before going on break. Trump would then need to spend the next two weeks defending himself and mounting his legal response. Then, the Dems in the safe districts could have went home and crowed about how they impeached the president. I still feel it would have been a disaster for the swing district Dems though.
This, on the other hand, is an unmitigated catastrophe. Withholding the articles apparently pissed off Noah Feldman (one of the legal scholars the Dems called to testify) so much so he penned an article in Bloomberg News that Trump really has not been impeached yet. Although there is a legal debate if impeachment happens after the vote or after the articles are delivered, it still means the Dems really cant fully brag about impeaching Trump yet. On top of that, this completely plays into Trump's narrative that the impeachment is nothing but a partisan scam from the Do Nothing Dems and every other Republican talking point. Add to that that congress is not in session and not making any noise, meaning any political news coming out of DC will be what Trump wants it to be. He is going to dominate the news cycle with this for two weeks, as opposed to having to defend himself. Furthermore, Republicans are now not under any pressure to organize yet (or not as much) and can enjoy the holiday while also tweeting about the Do Nothing Dems. And on top of this, the swing district Dems are still just as screwed. Last, this little stunt really has no leverage what so ever over McConnell and ensures he can just chug along at getting judges approved.
It is a really kind of interesting watching such a shrewd politician fall from grace. Pelosi's legacy is going to be loosing the house while ensuring Trump's re-election.
Like with the Mueller Report before it was published?
I get paid pretty well to tell people how and when to place media for impact, so appeal to authority notwithstanding and all that, I can tell you a few things:
1) the surest way to kill something is to dump it in the news Friday or before a holiday. Relatively speaking, nobody’s gonna care about this for about 2 weeks. No dems are gonna go home for Christmas and get harassed in their districts by swing voters. Not gonna happen.
2) What was happening over the Christmas holiday in 2019 will be totally irrelevant in November 2020. Pelosi is playing a long game - always has been because she knowns that if she keeps giving Trump rope, the dumbass will keep strangling himself. (There’s an autoerotic asphixiation joke in there somewhere.)
3) I can’t fathom why you’re on about judges in this conversation. That’s gonna happen regardless of what Nancy Pelosi does, because McConnell is a total toady.
Yes. The selective reading done by Trump supporters of the Mueller reports is not aligned with what the majority of the press had reported, but the reality of the report is very close.
Joe, we have demonstrated with obvious clarity in the last 2 pages of discussion that you purposedely deform the facts to map them to your views. Unsurprisingly we see the same on the Mueller report too.
You transformed the real situation “Sonderland confirmed the quid pro quo” in “Sonderland confirmed there was no quid pro quo” leveraging the fact that Trump has denied the quid pro quo. This is not a mistake on your part. It’s on purpose and it shows that you are ok with lying to help your case.
For you this isn’t about the truth. This is about not losing power. Everything you are accusing Democrats of has just been proven with perfect clarity to be your own play.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes. The selective reading done by Trump supporters of the Mueller reports is not aligned with what the majority of the press had reported, but the reality of the report is very close.Mueller not only didn't find that Trump colluded with the Russians. He found that neither did any of the Trump kids noR Anyone in the Trump campaign. In fact not one American out of 330 million did Mueller find who colluded. Yet you still claim he's guilty. It seems that you're the one who can't accept the facts.
Joe, we have demonstrated with obvious clarity in the last 2 pages of discussion that you purposedely deform the facts to map them to your views. Unsurprisingly we see the same on the Mueller report too.
You transformed the real situation “Sonderland confirmed the quid pro quo” in “Sonderland confirmed there was no quid pro quo” leveraging the fact that Trump has denied the quid pro quo. This is not a mistake on your part. It’s on purpose and it shows that you are ok with lying to help your case.
For you this isn’t about the truth. This is about not losing power. Everything you are accusing Democrats of has just been proven with perfect clarity to be your own play.
Cheers,
Bernard
Lol Bernard.
As I’ve said before, if the case was as strong as you claim, there would be actual criminal charges in the articles. There are not. And if the Dems actually had the conviction of their accusations, they would have challenged Trump in the courts, like with Nixon.
Abuse of power is perfectly relevant and a clear violation of the constitution.Politicians violate the constitution all the time. However, impeachment requires a special crime to be committed: "Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". At worse, political hijinks occurred. With presidents going to war without required congressional authority, and never impeached for it, any problems people have with Trump should be decided when they vote in 2020.
Cheers,
Bernard
Mueller not only didn't find that Trump colluded with the Russians. He found that neither did any of the Trump kids noR Anyone in the Trump campaign. In fact not one American out of 330 million did Mueller find who colluded. Yet you still claim he's guilty. It seems that you're the one who can't accept the facts.
Politicians violate the constitution all the time. However, impeachment requires a special crime to be committed: "Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". At worse, political hijinks occurred. With presidents going to war without required congressional authority, and never impeached for it, any problems people have with Trump should be decided when they vote in 2020.
Politicians violate the constitution all the time.
No, politicians don’t violate the constitution all the time. US Presidents never do...
Of course they do, just not “all the time,” but some of the time. Every time the SCOTUS strikes down a law as unconstitutional (previously passed by politicians), it means that politicians initially violated the constitution. The same goes for presidential executive orders. It shall be noted that so far the SCOTUS mostly supported Trump’s executive orders as constitutional.
Abuse of power is perfectly relevant and a clear violation of the constitution.
Cheers,
Bernard
BTW, Trump's job approval is up to 50% in the latest polling.
You know it’s very simple. It’s a statistical thing.
When 99% of the media, in the US and outside the US, say the same thing, most reasonable people disagreeing with their views start to question their own system of belief.
Instead you keep entrenching yourself deeper and deeper.
Cheers,
Bernard
When 99% of the media, in the US and outside the US, say the same thing, most reasonable people disagreeing with their views start to question their own system of belief.
Bernard
No, politicians don’t violate the constitution all the time. US Presidents never do.Bernard you distorted my words. I did not say he violated the Constitution. I said at worse case it was political hijinks to make a point. That even then it would not be impeachable since those acts are not considered as such. But he's claimed that he went after the Bidens because they are corrupted. The evidence appears that there is something funny going on between Ukrainian corporate officials his son and Biden himself. That calls for investigation. Perfectly legal. Of course the biased press ignores this part of the story to defend Biden and make Trump look guilty.
But I take it as a final admission that Trump did and am glad you are coming to terms with reality.
Cheers,
Bernard
I have not written that Mueller found Trump to be guilty, I meant that the report was a lot more nuanced, and therefore closer to initial reports than Republicans would have you believe.Yes it's relevant because it shows that Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump for three years. That the witch hunt started long before Ukraine. They're using Ukraine because they have nothing else and they're running out of time to impeach. So they're grabbing for straws. It's all political.
But anyway, this isn’t relevant at this point.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes it's relevant because it shows that Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump for three years. That the witch hunt started long before Ukraine. They're using Ukraine because they have nothing else and they're running out of time to impeach. So they're grabbing for straws. It's all political.
Quite correct. Some people would say - "use anything to get him out". And that's completely understandable.
BTW, Trump's job approval is up to 50% in the latest polling.
No, Bernard, when that happens most reasonable people question the impartiality of the media. In this case the situation is so blatant you can't miss the partiality.
Yes it's relevant because it shows that Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump for three years. That the witch hunt started long before Ukraine. They're using Ukraine because they have nothing else and they're running out of time to impeach. So they're grabbing for straws. It's all political.
Bernard must work on his Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Bernard, Chill!
... watching a disaster unfold.
A disaster is unfolding all right, Bernard, but it's a disaster for the Democrats. Their presidential candidates are a bunch of clowns, and Nancy's impeachment Kabuki pretty much guarantees that Trump will be reelected and the House will go to the Republicans. Just keep watching. And watch your blood pressure. Election night could be the end.
I would be 100% in agreement if Ukraine were not real.We'll just have to disagree on this. Of course I get to vote in 2020.
But it is real and we know this with 100% certainty. And those 100% would be 200% if the Republicans hadn’t illegally refused - and keep refusing - to have more key witnesses testify.
And it isn’t a mistake from Trump, it was a well planned attempt to destroy his main political rival. Just to stay in power at any cost.
And I am at a loss why apparently educated Republicans think this is fine. Because that’s a blatant threat to the core of democracy.
Which means that you guys are supportive of a dictatorship in the making.
I hope each and every of you is fully aware of your individual responsibility in the process. Because make no mistake, most dicators in history got in power on the ruins of a democracy, by securing support from people like you.
Cheers,
Bernard
And you support a team that despises the constitution of the country for which you risked your life.
Go figure...
If my blood pressure is high today it is due to the succession of telemark turns on heavy snow.
Russ, let me ask you two last questions to help me understand.
#1. Do you believe Trump did what he is being accused of?
#2.1 if yes, why do you think it’s ok to violate the constitution?
#2.2 if no, why don’t you believe he did what he is being accused of?
Thank you.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard,
No actual facts were brought out; no real evidence. It was all “I hate Trump, so he MUST have done something bad.”
An interesting assertion, except for the unfortunate fact that the most damning factual evidence came under oath from someone who'd previously given Trump a million dollars.
Depends on what you read, Peter. Fake news (and TV) will tell you that there was factual evidence and that it was damning. Real news will tell you the "evidence" was bullshit.What is the source of your "real" news? How did you determine that it was "real"?
What's the "source" of your fake news, Fab?Apparently everything except whatever was real for you.
What is the source of your "real" news? How did you determine that it was "real"?
The real news:Instagram? Seriously? Is that your source of real news?
https://www.instagram.com/tv/B56l5j-gcrl/?igshid=10r7m6w2t62bk
Instagram? Seriously? Is that your source of real news?
Instagram? Seriously? Is that your source of real news?
For the uninitiated, NPR is a leftie source.
... even after all these years)...
That brings Trump’s total to 102 federal judges confirmed in 2019. Over the course of his administration, that total jumps to 187, including 50 to circuit courts of appeal and two Supreme Court justices.
"In terms of quality and quantity, we are going to be just about No. 1 by the time we finish -- No. 1 of any president, any administration," Trump said in early November, noting that George Washington may have technically appointed more judges.
Depends on what you read, Peter. Fake news (and TV) will tell you that there was factual evidence and that it was damning. Real news will tell you the "evidence" was bullshit.
Russ,
There is zero doubt that Sonderland testified that there was a Quid Pro Quo based on his direct involvement in the meetings. There is also zero doubt that this is a violation of the constitution.
You need to wrap your head around that fact and think about what it means to you.
Cheers,
Bernard
,
... There is zero doubt that Sonderland testified that there was a Quid Pro Quo based on his direct involvement in the meetings. There is also zero doubt that this is a violation of the constitution...
Russ,
There is zero doubt that Sonderland testified that there was a Quid Pro Quo based on his direct involvement in the meetings. There is also zero doubt that this is a violation of the constitution.
You need to wrap your head around that fact and think about what it means to you.
Cheers,
Bernard
Russ,A violation, even if true, is not an impeachable offense. It's like getting a parking ticket. It must be Treason. Bribery, or Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. It's so serious a crime, no president has ever been found guilty of it. This is a joke perpetrated on America by Trump haters and the Democrats.
There is zero doubt that Sonderland testified that there was a Quid Pro Quo based on his direct involvement in the meetings. There is also zero doubt that this is a violation of the constitution.
You need to wrap your head around that fact and think about what it means to you.
Cheers,
Bernard
Sorry, Bernard, you need to wrap your head around the fact that the determination of whether or not this is true is up to the Senate -- not up to me; not up to you. If Nancy ever decides to pass the articles to the Senate so that an impeachment actually has taken place, then we'll see. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg says the whole impeachment performance was bullshit. Wrap your head around that one.
A violation, even if true, is not an impeachable offense. It's like getting a parking ticket. It must be Treason. Bribery, or Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. It's so serious a crime, no president has ever been found guilty of it. This is a joke perpetrated on America by Trump haters and the Democrats.
It's a waste of time, Bernard.
Delay, distract and deny. That's all <insert usual suspects here> know how to do.
Just like their leader, they provide zero proof for their lies and exaggerated unsubstantiated assertions.
;D ;D ;D
Again, your self-righteousness is reaching comical proportions.
;D ;D ;D
Again, your self-righteousness is reaching comical proportions.
Seriously Bart?
Where is the cross examination by the Republicans in that video? If you are going to post a video, at least give the illusion of impartiality and fairness. The fact is Sondland contradicted his morning testimony from Democratic questioning with his afternoon questioning from Republicans. It was a big flop for both sides.
f you are going to post a video, at least give the illusion of impartiality and fairness. The fact is Sondland contradicted his morning testimony from Democratic questioning with his afternoon questioning from Republicans.
Seriously Bart?The reason there's no crime because asking for an investigation of the Biden's who appear to have done something corrupt is perfectly legal.
Where is the cross examination by the Republicans in that video? If you are going to post a video, at least give the illusion of impartiality and fairness. The fact is Sondland contradicted his morning testimony from Democratic questioning with his afternoon questioning from Republicans. It was a big flop for both sides.
And by the way, the testimony of Volker, and others was conjecture based on hearsay that all originated with Sondland. Pompeo's testimony was more cryptic then anything else and did not give the Dems the goods.
This is why that, although Pelosi insists her case is solid, she is so desperately trying to force McConnell's hand for more witnesses, which she could have insisted on calling (and taking Trump to court) to testify. She has a weak case, a product of rushing and not doing her do diligence in the courts, and suddenly realizes she does not have the goods.
Impeachment without any criminal charges, give me a break. Come up with a actual crimes and you'll get my attention. But articles without any crimes that are so vague any president could have been impeached over half a dozen times, please. :P
That's your biased reading of the facts, nothing more...
... Remove the name Trump, ask 1,000 randomly chosen people in the world about this case and 90% will answer the same...
... an attempt to leverage a foreign power to take personal gains...
... saved by a political play from Republicans senators...
From a political play by Democratic congressmen.
Seriously, Bernard, don’t you see, right there, the contradiction you keep falling into? That what Republicans are doing is a “political play,” while Democrats are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, and pure love for the country, truth, and democracy!?
The motivation of the Democrats is irrelevant. All you need is to look at what Trump did and compare it with the constitution. And again, the religious community looking at his deeds as immoral should ring the bell that my inputs have failed to trigger in you?That's the same argument I'm making about Trump's call for an investigation of the Biden's apparent corruption.
The impeachment process is trigerred by party not in power. This is the constitution. They are doing their job. Are they expecting some political gains? Probably, but that doesn’t change anything about Trump’s wrong doings.
And similarly, just look at the facts of how Republicans are tranforming senate trial into a joke according to their own public declarations.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's the same argument I'm making about Trump's call for an investigation of the Biden's apparent corruption.
... how Republicans are tranforming senate trial into a joke according to their own public declarations.
How so?
... I am sorry but you need to stay informed.
Do your homework man...
The Senate will determine whether Trump must be removed from office. But since the Republicans controlling the Senate have announced their intention to make a political play to exonerate trump from his deeds regardless of facts, Trump will remain in history as guilty but saved by a political play from Republicans senators.
That will not change anything about the clear facts we have today demonstrating beyond any possible doubt that Trump did what he is being accused of.
And it won't abuse anyone. The latest poll show that 66% of Republican voters want these hearings to be real, with witnesses. You not being part of these 66% only speaks about yourself. And it begs the same question you have failed to answer, what are you afraid of?
Cheers,
Bernard
Believe it or not, Bernard, I want those hearings too. Once the Republicans are in charge of the hearings we’ll be able to hear from the witnesses the Democrats refused to hear during their “hearings.” The Dems are scared to death of that happening. That’s why Nancy’s trying to make a deal that will reduce the damage from their testimony.
Of course, the House “hearings” weren’t a political play. Only Republicans can make a political play. Right? Nothing in the Democrat “hearings” demonstrates Trump did what he’s being accused of. What they demonstrated was that the House Democrats want to impeach Trump because they hate him, and think Hillary should have won.
Oh, and you just demonstrated that you don’t know what “begs the question” means.
Since reading the same facts (or “facts”) lead the two of us to vastly different conclusions, I am interested in YOUR interpretation.
... There is also no need to interpret the Republican leader’s declaration to the press. Google it if you are interested. He made his intention 100% clear.
... the religious community looking at his deeds as immoral should ring the bell that my inputs have failed to trigger in you?...
I have already answered to Slobodan.
And I apologize for my imperfect mastery of English.
Cheers,
Bernard
Did you see/hear Sonderland's testimony and the questioning of Gordon Sondland ????
Here is the questioning, to refresh your memory as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtRUhzlaORM
It would have been useful to get other confirmations, e.g. from Pompeo, Volker, and others. However, in an attempt to frustrate the inquiry, the other players were told to not testify. Obstruction of justice.
No Joe, Sonderland's testimony is one and only and clearly confirms the quid pro quo.
The Republicans tried very hard to focus the discussion on something else, which is the way Trump spoke about the quid pro quo. But there is no doubt whatsoever that Sonderland did confirm there was one.
You are attempting once again to deform facts.
What I would like you to think about is why you need to do this? Why need to deform the facts if they support your views. Or if they don't, why not challenge your position? Nothing forces you to remain stuck in deception.
Cheers,
Bernard
Show us, with video, or with any hard evidence you have, how he contradicted his morning testimony in any way that disproves the fact that he witnessed the QPP.
You're not Trump, you can't just make stuff up and expect us to believe it.
The reason there's no crime because asking for an investigation of the Biden's who appear to have done something corrupt is perfectly legal.
It's probably about time for this. The author sums up why Trump was elected, and his summary quite adequately explains why he'll be elected again, and why the Democrats' impeachment Kabuki will work against them. The Democrats will never understand this, nor will many of our posters here.
-------------------------------------------
There's a reason Donald Trump was elected, and it wasn't because of the Russians. It wasn't because of his tweets. It wasn't his crassness. It wasn't because of his money. It's not because he's a racist or a white supremacist. Not because he's a misogynist, homophobe or Islamophobe. It wasn't because of his oratory skills or his diplomacy.
In fact, his crassness, money, lack of diplomacy, twitter hysteria and awkward public speaking all worked against him. They were all liabilities in the eyes of most Americans. Libelous claims of racism, misogyny, homophobia and Islamophobia fortified his adversaries and gave discomfort to us.
Hillary Clinton’s miscalculated campaign strategy wasn't the reason he was elected. And it wasn't her platform that defeated her. Nor was it the Electoral College.
That an inarticulate, abrasive man was elected president is a tell, a reveal of the state and the mood of average America. A man who can be insulting, demeaning, outrageous, arrogant and bombastic was the choice of half the country to serve as our leader because he more than holds a light on deceit, corruption and injustice, he lashes them to a tree where the sun is bright and relentless, where their shadows are exposed for us all to see. And they hate him for it.
We chose a man who appears insensitive and careless and elevated him to the most powerful leadership office in history because we are watching the world hemorrhage from dishonesty and tyranny. Tired of broken promises, neglected constituents, enriched politicians and a protected ruling class we chose an outsider and a brawler because he promised to return our stolen pride. Americans voted for an imperfect man who sacrificed his life of prosperity and privilege because he promised he would fight for us against those who deceive, destabilize and abuse us.
It’s not because he’s nice. We didn’t elect him because we would emulate him, but because he knows the dragon that is eating our soul and he has the courage and tenacity to go into its lair and lure it out where we can fight it. Donald Trump isn’t our president because he’ll smooth wrinkles and calm storms, but because the alternative is far worse.
Eloquent speeches divided us. Hope was chained. Change stole our dreams, our children and our morals. Flamboyance imitated Camelot and it wounded America. The great experiment was fundamentally changed.
It was time to fight and we needed a Patton. This is why we elected him.
By Ward Wettlin in The Official Walter E. Williams Fan Club I got permission from Ward to copy this and paste it.
There is no apparent corruption, if there had been Republicans would have investigated when Biden was vice-president.Any 12 year old knows Biden got rid of the Ukrainian investigator to protect the company his kid earned $50K a month from. He should be investigated for corruption. Never mind testifying in the Senate which he already said he would not do. Biden is a crook.
Even the suspicion of corruption did absolutely not justify what Trump did nor make it more constitutional.
But I am nonethless in favor of Biden testifying under oath as it would have as major benefit to quiet you down.
Cheers,
Bernard
Did you see/hear Sonderland's testimony and the questioning of Gordon Sondland ????
Here is the questioning, to refresh your memory as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtRUhzlaORM
It would have been useful to get other confirmations, e.g. from Pompeo, Volker, and others. However, in an attempt to frustrate the inquiry, the other players were told to not testify. Obstruction of justice.
When President Donald Trump ordered a halt to aid to Ukraine last summer, defense officials and diplomats worried first that it would undermine U.S. national security. Ukraine is, as some of them later testified before Congress, on the front lines of Russian aggression, and only robust American support would fend off aggressive Moscow meddling in the West. This worry eventually helped galvanize congressional support for one of the two impeachment articles approved by the House of Representatives on Dec. 18.
But there was also a separate, less-noticed facet of the internal administration uproar set off by Trump’s July 12 order stopping the flow of $391 million in weapons and security assistance to Ukraine. Some senior administration officials worried that by defying a law ordering that the funds be spent within a defined period, Trump was asking the officials involved to take an action that was not merely unwise but flatly illegal.
The White House paused financial military assistance to Ukraine 91 minutes after the disputed phone call between President Donald Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky ended, according to released government documents requested by The Center for Public Integrity on Sunday. (see attachment)
https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/trump-administration-officials-worried-ukraine-aid-halt-violated-spending-law/
The reason there's no crime because asking for an investigation of the Biden's who appear to have done something corrupt is perfectly legal.
Of course not, if that's how you insist on describing the "crime".
Withholding congress-approved financial aid for personal reasons is the crime.
er, one of the crimes...
Did you even read the link you posted Bart?
Did you read this passage?
"Trump’s formal order blocking the Pentagon’s portion of the aid was nonetheless communicated to OMB by one of his aides on July 12."
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/gordon-sondland-testifies-impeachment/card/1574279877
Was it for personal reasons?
Yes Craig. And where was the approval by Congress?
I did watch the coverage. Live and continuous. Not all of it, but over 90% of it.
Your rebuttal is an example of effective FUD lawyering. I have to give the guy credit for cornering Sondland. It must have consumed significant rehearsal time.
It is, however, like much of the observed Republican shenanigans, both instructive and despicable.
vis:
"So, your honor, the witness can provide no real additional collaboration for the defendant's guilt other than his own direct, personal observations. Therefore he's lying and his entire testimony is invalid".
That really funny Peter. So the facts don't fit your narrative and you try and deflect. Perfect.
So, did Sondland get directions directly from Trump or not? Its a really simple question.
“directions” on what?
So in other words you admit the headline on your post was fake news. Thanks for that.
But there was also a separate, less-noticed facet of the internal administration uproar set off by Trump’s July 12 order stopping the flow of $391 million in weapons and security assistance to Ukraine. Some senior administration officials worried that by defying a law ordering that the funds be spent within a defined period, Trump was asking the officials involved to take an action that was not merely unwise but flatly illegal.
The administration so far has declined to release copies of its internal communications about this vital issue – the legality of what Trump had ordered.
On the approval, exactly what timeline is required for that approval? I don't know, do you?
The administration so far has declined to release copies of its internal communications about this vital issue – the legality of what Trump had ordered.
It was not known for how long the security assistance was going to be withheld. But no permission was asked.
The article (second paragraph) says:
Congressional approval was not asked for.
Again:
According to the law, the White House is not allowed to withhold expenses approved by Congress without permission. So permission would have to be granted before the expenses are withheld. Instead they were still being withheld after the call as a means of pressure for a quid pro quo .
There also was another (but that's not an excuse for not asking permission) a technical deadline that had to be met, the end of the fiscal year on September 30, which increased the unrest at the OMB because it takes time to arrange these things. AFAIK, some of the expenses (last thing I read was something like 10-14%) have not been paid yet (which is too late) ... It would be interesting to know, because that then is another violation of the law, since permission was neither asked nor given for withholding part of the money either.
It’s a very simple question and a direct yes or no answer please.
Although true, I believe delays are allowed. The aid was eventually sent, so it was not withheld by delayed.
It was not known for how long the security assistance was going to be withheld. But no permission was asked.
The article (second paragraph) says:
Congressional approval was not asked for.
Again:
According to the law, the White House is not allowed to withhold expenses approved by Congress without permission. So permission would have to be granted before the expenses are withheld. Instead they were still being withheld after the call as a means of pressure for a quid pro quo .
There also was another (but that's not an excuse for not asking permission) a technical deadline that had to be met, the end of the fiscal year on September 30, which increased the unrest at the OMB because it takes time to arrange these things. AFAIK, some of the expenses (last thing I read was something like 10-14%) have not been paid yet (which is too late) ... It would be interesting to know, because that then is another violation of the law, since permission was neither asked nor given for withholding part of the money either.
Talk to Rudy.
In a life or death situation in Ukraine, a hot war, people were getting killed at the eastern front each week. I don't recall that Congress said it could be used to bribe a foreign government. I don't know if Congress instructed with a deadline attached, but holding it up for months seems counter-productive, the money was needed badly. And to this day, no reason was given for the unnecessary delay.
It's probably about time for this. The author sums up why Trump was elected, and his summary quite adequately explains why he'll be elected again, and why the Democrats' impeachment Kabuki will work against them. The Democrats will never understand this, nor will many of our posters here.Brilliant analysis. It's what is driving much of the country and people in other parts of the world as well. Thanks for posting it.
-------------------------------------------
There's a reason Donald Trump was elected, and it wasn't because of the Russians. It wasn't because of his tweets. It wasn't his crassness. It wasn't because of his money. It's not because he's a racist or a white supremacist. Not because he's a misogynist, homophobe or Islamophobe. It wasn't because of his oratory skills or his diplomacy.
In fact, his crassness, money, lack of diplomacy, twitter hysteria and awkward public speaking all worked against him. They were all liabilities in the eyes of most Americans. Libelous claims of racism, misogyny, homophobia and Islamophobia fortified his adversaries and gave discomfort to us.
Hillary Clinton’s miscalculated campaign strategy wasn't the reason he was elected. And it wasn't her platform that defeated her. Nor was it the Electoral College.
That an inarticulate, abrasive man was elected president is a tell, a reveal of the state and the mood of average America. A man who can be insulting, demeaning, outrageous, arrogant and bombastic was the choice of half the country to serve as our leader because he more than holds a light on deceit, corruption and injustice, he lashes them to a tree where the sun is bright and relentless, where their shadows are exposed for us all to see. And they hate him for it.
We chose a man who appears insensitive and careless and elevated him to the most powerful leadership office in history because we are watching the world hemorrhage from dishonesty and tyranny. Tired of broken promises, neglected constituents, enriched politicians and a protected ruling class we chose an outsider and a brawler because he promised to return our stolen pride. Americans voted for an imperfect man who sacrificed his life of prosperity and privilege because he promised he would fight for us against those who deceive, destabilize and abuse us.
It’s not because he’s nice. We didn’t elect him because we would emulate him, but because he knows the dragon that is eating our soul and he has the courage and tenacity to go into its lair and lure it out where we can fight it. Donald Trump isn’t our president because he’ll smooth wrinkles and calm storms, but because the alternative is far worse.
Eloquent speeches divided us. Hope was chained. Change stole our dreams, our children and our morals. Flamboyance imitated Camelot and it wounded America. The great experiment was fundamentally changed.
It was time to fight and we needed a Patton. This is why we elected him.
By Ward Wettlin in The Official Walter E. Williams Fan Club I got permission from Ward to copy this and paste it.
Brilliant analysis. It's what is driving much of the country and people in other parts of the world as well. Thanks for posting it.
- reduce taxation for his super rich friends...
Those who say that the strong economy under President Trump is merely a continuation of past trends are in full-scale denial. Before Mr. Trump took office in January 2017, the Congressional Budget Office forecast the creation of only two million jobs by this point. The economy has in fact created seven million jobs since January 2017. At the same time, the Federal Reserve’s median forecast had the unemployment rate inching up toward 5%, almost 1.5 percentage points higher than the current 50-year low.
...There is also no need to interpret the Republican leader’s declaration to the press. Google it if you are interested. He made his intention 100% clear...
I see nothing in the links provided that changes a thing on Sonderland’ testimony.
Despicable anx manipulative interrogation techniques yes.
Nothing changing the essence of what was reported.
There was indeed clearly a quid pro quo.
Cheers,
Bernard
ReallyPeter, that’s the best you have)
Let’s spell it out.
The so called “quid pro quo”. Did trump tell Sondland directly there would be no meeting or aid unless Ukraine announced or undertook investigations into 2016 or the Bidens?
It’s a very simple question and a direct yes or no answer please.
Right.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-reform-has-delivered-for-workers-11577045463
“Tax Reform Has Delivered for Workers
Two years later the data show that investment has increased, with wages and job participation rising”
Sheesh, you really do have it bad.
Yep it’s so clear, it was never told to your star witness Sondland. He only PRESUMED it. Now that’s some quality evidence.
Merry Christmas, Bernard.
Classic lawyer tactics. There is no "direct yes or no" answer to this question.
However, I'll play your brain-dead game, despite your transparent attempt to corner me.
The answer is "How the eff would I know?" And, "Why would I care?"
The issue isn't whether or not Trump told Sondland to invoke the QPP. The issue is whether or not TRUMP invoked it.
No Craig, I am just looking at facts. I have a hard time thinking you can watch this Republican questioning in good faith and think they are attempting to find the truth here.
You are apparently still thinking that lawyer techniques can convince anyone. But this is more of the same corrupt stuff Trump supporters claim they have chosen him to get rid of... you guys have come a full circle.
Merry Christmas to you.
Cheers,
Bernard
These semantic arguments about whether aid was "denied" or "withheld" are beneath contempt.
But they did find the truth Bernard. You just don’t like the truth because it destroys your position.
No Craig. This is clearly not what Sonderland has been telling us.
I am impressed by the convoluted logic that results in you claiming the opposite of what has been said though. But I hope you realize that the techniques used here can be applied to just about anything. And can be leveraged to turn any truth upside down.
Are you proud of yourself to show support to this?
Cheers,
Bernard
Sorry Peter, you lose. Your inability to deal with this in an intellectually honest manner speaks volumes.
Merry Christmas Peter.
Actually Bernard you are guilty of what you are charging. Under cross, Sondland was VERY clear. He had NO idea if there was a Quid Pro Quo issued by Trump in respect to Aid or promise of an investigation and he never heard it from Trump. The very BEST he could offer was his PRESUMPTION that one existed. He was asked that question directly more than once. His answer was the same. No Quid Pro quo from Trump. Trump even told him that directly. Ukraine said they were not issued a Quid Pro Quo.
None of this can be refuted. Its FACT. Your position is doomed by these facts.
BTW, I’m very proud that I can read and comprehend facts and not be swayed by blind hate.
Oh, well. Another one to add to the <insert usual suspects here> list.
Like I said earlier, Bernard. This lot is a waste of time/keystrokes. They'll say whatever they think will make them feel good.
Just like their fearless leader who I saw today in a video declaring "I know more about windmills than anybody!"
Really? You allow this idiot to lead your country?
Ah yes, I agree with you on this, Trump said no quid pro quo.
We know he can be trusted to tell the truth consistently. ;)
The point here is that Sonderland, looking at the situation and all the facts he was aware of, clearly testified that there was a quid pro quo.
That's what matters, not an a posteriori denial from Trump.
But you know this full well...
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, what part of Sondlands testimony where he says he only PRESUMED there was a Quid Pro Quo don’t you understand. His “clear statement” was destroyed upon cross examination.
It was his guess. So now we are impeaching a president on a guess? That’s your star witness? Really?
That’s the state of your argument? My oh my.
Quid pro ques are not illegal even if they're read one. We make demands on foreign governments all the time before we turn over money and weapons.
Ah ok, so you agree there was one?
Cheers,
Bernard
Ah ok, so you agree there was one?I didn't say that. I said if there wss one, it's not illegal.
Cheers,
Bernard
I didn't say that. I said if there wss one, it's not illegal.
Help me understand Craig... are you saying that Trump would have had to explicitely say "this is a Quid Pro quo" for this situation to be a quid pro quo?
Is that the state of your argument?
My oh my...
If we both agree that Sonderland was not lying under oath, we need to treat him for what he is. A diplomat working on a sensitive topic that Trump obviously knew was sensitive. His global assessment that there was a quid pro quo is undisputed and is as good as it gets. What you call "presumption" is a fact and a proof.
There is absolutely no need for an explicit "let's do a quid pro quo" comment from Trump for this to be one.
According to your logic, the witness of a murder would not be a valid witness unless he heard the killer say to the victim "I am killing you". I guess most objective people would agree with me that this is stupid.
And I have a hard time once again believe you are commenting in good faith.
Cheers,
Bernard
Why do you think Republicans have been trying that super hard to convince the world against clear testimonies that there was no quid pro quo if a quid pro quo would have been legal? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Why do you think Republicans have been trying that super hard to convince the world against clear testimonies that there was no quid pro quo if a quid pro quo would have been legal? ;)Because they say there was none. If there was, I believe it would be legal.
Cheers,
Bernard
Your analogy is fatally flawed. As a witness he would have actually seen the murder. I guess most objective people would conclude that to conflate the two situations would be stupid. Sondland did not witness the “murder”. He did not hear the “murder”. No one told him who was the “murderer”. Sondland simply guessed who committed the “murder”
Because they say there was none. If there was, I believe it would be legal.
The Quid pro quo is a set of actions taken over a period of time. It's a slow and carefully planned crime, you may think of it as an arsenic poisoning rather than an emotional stabbing.
Sonderland saw the whole thing unfolding in front of his eyes. He joined some calls, heard stuff, did stuff.
His global assessment is that there was a quid pro quo and he made a clear testimony confirming his views.
Cheers,
Bernard
Such a transparent tactic. When defeated declare victory and dismiss your opponent. Great job Peter.
I was neither defeated, nor did I declare victory. I simply gave up. It appears that you are either incapable of, or reluctant to enage in, reasoned discussion.
Like you, another poster here attempted to lecture me in grade school physics and accused me of "declaring victory" when I gave up on him, too.
As I said previously, it's a waste of time and keystrokes.
Sorry Bernard, it still takes a definite request from Trump for it to happen and for Trump to be impeached for it. Sondlands “assessment” is pretty much worthless as evidence that Trump demanded a Quid Pro Quo for aid and a meeting.
That’s the long and short of proving your case and you failed.
Welcome to reality.
Have fun in the alternate one where you reside.
People are just tired of the condescending lawyerly talk.
Try to deform facts all you please, that's abusing fewer and fewer people as time passes by.
Cheers,
Bernard
Of course not, if that's how you insist on describing the "crime".You say it was for personal reasons. But the fact is Ukraine was to clean up its corruption, which it had not yet done Even Obama demanded they clean it up. With Zelensky being a new president, Trump was smart asking him to follow thru with previous promises made by earlier Ukrainian leaders. Why should America give money to a corrupt nation? Would you give money for services to a guy you doubted would fulfill his part of the deal? Does Trump strike you as the kind of guy who gives away his money or the money he's responsible for? You better perform if you want our money. There's nothing wrong with demanding, yes a quid pro quo, that the other side perform before they get our taxpayer money. Trump protected us with the costly Paris Agreement, NATO 2%, tariffs, etc. He wanted Zelensky to promise he would follow through with investigation of corruption including Biden, and publish his promise publicly to lock him in to his promises. Trump did not become a billionaire giving away money. The idea that the Democrats are now twisting that into something that they could try to justify impeachment is obscene. It's just a continuation of three year witch hunt for impeachment long before anyone even heard of the Ukraine.
Withholding congress-approved financial aid for personal reasons is the crime.
er, one of the crimes...
Translated from Bernardspeak...I have no facts, I can’t bluff anymore and I’ve lost the argument. Time to run.
Thanks for admitting you don't know the answer.
So you don't know how long a President may "DELAY" ( note, that is not withholding - which is another point altogether) the release of Aid, nor do you know if what he did was against the law. Now its my understanding that the requirement is to notify Congress that he woud be canceling aid, but I'm happy to be shown incorrect on that point.
The long and short of it is you have nothing in this regard that is unlawful or impeachable.
Just more posturing.
You say it was for personal reasons. But the fact is Ukraine was to clean up its corruption, which it had not yet done Even Obama demanded they clean it up. With Zelensky being a new president, Trump was smart asking him to follow thru with previous promises made by earlier Ukrainian leaders. Why should America give money to a corrupt nation? Would you give money for services to a guy you doubted would fulfill his part of the deal? Does Trump strike you as the kind of guy who gives away his money or the money he's responsible for? You better perform if you want our money. There's nothing wrong with demanding, yes a quid pro quo, that the other side perform before they get our taxpayer money. Trump protected us with the costly Paris Agreement, NATO 2%, tariffs, etc. He wanted Zelensky to promise he would follow through with investigation of corruption including Biden, and publish his promise publicly to lock him in to his promises. Trump did not become a billionaire giving away money. The idea that the Democrats are now twisting that into something that they could try to justify impeachment is obscene. It's just a continuation of three year witch hunt for impeachment long before anyone even heard of the Ukraine.Alan, sorry, but what are you talking about?
Right.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-reform-has-delivered-for-workers-11577045463
“Tax Reform Has Delivered for Workers
Two years later the data show that investment has increased, with wages and job participation rising”
Just to add some clarity...Cross of Sundland by Republican council.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XDCKRpLk4E
.... People are just tired of the condescending lawyerly talk...
These semantic arguments about whether aid was "denied" or "withheld" are beneath contempt.
Yes.
When well-wishing, honest-to-God, decent, ethical do-gooders, like Bernard (and Democrats), accuse someone, no stinky lawyer should exist to muddy the clear waters of accusation with no stinky cross examination. The accused must prove himself innocent all by himself.
Needless to say, that's not how I look at the situation.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's one that always bugs me. If it's "needless to say", why are you saying it?
Yes there is a need for an explicit statement of a Quid pro Quo
Why not consider it a synonymous to “obviously”?
Cheers,
Bernard
Needless to say, that's not how I look at the situation.
Your inputs have not changed in any meaningful way the strength of Sonderland's testimony. All you have demonstrated is how great questioning is able to spread some FUD.
Cheers,
Bernard
Why not use "obviously"? "Needless to say" is a ridiculous preface if you then say what was needless to say.
Having now had time to listen to this once again in details, the key fragment starts at 8:20-8:40 where he speaks of his email to Pompeo, then 19:10-19:20 when he clearly states that the conventional wisdom at the time (mid July) was that the investigation of the 2016 election and Barisma (although he mentions no explicit mention of Biden) were needed for the thing (the unlocking of the aid) to move forward, nobody including Bolton reacted to his statements.
Then the fragment between 29:30 and 30:30, when contrary to the intend of the Republican questioner, Sonderland clearly states that everybody up to the president himself was clearly involved in these discussions that were the main channel of communication about Ukraine.
Which means that the presumtion of Sonderland [that the freeing of the aid was conditioned by a declaration from Ukraine about an investigation] was confirmed by the non objection of key stakeholders including Bolton in July time frame and that these discussions were clearly fully known by all the chain of command up to Trump himself.
And again... we are talking here about the top diplomat of the US to the European Union, having been requested to devote special attention to Ukraine (which he confirmed), who has a clear and lasting presumption for 2 months that doesn't get challenged by any of the contacts he has with stakeholders. ;) It takes a very low level of honesty to consider this cross-examination a proof that there was no quid pro quo. If anything this fully confirms the clear impression from a key witness that there was one.
You've got to love the final smile of the questioner... I can't help but understand it as "good for you, you've been vague enough for your kids not to die in a car accident next month".
Cheers,
Bernard
Dear me, please explain how one - even a president with brass halo - may delay without acually withholding. Kinda impossible, methinks. Either you deliver on time or you do not. If you do not, then you have withheld. Even using an American dictionary.
Sheesh!
How you fail to see a Quid pro Quo in the preconditioning of military support and financial help on the announcement of an inquiry (into a political opponent of Trump), is puzzling (to say the least).
Indeed, people die because of it, and Putin was enboldend in his annexation attempts.Excuse me Bart. But it's not your money. It figures a Socialist European is so cavalier with other people's money. We put all sorts of conditions on our money as your country and you do. Turkey, an ally and NATO partner was cut off from receiving certain military aid when it bought Russian missisles. It;s our money. Conditions. Quid pro quo. Call it what you want. ALl perfectly legal and expected until the Democrats and you decided to make it illegal because Trump is doing it.
How you fail to see a Quid pro Quo in the preconditioning of military support and financial help on the announcement of an inquiry (into a political opponent of Trump), is puzzling (to say the least).
Everybody is entitled to his opinion. Knowing something about the subject is optional.
Thanks for confirming that indeed Soudland had nothing but PRESUMPTION on which to base his claim of a Quid Pro Quo. And of course that is the entire point. He has no clue at all if Trump ordered a Quid Pro Quo. He is only guessing. And you want to impeach the President on a guess. Amazing.
This of course is why the Democrates are fearful of this case going to trial, because they have no real evidence. If there case was ice on a lake there would be a big red flag stating "Danger Thin Ice! No Skating!"
I wonder if you have understood what I wrote as a result of a totally objective listening of the counter examination. Let me summarize it once more for you:But the Bidens appeared to have played the system to enrich themselves and should be investigated. They are not above the law because they are politicians any more than Trump is above the law because he is a politician. Requiring the Ukraine to clean up their corruption including that with the Bidens is the responsible thing to do. If there is political fallout, well, VP Biden was told there would be by his staff and others in the Obama administration, But he did not recuse himself as a was told. In fact, he went on to use his office to get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired allowing his son to continue to collect $50K a month. So either VP Biden is a schmuck or he knew what he was doing helping the company his son worked for by getting the prosecutor fired. You keep pointing to what Trump did. But you don't explain why Biden should get away with corruption which would happen if Trump did not ask for an investigation.
- in July time the common understanding among all the stakeholders was that the freeing of the aid was conditioned by the release of a statement by Ukraine that an investigation would be opened about Barisma
- among the closest colleborators of Trump, including Bolton, nobody objected to this understanding during meetings about this topic, therefore confirming this understanding, therefore confirming his presumption
- this group of people was confirmed to be the offiicial channel about Ukraine, involving Trump himself
So what Sonderland answered to the republican questioning is in essence “a group of people tightly connected to Trump confirmed that the freeing of aid was related to the Ukraine investigation of Barisma”. This isn’t guessing at all.
If that’s not good enough for you it shows that you have no understanding about the way sensitive diplomatic matters are handled. What is your personal level of experience dealing with diplomats if I may ask? Do you understand the way they speak? I prefer to ask because the English they use is very different from the one used in other professions such as photography and you may not be familiar with it.
But yes, Sonderland didn’t get a direct order from Trump, he just got the blessing from his first line. Who cares really. A President is accountable for what his first line does, is he not? Even if his first line did it without Trump knowing about it makes no difference at all. Trump picked his first line and they act on his behalf. CEOs resign when their first line messes up. It’s called accountability.
If you still disagree with what I wrote please point out accurately what you disagree with, because what I am writing here is 100% logical and honnest.
Cheers,
Bernard
What Biden or his son did or didn't do isn't material to what Trump did. There is no equivalence. Stop trying to create some.First, what I said was that Biden appears to have corrupted his office and should be investigated. The president called for his investigation. Perfectly legal. What you;re doing is getting into the mind of the president rather than looking whether his action is legal. Especially since it was part of an overall call for investigation into Ukraine corruption that even the previous administration called for.
Biden wasn't the president. Neither did he withhold congressionally-approved military aid from a foreign power to aid his own election status.
... CEOs resign when their first line messes up...
And Japanese CEOs commit harakiri. Which must be your wet dream, when it comes to Trump ;)
And Japanese CEOs commit harakiri. Which must be your wet dream, when it comes to Trump ;)
So what Sonderland answered to the republican questioning is in essence “a group of people tightly connected to Trump confirmed that the freeing of aid was related to the Ukraine investigation of Barisma”. This isn’t guessing at all.
It would be enlightening to hear Zelenski's view on the matter; but that will not happen.
And Japanese CEOs commit harakiri. Which must be your wet dream, when it comes to Trump ;)When we screw up in America, we file for bankruptcy. :)
If NATO countries don't pay their 2%btw, why 2% ? they either shall match USA spending on defense or f$$$k off
It is, however, what is known as hearsay. It is admissible as evidence that that's what the the "group of people tightly connected to Trump" said, but not as evidence that what they said was in fact the case. That's the position in English law, at least. It may be different in the US.There are Federal exceptions to hearsay. See link. But I don't think the Sondland situation would fall under them since the President never told these people there's a quid pro quo.
Jeremy
Didn’t he actually say that he didn’t feel pressured or quid pro quo?sources?
btw, why 2% ? they either shall match USA spending on defense or f$$$k offNATO countries including the US in 2014 agreed that each country would spend a minimum of 2% of their GDP for defence by 2024. I don't have a problem with the fact we spend a higher percentage. After all, our defense expenditures cover geographic areas other than the defense of Europe's NATO countries.
sources?Sources would be hearsay. :)
"Then Existing Mental, Emotional or Physical Condition" certainly applies to the Democrats who were testifying -- especially their mental condition.That's not hearsay. I know they're crazy. :)
sources?Here's a source that Zelensky said there was no quid pro quo. Proof! Well, hearsay proof. :)
sources?
”Look, I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo,” Zelensky said.
Then he insisted that “nobody pushed me.”
btw, why 2% ? they either shall match USA spending on defense or f$$$k off
I wonder if you have understood what I wrote as a result of a totally objective listening of the counter examination. Let me summarize it once more for you:
in July time the common understanding among all the stakeholders was that the freeing of the aid was conditioned by the release of a statement by Ukraine that an investigation would be opened about Barisma
- among the closest colleborators of Trump, including Bolton, nobody objected to this understanding during meetings about this topic, therefore confirming this understanding, therefore confirming his presumption
- this group of people was confirmed to be the offiicial channel about Ukraine, involving Trump himself
So what Sonderland answered to the republican questioning is in essence “a group of people tightly connected to Trump confirmed that the freeing of aid was related to the Ukraine investigation of Barisma”. This isn’t guessing at all.
If that’s not good enough for you it shows that you have no understanding about the way sensitive diplomatic matters are handled. What is your personal level of experience dealing with diplomats if I may ask? Do you understand the way they speak? I prefer to ask because the English they use is very different from the one used in other professions such as photography and you may not be familiar with it.
But yes, Sonderland didn’t get a direct order from Trump, he just got the blessing from his first line. Who cares really. A President is accountable for what his first line does, is he not? Even if his first line did it without Trump knowing about it makes no difference at all. Trump picked his first line and they act on his behalf. CEOs resign when their first line messes up. It’s called accountability.
If you still disagree with what I wrote please point out accurately what you disagree with, because what I am writing here is 100% logical and honnest.
Cheers,
Bernard
2. America doesn;t have the money that America spends. We print it or borrow to the tune of $1 trillion this year. During the next financial crisis, America will reduce its military budget changing the way we handle NATO responsibilities and driving up Europe's share for their own defense.
1. Because 2% of what you have hurts equally;
2. because nobody else has the money to spend that America does;
3. because it suits American interests to have some of its rockets and early warning systems ensconced in NATO countries;
4. because those extra minutes may give the POTUS time to get airborne and somewhere else.
Anything else you'd like me to add? You do know there a rocking chair on the moon?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=scR1qiAcKBo
:-)
Thank you for your summary Bernard, but it appears the subject we are discussing is beyond your ken. Lets see if it’s possible for you to become enlightened.\Craig, While I agree with all your points, I don;t agree with the thrust. The American people are not lawyers. They don;t understand hearsay eveidence. Plus, the media will be biasing the presentation against Trump.
First lets describe what the process is going forward in respect to impeaching President Trump.
1. The House must make its case for impeachment before the Senate based upon the charges and evidence they have gathered and documented in their Impeachment report. This is the hand they have to play. Nothing more, Unless the Senate grants them the ability to call even more witnesses. They must make their case with this evidence.
2. These House manages must convince 67 Senators that the evidence they have gathered is strong enough to convict Trump of demanding a Quid Pro Quo for the release of the aid and a White House meeting – and doing so for PERSONAL GAIN.
3. The President or his attorneys will be allowed to mount a defense against these charges. They will be allowed to poke holes in the testimony of the House’s witnesses. They need to only convince 34 Senators that reasonable doubt exists to such an extent that they exonerate the President of the charges.
4. The Senators may or may not be allowed to ask questions either verbally or in writing as dictated by the rules the Senate may enact to govern the proceedings. Only 51 Senators are required to approve the rules package for the trial.
5. This will be a decidedly lawyerly proceeding. Most likely the house manages will be attorneys. Most likely the White House defense team will be attorneys. The proceedings will be presided over by a Supreme Court Justice…an attorney. A good number of the Senators who will be the “Jurors” are attorneys.
6. Even though this is not a criminal trial, but rather a political one, it will most likely be argued and judged based on criminal or civil law standards, and the burden of proof such a trial demand.
The long and short of all of this is the QUALITY and RELIABILITY of the evidence is really going to matter. What the House will need to prove is that Trump ordered this Quid Pro Quo and the only reason for doing so was for this personal gain.
Now let see how your “understanding” fits the criteria described above.
A Common Understanding is not proof that Trump ordered a Quid pro Quo. At the very best it’s Presumption. Not a single player in this group made a statement that they knew of or heard of Trump making this demand. To the contrary, many spoke of asking why the aid was withheld and not receiving an answer. This is big time loser for the House team.
What a convoluted piece of logic. No one said no, so they must have meant yes. And that means Trump made the demand. My oh my. This one gets you laughed right out of court. If this is the main trust of your argument, you have dealt yourself a death blow…and handed me a win. Great work Bernard.
But that’s not what happened at all. No one confirmed that Trump ordered the Quid Pro Quo for personal gain. Let me repeat that so it might have a chance to sink in. NO ONE CONFIRMED that Trump ordered a Quid Pro Quo for personal gain.
What Sondland said that it was a PRESUMPTION. And he repeated this many times over. He had NO personal contact with Trump that confirmed it, and in fact Trump told him he want NO Quid Pro Quo. And no one TOLD Sondland or any of the other House witnesses that they heard or witnessed Trump ordering a Quid Pro Quo.
Remember this is a trial. A trial by attorneys for attorneys and most likely governed by legal rules standards. This testimony might not even be allowed to see the light of day in a trial because it holds no true evidentiary value.
Oh please, climb down off your high horse and put it in the stable. Be careful not to step in the horse dung you are flinging about. I might just be a Trump liking, deplorable Midwestern photographer, but I’m capable of understanding the language spoken by these people in the course of their testimony. And lets be very clear here. Soudland is not a “diplomat”. He is the owner of a chain of Hotels…a businessman. And I speak businessman.
This shows the complete intellectual dishonest of your position. Sondland got the “blessing” from no one. He received no order to carry out a Quid Pro Quo. In fact he was told point blank there was no Quid Pro Quo. Who cares? Sheesh. This is a trial to convict and remove the duly elected … sitting…. President of the United States. It’s the most severe form of punishment that can be inflicted on a sitting President. As such it requires well founded charges backed by unimpeachable evidence. Evidence that proves unequivocally that the President is guilty of committing the specifics of the charge. In Bernardland, all that takes it seems is conjecture, innuendo and presumption. Thank goodness I don’t live there.
I think that should cover it.
First, what I said was that Biden appears to have corrupted his office and should be investigated. The president called for his investigation. Perfectly legal.
Agreed.
What wasn't perfectly legal was withholding the congressionally-approved aid in return for the investigation.
(or, apparently, just the mere announcement of same)
.
2. These House manages must convince 67 Senators that the evidence they have gathered is strong enough to convict Trump of demanding a Quid Pro Quo for the release of the aid and a White House meeting – and doing so for PERSONAL GAIN.No quid pro quo is required to prove abuse of power. The ask is enough.
Wrong again Peter. This is really hard for you it seems. If that actually happened ( and there is no proof that it did) Trump would be perfectly justified and legallly allow to do so, provided it was not for HIS PERSONAL GAIN ONLY. So if you want to claim it was not perectly legal you will need to prove that there was no national interest in investigating the 2016 election interference and the Biden issues. Thats going to be really tough for you to do.Wouldn't it be something if there were a whole bunch of American politicians who got Kickbacks besides the Biden's from Ukrainian money that was sent over there? Maybe that's why Pelosi is holding up the impeachment because it might come out and she was told she better hold up on this whole thing because a lot of Democrats and Republicans are going to get burned by this whole thing. Now that would be an imppeachment news story.
I suggest you do some in depth investigation into what has been happening for years in Ukraine, especially how over 5 billion in aid has simply vanished from the public coffers and was funneled back to the US and into the pockets of a whole bunch of people including some connected to some very high ranking public officials. Just a word of warning. Other than a few pieces about the Bidens a few years ago, the MSM has been missing in action. You will neeed to dig much deeper ...if you dare.
No quid pro quo is required to prove abuse of power. The ask is enough.There's no such crime as an abuse of power.
There's no such crime as an abuse of power.You don't need a violation of a criminal statute. Abuse of power is sufficient for impeachment.
You don't need a violation of a criminal statute. Abuse of power is sufficient for impeachment.You've been watching CNN or MSNBC too much. The Democrats have been trying to impeach for years. So now they claim abuse of power is enough. But there is no crime as abuse of power. The crime must be Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. A Crime. And it must be a High Crime similar in seriousness to Treason or Bribery.
No quid pro quo is required to prove abuse of power. The ask is enough.
You've been watching CNN or MSNBC too much. The Democrats have been trying to impeach for years. So now they claim abuse of power is enough. But there is no crime as abuse of power. The crime must be Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. A Crime. And it must be a High Crime similar in seriousness to Treason or Bribery.You are not up on your constitutional law. It's understandable because neither is Fox News.
It can't be for holding up funds to a foreign Nation or spitting on the street or spending too much time at the golf course.
You have to prove his ask was in fact it dependant on a Quid Pro Quo. Then you need to prove That the Quid Pro Quo , if it happened , was only for personal gain and had no national interest. Asking for a Quid Pro Que is perfectly legal.Nope. No quid pro quo required.
Nope. No quid pro quo required.
Ok. So where does that leave you ? You are still left with trying to prove the ask was only for personal gain and has no national interest.
Has anyone asked any of the Democratic candidates for president if they think it would be fair to ask Biden to testify to swear his innocence so Trump has a better possibility of being convicted in the Senate?
I understand your point but it's not really that much of a reach in this case, is it?Trump can walk and chew gum at the same time just like the Democrats. The Dems are trying to personally destroy Trump's chances for re-election. But they have to find some nexus to a crime so they can justify the impeachment. Trump is doing the same thing. Biden gave him an opening by acting stupidly and getting involved firing the prosecutor who was investigating his son;s company. So Trump can claim it's perfectly legal, and it is, while at the same time getting personal political benefit from the appearance Biden commited a crime. Both sides are doing the same thing. Democrats don't care about the constitution and Trump doesn't care about Biden's guilt. It's all about power politics.
I understand your point but it's not really that much of a reach in this case, is it?
Have there been any moves toward investigating Biden(s) by either the White House or the Senate? Seems like they've had ample time to start one.
This shows the complete intellectual dishonest of your position. Sondland got the “blessing” from no one. He received no order to carry out a Quid Pro Quo. In fact he was told point blank there was no Quid Pro Quo. Who cares? Sheesh. This is a trial to convict and remove the duly elected … sitting…. President of the United States. It’s the most severe form of punishment that can be inflicted on a sitting President. As such it requires well founded charges backed by unimpeachable evidence. Evidence that proves unequivocally that the President is guilty of committing the specifics of the charge.
I apologize, you have also failed to convince me of your honesty on this matter.
Because Sunderland clearly did get a blessing from the first line of Trump, without the shadow of a doubt. And the logic linking an pre-existing view about a quid pro quo and it's non denial by key aids of Trump isn't convoluted at all, it is crystal clear.
Anyway, I have lost hope for a frank conversation on this, you are obviously entranched in your position for whatever political motive.
Cheers,
Bernard
Oh my, you really are grasping at straws. Your logic is flawed, your deductions are faulty and your worldview is warping your opinions.
Yes, it’s best you move along. This is not going well for you. Maybe you will have better luck trying to convince anyone who will listen that Nikon rules the roost.
Imagine the Dems trying to pretend they can get inside Trumps thinking to prove his intentions.
You keep insisting that [prosecutor] can never establish [motive] without [defendant] confessing to [witness] the exact shady reason why he/she committed the act under examination.
That’s not how it works, and this (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W2G2sac9s34) pretty much never happens.
Whatever works for you Craig.
Cheers,
Bernard
You keep insisting that [prosecutor] can never establish [motive] without [defendant] confessing to [witness] the exact shady reason why he/she committed the act under examination.
That’s not how it works, and this (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W2G2sac9s34) pretty much never happens.
This is going very poorly for you.
Sorry but you gotta have proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In this case you can’t read Trumps mind, And inference surely is not going to cut it for at least 34 Senators. The “prosecutor” in this case..the House...has already made its case. Unless they somehow convince the Senate to allow them to call more witnesses ( don’t bet the farm on that happening ) their case is set. Needless to say they have a pretty poor case to present as it pertains to Trumps mindset. And that of course is why they are seemingly in a state. Of panic over a trial in the Senate. The defense is going to cut them to ribbons.
Would you agree Craig that having testimony from the first line of Trump is becoming absolutely essential now?
We know from Sonderland testimony and counter examination that the first line of Trump confirmed the relevance of the Quid Pro quo in July time frame.
I share your view that we don't have direct proof that Trump requested Sonderland to support the Quid Pro Quo.
Anyone truly seeking the truth should therefore want Bolton and his friends to testify, right?
Cheers,
Bernard
Sorry but you gotta have proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In this case you can’t read Trumps mind, And inference surely is not going to cut it for at least 34 Senators. The “prosecutor” in this case..the House...has already made its case. Unless they somehow convince the Senate to allow them to call more witnesses ( don’t bet the farm on that happening ) their case is set. Needless to say they have a pretty poor case to present as it pertains to Trumps mindset. And that of course is why they are seemingly in a state. Of panic over a trial in the Senate. The defense is going to cut them to ribbons.
Well why don’t we have that testimony Bernard? it’s up to the House to seek and obtain that testimony. They decided they didn’t need it. No time to wait and all that rot. But the irony is that Bolton, who was under subpoena when to court to try and get a judge to tell him if he could testify. He stated he wanted to come. And then Shiff withdrew the subpoena. So if you want this testimony...go tell it to the Dems. Seems they really didn’t even want it.
You’ve moved the goalposts though... Up to this point you’ve been insisting that it’s impossible to divine Trump’s intent without a direct admission from Trump himself, which is simply not correct.
Now you’re shifting to a different assertion - that THIS senate would never convict / remove THIS president without direct admission of guilt. And I concur - though I suspect that Trump himself could appear and admit he “ordered the code red” for no other reason than to torpedo Biden and the Senate still wouldn’t convict.
But of course this is a reflection of the Trump base, their hold on the party, and their irrationality, as opposed to any inherent problem with the Democrats or the case against Trump.
We DON’T know from Sondland’s testimony and counter examination that the first line of Trump confirmed the relevance of the Quid Pro quo in July time frame. You made that up from whole cloth. The fact is Sondland never did get an answer as to WHY the aid was withheld. And that destroys your silly no means yes theory.
I have no problem with Bolton. But you need to take this one up with the Dems...
You have not listened to his answers carefully enough Craig. Or you have and don't want to draw the obvious conclusions not matching your narrative. Either way, it's 100% clear.
If that's the case, and I have not checked this and am unfortunately not sure I can trust your claims, then it's indeed a mistake on their part.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yep - This is probably the most incomprehensible thing the Dems have done during this process.What if the Dems realized that Bolton would just say that Trump did not want a quid pro quo? That all Trump wanted was Ukraine to clean up the corruption regarding the 2016 campaign including the apparent corruption of Biden. That would blow their argument against Trump and hurt their leader Biden as well. They wanted the impeachment regardless. After all, they know they are going to lose in the Senate in any case. The whole point is just to smear Trump by impeaching him. The facts and evidence, be damned.
...conversing with him is simply a waste of time.
Cheers,
Bernard
So why don’t you quote the passage. And then I’ll quote the passage and the context where Soudland never got a clear answer as to why the aid was not being delivered. It’s really quite clear Bernard and if you can’t deal with that reality no one can help you.
This is not about reaching conclusions, your presumptions are really meaningless. Show us some actual facts. Like when Sondland was told there was a QPQ for aid. Or better yet some real fact that shows Trump was only interested in himself and not the country. I would really appreciate someone bringing this fact forward as evidence of Trumps Abuse of Power. It would be enlightening to be sure.
Btw, I just this evening listened to the cross of Sondland in its entirety. Your are simply making up,your claims from whole cloth. That is very clear.
But hey. Post the testimony you claim makes your point. Let’s see if it really says what you say it does.
Craig,
I gave you the exact time in the video already.
Being about to catch a plane I am sorry, I won’t be able to quote the exact phrases today.
But I advise you consider both the testimony of Sonderland and the famous July 25th call whose transcript we have. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Here are the passages Bernard has referenced:
SONDLAND: Well I sent that e-mail to Secretary Pompeo to set up a potential meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky in Warsaw and when I referred to the log jam, I referred to the log jam in a very inclusive way.
Everything was jammed up at that point and Secretary Pompeo essentially gave me the green light to brief President Zelensky about making those - those announcements.
For more context, this followed:
CASTOR: OK so you're asking Secretary Pompeo whether we should block time in - I mean, is there any discussion of specific investigations, is there any discussion of Biden or Burisma or anything linking to aid in this - in this e-mail that you sent to Pompeo?
SONDLAND: No, this - this was a proposed briefing that I was going to give President Zelensky. And I was going to call President Zelensky and ask him to say what is in this e-mail and I was asking essentially President Pompeo's permission to do that.
CASTOR: Right.
SONDLAND: Which he said yes.
Next:
SONDLAND: Well again, I'm not going to dispute Ambassador Volker's recollection if he - particularly if he had notes. I know that the desire to have the 2016 election DNC server in Burisma were already being discussed by them. Again, I had no direct contact with Mr. Giuliani on July 10 but through Ambassador Volker.
And I probably mentioned that this needs to happen in order to move the process forward. That seemed to be the conventional wisdom at the time. I don't recall any abrupt ending of the meeting or people storming out or anything like that. That would have been very memorable if someone would have stormed out of a meeting based on something I said.
And finally:
CASTOR: OK. And just getting back to the irregular channel, did anyone else express any concerns to you about this - the so-called irregular channel?
SONDLAND: I'm not sure how someone could characterize something as an irregular channel when you're talking to the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, the Chief of Staff of the White House, the Secretary of Energy. I don't know how that's irregular.
If a bunch of folks that are not in that channel are aggrieved for some reason for not being included, I don't know how they can consider us to be the irregular channel and they to be the regular channel when it's the leadership that makes the decisions.
So here is Bernards argument:
Having now had time to listen to this once again in details, the key fragment starts at 8:20-8:40 where he speaks of his email to Pompeo, then 19:10-19:20 when he clearly states that the conventional wisdom at the time (mid July) was that the investigation of the 2016 election and Barisma (although he mentions no explicit mention of Biden) were needed for the thing (the unlocking of the aid) to move forward, nobody including Bolton reacted to his statements.
Then the fragment between 29:30 and 30:30, when contrary to the intend of the Republican questioner, Sonderland clearly states that everybody up to the president himself was clearly involved in these discussions that were the main channel of communication about Ukraine.
Which means that the presumtion of Sonderland [that the freeing of the aid was conditioned by a declaration from Ukraine about an investigation] was confirmed by the non objection of key stakeholders including Bolton in July time frame and that these discussions were clearly fully known by all the chain of command up to Trump himself.
And again... we are talking here about the top diplomat of the US to the European Union, having been requested to devote special attention to Ukraine (which he confirmed), who has a clear and lasting presumption for 2 months that doesn't get challenged by any of the contacts he has with stakeholders. ;) It takes a very low level of honesty to consider this cross-examination a proof that there was no quid pro quo. If anything this fully confirms the clear impression from a key witness that there was one.
So, lets unpack that.
Bernard claims that since noe one told Soudland there was no Quid Pro Quo, that this in fact confirms there is one. In other words no means yes. It should be noted that Sondland never asked or claimed in this context that there was a Quid Pro Qou. It must be "diplomatic english" that only people like Bernard understands were no means yes. In Benards world no one objecting is confirmation that something existes even though the question was never asked. Amazing.
Bernard clearly states it was only a PRESUMPTION on Sondlard's part but since no one objected it must be true. Then Sondland actually asked and got his answer...from the top of the food chain...President Trump.
CASTOR: And you've been very honest and we're not trying to give you a hard time on all the times you don't recall. We're just trying to say that a lot of important events that have happened that the committees asked you about and you've honestly said I don't recall. But the call with President Trump on September 9th or the 8th you recall it vividly, right?
SONDLAND: I recall it vividly because if was keyed by the frantic emails from Ambassador Taylor, I had again prior to that call had all kinds of theories as to why things weren't moving? Why there was no White House meeting? Why there was no aid? Why there was no this? Why there was no that? And I was getting tired of going around in circles, frankly. So I made the call and I asked as I said the open ended question what do you want from Ukraine? And that's when I got the answer
CASTOR: He was unequivocal?
SONDLAND: Nothing. What I said in the text is what I heard.
Talk about painting yourself into a corner. Poor Nancy. Sooner or later she's gonna have to do it or get off the pot. Either way she's in trouble. Stand by for chapter ? in this laughable soap opera production by the Democrats.Trump can sue the House of Representatives to sh#t or get off the pot as his name has been smeared and by not sending the articles of impeachment over to the Senate for trial, he cannot be cleared or convicted as required by the Constitution. Of course, the House could have another vote to drop the charges, which would be even more embarrassing for Pelosi and the Democrats. Trump loves to sue so I could see him doing this. The Constitution clearly states that the articles of impeachment must be sent over to the Senate for trial. The House is in violation of the constitution. The Senate does not have to negotiate with the House how they're going to handle the Senate trial any more than the House had to negotiate with the Senate how they handled the House impeachment process. The Constitution deliberately kept the processes separate to avoid conspiracies between the House and Senate to "get a president".
The Constitution clearly states that the articles of impeachment must be sent over to the Senate for trial.No it doesn't.
Trump would have kept it quiet and just had a one-on-one conversation with Zelensky.
HA! LOL! Imagine Trump keeping quiet about anything.Of course he knows how to keep things quiet. Didn;t he have a one-on-one conversation with Putin? Everyone wanted to know what they talked about but he wouldn't say. Presidents do that all the time with foreign leaders. They couldn't have trusting relationships with them if their conversations weren't kept private. In this Ukraine example, if there was an attempt to do something illegal, Trump would not have discussed it with Zelensky with everyone listening in.
If he did nothing wrong then the impeachment process will exonerate him. You have to trust the legal procedures that were put into place by your constitution, otherwise why bother having them.
BTW, since when do liberals think this is a legal process? I have been told for months now on this forum it is not; it is a political process.
I thought that's what Alan has been saying. Are you calling Alan a liberal? :)
And to think that art was supposed to be the realm of fantasy!
;-)
It's weird that some of you think Pelosi waiting until people like McConnell and Graham agree to a fair trial (after already publicly stating that the "jury" intends to collaborate with the "defendant") makes her look bad. But whatever... Trumpers gonna Trump.
Totally opinion on my part but my belief that Pelosi and company know that have a loser and this tactic is just to give them political cover after lose the trial.
. . . there will be a court hearing on Jan 3 for Don McGann being forced to show up for a hearing for the House that is investigating obstruction. . . . Its my understanding of this case is that its for him to be required to appear. He can still claim attorney - client and executuive privilege. . . .
A claim of executive privilege may only be asserted by the president, not by a subordinate or former subordinate.
Don McGahn served as White House Counsel, a government staff position, not as President Trump's personal lawyer; the attorney-client privilege would not apply to their conversations.
Taking Trump/McConnell/Pelosi out of it, and what would you do if you wanted to hand down an indictment and the jury said they were going to coordinate with the defendant? That'd make you want some assurances, would it not?
If McGann does show and testify, though, yes, that would be a reason as well, though in that case they should have just said they were waiting for additional testimony, unless McGann just stonewalls, as he certainly could.
Again, taking D/R out of it, the main problem here is that the people that have the best information are refusing to testify/not being allowed to testify. I'm not sure how that reflects poorly on anyone other than Trump, but that's my opinion of course, and others clearly disagree.
It's weird that some of you think Pelosi waiting until people like McConnell and Graham agree to a fair trial (after already publicly stating that the "jury" intends to collaborate with the "defendant") makes her look bad. But whatever... Trumpers gonna Trump.
Okay, so are you also for Warren, Bernie, Booker and Klobuchar recusing themselves? All of them have been saying Trump is guilty and in need of being removed from office long before Ukraine was even an issue, and they have only doubled down on this of late.Not only has the house jury decided on the outcome, but the chief prosecutor Nancy Pelosi has recently said that she's been working on impeaching the president for 2 and 1/2 years.
To use your jury analogy from above, would you want members of a jury who openly stated they felt the defendant was guilty before seeing any evidence?
I would be all for a fair trial following a fair inquiry, but we did not get the latter by any stretch.
Not only has the house jury decided on the outcome, but the chief prosecutor Nancy Pelosi has recently said that she's been working on impeaching the president for 2 and 1/2 years.
The whole thing reeks of politics. That's why the founders of the Constitution required a two-thirds majority to convict the president because they knew that politics would be used too often to get rid of a president. They wanted the four-year election process to be used.
The founders clearly did not want to wait for the next election in the cycle, otherwise they wouldn't have added an impeachment process. Besides, with a president trying to manipulate the election process, that's the last thing one should want to use to call someone who behaves like an old style king or dictator to order.
The founders clearly did not want to wait for the next election in the cycle, otherwise they wouldn't have added an impeachment process. Besides, with a president trying to manipulate the election process, that's the last thing one should want to use to call someone who behaves like an old style king or dictator to order.
[Madison, quoting himself in his notes on the convention, argued that it was] indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the Executive Magistracy was very distinguishable, from that of the Legislature or of any other public body, holding offices of limited duration. It could not be presumed that all or even a majority of the members of an Assembly would either lose their capacity for discharging, or be bribed to betray, their trust. Besides the restraints of their personal integrity & honor, the difficulty of acting in concert for purposes of corruption was a security to the public. And if one or a few members only should be seduced, the soundness of the remaining members, would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body. In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.
Correct. The July 20, 1787, comments by Virginia delegate James Madison (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_720.asp)―later the fourth president of the United States―concisely summarize the rationale that resulted in the impeachment clauses which ultimately were adopted by the U.S. constitutional convention:
There are other aspects of the impeachment provisions in the constitution that are arguable, but the determination by the convention delegates to create a short-circuit mechanism between elections to remove an executive who abused his power really is not open to reasonable dispute.
Much of what you quoted that falls around actions that are not illegal acts are disputable, which is why a 2/3s majority vote is needed. This brings it to beyond dispute.
Anyway, perhaps with your much more esteemed experience in USA law then Bart can tell us exactly how Trump is manipulating the election, since, you know, you quoted that portion of his statement.
...Besides the esteemed opinion of others, how do YOU feel about that?
I feel perfectly fine with that.
Really?Yes Pelosi stated that they;ve been working on impeachment for 2 1/2 years, long before Ukraine. The whole thing has been political. They just couldn't accept the fact that Trump won and Clinton lost.
...
Correct. The July 20, 1787, comments by Virginia delegate James Madison (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_720.asp)―later the fourth president of the United States―concisely summarize the rationale that resulted in the impeachment clauses which ultimately were adopted by the U.S. constitutional convention:Chris No one's arguing impeachment doesn;t exist in the Constitution. The argument is that it should not be done for political reasons but tied to specific serious crimes like Treason and Bribery and other similarly serious crimes and misdemeanors. The fact that the Trump impeachment was voted along party lines and the Senate trial will most certainly be voted along party lines as well, is exactly what the founders did not want. Political decisions about a president should be left to the public in their vote every four years. It;'s only if Treason, Bribery and other High Crimes are done that they wanted Congress to step, in. In that case, such as with Nixon, both parties wanted him out. This whole process, since the beginning as Pelosi say when the impeachment process was started by Democrats, reeks of politics in search of a crime.
There are other aspects of the impeachment provisions in the constitution that are arguable, but the determination by the convention delegates to create a short-circuit mechanism between elections to remove an executive who abused his power really is not open to reasonable dispute.
Yes Pelosi stated that they;ve been working on impeachment for 2 1/2 years, long before Ukraine.
How about, asking a leader of a foreign country to announce an investigation into a political opponent of his own? And to investigate an already debunked theory (about an non-existing server in Ukraine), a fiction that was created by Russia, as a diversion. And later asking 'China' to also engage into an investigation.The Bidens are crooks and should be investigated. Biden again announced he will not appear at the trial if subpoenaed by the Senate. He must be worried. How would he answer qusesions like: "Did you know that Burisma was being investigated by the prosecutor you forced to be fired?" "How much money was your son being paid by Burisma on a monthly basis? How much did Burisma pay him over the years? "" "Did you ever discuss Burisma and their corruption problems with your son?" "How many times did you contact the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor?" "DId your son ever give you any of the money he made from Burisma?" "Did you ever meet with any executives from Burisma with or without your son? "Did you ever meet with the executives from the CHinese corporation that you son was paid?" "What did you son do for these corporations?" "What were your son's qualification in the Burisma oil industry? "Did you son speak Ukrainian". "What were you son's exact responsibilities working for Burisma?"
I am not sure whether withholding a support package approved by Congress, in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into a political opponent (Biden was mentioned, corruption wasn't), amounts to bribery (according to local law). The fact that (most of?) the aid was later released (after the whistleblower's revelations), is immaterial to it being used as a Quid pro Quo.
Besides the esteemed opinion of others, how do YOU feel about that?
No, that's a lie.That was a Freudian slip on her part. The Democrats intended to use the Mueller investigation as the reason to impeach. It's just that Mueller did not go along with their game. But their intent to impeach was there from the day he took the office of president, probably earlier when he won. Anyone who does not realize that has been out to lunch for three years.
She was referring to the Muller investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 elections investigation, not an impeachment.
That was a Freudian slip on her part.
No it wasn't, just take responsibility for your own actions, propagating a fake news lie.It's not fake news. Here's Pelosi saying they've been trying to impeach since the Mueller investigation began.
No it wasn't, just take responsibility for your own actions, propagating a fake news lie.
Not surprised (if a fan of Trump's 'style' of governing), but good to know you are okay with corruption of government.
Oh, for God’s sake, this is the question and her answer:
And it was about the Mueller investigation, not impeachment.
P.S. Trump was not even the President during the investigated collusion/no collusion situation, so for that he could not even be impeached.
Trump was not even the President during the investigated collusion/no collusion situation, so for that he could not even be impeached.
And it was about the Mueller investigation, not impeachment.
P.S. Trump was not even the President during the investigated collusion/no collusion situation, so for that he could not even be impeached.
Despite all his Tweets, despite the radical tax cuts favoring the rich, despite record Federal deficits, despite the reversion to a policy that has consistently failed the test of history (e.g. tariffs), and despite record low interest rates, not to mention his railing against the Federal Reserve; the stock market during the first three years of President Trump's reign fails to provide results to investors that the markets did during President's Clinton & Obama. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/28/trumps-stock-market-rally-is-very-good-still-lags-obama-clinton/ The numbers don't lie but some will still call this Fake News.
Interesting suggestion. The point is certainly arguable. In a forum composed of legal scholars and historians, all thoroughly familiar with the contemporaneous documents on the drafting and adoption of the U.S. constitution as well as the Anglo-American precedents on impeachment, it might be a subject for a lively theoretical debate.The Constitution does not put a time frame around the crime. If a president took a bribe from a foreign country prior to his election as president, it still would be grounds for impeachment after his inauguration.
Impeachment for crimes may also be available after he no longer holds the position as president.
Despite all his Tweets, despite the radical tax cuts favoring the rich, despite record Federal deficits, despite the reversion to a policy that has consistently failed the test of history (e.g. tariffs), and despite record low interest rates, not to mention his railing against the Federal Reserve; the stock market during the first three years of President Trump's reign fails to provide results to investors that the markets did during President's Clinton & Obama. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/28/trumps-stock-market-rally-is-very-good-still-lags-obama-clinton/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/28/trumps-stock-market-rally-is-very-good-still-lags-obama-clinton/) The numbers don't lie but some will still call this Fake News.
Only individuals who are currently in office may be impeached.Has that ever been tested?
And it was about the Mueller investigation, not impeachment.
P.S. Trump was not even the President during the investigated collusion/no collusion situation, so for that he could not even be impeached.
However, all we're doing is kicking the can and day of reckoning down the road. The next recession is going to be a beaut.
Has that ever been tested?
In other words, stealing trillions of dollars from your kids and grandkids. Who cares about them? WE'RE doing great!WE'RE? Aren't you Canadian?
How could one abuse Presidential powers when not in function as President?Can the be an impeachment after their term if they violated them while they were president?
Can the be an impeachment after their term if they violated them while they were president?
They can be charged criminally. Which is not impeachment. Just an ordinary court case.
the act of making a formal statement that a public official might be guilty of a serious offence in connection with his or her job, especially in the US
to charge with a crime or misdemeanor
specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
President Trump may have violated the Whistleblower Protection Act by retweeting the alleged name of the CIA staffer who began the whole Impeachment mess by voicing concern over the Ukraine telephone call. In the days of the Wild West we had gunslingers with itchy trigger fingers; today we have a President with an itchy Twitter finger. Not sure which is/was better.
President Trump may have violated the Whistleblower Protection Act by retweeting the alleged name of the CIA staffer who began the whole Impeachment mess by voicing concern over the Ukraine telephone call. In the days of the Wild West we had gunslingers with itchy trigger fingers; today we have a President with an itchy Twitter finger. Not sure which is/was better.The Impeachment process would in any case override any laws protecting the whistleblower if the accused requires the whistleblower to testify in his defence as a witness. The requirements of the Constitution would trump specific laws.
Amid a two-day binge of post-Christmas rage-tweeting, President Donald Trump retweeted the name of the CIA employee widely presumed to be the whistle-blower in the Ukraine scandal. On Thursday night, December 26, Trump retweeted his campaign account, which had tweeted a link to a Washington Examiner article that printed the name in the headline. Then, in the early hours of Friday morning, December 27, Trump retweeted a supporter who named the presumed whistle-blower in the text of the tweet.
Trump’s post-Christmas mania confirms House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s prediction that Trump would impeach himself.
Donald Trump will not be bound by any rule, even after he has been caught. He is unrepentant and determined to break the rules again—in part by punishing those who try to enforce them. He is a president with the mind of a gangster, and as long as he is in office, he will head a gangster White House.
Yes, that's my take on it as well. Same goes for the pre-presidential period.
One can only impeach a president while they're a president.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/impeachment
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeachment
In the Christmas spirit, Trump tweeted the name of the presumed whistle-blower in the Ukraine scandal, which is a federal offense.
The Atlantic has just published David Frum's article analyzing the latest Trump's actions.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/donald-trumps-gangster-white-house/604216/
In the Christmas spirit, Trump tweeted the name of the presumed whistle-blower in the Ukraine scandal, which is a federal offense.David Frum, who wrote the article, is a unrepentant neo-con who's never seen a war America should avoid. For these reasons, he's been opposed to Trump since before he ran for president. The President has a right to defend himself against attacks by anyone including a whistleblower. The accused in America are allowed to face their accused. The whistleblower can't hide behind secrecy laws when their accusations can cause a president to be impeached or for anyone to have to face criminal charges. The purpose of the whistleblower law is to prevent the whistleblower's job from being terminated or facing discrimination by the government organization they work for. It was not set up to prevent accused people from defending themselves nor to block their testimony in a civil or criminal trial or impeachment.
The Atlantic has just published David Frum's article analyzing the latest Trump's actions.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/donald-trumps-gangster-white-house/604216/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/donald-trumps-gangster-white-house/604216/)
In the Christmas spirit, Trump tweeted the name of the presumed whistle-blower in the Ukraine scandal, which is a federal offense.
Probably not. There is a statute that makes it a crime for government officials or other individuals with access to national secrets ("classified information") to reveal the identity of a covert intelligence officer or operator. However, the whistleblower reportedly is an intelligence analyst, and while there is a convention within the government that the names of intelligence analysts should not gratuitously be made public, they are not considered to be operating under cover and I'm not aware of any law or regulation that attempts to restrict the publication of their names.
The statutory Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections and an associated presidential directive prohibit retaliation against intelligence agency employees who use specified procedures to report violations of law or regulations, mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of authority, or dangers to public health or safety. However, they define retaliation in terms of prohibited adverse personnel actions, and do not include a general restriction on revealing a whistleblower's identity.
Congress could consider revealing the identity of an employee of an intelligence agency with a retaliatory intent or to induce others to harm that employee as grounds for an article of impeachment, but I think it is a stretch to argue that Trump's tweet constitutes a statutory or regulatory violation.
Of all the posts in Trump's Friday night tweetstorm, his whistleblower-related post was the most noteworthy because nearly every public official involved in the impeachment inquiry agreed that the identity of the original complainant should be protected.
Trump has shared more than 100 posts about the whistleblower since September, almost entirely critical, but until this week he had refrained from sharing any content directly pointing to a person's name.
Some far-right media outlets and personalities have published stories claiming to know the name of the whistleblower, but his or her identity is not known and has not been reported by mainstream outlets -- including CNN.
The real question: Can this thread get any sillier? Stand by for the next episode of "The Impeaching Trump Comedy." Listen for the laugh track in the background.
I'm pretty certain at some point in time it will come out that Trump farted in the oval office, and the Dems and the media will then be using this as an excuse for impeachment.
They'll need a recording of the fart, Joe, and if history is any guide, the FBI will be able to provide the recording.
They'll need a recording of the fart, Joe, and if history is any guide, the FBI will be able to provide the recording.
Audio? Or video?
I lose myself in the legal ins/outs of outing a whistleblower. Bottom line though, isn't it kind of a lousy thing to do regardless of whether it's actually technically legal or not? And I don't think it was the first time that the Pres has mentioned names in public. If I were in the employ of the US civil service, working on behalf of the country would seem a lot less noble to me under this administration.The Democrats only care about covering up his identity because he's a Democrat. They're afraid voters will see it a just another attempt at a political impeachment. A phoney setup like the Democrat Clinton dossier. Otherwise they wouldn't care a hoot about this guy. That's why Trump wants this guy revealed and the Democrats want it kept quiet. If you were the one accused, you'd want his identity known. Defending oneself against secret testimony is done in secret courts like in the Soviet Union, not in America. Especially when everyone agrees there are no laws that protect the guy's identity. This is just spin from the anti-Trump press.
Just curious to hear what the Trumpeteers out there have to say. Do you REALLY think that Trump is more important than the country? Isn't that kind of very shortsighted? I mean, in the end he's just another politician who will be gone in a while. The country and the citizens will remain. The politicians are just the guys that citizens hire for a while to do a job. I find this level of hero worship a bit silly, frankly.
The Democrats only care about covering up his identity because he's a Democrat. They're afraid voters will see it a just another attempt at a political impeachment. A phoney setup like the Democrat Clinton dossier. Otherwise they wouldn't care a hoot about this guy. That's why Trump wants this guy revealed and the Democrats want it kept quiet. If you were the one accused, you'd want his identity known. Defending oneself against secret testimony is done in secret courts like in the Soviet Union, not in America. Especially when everyone agrees there are no laws that protect the guy's identity. This is just spin from the anti-Trump press.You guys sure are getting worked up about this.
According to the previously quoted Atlantic article, a president is forbidden to name the whistleblower's names. Below is an excerpt of another article on the same subject by CNN.Les, you haven;t read the other posts. It's perfectly legal. Otherwise anyone could make a political charge and protect themselves from cross-examination by claiming whistleblower status. Meanwhile the accused person's reputation can be destroyed and their legal rights stricken. I don;t know how Canada works. But that's not how America works. If there's a trial in the Senate, the whistleblower's testimony will be paramount. It was his claim that started the whole thing. Any judge would require him to testify.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/28/politics/trump-ukraine-whistleblower-twitter/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/28/politics/trump-ukraine-whistleblower-twitter/index.html)
You guys sure are getting worked up about this.Frank, It's the Democrats who have impeached. They've been worked up against Trump for three years. :)
Frank, It's the Democrats who have impeached. They've been worked up against Trump for three years. :)And yet they are not the ones losing it on LuLa.
And yet they are not the ones losing it on LuLa.I think its the other way around with the people suffering from TDS. The hysterics seem to come from the haters.
David Frum, who wrote the article, is a unrepentant neo-con who's never seen a war America should avoid. For these reasons, he's been opposed to Trump since before he ran for president. The President has a right to defend himself against attacks by anyone including a whistleblower. The accused in America are allowed to face their accused. The whistleblower can't hide behind secrecy laws when their accusations can cause a president to be impeached or for anyone to have to face criminal charges. The purpose of the whistleblower law is to prevent the whistleblower's job from being terminated or facing discrimination by the government organization they work for. It was not set up to prevent accused people from defending themselves nor to block their testimony in a civil or criminal trial or impeachment.
There's no way the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts who will sit and adjudicate the Senate trial will let these two witnesses not testify.So the Republicans are definitely going to call the Bidens? I thought McConnell wasn't going to call any witnesses. When did their strategy change?
The Democrats only care about covering up his identity because he's a Democrat. They're afraid voters will see it a just another attempt at a political impeachment. A phoney setup like the Democrat Clinton dossier. Otherwise they wouldn't care a hoot about this guy. That's why Trump wants this guy revealed and the Democrats want it kept quiet. If you were the one accused, you'd want his identity known. Defending oneself against secret testimony is done in secret courts like in the Soviet Union, not in America. Especially when everyone agrees there are no laws that protect the guy's identity. This is just spin from the anti-Trump press.
So the Republicans are definitely going to call the Bidens? I thought McConnell wasn't going to call any witnesses. When did their strategy change?
Audio? Or video?
Magnus Gålfalk of Linköping University explains that the camera works using infrared spectroscopy. Called "hyperspectral imaging," the method simultaneously captures a spectrum of infrared light for every pixel in a photo. Many gases absorb infrared light, Gålfalk says, not just methane (CH4). But the camera is fine-tuned to see the signature of methane gas.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/a-camera-that-sees-methane
Pure ignorance, Alan. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding and the same rules do not apply. No right to face accusers, no ban on hearsay evidence (not that there's a complete ban in criminal proceedings anyway), no right to call one's own witnesses, no right to have a lawyer present. If you insist on drawing a parallel with criminal proceedings, impeachment is like a grand jury. It is NOT a trial. At a criminal grand jury, the purported defendant has NOTHING to do with it and the proceedings are secret. The house's impeachment process has been wide open (as it should be) with dozens of Republicans participating, questioning witnesses, and with (limited) subpoena powers. So the GOP and Trump have nothing to whine about.I'm surprised you didn't suggest bringing back the rack and stretching Trump until he admitted his guilt and squealed for mercy.
And if Trump is so interested in have the truth come out, why has he forbidden 4 aides from testifying? You and I both know the answer.
Alan, you seem determined to keep embarrassing yourself. The purported whistleblower is a woman. This is pretty indicative of how little you know about the whole situation.I didn't know because it was secret. It seems you on the other hand have been snooping around and violating the law.
The hysterics seem to come from the haters.
Ha! You witnessed a Trump rally recently?
I'm surprised you didn't suggest bringing back the rack and stretching Trump until he admitted his guilt and squealed for mercy.
There ought to be an emoji for hyperbole.I thought it was a rather catchy phrase. :)
They'll need a recording of the fart, Joe, and if history is any guide, the FBI will be able to provide the recording.
I didn't know because it was secret. It seems you on the other hand have been snooping around and violating the law.
If reading a legitimate news source is snooping, then I am guilty as charged.Just what Trump did.
If reading a legitimate news source is snooping, then I am guilty as charged.
Is this the man you want running the country?
For all you Trump fan-boys, here's something to read, from beginning to end, every word. Is this the man you want running the country?What about the lies Hillary and Joe Biden told? How about Pocahontas?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/president-donald-trump-s-10-biggest-false-claims-2019-one-n1101151
I would be interested in reading that article...whats the link?
...obviously a woman.
What about the lies Hillary and Joe Biden told? How about Pocahontas?
Yah, what about them?I guess I didn't make my point clear enough. It was to point out that all politicians lied and lie, desemble, embellish, etc. We had to make a choice between Hillary and Donald in 2016. Already, the Democratic candidates are proving themselves to be liars. Warren about her heritage. Biden about a hundred things including the Ukraine, which if he did do something for his son is worse than anything Trump did. In an election, you don;t vote against someone. You have to vote for someone. So far, all the candidates have a problem with veracity. So in the end, we may have to use other standards to make a decision on who to vote for.
That whataboutism makes as much sense as your "The Chinese are carbon-polluting, so why can't we?" argument.
ie None. Zero. Xilch.
And, even if they did tell a couple of lies, (one in Warren's case) does that make it okay for the President of the United States to tell them?
And is it okay to tell thousands of them? Especially easily-disproven ones?
That's what baffles me the most. That he would tell such obvious whoppers and expect you to swallow them.
Multiple sources. There was no specific mention of a name but just the person's handle on Twitter or some such place - "SurferMom" was part of it, obviously a woman.
That's what baffles me the most. That he would tell such obvious whoppers and expect you to swallow them.
And they do swallow them, that's even more amazing. Apparently Trump has an instinct for gullible trumpettes ...
Why don’t you go through all of them one by one and tell us all why each one is not fake news. Be exact and detail the facts. And have a lot of fun with, the “there is no evidence” claims. Remember that the absence of evidence as spewed by the Lame stream media does not mean evidence of absence.
Best of Luck to you Bart, this is sure to be entertaining.
I post this link because it was familiar to me https://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/ (https://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/), but if you do a search on "Trump's lies" or variations thereof, you'll get dozens of sites, maybe more.
He has made literally hundreds of wild-ass statements, which are probably an order of magnitude greater in number and greater in absurdity than anyone would think possible. I distinctly remember him repeating the horse sh*t that vaccines cause autism. That's just one. Politicians say a lot of dumb things, but that's on the same level as believing in a flat earth.
I'm fully aware that you believe those are all fake news sites, that he never said those things, it's all invention of the "liberal" press. That's ok, you don't have to believe it for it to true.
...However, it is not a game... otherwise i may have liked this satire.
The rest are similar. NBC lying about it. Trump supporters know already what game they're playing.
yes,
stop asking stupid questions
However, it is not a game... otherwise i may have liked this satire.No. It's not a game. The media twisted everything he says playing word games to fool the public who don;t have time to investigate the truth or all the details. They just read the headlines. It's a concerted effort to destroy Trump so he';s not re-elected. The press is doing a dis-service to America by distorting the news.
And they do swallow them, that's even more amazing...
... I distinctly remember him repeating the horse sh*t that vaccines cause autism...
Or maybe we are smart enough to recognize a hyperbole.The press knows it's hyperbole. They just ignore that fact so they can smear him by playing word games. It's like when Trump said that Obama was tapping his phone. The press went on and on reporting how Obama didn't do that, like people really believe he sneaked down into the Trump Tower with earphones on and tapped Trump's phone wires to listen in. Of course, Trump meant he and his organization was being surveilled, spied on. Normal people understood that. Then when it came out that he was actually in fact surveilled, the press changed their tune and said well that isn't spying when the FBI investigates, twisting words some more. That's why people don't trust the press. It;s so obvious to anyone with half a brain what they're doing. The ones who don't see it are so blind to hating Trump they can't see straight. They believe any propaganda the media throws out. The rest of the people don't have time in life to think beyond the headlines they read, unfortunately, so Trump gets a rap.
He has made literally hundreds of wild-ass statements, which are probably an order of magnitude greater in number and greater in absurdity than anyone would think possible. I distinctly remember him repeating the horse sh*t that vaccines cause autism. That's just one. Politicians say a lot of dumb things, but that's on the same level as believing in a flat earth.
I'm fully aware that you believe those are all fake news sites, that he never said those things, it's all invention of the "liberal" press. That's ok, you don't have to believe it for it to true.
What about the lies Hillary and Joe Biden told? How about Pocahontas?
The lies that Clinton and Biden have told might fill a tea cup. Trump's would fill a swimming pool. And who the hell is Pocohontas other than a possibly fictional Native American woman from 400 years ago?Well, you're right that Warren is a fictional character. :)
👍👍👍 🤣🤣🤣
Questions are never stupid, but answers can be.
Yea...still waiting for yours in regards to the 10 Trump "lies" list....
Robert, you leftists ...
Why not just deal with the 10 posted above, and let’s see how they hold up. Then we can move on to the rest if you wish.
How tough can it be for you since you seem to believe you are correct about all of this. It should be a walk in the park for you. It might be very enlightening and entertaining.
Btw, you don’t have the first clue what I believe, but you proceeded to make up some fake news all on your own! Great work! I hear MSNBC might be hiring if Maddow loses the case filed against her by another news networks she claimed was being paid by Russia to spread propaganda.
Oh well, the latest 10 "big" lies, or the previous 1000 lesser ones, let's not quibble over a few thousand "mis-spokes". It's all good.
I'd be a little worried about all those generals leaving Trump's employ but if you guys are ok with it, who am I to disagree. Ordinarily, attracting and keeping competent staff is a good barometer of leadership ability, but maybe this is the exception and Trump really is smarter than everyone else.
But seriously guys, do you really think it's ok for the President of the US to spread anti-vaccine nonsense? Is that one of those "truths" that only Trump supporters understand and that others somehow miss? Is that what conservatism is now. I wonder what William Buckley Jr. or George Gilder would this of this. Or do you think that Roy Cohn and Joe McCarty are better role models.
I sincerely hope for your country that some sane politicians emerge from this rabid bi-partisan sh*t show soon, but I'm not optimistic.
Questions are never stupid, but answers can be.
Why would I want to that? I didn't bring op the topic, and you have apparently already made up your mind. So that would make it a futile exercise and a waste of time.
I can think of more pleasant ways to spend my time.
Whats the matter? This too hard for you? Your poor attempt at deflection is duly noted.
All the best for 2020.
All the best for 2020.
Happy New Year to everyone. Let's shoot more and talk less.
Photos I assume.😎🍻Hmmm.
... But seriously guys, do you really think it's ok for the President of the US to spread anti-vaccine nonsense?...
Once again, he didn’t say that.
Once again, he didn’t say that.
Slobodan is right on this one. Trump used to be a vaccine skeptic but has changed his tune. So, you can probably find some anti-vax quotes from his past, but he has changed his tune. I will add this to my list of good things he has done, which I keep on a post-it.
He tells or like it is.
... I'm not even saying he really believes it. What I asked was, are you comfortable with a POTUS acting like this? How is this helpful to anyone? How do to the citizens of USA benefit?
If I hear that one more time, I'm gonna puke.He speaks colloquially like most human beings. The anti-Trump press deliberately misinterprets much of what he says because it's politically expedient. His comment about Obama tapping his phone is a perfect example.
That and "Don't listen to what he says, listen to what he means."
Actually, Trump stands by most of his positions and takes the heat when he implements them. It's one of his admirable traits. He tells or like it is.
Let me give you my perspektive. For the record, I vaccinated my child, and believe in vaccinations. Autism, vaccinations, and anti-vaccination movement are all very serious matters alone, let alone in combination. The anti-vaccination movement, right or wrong (and I do believe they are wrong), can not be easily dismissed. What needs to be done is to dissuade them, not simply dismiss them. That starts by listening to and acknowledging their concerns. Humans are hard-wired to look for cause-consequence in anything new or bad happening (e.g., the rise in autism). In that anecdote about an autistic baby, I believe he ended it with “Is there a link? I don’t know” (citing from memory).
Trump is a laymen in many areas, bar real estate development. That puts him on an equal footing with many among his constituents. That’s part of his folksy charm. People can relate to that. So, when faced with a mother with an autistic child, he can react to that at the same layman level, acknowledging her concerns as a minimum. Or he could label her as an ignorant deplorable. Well, we’ve seen how the latter worked for a certain presidential candidate.
Fair enough. Reacting in a human way is a good thing all round. He (and others) should do it more.
Abetting superstitions is not a good thing and doesn't help anyone. Sympathy and pandering are not the same, you can do one without the other without insulting the poor mother. Others manage this all the time. When you have a public platform, you need to think before speaking or you can do real harm regardless of intention. In that "autistic baby" case, he wasn't just acting as a caring uncle at the kitchen table, he was at a political rally.
It's also a bit difficult to assign that kind of human sympathy to him, however, when during that campaign he mocked the physical disabilities of a journalist he didn't like at another political rally. And it doesn't say much about the audience members who cheered when he did it. People get things wrong when they speak off script, of course, who hasn't, but that was going a little far.
Yeah, Trump is definitely not scripted. All the other politicians stick their fingers up in the air to check which way the wind is blowing. They're all phonies which is why people don;t like or trust them. Yet, when Trump tells it like it is, we all get uncomfortable, itchy. We don;t know what we want. Truth is messy. It forces you to look at yourself.What nonsense.
What nonsense.
If I hear that one more time, I'm gonna puke.
What's nonsense. That politicians are phoney? Or that Trump makes you uncomfortable by telling things like they are?
Trump does make me uncomfortable. But that's not because he is "telling things like they are", but because he apparently thinks that his fictional world is real.
The man who thinks that e.g. Putin is a more reliable source of information than the CIA, he thinks that not Russia but Ukraine meddled in the 2016 elections, he thinks that he can pressure a foreign country into aiding in the 2020 elections by withholding Congressionally approved funds to a country at war (14000 people died already) coming from the man who cannot even fold an umbrella makes me uncomfortable, yes.
he thinks that not Russia but Ukraine meddled in the 2016 elections,
Lets just hold your feet to the fire on only one of your claims....
Please support the quoted claim with facts.
try this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0
try this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0
Lets just hold your feet to the fire on only one of your claims....
Please support the quoted claim with facts.
Barf bag ready, Peter? Okay: He tells it like it is.
So you agree that the rest is correct.
You'll have to do with the following summary (I can't be bothered enough to search for Trump's literal quotes that the Crowdstrike computer server was in Ukraine):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories_related_to_the_Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal#Adoption_by_Trump
He speaks colloquially like most human beings.
The anti-Trump press deliberately misinterprets much of what he says because it's politically expedient.
Let me give you my perspektive. For the record, I vaccinated my child, and believe in vaccinations. Autism, vaccinations, and anti-vaccination movement are all very serious matters alone, let alone in combination. The anti-vaccination movement, right or wrong (and I do believe they are wrong), can not be easily dismissed. What needs to be done is to dissuade them, not simply dismiss them. That starts by listening to and acknowledging their concerns. Humans are hard-wired to look for cause-consequence in anything new or bad happening (e.g., the rise in autism). In that anecdote about an autistic baby, I believe he ended it with “Is there a link? I don’t know” (citing from memory).
Trump is a laymen in many areas, bar real estate development. That puts him on an equal footing with many among his constituents. That’s part of his folksy charm. People can relate to that. So, when faced with a mother with an autistic child, he can react to that at the same layman level, acknowledging her concerns as a minimum. Or he could label her as an ignorant deplorable. Well, we’ve seen how the latter worked for a certain presidential candidate.
Perceptive post, Slobodan.
Are you saying then, Slobodan and Peter, that as with many in the old British Labour Party still believe, an appeal to the great unwashed is the way to fly? It used to work until Blair proved that having a brain wasn't a bad thing. It won him several elections in a row, just as for Mrs Thatcher. It's had its day, this technique: this time it got them the lowest vote since the Middle Ages for playing that card.
If your theory about being dumb and folksy is cool, God help us all for where it's going to take us, us being the world at large. A pig ignorant world leader is not a good thing: it's a time bomb nobody seems to have the balls or wit to defuse.
Are you saying then, Slobodan and Peter...
+10
I think everyone who votes should have at least a Masters Degree and own real estate. Letting the hoi polloi vote is stupid. We'll wind up like Britain. :)
Are you saying then, Slobodan and Peter, that as with many in the old British Labour Party still believe, an appeal to the great unwashed is the way to fly? It used to work until Blair proved that having a brain wasn't a bad thing. It won him several elections in a row, just as for Mrs Thatcher. It's had its day, this technique: this time it got them the lowest vote since the Middle Ages for playing that card.
If your theory about being dumb and folksy is cool, God help us all for where it's going to take us, us being the world at large. A pig ignorant world leader is not a good thing: it's a time bomb nobody seems to have the balls or wit to defuse.
I think everyone who votes should have at least a Masters Degree and own real estate. Letting the hoi polloi vote is stupid. We'll wind up like Britain. :)
Owning real-estate should be optional.Well, I've always lived in Democrat mainly states - New York and New Jersey. Democrats always win. So my republican vote never counts anyway. I might as well stay home on election eve and Photoshop my photos. On the other hand I voted for the new democrat candidate for president, Bloomberg, when he ran for mayor of NY 2 times, then a third when he changed the restriction for running three times, a la FDR. Of course he was a Republican before he was a Democrat and a Democrat before that and before that I think he was something else. I voted for Nixon twice, and NY went for him. Of course he was almost impeached. On the other hand, I didn't vote for Bill Clinton either time, and he was impeached. Now Trump who I voted for and won was also impeached, although Nancy says she's not sure about that. American politics is very confusing. Maybe we need a Queen like Canada and do away with elections. You still have royalty, don;t you? :)
(https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-there-is-a-cult-of-ignorance-in-the-united-states-and-there-has-always-been-the-strain-isaac-asimov-46-11-18.jpg)
You built a straw man, Rob.
As for “defusing the time bomb,” the deep state, Democrats, and the media, have been attempting a slow-motion coup for two and and half years. No pasarán.
Owning real-estate should be optional...
Wrong, it's not like it is, but it's the way he sees things. And from the looks of it, his vision is impaired.
Wrong. His vision is 2020 ;)
... Can you imagine Iran killing the most important military of the US?...
So you say; The USA permits itself to use the law of the jungle for it is the strongest...
That’s why we have the military budget the size of the next 10 competitors... so that nobody dares to imagine that.
... A war....
What war?
What exactly war has Trump started in the last two and a half years?
What war?
What exactly war has Trump started in the last two and a half years?
So you say; The USA permits itself to use the law of the jungle for it is the strongest...Stop complaining. America's military helped defeat the Nazis and kept the Soviet Union and Russia off your back for 70 years. You're free to write these posts because of America.
That is the problem- they are ... and therefore extremely dangerous to everyone else, especially with a man like Trump in charge.
A war and the danger of terror attacks on its soil will unite the US behind this 'strong' leader.
I am afraid he possibly just ignited one.
Stop complaining. America's military helped defeat the Nazis and kept the Soviet Union and Russia off your back for 70 years. You're free to write these posts because of America.
No American wants to get into war with Iran.That is not what these serial of actions tell me. Iran will hit back for sure and then etc...
So you say; The USA permits itself to use the law of the jungle for it is the strongest...
That is the problem- they are ... and therefore extremely dangerous to everyone else, especially with a man like Trump in charge.
A war and the danger of terror attacks on its soil will unite the US behind this 'strong' leader.
What war?
What exactly war has Trump started in the last two and a half years?
This one. The one right here on these pages and on countless other similar sites.
Wow. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen that phrase: “the law of the jungle,” used to justify a nation lying back with its legs spread. A real antique, that argument.
International relations always have operated under the law of the jungle. To go back just a few years: there was Sweden’s Charles XII’s invasion of Russia, then there was Louis XIV against Marlborough, Napoleon against Europe and Russia, The Kaiser with WW I, Hitler with WW II, which included Japan against Asia, to skip over a plethora of less obvious examples.
You seem embarrassed to say where you’re from, Pieter, but I suspect it’s The Netherlands, which always has been a soft touch to any of history’s invasions. Over and over again other nations such as Britain and the U.S. have used the law of the jungle to pull your nuts out of the fire.
Right. We never argued before Trump.
... the mess goes back way earlier than the current or the previous administrations.
More vacuity.
Why not: "We never had a war before this one"
Well, I think you should be embarrased for your respons(es); It does not matter where i am born to have any opinion. Sometime ago you started about my age being no aged enough...etc.
Please come with real arguments about what is happening NOW.
If you want to talk about ancient history start a 'the good old days' topic...
Best to leave adolescent jingoism behind and be cleared-eyed about these things. On a recent episode of NPR's Fresh Air. . .
It should make for disturbing reading/listening for Americans, especially for those who may have family members in the armed forces.
We should tell all leaders in Afghanistan that they can run their country however they want with one caveat. That if they again allow terrorists to use their land as a jumping off point to hurt America, we will come back and bomb their country and kill all the leaders who allowed it.
Then our troops should pack their bags and and come home.
Ah.... yes.... NPR. "Fresh Air." Now THERE's a reliable source :o ;D
Maybe you haven't noticed, Robert, that the U.S. no longer has a draft. It's all voluntary nowadays, and if you enlist but don't realize you may be facing what I'll call a tough situation, then it's simply Darwin at work.
The Guardian editorial reflects my thoughts;...
Surprise, surprise, a radical left media agrees with you (or vice versa).radical? then everything left from extreme right is radical left for you.
Fresh Air was merely the conduit for the interview.
Your second statement is interesting. It seems to reflect an attitude that since the members of the armed forces are no longer drafted that somehow this affects the rules of engagement. I hope you're NOT saying that. Are they now just a mercenary force that can be aimed at some target of convenience regardless of any wider benefit to the citizens of the US? Maybe dying for pay is ok for employees of private armies but it doesn't seem appropriate to me for the armed forces of a country. Please tell me I misunderstood what you wrote.
And, since Fresh Air is the outfit that decides what goes on their broadcasts, it's inconceivable that they'd be biased, right Robert?Although I was a USAF volunteer during Vietnam when there was a draft, I never spent time in a combat zone. So my resume is parse compared to yours, Russ. While the military likes an all volunteer force as they feel they get more dedicated personnel, there are two areas that concerns me with no draft.
You lost me on rules of engagement, Robert. Do you think they’d be different when people are drafted? I spent 26 years in the US Air Force. I went to war three times: once as a fighter-bomber pilot in Korea, once as commander of a radar site in the Vietnam delta, and once as commander of the group that owned our remaining radar sites in SEA when we were trying to hold back Pol Pot’s forces. During my first two wars there were draftees. During the third, everyone was a volunteer.
You seem to think that people who volunteer are mercenaries. All I can do with that idea is ask you how much military experience you’ve had. When I was at NORAD headquarters, and earlier when I was a grunt controller at a radar site in Beausejour, Manitoba, I had several close Canadian friends. They weren’t mercenaries any more than I was. You need to re-think your position.
The first is all Americans should have a stake in the country and know that it's no game to defend the country. We all benefit from the defense of the country and we should all be willing to sacrifice if the need arises.
I agree with this. Then how can you accept that Trump avoided the draft with a phony medical exemption provided by a doctor who rented his office from Trump Sr. and owed him a favor? Heel spurs my ass. And the grief this chickenshit draft dodger gave McCain, a genuine hero? Lord have mercy.
And, since Fresh Air is the outfit that decides what goes on their broadcasts, it's inconceivable that they'd be biased, right Robert?
You lost me on rules of engagement, Robert. Do you think they’d be different when people are drafted? I spent 26 years in the US Air Force. I went to war three times: once as a fighter-bomber pilot in Korea, once as commander of a radar site in the Vietnam delta, and once as commander of the group that owned our remaining radar sites in SEA when we were trying to hold back Pol Pot’s forces. During my first two wars there were draftees. During the third, everyone was a volunteer.
You seem to think that people who volunteer are mercenaries. All I can do with that idea is ask you how much military experience you’ve had. When I was at NORAD headquarters, and earlier when I was a grunt controller at a radar site in Beausejour, Manitoba, I had several close Canadian friends. They weren’t mercenaries any more than I was. You need to re-think your position.
I'm not happy about that. But we had a choice in 2016 for who to vote for. And Trump was the better candidate.
Yes, "we" had a choice of whom to vote for. And almost 3 million more of us voted for Clinton. Yet thanks to the idiotic electoral college we are saddled with Trump, who is busy screwing up the country and the world.Instead of calling the Electoral College idiotic, maybe you should study the issue a little and try to understand why our election system was created that way!
Yes, "we" had a choice of whom to vote for. And almost 3 million more of us voted for Clinton. Yet thanks to the idiotic electoral college we are saddled with Trump, who is busy screwing up the country and the world.
Everyone knew the rules of the election going in and guess what, the popular vote is meaningless. Hillary lost because she was so arrogant she failed to take ther message to states that were her undoing. If you want to debate the Electorial College, thats fair game, but from my cheap seats the EC is what gives me, from flyover country, a real voice in who becomes President. Without it New York and California would rule the roost. I can't remember where I read it (and I'll be happy to admit I have it wrong if I do) but Trump won the popular vote of 49 states combined if you leave out California.
Everyone knew the rules of the election going in and guess what, the popular vote is meaningless. Hillary lost because she was so arrogant she failed to take ther message to states that were her undoing. If you want to debate the Electorial College, thats fair game, but from my cheap seats the EC is what gives me, from flyover country, a real voice in who becomes President. Without it New York and California would rule the roost. I can't remember where I read it (and I'll be happy to admit I have it wrong if I do) but Trump won the popular vote of 49 states combined if you leave out California.
Yes, "we" had a choice of whom to vote for. And almost 3 million more of us voted for Clinton. Yet thanks to the idiotic electoral college we are saddled with Trump, who is busy screwing up the country and the world.
The problem with this is that, by and large, “states” are arbitrarily drawn and aren’t individuals of singular mind and concern. To say that “California” would determine national elections is irrelevant - the national concerns of one person in San Francisco vs one person in Lancaster CA are as different in some as they are mine, in Austin, Tx and Alan’s in NJ, or some other person in Wyoming. What actually ends up happening is that rural communities aren’t given equal footing in the sense that a farmer in Idaho has the same impact as a tech magnate in San Jose, but rather that farmer has an impact that is proportionally *greater* than the man or woman in CA.
Why are we to value milk over silicon? Wheat over fruit? Just because 40 million people live within the geographical division we call “California” is no reason for them to have less representation when choosing a national leader than the good folks of North Dakota, is there?
James you're missing the fact that we are a Federal republic made up of 50 EQUAL states. Just like the General Assembly in the UN gives each nation 1 vote regardless of their population or geographic size, some allowance was given in our constitution for similar concerns when the nation was United. Otherwise you could also argue that the entire Senate is unrepresentative. After all, it has two Senators for each state also regardless of population or geographic size. Not only would you have to change the electoral process for Presidents. You'd have to do away with the Senate in its current form because people would use the same argument for Senators as they now do for the president.
The other issue is that electoral voting gives one person a majority. In the last election neither CLinton who got 48% and Trump who got 46% of the popular vote had a majority. So the argument would change that neither has a mandate from the country. But with the electoral vote, it came out 324 to 227. Trump won with a 58% to 42% majority, a very comfortable win. Ofm course the losing side always argues we should do away with the electoral college until it;s their guy who wins because of it. So next time when the situation changes, we can both argue these points from the opposite side of the table. :)
This whole argument against the electoral college and that it is antiquated really annoys me.
First off, the idea that it is old and need to be replaced with the popular vote, an idea that has existed since the dawn civilization, is absurd. If you truly feel it is outdated, dont suggest replacing it with something that is older then it is by an extremely large margin because your argument makes no sense what so ever.
Second, nearly everyone that proposes the popular votes seems to think there still would only be two major candidates. This is just not the case. The electoral college is what makes our country a two party system, because most likely any third party candidate would not get a single electoral vote on election day. It is within the best interest of a party to consolidate national representation to ensure getting to most electoral votes, which is why we are a two party system. This then decreases the choices we have, which means national elections become a binary situation. In a popular vote system, there would be more then two viable candidates increasing the likelihood no single person would get more then 50% of the vote. This would create dissidents within the country.
Third, these same people also seem to think (along with many others) that in most elections a single charismatic leader would arise and capture the majority. But this is not how it works. In most elections it is the opposite; you have a bunch of weak candidates who end up splitting the electorate. Just look at the current candidates in the Democratic primary. This, combined with the change in the rules the DNC made in the primary (bringing the primary very close to a popular vote) means there is a good chance the convention is going to be contested. If this happens without an obvious FDR like figure (FDR was the result of a contested convention), this will more then likely create a larger amount of dissidents within the party then the nonsense complaints of the Bernie Bros in 2016. In real time, we are seeing why popular votes are so bad.
Considering these points, in a national election run by a popular vote, most elections would result in having many candidates all getting less than 50% and with (a good possibility) that the vote would be split regionally. The majority of the country would not except a result like this more then a couple times in a row. It would be a recipe for breaking up the country.
The electoral college mitigates all of this. It does completely eliminate it, but greatly reduces it. It gives us only two real choices, making the result excepted by the majority nearly every time, and forces candidates to campaign throughout the country, not just in a few states.
The fact is the popular vote has been around for eons, and history shows just how bad of an idea it is.
Alan, your arguments hold no water.
1) We elect governors, senators, representatives, some judges, insurance commissioners, some state attorneys general, sheriffs, and so on by popular vote. None of the issues you describe have come up.
2) Your idea that the EC encourages candidates to campaign in every state is exactly opposite to the truth. If a state is sure to go for the other guy, why bother? And if it is sure to go for you, why bother? But if every vote counts, then 10,000 more Dem votes in Alabama, or 10,000 more GOP votes in NY, can make a difference. Hence it is actually a popular vote that would encourage candidates to campaign in more places.
3) California has ~285,000 eligible voters for each of its electoral votes. Alaska has ~112,000. This means that a voter in Alaska has two and a half times as much say in a presidential election. Please explain to me how this is democracy, fair, or right.
4) If the popular vote did lead to multiple candidates, it is easily handled by ranked choice voting. Look it up.
So, your arguments are nonsense. Please think about it.
Not at all. I'm not arguing for a mob rule scenario where every aspect of the government is subject to the whim of a popular vote at some random point in time. To the contrary, I think the bicameral legislature the founders created is a work of inspired genius. In the place where federal law is made, protections to ensure that a large group cannot "vote away" the rights of a smaller group is both appropriate and essential. Creating a system whereby a law must pass a body created both by proportional representation AND by a body of equals is about the best solution I can think of.Never mind 800 miles across state lines. How is it fair that my next door neighbor vote counts because he voted for CLinton while vote doesn't because all the electoral votes in my state of New Jersey went to Clinton? Heck it could e my wife. :) But that's how states decides to handle the vote that in almost all state, the majority vote get ALL electors to vote for the president.
BUT... were not talking about laws that impact individual entities - we're talking about the election of a person to an office. A person whose job is to represent the entirety of the people equally and to execute his/her duties to the benefit of the nation. Why, in that scenario, would someone who lives in one physical space, whatever it is, be awarded disproportionate weight in that decision?
I'm more sympathetic to this argument, I suppose, but it's hard to argue a "mandate" when 3 people vote for one guy, two others vote for the other guy, but because the first three people live 800 miles apart (but inside an arbitrary boundary), and the other two live 20 yards apart but across an invisible "state line" they carry the day, y'know?
Never mind 800 miles across state lines. How is it fair that my next door neighbor vote counts because he voted for CLinton while vote doesn't because all the electoral votes in my state of New Jersey went to Clinton? Heck it could e my wife. :) But that's how states decides to handle the vote that in almost all state, the majority vote get ALL electors to vote for the president.
Also what you're not including is that the electoral vote give weight to the State to provide some equality so it can;t be only by popular vote. In any case, it would require a constitutional change, something the smaller states won;t vote for.
Never mind 800 miles across state lines. How is it fair that my next door neighbor vote counts because he voted for CLinton while vote doesn't because all the electoral votes in my state of New Jersey went to Clinton? Heck it could e my wife. :) But that's how states decides to handle the vote that in almost all state, the majority vote get ALL electors to vote for the president.
... In 2021, guess what, CA is getting more electoral votes due to population changes...
Exactly right - it's not fair at all. A few states do do proportional assignment of electors, but then you basically have a representation of the popular vote, so...
What population changes? People are leaving CA in droves. The only explanation is - illegals.
What population changes? People are leaving CA in droves. The only explanation is - illegals.
First, I have not, to the best of my knowledge, changed my name to Alan. It is still Joseph. ;)
1. You are talking about small regional elections, with the exception of the governor. Small political issue are easier to handle than larger issues. People largely except the results or move; you cant as easily move out of the country. Now, for the governors, those elections are almost always between two people picked by either the Dem and Republican party. Only two candidates, because even on a state level, the electoral college still influences having only two parties, and another binary choice. So, the reason the issues I presented do not show up is because it is still a binary election influenced by the electoral college. Plus, even in this case, you can move if you dont like it.
2. This is just flat out wrong; the short history of this country tells us so. If you feel this way, then it is a sure fire process of not getting elected. HRC felt this way about WI, PA and MI, but Trump did not. He got those states to switch and vote for him even though everyone said he was crazy to campaign there. Same thing was true with TX when Reagan ran. TX was a reliable blue state, until Reagan. WV was a reliable blue state until Bush got them to switch in 2000 (and that is actually what won him the election). CA use to be a deep red state. Fact is states have changed color several times over from politicians recognizing an opening and it is not going to stop. History completely disproves your notion here. I would not be surprised if CA voted red in 2024. I think there is too much hate for Trump in CA for it to happen now. However if the homeless issues do not get fixed by 2024 (and it does not look like it will), CA could be wide open for Republicans.
3. There is a census every ten years that addresses this issue. In 2021, guess what, CA is getting more electoral votes due to population changes. Other states are getting less.
4. Rank voting choices without a majority leader would not be a better option then a binary vote. A 4 person election with each candidate not getting any more then 30% of the vote and then picking a ranked choice would not be excepted by the majority of the country. With a binary election, in almost all cases, the majority gets it way and the election is excepted. There are flukes, but better to live with those flukes (that get close to the majority) then deal with far below majority leaders who will be rejected by the majority of peopler.
It really appears as if you need to think about it your arguments and do a little research too. As I said, there are plenty of examples throughout history to show us just how bad popular votes are over a large geography.
There's a net loss of people leaving vs. moving in, but apparently babies make up for the difference, and then some. (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article238941438.html)
Sorry about the name error. But really, you seem to live in an alternate universe as regards facts and logic, so...
And?
Trump 2020.
Because babies in CA?
Why are you all even arguing about getting rid of the electoral college? First tell us which 38 states you think are going to vote in favor of that proposition.+1
Why are you all even arguing about getting rid of the electoral college? First tell us which 38 states you think are going to vote in favor of that proposition.
Who cares about the electoral college, constitution, and the federal framework!? What we need is a revolution. And renaming the United States of America into “People’s Republic of America.”
Why are you all even arguing about getting rid of the electoral college? First tell us which 38 states you think are going to vote in favor of that proposition.
Because it's an interesting discussion that involves history, politics, and law.First, you won;t get enough states to sign on to that proposition. Second it has not been tested in the Supreme COurt and would be thrown out as unconstitutional. Third, it would cause some electors to flip to switch the winner at the last minute as all the electors from one or two states decide to ignore the state rules and vote for who they want. As recently as in 2016, two Trump electors who should have voted for him flipped to vote for Clinton. And 5 Clinton electors flipped and voted for Trump.
For example, each state has the right to assign electors as they see fit, so you can work within the Constitutional framework and still directly elect the president. (https://www.nationalpopularvote.com)
PS - Joe - you should check out some of the sublinks there.. Data suggests that your reliance on the EC to make each state relevant is misplaced. For example, in 2016 94% of campaign events were held in 12 states, comprising 30% of the population. Check it. (https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/president-trump-reaffirms-his-long-standing-opposition-electoral-college-and-favors-nationwide-vote)
Well, it seems he needed to get the press of his back, so he decided to assassinate some random iranian and iraqi officials while congress was still on holiday.. no one is talking about impeachment anymore. True, demonstrators were attacking the US embassy in Iraq but the trail to those generals was not clear. I wish he had the NSA/CIA issue a statement showing how they identified the culprits first-but then I guess the Iranian/Iraqui would have denied it.
Asymmetric warfare has its own rules. Trump et. al. could have made it look like [pick one of the following] (Russians/Chinese/Saudis/Israelis) did it. Or they could have made it look like an accident. Polonium is quite effective as Russia demonstrated a few years ago.
I feel like our nation has become another Laurel and Hardy comedy. Can you just hear Congress (Oliver) saying to Trump (Stan) - 'now this is another fine mess you gotten us in to'.
First, you won;t get enough states to sign on to that proposition.
Second it has not been tested in the Supreme Court and would be thrown out as unconstitutional.
Third, it would cause some electors to flip to switch the winner at the last minute as all the electors from one or two states decide to ignore the state rules and vote for who they want. As recently as in 2016, two Trump electors who should have voted for him flipped to vote for Clinton. And 5 Clinton electors flipped and voted for Trump.
Additionally, unless every state signs on, then those that don;t would have huge power to flip the election as all of their state's electors vote for one candidate while the other states divide their votes between two candidates or more. It would also encourage more third party candidates hurting one or more popular candidates who could have won but now don't because their vote was watered down.
Plus, if you can actually get all the states to sign on, then you should be able to get 38 states to approve an amendment to the constitution. So what's the point?
This whole compact is a feel good bill that will accomplish nothing.
PS The reason it's unconstitutional is because my vote is determine how others vote in other states. My vote doesn't count. As an aside, how is that democratic?
While we don;t want to get into a war with Iran, we can't allow these forces to attack us. What would you do in his situation?
A surprising number already have.You missed the point that I made regarding this. What if one of those states changes their minds and ignore their compact and allows the electors to ALL vote for the other candidate? How would you enforce it? The electors according to the constitution go to Washington to give their vote. There would be great incentive to change the vote from proportional to all electors if the popular vote went differently than what the state vote was. In other words, let's say a Democrat state that voted Democrat popularly had to have their electors vote Republican because the country wide vote was Republican in majority. There would be great incentive for that Democrat state to ignore the compact and throw all their electors votes to the Democrat to swing the election to the Democrat.
Both of these statements can't be true ;)
As you suggest, as of now the electors are already not necessary bound by the state's popular vote. Their right to act independently is, at worst, undetermined. If anything, this would eliminate that problem.
Plus, if you can actually get all the states to sign on, then you should be able to get 38 states to approve an amendment to the constitution. So what's the point?
This whole compact is a feel good bill that will accomplish nothing.
Read the details - the compact doesn't take effect until states comprising 270 EC votes put it into law. At that point, whatever another state/group of states does becomes irrelevant because 270 EC votes are already committed.
It's democratic is the same way that your vote doesn't count now if you're on the losing side of a winner-take-all state. The fact is, the ONLY way everyone's vote counts equally is in a direct popular vote.
You missed the point that I made regarding this. What if one of those states changes their minds and ignore their compact and allows the electors to ALL vote for the other candidate? How would you enforce it? The electors according to the constitution go to Washington to give their vote. There would be great incentive to change the vote from proportional to all electors if the popular vote went differently than what the state vote was. In other words, let's say a Democrat state that voted Democrat popularly had to have their electors vote Republican because the country wide vote was Republican in majority. There would be great incentive for that Democrat state to ignore the compact and throw all their electors votes to the Democrat to swing the election to the Democrat.
Not escalate in the first place. Iran was under control, then Trump came in and dicked it all up. Because he's an "f'ing moron" (Tillerson's words, not mine).Iran was not under control. Sulaimani was killing Americans and moving Iran to control the Middle East long before Trump became president. The compact was in force before Trump took over yet the Iranians were liong doing these things. Additionally, the nuclear compact gave them a green light to do all these things as Obama did nothing deliberately to dissuade the Iranians from pushing themselves to control the ME. Obama gave them billions to finance their designs.
Iran was not under control. Sulaimani was killing Americans and moving Iran to control the Middle East long before Trump became president. The compact was in force before Trump took over yet the Iranians were liong doing these things. Additionally, the nuclear compact gave them a green light to do all these things as Obama did nothing deliberately to dissuade the Iranians from pushing themselves to control the ME. Obama gave them billions to finance their designs.
I think under the terms of the compact that would be illegal. It's not just a casual agreement (like Obama made with Iran ;) ) - it would have the force of actual law behind it.Well, it's a dream that will never happen because it requires states to give up their power and vote to other states and voters in other states. The people who vote for this don;t understand the implications. The first time a state has to change their votes to electors that their state didn't vote for, the whole compact will fall apart. Can you imagine Democrat California changing their electoral vote to Republican because the majority popular vote in the country was Republican? They'd hang the guy who pushed their legislature to pass this bill.
I don't think it's any way to rationally conclude that the ME is in a better situation today than it was on the last day of the Obama presidency. Besides, according to the 7 Benghazi hearings we had to endure, this latest attack is entirely Trump's fault. Or maybe Pompeo's.Territorial ISIS was destroyed and its leader killed. Iran is in trouble economically and could collapse like the Soviet Union did. Those are positives.
Unclear is why there were so many demonstrations against the US embassy only. Israel/Russia/China are all in close proximity to Iraq/Iran. They stand most to suffer from a nuclear 'accident' in the region. Yet they are not pushing for nuclear restraints on Iran nor are they being overtly hostile-though who knows what they are doing covertly. Mossad certainly has more people on the ground there and could have intervened against these generals who are more of a threat to them.Except for Israel, I wasn't aware of anyone else who likes us. The Saudis put up with us because we protect their butts. The fact we're going against SHia Iran makes them and all the other Sunnis in the region happy. They hate the Shias more than they hate us. The thing to remember about the Middle East is strength is the only thing that counts. Weakness on our part makes them aggressive. They only understand violence. If you kiss their butts, they'll kick yours.
By thumping his chest, Trump has exposed all US citizens to risk. All US businesses in the region will suffer and now have to spend more on security - or leave those markets.Why isnt the US cultivating better relations with Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan? equally oil and gas rich nations? Turkey who was once a stalwart US supporter seems also to be turning to a more neutral stance. We will have no friendly allies in the region soon. The last thing we need is a swath of anti-US sentiment sweeping through that entire region.
Is this his idea of stopping the impeachment-starting another war?
1. Unclear is why there were so many demonstrations against the US embassy only. 2. Israel/Russia/China are all in close proximity to Iraq/Iran. They stand most to suffer from a nuclear 'accident' in the region. Yet they are not pushing for nuclear restraints on Iran nor are they being overtly hostile-though who knows what they are doing covertly. 3. Mossad certainly has more people on the ground there and could have intervened against these generals who are more of a threat to them.
4. By thumping his chest, Trump has exposed all US citizens to risk. All US businesses in the region will suffer and now have to spend more on security - or leave those markets.Why isnt the US cultivating better relations with Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan? equally oil and gas rich nations? 5. Turkey who was once a stalwart US supporter seems also to be turning to a more neutral stance. We will have no friendly allies in the region soon. 6. The last thing we need is a swath of anti-US sentiment sweeping through that entire region.
Is this his idea of stopping the impeachment-starting another war?
... It's a kind of reversal of the Stockholm Syndrome, where people who help you eventually become disliked because of their very superiority in being able to help you in your lesser circumstances...
For example, each state has the right to assign electors as they see fit, so you can work within the Constitutional framework and still directly elect the president. (https://www.nationalpopularvote.com)
... Interesting, James, you have strong opinions about U.S. politics, but you won't tell us where you are or how old you are. Hmmmm....
I think under the terms of the compact that would be illegal. It's not just a casual agreement (like Obama made with Iran ;) ) - it would have the force of actual law behind it.
To be fair, James has provided plenty of personal info in the past. He is a cool guy. We just happen to (politely) disagree politically.
Not escalate in the first place. Iran was under control, then Trump came in and dicked it all up. Because he's an "f'ing moron" (Tillerson's words, not mine).
Ain’t that the truth. In politics, and in personal relationships.
I know James is a good guy, Slobodan. I even like his photography. But I think everybody posting on The Coffee Corner should say where they're from and how old they are. That has nothing at all to do with their photography, but it has plenty to do with their political arguments.+1 Knowing what country you;re from puts understanding on that person's perspective.
Here's an interesting question concerning the pack.That's why it will become a constitutional issue. If the state allows the losing party's electors to go to Washington, rather than the winning electors, the voters from the majority winning party will sue in court claiming their voting rights have been taken away. The State in effect reversed the vote of their state. I just can';t imagine the Supreme COurt allowing the losing electors to vote for the president. What kind of voting rights is that?
Lets say a state votes for the republican but the national popular vote was for the democrat. In the state, who's party's electors will be the ones who vote? Will the republican party electors be sent to DC to vote? Since the state voted for the republican, I would assume under law the republican party electors would be the ones that would have to be sent.
In case you dont know, the electors of a party are some of the most ardent supporters of that party, which is why it was futile to try and get the electors to change there vote in 2016. I just cant imagine, given the fact that electors are allowed to vote for whom them choose under federal policy, that the electors would actually follow through in this situation (or if the parties were reversed) and vote against their party.
Has this been addressed in the pack?
In any case, I suspect Americans will start pulling back soon. Then when you'll have to spend more of your own money and blood defending yourselves, you'll miss the days when America was the world's policeman.
Iraq’s Parliament called for the expulsion of U.S. troops from the country Sunday in reaction to the American drone attack that killed a top Iranian general.
Lawmakers approved a resolution asking the Iraqi government to end the agreement under which Washington sent forces to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State group.
The problem with this is that, by and large, “states” are arbitrarily drawn and aren’t individuals of singular mind and concern. To say that “California” would determine national elections is irrelevant - the national concerns of one person in San Francisco vs one person in Lancaster CA are as different in some as they are mine, in Austin, Tx and Alan’s in NJ, or some other person in Wyoming. What actually ends up happening is that rural communities aren’t given equal footing in the sense that a farmer in Idaho has the same impact as a tech magnate in San Jose, but rather that farmer has an impact that is proportionally *greater* than the man or woman in CA.
Why are we to value milk over silicon? Wheat over fruit? Just because 40 million people live within the geographical division we call “California” is no reason for them to have less representation when choosing a national leader than the good folks of North Dakota, is there?
An American contractor was killed by Iranian backed forces last week near Kirkuk.everything was / is a proper payback for Mosaddegh... Americans and British started it... not Iranians
One way or another.Only the majority Shiite Iraqi legislators voted for the Americans to leave. All the Sunni and Kurdish Iraqi legislaters didn't even show up for the vote because they don't want America to leave. They're really afraid that once America leaves they will be abused by the majority Shiites. The article should have stated that. That's poor journalism and slanted news.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/01/05/iraqis-vote-to-kick-us-troops-out-following-killing-of-soleimani/
Only the majority Shiite Iraqi legislators voted for the Americans to leave. All the Sunni and Kurdish Iraqi legislaters didn't even show up for the vote because they don't want America to leave. They're really afraid that once America leaves they will be abused by the majority Shiites. The article should have stated that. That's poor journalism and slanted news.That was 60 years ago. Your rationale is why Sunnis and Shias are still fighting 1400 later. In any case what iran is doing in the middle east is about power politics, not what happened 60 years ago.
everything was / is a proper payback for Mosaddegh... Americans and British started it... not Iranians
Going all the way back to 1953 are we. Give me a break.
You sound just as foolish as those old Cubans in Miami that cant get over something that took place 60 years ago. Let at least keep things relevant to the last decade or so. And by the way, the Iranian people are just as pleased as we are over this. It's really the oppressive Mullahs that are at odds here.
Interesting because it has also looked to me that it's the USA that can't get over what happened 60 years ago. Seems like you guys took it really hard when Castro tossed out the New York mafia. :)
That was 60 years ago. Your rationale is why Sunnis and Shias are still fighting 1400 later. In any case what iran is doing in the middle east is about power politics, not what happened 60 years ago.
The only question for America is what we want to do about it. Does it make sense for us to be involved at all? Or should we just let all the parties Fight It Out Among themselves
Insofar as Iran is concerned, shouldn't we at least go as far back as the Shah. You seem to not like going back into history, but all you're doing is selecting the cut-off date that suits you. Why do you assume your date is correct.
I don't understand your comment about it being about power politics. Of course that's always part of the mix. What is wrong with that, it seems to be good enough for the USA. Why aren't other powers allowed the same motivations. That doesn't mean it can't be about other things too. Why is the USA aligned with Saudi Arabia? Is it because they're such good guys.
I can't begin to answer the question about whether the US should be involved. I thought that backing out of these issues was part of Trump's election platform. It's not as if the involvement of states outside the region have helped things very much.
... The point is history creates the present. Not much you can do to change it. However, what's going on has to be dealt with within the current situation whatever caused it. Iran has been trying to control the Middle East for their benefit. Nothing wrong with that. However, if it's against our interest, then we conflict with them. It's the way of he world. They're not wrong. But neither are we. Both sides look to advance their interests.
When US President George HW Bush craved "a smoking gun" in 1992 to politically kneecap his White House challenger Bill Clinton, the British government delved into its files for damaging information. So, did the Bush camp solicit foreign interference to help him win an election - the allegation that has seen President Trump impeached?
Iraq now wants foreign troops to leave the country... They find they have had enough war in their land; Go make your war somewhere else...
A logical action in the light of what just happened and before... However this is not in the interest of the USA...
Iraq now wants foreign troops to leave the country... They find they have had enough war in their land; Go make your war somewhere else...
A logical action in the light of what just happened and before... However this is not in the interest of the USA...
A bit of historic perspective:
“Did Britain meddle in a US presidential election?”
Beyond the suspicions, no concrete proof has emerged of collusion between Bush and Major in the US election of '92.
But even if there was, isn't what President Trump allegedly did - brazenly soliciting the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to harm the election prospects of his potential White House challenger, Joe Biden - worse?
Not under US campaign finance law, according to Ann Ravel, former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission.
It is illegal for anyone to seek or accept anything of value from a foreign national in an American election, she points out.
Say, ya don't think that Trump ordering that Iranian general killed has anything to do with distracting people from the impeachment--do ya?
Thanks for posting the link. This well-reported piece, while not relevant to whether President Trump may have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," offers an interesting parallel from a relatively recent election. (As well as a rare published use of the word thaumaturge to refer to the political skills of former President Bill Clinton.)Chris you could use the word thaumaturge to describe Bill Clinton. But before he became president, everybody knew him as Slick Willy. :)
As I previously have mentioned (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132282.msg1137967#msg1137967), that statute is 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."
Although I would like us to leave and would be happy to incur the results, the USA leaving Iraq would be a disaster for the Middle East. As Les pointed out, it would not be the end of war, but the beginning of a new one.I'm tired of America being policeman. Europe's needs Middle Eastern oil, not us. Lets get out of there and let the Brits, French, and others protect their oil. Like in the Falklands War, will provide intelligence from our satellites and let the Brits do the fighting.
First, lets ask the obvious, why was an Iranian general so easily able to move throughout Iraq supporting Iranian backed militias? Because the Shiite majority (in Iraq) largely align with the Mullahs in Iran. The Shiites welcome this because of their hatred of the Sunnis and the Kurds.
Second, why was the vote held? The Shiites looked at the bombing as an opportunity to get rid of the USA, which would allow them to rule the country with impunity. The reason we know this is because all of the Sunni and Kurd representatives did not show up for the vote out of protest. So now the prime minister (who is a Shiite) faces the very serious question of supporting the resolution and aligning with his party, or allowing the USA to stay. The former will more then likely start a civil war of Shiites vs. Sunni & Kurds, whereas the latter will not get him re-elected.
Lets assume that the PM follows through and kicks the USA out. It is only a matter of time before the Shiites start oppressing the Sunnis and Kurds, and, assuming the Sunnis and Kurds fight back, then all hell breaks loose. Iraq borders Syria, with a strong Kurdish population in the North, and Jordan, a 95% Sunni country, both of which could get drawn into the fighting if a civil war begins. Of course, if the Kurds in Syria and certainly if Jordan gets involved, so will Iran.
Then Israel will need to make a decision on whether or not to get in. It could be within Israel's best interest to ally themselves with the Sunnis since they are anti Iran (enemy of my enemy thing) and it would go a long way with their neighbor Jordan. Not to mention allowing Iraq to become a proxy state of Iran would bring Iran too close for comfort for Israel. Of course, if this happened, the USA is now back in the fight.
This is a worse case scenario, but given the 1000s of years of Shiite and Sunni conflict, it is probably more likely then not civil unrest would result in Iraq.
PS, something else to consider if the Middle East gets drawn into a war with Iran and Israel being involve, is how long would it be until Israel nukes Iran? Unlike the West, Israel really has no qualms using their nukes, and eventually nuking Iran would become an option to them. So, would the world just let the ME be, knowing there is a strong possibility of a nuclear war breaking out, or would the West intervene to prevent this? Of course intervening to prevent nuclear weapons being used would mean support Israel's side, since supporting the opposing side would increase Israel's need to use their nuclear weapons.
Say, ya don't think that Trump ordering that Iranian general killed has anything to do with distracting people from the impeachment--do ya?It could also help get him re-elected by showing Americans that he has their interest at heart and will protect them.
I'm tired of America being policeman. Europe's needs Middle Eastern oil, not us. Lets get out of there and let the Brits, French, and others protect their oil. Like in the Falklands War, will provide intelligence from our satellites and let the Brits do the fighting.
In any case, iran is weak now and in no way prepared to fight anyone. Their economy is in the tank. Their people hate the regime. Sure, they'll do some remote attacks on a tess American troops. Then we'll retaliate. Then what are they going to do?
... As I previously have mentioned (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132282.msg1137967#msg1137967), that statute is 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."
Weren’t you mentioning it earlier that the SCOTUS has been reluctant to treat intangibles as “anything of value”?
Weren’t you mentioning it earlier that the SCOTUS has been reluctant to treat intangibles as “anything of value”?So
I haven't researched the case law of that provision, much less its legislative history, but "thing of value" is a term that is also used in a number of other federal statutes―including 18 USC §201, Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201)―and the courts generally give it an expansive interpretation. In any event, "a favor" that provides a service similar to opposition research would undoubtedly qualify because political campaigns often pay consultants to provide opposition research, and similarity to a paid service is one of the most common tests that federal courts apply to determine whether something meets the statutory requirement for having a "value."
To be fair, James has provided plenty of personal info in the past. He is a cool guy. We just happen to (politely) disagree politically.
I know James is a good guy, Slobodan. I even like his photography.
But I think everybody posting on The Coffee Corner should say where they're from and how old they are. That has nothing at all to do with their photography, but it has plenty to do with their political arguments.
Opposition research... shouldn’t then a bunch of Democrats be criminally charged for the Steele dossier?
Nope!
Say, ya dont think the lack of even mentioning the impeachment in the House's opening yearly statement means they know impeachment has been a loosing battle?
Thank you also :)
I guess I feel like I've mentioned it all before - my background info is no secret, but if it really helps everyone to have it listed I'll update my profile when I get a moment. I'm a 47 YO white guy living in Austin TX.
Losing battle? He has already been impeached. Battle won.
Losing battle? He has already been impeached. Battle won.
No: they paid for it. The statute I cited prohibits contributions or donations of anything of value by foreign nationals.
Not according to Noah Feldman, the law professor the Dems called. He is not impeached until the articles are sent. Remember, this is your guy's point of view, not mine.You are cherry picking. The two other lawyers called by Democrats and the lawyer called by the Republicans (Tribe) disagreed with Feldman's interpretation. Lindsay Graham has threatened to amend the Senate rules and begin the impeachment trial even if Pelosi doesn't deliver the impeachment articles, so at least some Republicans lawmakers as well believe that delivery of the impeachment articles to the Senate is not required by the Constitution.
Doesn't this still leave us with someone needing to prove that the request for a favor was actually for Trumps personal gain and not something that might be in the national interest.
Let's see what Bolton has to say...about the "drug deal".
No: they paid for it. The statute I cited prohibits contributions or donations of anything of value by foreign nationals.
Opposition research... shouldn’t then a bunch of Democrats be criminally charged for the Steele dossier?
No: they paid for it. The statute I cited prohibits contributions or donations of anything of value by foreign nationals.
That distinction doesn’t make any sense to me. So, Trump should have offered Zelensky $1 and all is good? Or Putin need to find a single US citizen willing to pay him $1 and all meddling would be legal?
[Referring to 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."]
In a proceeding before the Federal Election Commission, or a subsequent appeal of an adverse FEC decision to a federal court, probably not. It is sufficient that the contribution or donation or other thing of value came from a foreign national and would have conferred a political benefit.
However, in a Senate trial of the impeachment, some of President Trump's more ardent defenders might try to argue that. It's a weak argument, in my opinion, especially since every senator is aware that U.S. presidents don't ask foreign heads of state or government to initiate investigations of U.S. citizens. (In those rare instances where federal agencies require assistance of that kind―almost always involving intelligence or counterintelligence matters―there are established channels for U.S. agency officials to submit official requests to their international partner agencies.)
If I were defending Trump, I would stipulate that, yes, he violated the federal election law, but the violation does not rise to the level of an abuse of power (i.e., high crime and misdemeanor) sufficient to justify removal from office.
Of course, if the impeachment managers from the House of Representatives can establish that Trump withheld congressionally-appropriated assistance to Ukraine improperly―either to apply leverage on the Ukrainian president or in violation of federal law―the 52 USC §30121 violation would be rather trivial by comparison.
As long as the Bidens appear to have violated US law, [...]
Alleged businessman, President Trump proves he cannot read a balance sheet (I guess he didn't take the right course at Wharton). Yesterday he tweeted about the US military might saying they have spent over $2 trillion on equipment. This was way off of the real figure of $420 billion with the remainder being spent on personnel, maintenance, and R&D. Time for the President to go back and retake Finance 101.
... the US military might saying they have spent over $2 trillion on equipment. This was way off of the real figure of $420 billion with the remainder being spent on personnel, maintenance, and R&D...
Twitter is nothing but hyperbole from nearly everyone that posts on it. That is how you make it effective.My wife tells me she's the happiest woman in the world. :)
It's like everyone on the left suddenly forgot how humor or satire or sarcasm works. My God.
Is this an example of situational ethics? The President says total bs on Twitter, so now we redefine Twitter to be all about bs and exaggeration, so what he does is normal. It's convenient, I'll give you that.
This Iranian general thing is dominating the news cycle all of a sudden. I'm wondering, what is the strategic objective of killing one general? It can't just be to prove it can be done, I kind of assume that the US forces can do things like that at will. What was the policy objective?
And what exactly is the practical value of that equipment without said “personnel, maintenance, and R&D”?
What is the cost of your car? Just the price you paid? Many websites these days will add a “true cost of ownership” that includes, gas, maintenance, repairs, etc. Don't forget the cost of driving school, taxes, parking, tolls, etc. This all adds up to the true cost of owning a car. So, the $2 trillion spent on military equipment is the true cost of ownership of the $420 hardware alone.
Is this an example of situational ethics? The President says total bs on Twitter, so now we redefine Twitter to be all about bs and exaggeration, so what he does is normal. It's convenient, I'll give you that.Politicians have used hyperbole long before twitter was invented. If the press would report what he says more accurately, he wouldn't need it.
This Iranian general thing is dominating the news cycle all of a sudden. I'm wondering, what is the strategic objective of killing one general? It can't just be to prove it can be done, I kind of assume that the US forces can do things like that at will. What was the policy objective?
Twitter is nothing but hyperbole from nearly everyone that posts on it. That is how you make it effectivew.
It's like everyone on the left suddenly forgot how humor or satire or sarcasm works. My God.
Politicians have used hyperbole long before twitter was invented. If the press would report what he says more accurately, he wouldn't need it.
Your question about Soleimani is a good one. Everyone applauded the killing of Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi. He's maybe worse because he has a large and strong country behind him. He's been a bad actor killing Americans in Iraq and Syria and causing upheaval in the ME. Killing generals is a ling established practice in history to weaken armies. Everyone's talking about how Iran is going to avenge his death. Well, Trump avenged the death of all those Americans he killed. Or have we forgotten? The whole embassy thing under Carter still irks those Americans who lived through it. What goes around comes around. Maybe we've been in the ME so long, we're acting like them. Eye for an eye, etc.
I think now that he's dead, we really should get out of the ME. I see no value any more in being a policeman there. A plague on all their houses. They'll be fighting for the next 1000 years. Let them. It's not our problem. Of course, we don't want Iran to have nukes. Well, we can keep the pressure on economically.
Enough of this bullshit!+1000!
It’s not about “avenging” anything or anybody. It’s about strategic deterrence. The general was a significant player in the war that’s been going on between Iran and the western world ever since Pahlavi was overthrown and kicked out of the country. Taking Soleimani out was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do, just as taking out Yamamoto in WW II was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do. Being a warrior entails risk. Soleimani entailed risk in spades.
Yes. It would be wonderful to “get out” of the Middle East. It would be equally wonderful to “get out” of Japan and Germany and the other countries and places where we, the United States, have put “our boys” (and nowadays “our girls”). Then we’d be back to where we were before the beginning of WW II. We could relax and wait for the next major attack on the United States – this time probably with nuclear weapons. Do any of you have even the remotest clue about what would happen after a high-altitude nuclear burst over our continent?
The survival of the Western World depends on keeping “our boys (and girls)” where they can contribute to the stabilization of the world. Britain and Israel and Canada are working at it too. The rest of the West, including the home countries of many posters on here who have a lot of opinions on the subject aren’t doing a damned thing.
I’ve rarely seen as much ignorant horseshit as I’m seeing on this thread.
Enough of this bullshit!Than don't produce it.
It’s not about “avenging” anything or anybody. It’s about strategic deterrence. The general was a significant player in the war that’s been going on between Iran and the western world ever since Pahlavi was overthrown and kicked out of the country.
Taking Soleimani out was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do, just as taking out Yamamoto in WW II was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do. Being a warrior entails risk. Soleimani entailed risk in spades.
Yes. It would be wonderful to “get out” of the Middle East. It would be equally wonderful to “get out” of Japan and Germany and the other countries and places where we, the United States, have put “our boys” (and nowadays “our girls”). Then we’d be back to where we were before the beginning of WW II. We could relax and wait for the next major attack on the United States – this time probably with nuclear weapons. Do any of you have even the remotest clue about what would happen after a high-altitude nuclear burst over our continent?
The survival of the Western World depends on keeping “our boys (and girls)” where they can contribute to the stabilization of the world. Britain and Israel and Canada are working at it too. The rest of the West, including the home countries of many posters on here who have a lot of opinions on the subject aren’t doing a damned thing.
I’ve rarely seen as much ignorant horseshit as I’m seeing on this thread.I thought it was bullshit ?... oh never mind the details
Thanks Neville.
I've read that Mr. Trump threatens to destroy Iran's cultural sites.
Is that true?
Sounds crazy...
I've read that Mr. Trump threatens to destroy Iran's cultural sites.Yes. It is just more of Trump shooting off his mouth. The Pentagon has walked it back.
Is that true?
Sounds crazy...
I've read that Mr. Trump threatens to destroy Iran's cultural sites.
Is that true?
Sounds crazy...
Enough of this bullshit!
It’s not about “avenging” anything or anybody. It’s about strategic deterrence. The general was a significant player in the war that’s been going on between Iran and the western world ever since Pahlavi was overthrown and kicked out of the country. Taking Soleimani out was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do, just as taking out Yamamoto in WW II was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do. Being a warrior entails risk. Soleimani entailed risk in spades.
Yes. It would be wonderful to “get out” of the Middle East. It would be equally wonderful to “get out” of Japan and Germany and the other countries and places where we, the United States, have put “our boys” (and nowadays “our girls”). Then we’d be back to where we were before the beginning of WW II. We could relax and wait for the next major attack on the United States – this time probably with nuclear weapons. Do any of you have even the remotest clue about what would happen after a high-altitude nuclear burst over our continent?
The survival of the Western World depends on keeping “our boys (and girls)” where they can contribute to the stabilization of the world. Britain and Israel and Canada are working at it too. The rest of the West, including the home countries of many posters on here who have a lot of opinions on the subject aren’t doing a damned thing.
I’ve rarely seen as much ignorant horseshit as I’m seeing on this thread.
Enough of this bullshit!Russ, I'm not sure what our strategy is in the ME. Additionally, we're broke. What's the end game?
It’s not about “avenging” anything or anybody. It’s about strategic deterrence. The general was a significant player in the war that’s been going on between Iran and the western world ever since Pahlavi was overthrown and kicked out of the country. Taking Soleimani out was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do, just as taking out Yamamoto in WW II was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do. Being a warrior entails risk. Soleimani entailed risk in spades.
Yes. It would be wonderful to “get out” of the Middle East. It would be equally wonderful to “get out” of Japan and Germany and the other countries and places where we, the United States, have put “our boys” (and nowadays “our girls”). Then we’d be back to where we were before the beginning of WW II. We could relax and wait for the next major attack on the United States – this time probably with nuclear weapons. Do any of you have even the remotest clue about what would happen after a high-altitude nuclear burst over our continent?
The survival of the Western World depends on keeping “our boys (and girls)” where they can contribute to the stabilization of the world. Britain and Israel and Canada are working at it too. The rest of the West, including the home countries of many posters on here who have a lot of opinions on the subject aren’t doing a damned thing.
I’ve rarely seen as much ignorant horseshit as I’m seeing on this thread.
Than don't produce it.
And the strategy is?...
That now every western person in the ME has a problem of a possible assassination.
The same thing goes for nations like Israel and Saoudi Arabia, etc
That now everything has to be protected at huge costs. And it won't help preventing an assault.
That there will be a threat for a long time in the air... even in the US.
That Iran now upstarts their nuclear program at full speed and diplomatic solutions are blocked.
The world has become a saver place? NO
Perfectly legitimate ? necessary? To shoot the major general of another nation and the US thinks it is perfectly legitimate?
And you are referring to WWII right? -Do so you say we are now at war in WWIII ? maybe, after the counter attack of Iran... in that case Trump shoots back at 52 targets in Iran - cultural sites or not who cares... the US has 200 years of history while Iran has 4000 years of history... we have seen that attitude before in the second Iraq war...
Update : the pentagon says it will not strike cultural sites... so maybe they don't follow orders from the president anymore...
Stabilization does not happen with actions like these- it is called destabilization- the opposite.
The friendly nations, and NATO countries were not consulted before the attack. That used to be different.
The US was a moral guide for a large part of the world, under Trump not anymore.
Amerika gets smaller and fenced.
I thought it was bullshit ?... oh never mind the details
I thought it was bullshit ?... oh never mind the details
I wouldn't consult "friendly" nations either prior to any serious action. Since the days of instant communication, politicians in it for the money, crackpot nouveaux communists in drag, the fewer possible leakage points the better! As a former ambassador said today, many of us allies are happier not knowing what's about to happen in such cases if only because it saves us from putting on a public face to denounce an act with which we covertly agree completely.
... Probably on a marching band...
I like the way you think, Rob :)
Many military bases become cultural sites. Does that mean we should not attack them because of it?
Many in the Middle East raise flags of war above religious temples (cultural sites) and use them for headquarters or storage sites for war. Does that mean we should not attack them?
Of course there are many cultural sites in Iran that will remain completely innocent, but Trump gave no indication of which cultural sites he will be attacking. I doubt it would be innocent sites.
I understand that. But as far as I understood it Mr. Trump's threat was specifically against cultural sites, not as collaterals.
Probably my poor English. Cannot believe that can be true...
I understand that. But as far as I understood it Mr. Trump's threat was specifically against cultural sites, not as collaterals.Apologies. I forgot mind reading was a newly aquired gift for many on the left after 2016. ;)
Probably my poor English. Cannot believe that can be true...
I understand that. But as far as I understood it Mr. Trump's threat was specifically against cultural sites, not as collaterals.
Probably my poor English. Cannot believe that can be true...
Which part of Joe’s explanation made you think he talked about collaterals?
Apologies. I forgot mind reading was a newly aquired gift for many on the left after 2016. ;)
Everyone's poor English: it means whatever he wants it to mean, just as in the world of Alice.
I don't understand what does "left" to do with reading the newspapers.
I found, and that's why I asked:
"WASHINGTON — President Trump on Sunday evening doubled down on his claim that he would target Iranian cultural sites if Iran retaliated for the targeted killing of one of its top generals..."
Doesn't look like "mind reading" from my part. Or "left", whatever that may mean to you.
Hope this helps
Again my apologies for my poor English
I thought I've written "not as colaterals", meaning he meant that he would attack ath cultural sites on purpose
Or is it one of those cases of "answering before reading carefully"?
Clinton, the only child of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has served on IAC's board since 2011 and receives an annual $50,000 retainer and $250,000 worth of restricted IAC stock units, Barron's reports.
She reported owning $8.95 million worth of IAC stock to the Securities and Exchange Commission at the end of December.
Clinton was named to the board of Expedia Group in March of 2017, a position that typically earned $250,000 in 2015, according to a report at the time by The Guardian.
Both IAC and Expedia are controlled by Barry Diller, the business and television mogul, who is a friend of Hillary Clinton.
Maybe 'Left' means 'reading newspapers' and 'newspapers' mean 'fake news' or better 'Deep Fake'
In that case you are 'Left' means you are 'Deep fake' aka 'Bullshit'
Leaves us Trump and some gentlemen here to tell 'Bullshit' the 'Truth'.
The 'Truth' is different from 'Bullshit' in the sense that is does not smell. ;)
Having said that, I have no idea what Trump or his military commanders meant by “cultural sites.”
Having said that, I have no idea what Trump or his military commanders meant by “cultural sites.”He has backed away from his comments today. After being briefed by his generals on the provisions of the Hague Convention relating to cultural sites, he now says he will follow the law.
He has backed away from his comments today. After being briefed by his generals on the provisions of the Hague Convention relating to cultural sites, he now says he will follow the law.
Robert, what if there has never been a long term strategy in anything? American business is often accused of short-termism, thinking only about quarterly results. Why would politics be any different? Two-year election cycle probably being the longest.
Come to think of it, the only force with a long-term game are Muslims. They know the future belongs to them and are in no hurry. In 50 years, Europe will be theirs. Iran doesn’t have to retaliate today.
Must have been the usual shoot from the hip Trump bs. I don't believe that he was thinking of the idea that "cultural sites" may serve as shelter for military activities when he made the statement. I sort of disregarded it when he said it, just the usual bombast.
As to whether it is a good thing or not to consult with allies before making a move, that's always a judgement call. There's a price to pay either way.
I still haven't heard a good strategic reason for making the move. (I don't mean just from this conversation.) Is it part of longer term strategy? Are people making up the strategic value after the fact? There may be a group of foreign policy advisors who thought and planned over these things but that's not the impression I get from media, which may not mean much. OTOH, Trump has never given the impression of being a long-term strategic thinker, or at least he's hidden it well up to now. Unless you know what the long-term plan is, it's difficult to judge if this killing furthers that plan.
I recommend again that NPR Fresh Air podcast a few pages back about an analysis of the long-term strategy in Afghanistan (various failures in the Bush and Obama administrations), which suggests that there may not be good long-term planning at work in USA foreign policy circles. That is, recent history does not fill you with confidence. Some high-ranking officials involved in that arena came right out and said so. (For Russ's benefit, it was the officials who said so, including military ones, not the leftie NPR journalists.)
Might be useful to look at things from the other people's point of view. Eighteen not very effective years in Afghanistan in the sense of accomplishment with many people on the ground preferring the Taliban chieftains over the corrupt Afghan "government". Iraq's mess not exactly fixed or even on the way. So in the midst of that, the US kills some Iranian general. As retaliation of what happened at the embassy, it's maybe not a bad idea, but will the aftermath be good. I really like the Zen master story scene from near the end of the movie Charlie Wilson's War, (language caution) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2cjVhUrmII (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2cjVhUrmII).
Btw, I thought that reference to Neville Chamberlain earlier was a cheap shot, although it was funny. It's not we're dealing with Hitler and no one was handing over the Sudetenland. Things are murkier than that.
Come to think of it, the only force with a long-term game are Muslims.
Well, then it is good thing you left Europe as now you can hide behind the new build US-fence.How do you think Americans feel when you and other Europeans don;t keep their commitments to spend 2% of your budgets for your military? You're BSing us. Then you tell us we should be spending our money on national health care. How can we when we have to make up your lack of spending on your military by us having to spend more on ours? Don;t be cheapskates, otherwise we'll pull completely out of NATO and leave you to deal with Russians on your own. Then you'll have to send ship to the Gulf of Hormuz to defend the Saudi king murderer so you can get your oil to heat your house.
Talking about long term planning...The Chinese are thinking 40-50 years ahead... and eventually they will have the edge.
At the moment in the US every 4-8 years the national and international policy changes 180 degrees so nothing goes forward, and other countries start loosing their trust in the agreements they think to have made.
How do you think Americans feel when you and other Europeans don;t keep their commitments to spend 2% of your budgets for your military? You're BSing us. Then you tell us we should be spending our money on national health care. How can we when we have to make up your lack of spending on your military by us having to spend more on ours? Don;t be cheapskates, otherwise we'll pull completely out of NATO and leave you to deal with Russians on your own. Then you'll have to send ship to the Gulf of Hormuz to defend the Saudi king murderer so you can get your oil to heat your house.
Alan, it is Biden or the 2% we should spend on our military...Don;t understand. Please clarify.
maybe... it is Bidens fault we spend so little on our Defense?
Btw, I thought that reference to Neville Chamberlain earlier was a cheap shot, although it was funny. It's not we're dealing with Hitler and no one was handing over the Sudetenland. Things are murkier than that.
Talking about long term planning...The Chinese are thinking 40-50 years ahead... and eventually they will have the edge.
Not really. The Chinese may take over for a decade, but their amazing screw up with the one child policy has created a country with 60 million more men at prima age then women. Meaning there will be a significant drop in population middle of the century. even more then what happens with developed countries. This will create a economy much like Japan's, but only worse since the Chinese are very anti-immigration.
60 million single men can come handy in lending a helping hand to Africa or even in a war.
You don’t remember why we “pulled out” of the “deal”? Here are two of the reasons: (1) They were cheating like hell. (2) There were no provisions for inspection that could verify they weren’t cheating. I’m sure Obama thought he was buying “peace for our time” when he handed Iran $1.7 billion in U.S. taxpayers money, and like Chamberlain with Sudetenland, was willing to buy peace for our time by withdrawing our people and giving up Iraq.
You think taking out Soleimani may cause a war? Let’s think about what actually might cause a war. Iran is going to go on trying to build a nuclear weapon. If there’s ever a nuke in the hands of a fanatic like Ali Khamenei, or for that matter, Soleimani, the world’s going to be a hard place in which to live. I have no doubt that if Iran gets close to a nuke, Israel will take it out. They have no choice. They’re a small country, and even a weapon in the kiloton range can kill their country. The biggest problem is that if confirmation that Iran is on the verge of a nuke comes too late Israel may have no choice but to use one of their own nukes to terminate the problem. At that point the fat really will be in the fire. Everybody: Europe, the U.S., China, Russia, etc., etc., suddenly is going to have to decide where they stand and whether or not to take defensive action. Again: You think taking out Soleimani may cause a war? By reducing Iran’s ability to make trouble it may prevent a war – or at least delay a war.
. . .rather than trying to understand the complexities of diplomacy...
A couple of the articles I've read point to the US pullout from the Iran nuclear deal as the starting point of the current escalations. I can't remember, what was Trump's stated reason for pulling out of the deal? What was the upside, why do it. Could he have left well enough alone? By pulling out of the deal and re-instating sanctions (I believe they were re-instated, but please tell me if that's not the case), it was certain to provoke an Iranian reaction. I don't understand how any of it benefits the USA.
I understand that Iran plays a large role in funding/encouraging terrorist activities but they used to do that even when they were previously under sanctions. Was there evidence or a suggestion that they were increasing that kind of activity and needed to be stopped, because I don't recall hearing anything like that. I would have thought that people would be screaming it from the hilltops if that were the case, no reason to keep quiet about it.
Except that it's the exact opposite that is going to happen.You're totally wrong on all points influenced by your hatred of Trump. Just like the liberal press and the Democrats. There's no war with Iran and they will have more sanctions imposed limiting their influence in the ME. This also will drive more Iranians to hate their government. Meanwhile the terrorist Soleimani is dead. His great ability as a military leader is gone limiting Iran's plans to hurt America and dominate the Middle East.
The deal with Iran was effective at preventing nuclear proliferation, stepping our of the deal is going to cause proliferation.
Killing Soleimani is an act of war that had the great effect of uniting the Iranis around their government although the significant opposition was in the process of having democracy progress. Now they are all against the US... impressive result!
Trump has been totally inconsistent on Iran, going exactly against his own past disdain for what he used to describe as Obama's penchant towards a war against Iran.
It is all too obvious that this is just a political move targeted at his own voter's base made of man with big balls who prefer to wage wars rather than trying to understand the complexities of diplomacy... all this being a pathetic attempt to distract the US voters from the on-going impeachment process. Killing a man out of cold blood for his own political interest. That should be added to the scope of impeachment.
Unsuprisingly, the first real foreign policy decision of Trump is a disaster in the making.
Have you read the last edition of Fortune by the way... "Why Trump is bad for business". Another commies magazine I guess.
Cheers,
Bernard
Our game plan is to permanently prevent Iran from getting the bomb and creating conflict throughout the Middle East.
Thanks to the Iranians things are not leading to war; There response was very mild, knowing a uncontrolled and devastation war was looming if they were going to far. Still i am sure they gave a message showing what they are capable of.Yes. The ayatollahs are wonderful people.
I think Trump was also relieved that he was not put in position to counter attack.
So in this case again it is the Iranians that used common sense to de-escalate.
Yes. The ayatollahs are wonderful people.Indeed.
... I’m sure Obama thought he was buying “peace for our time” when he handed Iran $1.7 billion in U.S. taxpayers money ...Fact check -- that $1.7 billion was paid to settle an armament purchase contract which predated the Iranian revolution. Iran paid for the arms, but they were never delivered. The 1.7 billion was the amount of the payment, plus 25 years interest. It is disingenuous to characterize that as a handover of U.S. taxpayers money, since it settled a legal debt.
Fact check -- that $1.7 billion was paid to settle an armament purchase contract which predated the Iranian revolution. Iran paid for the arms, but they were never delivered. The 1.7 billion was the amount of the payment, plus 25 years interest. It is disingenuous to characterize that as a handover of U.S. taxpayers money, since it settled a legal debt.
Every report/analysis I've ever heard or read about the Iranian nuclear deal stated that they were complying, complete with frequent on-site inspections (every 6 months rings a bell, but don't trust my memory on that).
But at least two respondents on this thread said that they weren't complying, i.e., cheating.
Both these versions cannot be true.
Anyway, we'll see.
Fact check -- that $1.7 billion was paid to settle an armament purchase contract which predated the Iranian revolution. Iran paid for the arms, but they were never delivered. The 1.7 billion was the amount of the payment, plus 25 years interest. It is disingenuous to characterize that as a handover of U.S. taxpayers money, since it settled a legal debt.The point is they used the JCPOA settlement and cash to stir up trouble in the Middle East. The cash probably went to fund terrorist in other countries and line the pockets of corrupt Iranian politicians. That's why the Iranians are protesting and being killed by their government.
Robert, the "on-site inspections" had to be requested in advance and then approved by the Iranians, making sure the "inspectors" never would find anything suspicious. There also was a limited list of places that could be inspected. Lets face it, no-notice inspections are the only kind that are likely to find anything. Ain't gonna happen.Military bases were off limits to inspectors. Guess where the nuclear research is going on? In any case, imn a few years when the JCPOA ends, the Iranians can do whatever they want. The JCPOA only kicked the can down the road for a few years while they consolidate their overreaching power in the Middle East. We really don;t need a nuclear armed Persian empire.
Every report/analysis I've ever heard or read about the Iranian nuclear deal stated that they were complying, complete with frequent on-site inspections (every 6 months rings a bell, but don't trust my memory on that).
Correct.
And the deal was up for renewal/modification in 2031.
Iran nuclear deal: Key details:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655
Part of the deal were continuous inspections, and Iran would have 24 days to comply with any IAEA access request.
President Trump again shows his insecurity in attacking President Obama for "funding" the Iran military. this is a favorite canard of the right wing cabal who can't live with the truth and only find refuge in lies and innuendos. I guess the US is just not ready to face up to history. To quote our current President, "...so sad..."
Here's a great one for all you Trumpophiles! Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said that he does not want to disclose Secret Service expenditures on President Trump and his family's travel until after the 2020 election. What is there to hide? Don't the taxpayers have a right to know how our hard earned $$$s are being spent? President Trump excoriated President Obama for all his trips to Hawaii and vowed to stay in Washington and do the people's work. Eric and Donald Jr. have made business trips to overseas locales including Ireland, Scotland, Dubai, Uruguay and India. Why shouldn't the business reimburse the US government for security? It's a cost of doing business.
A 1976 law allows the president to designate one primary residence outside the White House for the Secret Service to protect full-time. It also requires the agency to report to Congress semiannually the costs of securing that property. The Secret Service has failed or been late in recent years to provide even those limited costs reports. The agency did not file such reports in 2016 or 2017, according to the GAO. They have been delayed in submitting subsequent reports, filing a recent report in November that was due in March. So much for transparency!!!!
Just for fun, here's a story on Senator Mike Lee's response to today's briefing on the Iran strike (surprise, he was not a fan and Fox News quickly cut away when they saw things going south; so much for "fair and balanced") https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/1/8/21057471/utah-mike-lee-fox-news-video-briefing-iran-white-house-donald-trump
This is getting to be really funny.
John Kerry admitted in 2016 to CNBC that some money given to Iran will probably go forwards terrorism and weapon development.
Was it petty for Trump to mention this in his speech? Yes. Was it true? Yes
How come Saudi Arabia seems to mostly get a free pass on where they spend their money? I realize that sounds like the usual "what aboutism" but I think it's still a good question. I saw some stats once on how many lobbiests are on the Saudi payroll, so I assume they are able to exert control on many media outlets too. Am I not right to be suspicious?
A new Iranian nuclear deal may be in the offing, at least according to this piece from politico.com, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/trump-obama-iran-war-096359 (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/trump-obama-iran-war-096359). It's head spinning trying to keep track of Trump policy plans. He wants NATO involved too. I wonder what he will say next week.There's nothing hard to understand. Trump has no ill will toward Iran, Russia, China, Palestine, or North Korea or anyone else. As long as they're no threat to the US, he will get along and work with anyone. If not, he'll use American economic and military power to subdue or suppress possible and real enemies of America. He has no interest in war and wants out keep America out of them. He plays good cop bad cop with everyone. All carrot and stick. He believes the JCPOA as a bad deal of the west. And he's stated very early that if he could make a better deal with Iran, he would. So he pulled out the carrot and stick again in his speech today to let the Iranian know he's willing to work with them. Meanwhile he's going to squeeze them some more with additional sanctions. The ball's in their court.
How do you guys keep track?
. . .rather than trying to understand the complexities of diplomacy...
One thing I forgot to mention, Bernard: diplomacy, complex or not, only works if there's the possibility of force behind it. The possibility can be specific or implied, but it's got to be there somewhere.
The latest polls:
From the UK Independent. I'd give you the link but if you don't subscribe you have to click thru a lot of crap.
"Mr Trump, they [a group of psychiatrists]said, is "psychologically and mentally both dangerous and incapacitated" and has a presentation that is "consistent with a person who, when his falsely inflated self-image is questioned, or when his emotional need for adulation is thwarted, lashes out in an attempt to restore his sense of potency and command over others".
The group noted that while senior military leaders must pass yearly psychological evaluations, their commander-in-chief is exempt from such a requirement despite being "the person in most need and who is a maximum danger", and added that current tensions in the Middle East make this a "critical time", at which Americans "cannot wait any longer to deal with the dangerous situation caused by a mentally compromised person acting in erratic, reckless, impulsive, and destructive ways"."
From the UK Independent. I'd give you the link but if you don't subscribe you have to click thru a lot of crap.
"Mr Trump, they [a group of psychiatrists]said, is "psychologically and mentally both dangerous and incapacitated" and has a presentation that is "consistent with a person who, when his falsely inflated self-image is questioned, or when his emotional need for adulation is thwarted, lashes out in an attempt to restore his sense of potency and command over others".
The group noted that while senior military leaders must pass yearly psychological evaluations, their commander-in-chief is exempt from such a requirement despite being "the person in most need and who is a maximum danger", and added that current tensions in the Middle East make this a "critical time", at which Americans "cannot wait any longer to deal with the dangerous situation caused by a mentally compromised person acting in erratic, reckless, impulsive, and destructive ways"."
Yes, alarming indeed.
Alarming that psychiatrists who should know better are giving a diagnosis without an examination. Quite alarming for the competence of psychological professionals, especially considering the AMA actually advertises against giving a diagnosis without an examination.
No, Peter. All they're doing is further discrediting a profession that used to make some kind of sense. These aren't psychiatrists. They're politicians pushing a cause.
You don't need psychiatrists to see that Trump's behaviour and statements are erratic. On any one day.
No, Peter. All they're doing is further discrediting a profession that used to make some kind of sense. These aren't psychiatrists. They're politicians pushing a cause.
Don't be ridiculous. These are highly educated people with an MD degree, board certification, and HOW can you call them politicians? Asinine. I bet if this same group of psychiatrists had pronounced Trump stable and fit for his job you would have nothing but praise for them.
Well, listening to Trump from outside is confusing. Maybe his goal is to be perceived to be unpredictable, but in long-term that doesn't help.
And now even Pence is emulating Trumps methods.
Yesterday, he announced that Iran wasn't really trying to inflict a serious damage to American bases in Irak, and today he states the Iran was aiming to kill Americans.
It is to give Iran a way out. If we started, on an official level, to publicize that Iran warned us (as was reported on in the British press) that would make Iran look bad to the Iranians. The Iranians would need to continue to attack us to further save face.
But by insisting that it was our warning systems that saved us (not the Iranians warning us) and that Iran really was trying to kill Americans, it allows Iran to use this attack to show their people they attempted to avenged the death of Soleimani.
These are highly educated people with an MD degree. . .
in other words, a double-speak?
No, Peter, they're not highly educated. They may be highly trained (like a dog is trained) but education is something quite different. I've found that MDs generally are some of the least educated people around. Their training took so much of their time that they never had the opportunity to become educated. Some of them educate themselves after they're out of "training," but many do not.
No Peter, you are being ridiculous. As board certified doctors, then they should all know not to make a diagnosis without an examination, which every credible medical association insists on. This is nothing but politics.
To diagnose you or me without an examination, that would be wrong. But Trump exposes his self every day with his tweets and public pronouncements. These shrinks know what he is responding to and know his responses. That's pretty much an examination. And, do you REALLY think Trump is stable? I certainly hope not.
And, do you REALLY think Trump is stable?
Come on now Les, Trump has been incredibly restraint in his actions with Iran. Iran took 6 oil tankers, has been spreading terrorism in the ME that has taken American casualties, shot down one of our drones, etc, and Trump did nothing. It was not until Iran killed an American and attacked our embassy (within two days of each other) that Trump took action.
For you to all ignore this and act as if the world started turning only after Trump issued the drone attack is disingenuous and ideologic.
And now, things appear to be going well. Iran retaliation was largely a nothing burger; Iran even warned us of the attack. Our deterrents have been re-established in the ME, and, unlike with Obama, we still are not in a troops on the ground new war.
On an additional note, it really amazes that, as Ben Haddad (who is not a Trump fan put it) put it, "I’m always surprised the same analysts describe Trump as a calculating selfish cynic and as an irrational crazed madman. You have to choose."
Getting back to Iran, things just got a whole lot more serious, with Europe that is.
IRANIAN MISSILE SYSTEM SHOT DOWN UKRAINE FLIGHT, PROBABLY BY MISTAKE, SOURCES SAY (https://www.newsweek.com/iranians-shot-down-ukraine-flight-mistake-sources-1481313)
Suddenly makes sense why Iran refused to turn over the black box.
In the cases you mention it is not proven that Iran was the actor.
What you call terrorism is the same as the US presence there- influence. In fact Soleimani forces were important for halting IS in Iraq.
The drone was downed because it was in Iran's territory, so they had a right to do that.
Iran was so wise not to kill Americans in the revenge attack after Soleimani's killing, to avoid a war. Unlike Trumps behaviour that almost started one.
The US is the aggressor - That started with blowing up the Iran-deal and the imposing of very strict economic sanctions.
Since then US provocative military action have tried to trigger a reaction from Iran to find an excuse for further military interventions...
Before all that Iran was going the right way, its nuclear program was controlled and there was room for the moderate political forces in the country. Those voices have now been silenced.
If this is true it is a very unfortunate accident in which case the US has some responsibility as well.
Before all that Iran was going the right way, its nuclear program was controlled and there was room for the moderate political forces in the country.
Your first line pretty much tells me everything about what you think.
Fact is Iran for months now has been provoking the west, not just the USA, including the attack on the embassy. Trump, and the rest of the west, did nothing until Iran killed an American. Iran is the agressor; we were just re-establishing deterrents.
Answer me this, if, as you put it, "The US is the aggressor," with much of Europe supporting the Iran deal, then why did Iran attack Europe bound oil tankers? You would think that if Europe was on Iran's side, Iran would want to appease the Europeans as much as possible and not attack oil shipments bound for Europe. But this is not what happened, exactly why?
Getting back to Iran, things just got a whole lot more serious, with Europe that is.I remember when a US Navy ship shot down an Iranian commercial jet by mistake. They thought they were under attack. SOunds like Iran just made the same mistake. This is really bad. There were a lot of Canadians on the Ukrainian jet.
IRANIAN MISSILE SYSTEM SHOT DOWN UKRAINE FLIGHT, PROBABLY BY MISTAKE, SOURCES SAY (https://www.newsweek.com/iranians-shot-down-ukraine-flight-mistake-sources-1481313)
Suddenly makes sense why Iran refused to turn over the black box.
Your first line pretty much tells me everything about what you think.Because Iran is afraid of Trump. They're not afraid of Europe.
Fact is Iran for months now has been provoking the west, not just the USA, including the attack on the embassy. Trump, and the rest of the west, did nothing until Iran killed an American. Iran is the agressor; we were just re-establishing deterrents.
Answer me this, if, as you put it, "The US is the aggressor," with much of Europe supporting the Iran deal, then why did Iran attack Europe bound oil tankers? You would think that if Europe was on Iran's side, Iran would want to appease the Europeans as much as possible and not attack oil shipments bound for Europe. But this is not what happened, exactly why?
No, Peter, they're not highly educated. They may be highly trained (like a dog is trained) but education is something quite different. I've found that MDs generally are some of the least educated people around. Their training took so much of their time that they never had the opportunity to become educated. Some of them educate themselves after they're out of "training," but many do not.
Compared to whom, Peter? You?
False, and I should know as I spent some 15 years "training" med students. What you say is true of some, but not all. And, main point here, it's that TRAINING that teaches them how to recognize mental disorders.
Come on now Les, Trump has been incredibly restraint in his actions with Iran. Iran took 6 oil tankers, has been spreading terrorism in the ME that has taken American casualties, shot down one of our drones, etc, and Trump did nothing. It was not until Iran killed an American and attacked our embassy (within two days of each other) that Trump took action.Crazy like a fox.
For you to all ignore this and act as if the world started turning only after Trump issued the drone attack is disingenuous and ideologic.
And now, things appear to be going well. Iran retaliation was largely a nothing burger; Iran even warned us of the attack. Our deterrents have been re-established in the ME, and, unlike with Obama, we still are not in a troops on the ground new war.
On an additional note, it really amazes that, as Ben Haddad (who is not a Trump fan put it) put it, "I’m always surprised the same analysts describe Trump as a calculating selfish cynic and as an irrational crazed madman. You have to choose."
False, and I should know as I spent some 15 years "training" med students. What you say is true of some, but not all. And, main point here, it's that TRAINING that teaches them how to recognize mental disorders.My wife sometimes calls me nuts. How can I argue. She's got two Masters.
Only took 14 minutes for someone to take the bait.
Do you think this response is clever?
It's beyond comprehension why would some official governments deny their obvious mistakes or malicious acts.
Cases in point:
- Russians shooting the MH17 Malaysian plane over Ukraine...
... working doctors don't have time nor inclination to read about new developments and research studies their field.
Far from certain. Much more likely ethnic Russian rebels from Ukraine.
False, and I should know as I spent some 15 years "training" med students. What you say is true of some, but not all. And, main point here, it's that TRAINING that teaches them how to recognize mental disorders.
Far from certain. Much more likely ethnic Russian rebels from Ukraine.Thanks for the correction, Slobodan. The shooting was done by a team of three Russians and one Ukrainian. They used a Russian Buk rocket.
Five countries – the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine – form the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) into the tragedy. On 24 May 2018 the JIT announced that the Buk missile installation that brought down the flight belonged to the Russian army.
On 19 June 2019 the Dutch prosecutor’s office announced that criminal charges will be brought in the Netherlands against four individuals. Three are Russians: Igor Girkin, a former colonel in the Russian intelligence service, FSB; Sergei Dubinsky, a former member of GRU, the Russian military intelligence service which has been accused of carrying out the Novichok attack in Salisbury; and Oleg Pulatov, a former soldier in the Spetsnaz GRU, the service’s special forces. One is Ukrainian: Leonid Kharchenko, a member of the Donetsk People’s Republic’s “military intelligence” unit.
Ya, I too also vant to hear das analysis of Herr Trumpf.
I can't tell if this is Russian or German :'(Forgetaboutit.
A preposterous and ill-informed statement. Doctors continuously study to improve their skills. They have to. Medical science is changing relentlessly and quickly.
Besides humans (and companion animals who are fed by humans), no species drinks milk beyond their natural age of weaning or drinks the milk of another species. Cow’s milk is suited to the nutritional needs of calves, who have four stomachs and gain hundreds of pounds in a matter of months—sometimes weighing more than 1,000 pounds before they’re 2 years old. Cow’s milk does not suit the nutritional needs of humans, so it’s no wonder that consuming it and its derivatives causes us so many problems.
This is based on a review of scientific evidence, which showed that the risk of adverse reactions to antibiotics generally outweigh the benefits of prophylaxis for many patients who would have been considered eligible for prophylaxis in previous versions of the guidelines. Concern about the development of drug-resistant bacteria also was a factor.
Not only are doctors not keeping up to date. Those that do are often misinformed by just plain wrong or conflicting studies. Consider the poor patient who goes to different doctors who recommend different procedures. It makes one want to be skeptical of Climate change science. :)
Forgetaboutit.
Very true. Nowadays, in many cases, you need not only second, but also a third opinion. As born by examples from my own life and family.
No one's talking about impeachment.
"Killing of Iranian terrorist leader touted by Donald Trump in Ohio rally, first of 2020"
https://www.cantonrep.com/news/20200109/killing-of-iranian-terrorist-leader-touted-by-donald-trump-in-ohio-rally-first-of-2020/1 (https://www.cantonrep.com/news/20200109/killing-of-iranian-terrorist-leader-touted-by-donald-trump-in-ohio-rally-first-of-2020/1)
Trump rallies are where humility and humanity go to die.Maybe. But no one is talking about impeachment. He sucks the O2 out of the room.
... Doctors continuously study to improve their skills...
...However:
The responsibility for investigation was delegated to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) and the Dutch-led joint investigation team (JIT)...
... Doctors continuously study to improve their skills...
Because Iran is afraid of Trump. They're not afraid of Europe.Ever heard of Symbiosis? Works better than FEAR... to accomplish welfare.
Ever heard of Symbiosis? Works better than FEAR... to accomplish welfare.
China understands that, most countries do; the US did under Obama.
Ever heard of Symbiosis? Works better than FEAR... to accomplish welfare.Nature abhors a vacuum.
China understands that, most countries do; the US did under Obama.
Here are two examples of such practices:
1. Most doctors and even some nutritionists are still advocating consumption of milk and other dairy products which has been proven as harmful for bones, heart and weight gain, including increase of cholesterol, and for prostate and ovarian cancers.
https://www.peta.org/living/food/reasons-stop-drinking-milk/
"It is an eternal truth that acquiescence under insult is not the way to escape war." Thomas Jefferson
I am intrigued by this.
I do realize that outside of people of Northern European descent 90% of the world is lactose intolerant, but the vast majority of people of Northern European descent are lactose persistent.
Do the studies take this into account? I mean, yes, I would surely agree that non-Europeans should not drink milk due to this. However, do these studies differentiate out those of Northern European descent?
I drink milk like it is no ones business and have never had any issues with it, but I am a mutt of Northern European ethnicities.
A large observational cohort study in Sweden found that women consuming more than 3 glasses of milk a day had almost twice the mortality over 20 years compared to those women consuming less than one glass a day. In addition, the high milk-drinkers did not have improved bone health. In fact, they had more fractures, particularly hip fractures.
My wife sometimes calls me nuts. How can I argue. She's got two Masters.
So you're a psychiatrist, or at least an MD with psychiatric training? Right? And your diagnosis of Trump is. . ?
If Iran was merely a isolated rogue nation seeking to get the bomb solely for ensuring it survival, like North Korea, things would be different. But Iran wants to both have total regional dominance and to destroy Israel. On top of that, they are religious fanaticals, meaning I would not put anything past them.Nkorea is only isolated from your point of view- China and Japan think otherwise... NKorea has camps with thousands of prisoners... treats its population like shit, has not even enough food for them and has never intended to give up their nuclear rocket program, because it is the only reason the regime can stay in charge.
Considering Iran can so easily "shoot dissenters on the street ... carries out mass arrests and uses torture and rape as weapons with which to oppress" to their own people, can you imagine what they would do to others, like Sunnis and Kurds?
Lets look at it another way. Lets say the Nazi's never invaded France or attempted to invade England, remaining largely territorial, but still implemented the Holocaust. In that situation, should we have sat back and done nothing? If Iran only invades Iraq, but then engages in genocide of Sunni's and Kurds, she we just ignore it?
This is a very typical right-wing "argument." If a group of experts says something that does not jibe with your pre-conceived notions, first try to discredit the group (the psychiatric association) and then try to discredit the messenger (me). Of course changing what you think is out of the question.
Nkorea is only isolated from your point of view- China and Japan think otherwise... NKorea has camps with thousands of prisoners... treats its population like shit, has not even enough food for them and has never intended to give up their nuclear rocket program, because it is the only reason the regime can stay in charge.
Even Trump (hopefully) understands that now. Kim used Trump to emphasis its importance in the world.
Iran was willing to stop their program and did, before Trump stept out of the agreement that was supported by many nations worldwide. On top of that Trump came with sanctions not only for trading between the US and Iran, but forbid trade with iran with any country or else...
I am not saying i agree with the Iranian government; they have a very bad record on human rights, of whom the women carry most of the burden. But the Iranian government has shown it can act logical and has not violated the deal they made. The inspections showed they kept their promises. Kim can never be trusted as records has shown.
This is a very typical right-wing "argument." If a group of experts says something that does not jibe with your pre-conceived notions, first try to discredit the group (the psychiatric association) and then try to discredit the messenger (me). Of course changing what you think is out of the question.
False, and I should know as I spent some 15 years "training" med students. What you say is true of some, but not all. And, main point here, it's that TRAINING that teaches them how to recognize mental disorders.
Nkorea is only isolated from your point of view- China and Japan think otherwise... NKorea has camps with thousands of prisoners... treats its population like shit, has not even enough food for them and has never intended to give up their nuclear rocket program, because it is the only reason the regime can stay in charge.
Even Trump (hopefully) understands that now. Kim used Trump to emphasis its importance in the world and tried to get the sanctions lifted without compromizing its nuclear program.
Iran was willing to stop their program and did, before Trump stept out of the agreement that was supported by many nations worldwide. On top of that Trump came with sanctions not only for trading between the US and Iran, but forbid trade with iran with any country or else...
I am not saying i agree with the Iranian government; they have a very bad record on human rights, of whom the women carry most of the burden. But the Iranian government has shown it can act logical and has not violated the deal they made. The inspections showed they kept their promises. Kim can never be trusted as records has shown.
In spite of the probable futility of the inspections, they were carried out in September 2015, and were described thus by the director general: “The Iranian side played a part in the sample-taking process by swiping samples.
The official "inspections" were a farce, and obviously they fooled not only the inspectors, but also some of the western media.
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-IAEA-inspection-at-Parchin-a-farce-in-three-acts-419424
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/iran-iaea-agreement-text/
A more comprehensive article on the flawed Iran deal was published by Atlantic last year:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-nuclear-deal-flawed/559595/
Pompeo: US didn't know when, where Soleimani attacks would happenhttps://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/pompeo-didn-soleimani-attacks-happen-200110134829572.html
Pompeo says there is 'no doubt' Soleimani was planning imminent attacks, but US did not know 'precisely' when or where.
Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmedhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-51063149
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-IAEA-inspection-at-Parchin-a-farce-in-three-acts-419424
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/iran-iaea-agreement-text/
A more comprehensive article on the flawed Iran deal was published by Atlantic last year:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-nuclear-deal-flawed/559595/
Ummm, So you don't look at hard evidence?
The basic thing here is that so many just want to desperately believe that Obama was right. And even after years of proof he was wrong, people are still clinging on. No wonder he got a Netflix deal.
Insofar as Soleimani, he was a terrorist. As a terrorist, he plans and performs terrorist attacks, like the attack on our embassy. He was in Iraq meeting with the leader of a terrorist organization that was the group whom the Iranians got to attack our embassy. Although we may not know exactly what he was planning to do next, it is certain he was going to do something.
By the way, if you need to know about a specific imminent threat that a terrorist if about to do in order to justify taking that terrorist out, please tell me what specific event Bin Laden was planning when he was killed. Seems to me that he was no longer a serious threat when Obama did him in.
Well in other news, AOC is using her war chest to finance the primaries of radical progressives like her and then stiffing the DNC. Mainstream Dems are not pleased. My favorite quote is, “Sometimes the question comes: 'Do you want to be in a majority or do you want to be in the minority?'” Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y.
There are even rumors the NY state Dems are going to draw her out of her district in 2021.
I honestly think she does not realize that outside of a few districts, a candidate like her would have no chance in the general. I hope the primaries she is supporting go well.
I don't read hard evidence; A lot of opinion; the Jerusalem Post is completely biased.
What you say is: the IAEA-inspectors are dombos, including all countries involved in the deal.
( I hear RSL in the background shooting: Chamberlain, Chamberlain...Chamberlain!)
Talking about more smoke:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/pompeo-didn-soleimani-attacks-happen-200110134829572.html
and then Trump again:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-51063149
Almost brought war the ME a few days ago, and now wants the Nobel Peace Price...
In mid-September Chamberlain offered to go to Hitler’s retreat at Berchtesgaden to discuss the situation personally with the Führer. Hitler agreed to take no military action without further discussion, and Chamberlain agreed to try to persuade his cabinet and the French to accept the results of a plebiscite in the Sudetenland. Daladier and his foreign minister, Georges-Étienne Bonnet, then went to London, where a joint proposal was prepared stipulating that all areas with a population that was more than 50 percent Sudeten German be turned over to Germany. The Czechoslovaks were not consulted. The Czechoslovak government initially rejected the proposal but was forced to accept it on September 21.
On September 22 Chamberlain again flew to Germany and met Hitler at Bad Godesberg, where he was dismayed to learn that Hitler had stiffened his demands: he now wanted the Sudetenland occupied by the German army and the Czechoslovaks evacuated from the area by September 28. Chamberlain agreed to submit the new proposal to the Czechoslovaks, who rejected it, as did the British cabinet and the French. On the 24th the French ordered a partial mobilization; the Czechoslovaks had ordered a general mobilization one day earlier. Having at that time one of the world’s best-equipped armies, Czechoslovakia could mobilize 47 divisions, of which 37 were for the German frontier, and the mostly mountainous line of that frontier was strongly fortified. On the German side the final version of “Case Green,” as approved by Hitler on May 30, showed 39 divisions for operations against Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovaks were ready to fight but could not win alone.
3. References to Chamberlain and his declaration of "Peace for our time" are very valid at this time. Same naivety then with ceasing Czechoslovakia to Germany as the well intended, but flawed Iran deal under Obama.
Here is some background information about the Munich Betrayal and Chamberlain:
In May 1938 Hitler and his generals were drawing up a plan for the occupation of Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovakia was relying on military assistance from France, with which they had an alliance. The Soviet Union also had a treaty with Czechoslovakia, and it indicated willingness to cooperate with France and Great Britain if they decided to come to Czechoslovakia’s defense.
However, both the French and British leadership naively believed that peace could be saved only by the transfer of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia to Germany, so Czechoslovakia was informed by Britain and France that it could either resist Germany alone or submit to the prescribed annexations.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Munich-Agreement
;D ;D ;D
OMG! With such an omnipotent insight into the unknown, I can’t wait to hear from them who really shot Kennedy.
Of occurs she doesn't realize that - there is undeniably a faction of far-left ideologues in the Dem party that doesn't see this. BUT...now we can dispense with the silly idea that AOC is some sort of spokesperson for everyone to the left of Trump, yes?
And in ACTUAL other news of the "witch hunt" variety (and you'll find zero mention of this on Fox (I looked), which is weird because it's taken as a truism in state media circles that HRC is a crook, but I guess nothing can be allowed to contradict the narrative), Hillary and the Clinton Foundation have found to be clean. Again. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/politics/clinton-justice-department-investigation/index.html)
I mean, if you want to stretch the Chamberlain analogy to any agreement that refocuses a bad actor onto something else, I guess. Seems awfully strained to me, and more akin to the flip side of the Hitler=Trump stuff. And hey, at least I can make a pretty solid technical comparison of media techniques the two use (Adolf and Donald, I mean).
Insofar the Clinton Foundation, I still think it was a legitimate conflict of interested for HRC to be secretary of state while the foundation was taking large donations from foreign countries. Just because it appears no favors were called in does not mean they would not have been.
More distractionist absurdity. WTF does Kennedy have to do with MH 17?
I didn't say that Chamberlain was a bad actor. He was naive and incompetent. Same as the bleeding hearts who believe that Khomeini is a good partner and actor.
Nkorea is only isolated from your point of view- China and Japan think otherwise... NKorea has camps with thousands of prisoners... treats its population like shit, has not even enough food for them and has never intended to give up their nuclear rocket program, because it is the only reason the regime can stay in charge.The problem with our relation with Iran is first we did have a good one under the Shah. Then the ayatollahs took over, he grabbed our embassy which is a violation of international law and held Americans hostages for 444 days. We lost brave soldiers trying to get them out unsuccessfully. Since then Iran has called us the Great Satan and acted like that. They have been trying to be a hegemon over the entire Middle East, threaten Israel with extinction, and have been a threat to ours and your oil suppliers the Arabs. They have supplied their allies with weapons that have killed America soldiers and have coordinated military activities with dangerous terrorist groups. Soleimani was meeting with one of them when he was killed along with the leader of the terrorist group. To argue that Iran just an unimportant minor nation of no consequence that just wants to get along is not consistent with history or the current situation.
Even Trump (hopefully) understands that now. Kim used Trump to emphasis its importance in the world and tried to get the sanctions lifted without compromizing its nuclear program.
Iran was willing to stop their program and did, before Trump stept out of the agreement that was supported by many nations worldwide. On top of that Trump came with sanctions not only for trading between the US and Iran, but forbid trade between Iran and any country or else...
I am not saying i agree with the Iranian government; they have a very bad record on human rights, of whom the women carry most of the burden. But the Iranian government has shown it can act logical and has not violated the deal they made. The inspections showed they kept their promises. Kim can never be trusted as records has shown.
The problem with our relation with Iran is first we did have a good one under the Shah.
No further funeral service is planned for Thursday; there is only a sermon "to the martyrdom of Fatima Zarah", the daughter of the Prophet Mohammed, according to the IZH. It was "but of course many community members are still in mourning" and wanted to commemorate their hero. One pays homage to a martyr "who risked his life to fight extremism and thereby make the world, including Germany, a safer place," said a representative of the mosque.
The problem with our relation with Iran is first we did have a good one under the Shah. Then the ayatollahs took over, he grabbed our embassy which is a violation of international law ...
... to condemn Omar for her anti-semitic statements...
False, and I should know as I spent some 15 years "training" med students. What you say is true of some, but not all. And, main point here, it's that TRAINING that teaches them how to recognize mental disorders.
More distractionist absurdity. WTF does Kennedy have to do with MH 17?
So, if those Dutch investigators have such supernatural powers to see the invisible and know the unknown, ...
The Russian former commander of militants in eastern Ukraine is out of cash and out of favor with the Kremlin, leading him to sell a gold medal he was awarded in 2014 for his role in the occupation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula.
Igor Girkin, a 48-year-old self-described Russian nationalist who goes by the name of Strelkov, says he is selling the medal because he needs the money and has no respect for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is depicted on the medal triumphantly wearing a laurel wreath. Girkin is under U.S. and European Union sanctions both for his role in the seizure of Crimea and as the onetime military leader of pro-Russian separatists fighting against Kiev's forces in eastern Ukraine's Donetsk region. Since 2014, Girkin has been a critic of the Kremlin and has largely fallen off the media radar, though he was spotted in February riding alone on the Moscow subway and has held single-person protests.
I suggest reading up on the 1953 coup d'état and the oppressive regime of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iranians were not happy with the foreign (Anglo American) attempts to control their oil reserves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution)
A good relation with a dictator is not the same as a good relation with the people of a sovereign nation.
Oh, the irony.
It was an accident. It was dark and hard to tell what kind of plane it was. They shoot first and talk later.60+ of your countrymen, plus ten Swedes and others. The crash video looked horrendous. I can't imagine what thoughts the passengers must of had. My niece Lisa was on Flt 77 on 9-11 that the terrorists crashed into the Pentagon. I can't get that thought out of my head what terror she went through.
Pelosi blinks. Must be the botox.Typical right wing spin from the Washington Examiner.
Pelosi caves on articles of impeachment because she has no leverage
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/pelosi-caves-on-articles-of-impeachment-because-she-had-no-leverage (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/pelosi-caves-on-articles-of-impeachment-because-she-had-no-leverage)
60+ of your countrymen, plus ten Swedes and others. The crash video looked horrendous. I can't imagine what thoughts the passengers must of had. My niece Lisa was on Flt 77 on 9-11 that the terrorists crashed into the Pentagon. I can't get that thought out of my head what terror she went through.
Typical right wing spin from the Washington Examiner.
I see nothing in the article that is inaccurate.That's no surprise.
That's no surprise.
And yet you cant point out anything that is inaccurate. Thanks.
Here's irony. So an American Navy ship accidentally shoots down Iranian commercial jet years ago during tensions between the two countries thinking it was an Iranian fighter that was going to attack. So now Iran shoots down a Ukrainian jet, everyone says by mistake. But what if the truth is that they thought it was an American bomber, that it just wasn't a misfiring or whatever? WHy else would they fire? Why isn't anyone talking about this?
It's not that it's inaccurate, it's that it's full of cherry-picked stats and loud conclusions. It's the kind of thing that's headlined, "Expert Author DECIMATES Nancy Pelosi" on social media, and then turns out to be an opinion piece with "evidence" picked to support a preconceived conclusion.
Alan, you should know me better by now. At one time you commented that my posts were sarcastic. Although the ME situation has changed, I did not, and I did not justify that "accident" in any way. It wasn't meant in that way, more like an anticipation how the Iranian government would describe it. Nothing would justify such a stupid and irresponsible action. None of the available yellow emoticons appended to my post would have been appropriate. I am very sorry about your niece and all people on board of that plane.Sorry Les. I didn't mean it like you read it. So that;'s my fault and on me. I should have been clearer. I did not read your post as being in any way dismissive or sarcastic. My post was just commenting how no one that I read even mentioned that Iran shooters probably fired thinking it was an American jet just like the American Navy fired thinking the iranian commercial plane was an Iranian fighter attacking the ship. It wasn't like the Iranian tripped and fell on the launch button. Darkness of night; fog of war.
Well duh...it IS an opinion piece. They call that out right at the top of the page. It's how opinion gets written these days on both sides. Welcome the the world.
This is a very typical right-wing "argument." If a group of experts says something that does not jibe with your pre-conceived notions, first try to discredit the group (the psychiatric association) and then try to discredit the messenger (me). Of course changing what you think is out of the question.
Right. So don’t promote it as meaningful.
So, since you won't answer the question, Peter, we'll have to conclude that you're neither a psychiatrist nor an MD with psychiatric training, and that your "diagnosis" of Mr. Trump is pure bullshit based on Trump derangement syndrome.Is "Trump derangement syndrome" your medical diagnosis?
No, Fab, my diagnosis is "pure bullshit." I'm no psychiatrist, but I'm an expert bullshit detector.So then why do you say your diagnosis is "based on Trump derangement syndrome"?
So then why do you say your diagnosis is "based on Trump derangement syndrome"?
I was just showing that we had a good relation with Iran
here you go again - not with Iran (country) but with a puppet regime (Shah) installed in coup organized by US & UKYou don;t tell us what country you;re from. So we don't know what relation your country has with the tyrannical mullahs there today who kill their own people. It seems that all of Europe doesn;t seem to care about that as they are doing business as usual with the tyrannical mullah regime there. I'll assume your country does the same. How do you justify your country's relationship with these killers? Also, you should post where you're from before continuing with posts useless you;re from Iran and want to hide your identity. Don;t be a "holier than thou" bigshot.
Yes, very appropriate after we killed a couple of terrorists and re-established deterrents, not to mention showing other countries we are no longer a paper tiger.
I mean, yes, Trump did show how wrong the Obama policy of either we have an all out war with or we pay off Iran, so I do understand how the left is acting right now. I mean, if I was lead to believe something for 10 years and in an instance it came to light it was all wrong, I would have a hard time as well.
By the way, you still have not told us what you think about the APA and whether or not you disagree with their Goldwater Rule.
For your consideration.
I was trying to compose a response, but it soon became clear that your post was 90% nonsensical and I could in no way compose anything in response. And if I managed to, you would either not understand it or ignore it. So, adios.
If Iran turns out coming back to the table to renegociate the nuclear deal with better terms for the West, it will be interesting to see what the experts have to say.Well, of course. It's fake news, politically biased, phony, spin, etc.
More then likely they will just ignore it though and move onto the next issue, just like with anti-climatic result of moving our embassy to Jerusalem or the fact that the economy did not crash when Trump went after China or the fact that average people did in fact benefit from the tax cuts or when the stock market did not disintegrate after the election, etc.
This morning a provincial alert was sent out about a problem at the Pickering Nuclear Power station in Ontario.Which way is the wind blowing. I'm southeast of there.
Fortunately, it was fake news, and an hour later, there was another announcement about an error in sending out the alert and that everything is OK. Is it?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pickering-nuclear-generating-station-1.5424115
This morning a provincial alert was sent out about a problem at the Pickering Nuclear Power station in Ontario.Judging by this thread's title, Trump must be at fault. Oh, wait, maybe fake news? Now I'm really confused.
Fortunately, it was fake news, and an hour later, there was another announcement about an error in sending out the alert and that everything is OK. Is it?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pickering-nuclear-generating-station-1.5424115
“To the brave and suffering Iranian people: I have stood with you since the beginning of my presidency and my government will continue to stand with you. We are following your protests closely. Your courage is inspiring,” Trump wrote.
"Trump tweet in Farsi 'the most liked Persian tweet' in history of Twitter"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-tweet-in-farsi-the-most-liked-persian-tweet-in-history-of-twitter
I believe that muslims will think it twice before taking Mr.Trump at his word...
Just "yesterday" Mr. Trump was abandoning his former Kurdish allies in Syria, I am told.America never promised the Kurds we would fight Turkey to help get them their own homeland. We joined forces to defeat ISIS who was a threat to both America and the Kurds. That's it. Stop making things up.
I believe that muslims will think it twice before taking Mr.Trump at his word...
America never promised the Kurds we would fight Turkey to help get them their own homeland. We joined forces to defeat ISIS who was a threat to both America and the Kurds. That's it. Stop making things up.
Alan. I just wrote something in this senseless argument on Mr. Trump because IMO it went too far.Whoever told you Trump promised the Kurds a homeland lied to you or deceived you. It has nothing to do with trust. If Europe wants to give the Kurds a homeland, ask them to fight the Turks, who is also a NATO ally. After all, it were the Europeans who screwed the Kurds in WWI and they have been trying to get a real homeland since then. It's not suddenly America's responsibility to nation build. We're out of that business. Haven't you heard? After all, you guys who are bravely willing to sacrifice America boys and girls and not your own to fight for your schemes were the ones complaining all the time that America should stop nation building and getting involved in the business of other people. So now you're transferring your hatred of Trump into making America responsibility for shedding more blood of others and ourselves. That's very noble of you.
Usually I don't intervene.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Trump is not trustworthy and I doubt that very many people disagree on that.
Again just my humble opinion.
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Abraham Lincoln
As simple as that
As far as Kurds are concerned, it's pretty clear what they want. However, when it comes to Trump, his actions and statements can be sometimes baffling and erratic.He does shoot from the hip. I'm more contemplative, often too much. He acts, very decisive, and figures he'll clear up any issues afterwards. Might seem dangerous being a president. But it keeps adversaries questioning what he'll do. Makes them nervous. He plays good cop, bad cop. He'll impose sanctions and then tell the leader what a great person he is and how he wants to help him and his country. Nothing seems personal despite his demands for loyalty from his own people. Everything seems transactional. It seems to work for him.
After all, you guys who are bravely willing to sacrifice America boys and girls and not your own to fight for your schemes were the ones complaining all the time that America should stop nation building and getting involved in the business of other people. So now you're transferring your hatred of Trump into making America responsibility for shedding more blood of others and ourselves. That's very noble of you.
So far, Trump is doing what he said he will be doing during the campaign. That’s trustworthy.+1
Alan, Alan...
This is falling to a level at which no debate is possible. At least with me.
You don't know me at all.
Why are you talking of "you", "Hatred of Trump" etc?
"Willing to sacrifice America Boys and Girls?..." Pathetic, isn't it?
I'm stating that Mr. Trump is not trustworthy. An opinion shared by many, whether you like it or not.
Just "yesterday" Mr. Trump was abandoning his former Kurdish allies in Syria, I am told.
I believe that muslims will think it twice before taking Mr.Trump at his word...
Just that. It's very clear. I don't understand then your tirade.
No anti-Trump conspiracy here. Just my opinion that Trump's support of anything might be only blahblah.
But I'm not sending you my coordinates, just in case...
The only people who say he's untrustworthy are those who don't like his policies. Arguing that "I was told" that he abandoned his Kurdish allies is not a very strong argument. It sounds like a cop-out.
Meanwhile, speaking of broken promises, where is the 2% all the European NATO countries promised but failed to deliver on?
Alan, Alan...Maybe you should expand the media you read. Looking at news that only shows Trump in bad light, will blind you to truth.
It just means "I got it from the media". Like almost everybody else. Occam's razor...
Again that simple.
I don't have the faintest idea maybe we could open another sub-topic on this subject if there's any interest.
But this doesn't change anything in my statements.
That Hitler wasn't trustworthy didn't make Stalin better...
The fact that the ayatollahs aren't trustworthy doesn't make Trump trustworthier.
Independent entities
Maybe you should expand the media you read. Looking at news that only shows Trump in bad light, will blind you to truth.
I never said Trump was untrustworthy because others are untrustworthy. What I said is that he is trustworthy while others are untrustworthy. What has he done that untrustworthy?
Alan, sometimes, when i read posts like these i think you are Trump ;)That's because I give my first and last name, tell people where I live and even show a picture of myself. That adds trust.
maybe because you sound so trustworthy ?
Wow, there is a big disconnect between what President Trump said the other day regarding the Soleimani killing and his national security team. The President said that four US Embassies had been targeted by Iran. None of the security officials who appeared on Sunday morning news shows could or would substantiate this claim. Truth is something precious and this President doesn't seem to care.General Soleimani killed up to 800 American soldiers. He was Iran's chief architect and military commander supporting terrorist and other rebel organizations and groups in the middle East sowing pain, death and destruction. His aim and life's work was to put Iran in charge of the ME. So now he's dead. Whether he planned to attack 4 embassies or do something else that's bad or worse, does it really matter? You seem to be more interested in criticizing Trump rather than looking how this act weakens Iran and makes America stronger.
General Soleimani killed up to 800 American soldiers. He was Iran's chief architect and military commander supporting terrorist and other rebel organizations and groups in the middle East sowing pain, death and destruction. His aim and life's work was to put Iran in charge of the ME. So now he's dead. Whether he planned to attack 4 embassies or do something else that's bad or worse, does it really matter? You seem to be more interested in criticizing Trump rather than looking how this act weakens Iran and makes America stronger.The axis of evil... you are with us or against us....
...i add a comforting portrait...
The axis of evil... you are with us or against us....See it works. I already trust you more. ;)
Maybe it is more efficient to nuke Iran completely to get rid of all the bad guys in one blow; Nethanyahu will agree...
So many unused nuclear weapons desperately waiting to fly and to produce freedom...
and to make myself trustworthy to you and RSL i add a comforting portrait, my gender; hometown; even my age.
Pieter Kers
Amsterdam
Male 58 years
"They are lying that our enemy is America. Our enemy is right here!"
https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWozMjRQdGpvQU1FWjJvM0NZd0N6bXdLQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
"They are lying that our enemy is America. Our enemy is right here!"
https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWozMjRQdGpvQU1FWjJvM0NZd0N6bXdLQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
"They are lying that our enemy is America. Our enemy is right here!"
https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWozMjRQdGpvQU1FWjJvM0NZd0N6bXdLQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen (https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWozMjRQdGpvQU1FWjJvM0NZd0N6bXdLQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen)
;D
Yeah, the US constitution is a joke. And who needs oaths of office anyway.
So Trump as president is doing what he promised as a candidate? Gee, who woulda guessed.
As good as our unwritten Brit one, and also as good as the guys and gals in power in any given term. They, constitutions, written or by precedent, simply mean what the powers that be want them to mean.While many Americans feel that the Supreme Court should not read in their own understanding, and often they do, the fact that it is written still makes it more powerful than if unwritten. Also, you're conflating elected officials with the supreme court justices that latter who hold the position for life. If an elected official violates the Constitution, he is kept in check by the Supreme Court and its justices as we saw with the Muslim travel ban and as well as the Congress as we see now with the impeachment. They can't do whatever they want.
I bet you the "office" has heard many an oath on just about every topic before it.
... They, constitutions, written or by precedent, simply mean what the powers that be want them to mean...
Oh, please, Rob! What the US Constitution means is determined by the SCOTUS, not "the powers that be."
What it doesn't mean is what you, or I, or Bart think it means.
Well, they have one fine old lady therein!
:-)
Yes. He plays word games. Really pisses off the Democrats. Makes them make gross mistake after gross mistake. It'll cost the Democrats the Presidency, the House, and the Senate.So how do you know when Trump actually says something he really means?
So how do you know when Trump actually says something he really means?
So how do you know when Trump actually says something he really means?Compare the things he's done with what he promised during the campaign. The rest is just conversation.
Last but not least, Alan:
Made liberals cry every step of the way!
That alone is worth four more years.
If he loses, what will we do? :)write more about photography.
If he loses, what will we do? :)
Ah yes. Good ol' NBCFake news. That'll keep us up to date.
Will Republicans admit that Trump did what he did purely for selfish reasons? Never.
Will Democrats admit that what Biden did justified what Trump did? Not in your lifetime.
The hypocrisy is vomit inducing.
er...both of these can't be true.
And if he wins?
IS ANYONE SURPRISED?
...
Can one do the right thing for the wrong reason?
Ah yes. Good ol' NBCFake news. That'll keep us up to date.
IS ANYONE SURPRISED?
The Constitution specifically vests Congress with the power of the purse, providing that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7. The Constitution also vests all legislative powers in Congress and sets forth the procedures of bicameralism and presentment, through which the President may accept or veto a bill passed by both Houses of Congress, and Congress may subsequently override a presidential veto. Id., art. I, § 7, cl. 2, 3. The President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law. See Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 438 (1998) (the Constitution does not authorize the President “to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes”). Instead, he must “faithfully execute” the law as Congress enacts it. U.S. Const., art. II, § 3.
Peter, when you post a link, say why you're posting it and give a summary of the information at the end of the link. I have made this abundantly clear (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125586.0) on several occasions.
Jeremy
Ah yes. Good ol' NBCFake news. That'll keep us up to date.Here is the same story from Fox and Breitbart. Better?
::)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gao-says-trump-admin-broke-law-ukraine (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gao-says-trump-admin-broke-law-ukraine)
The Government Accountability Office, the U.S. government's internal auditing agency, published a decision today (https://www.gao.gov/products/B-331564#mt=e-report) which concludes that the Office of Management and Budget in the Trump White House violated the law...
From the Fox article:
"GAO’s findings are a pretty clear overreach as they attempt to insert themselves into the media’s controversy of the day. Further, GAO has a history of the flip-flops, reversing 40-years of precedent this year on their pocket rescission decision, they were also forced to reverse a legally faulty opinion when they opposed the reimbursement of federal employee travel costs. In their rush to insert themselves in the impeachment narrative, maybe they’ll have to reverse their opinion again.”
I might add that the meaning of the word "opinion" makes everything clear (except to those who refuse to accept direct evidence and prefer opinion).
That quote is attributed to a "senior administration official" i.e. a Trump mouthpiece, ergo you're sorely mistaken with your "conclusion" here. Remember - everything that comes out of this administration is a lie. This is no different.
By the way, the original NBC article featured the same "response" from the Trump official as well, so your "fake news" cry is also incorrect. So much winning... ::)
Giuliani associate says Trump knew exactly what was going on. No surprise, really.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/giuliani-associate-parnas-says-trump-knew-exactly-what-was-going-n1116731
Will Republicans admit that Trump did what he did purely for selfish reasons? Never.
Will Democrats admit that what Biden did justified what Trump did? Not in your lifetime.
The hypocrisy is vomit inducing.
Be serious. What Trump is accused of doing, huge piles of legitimate evidence including transcripts and testimony under oath from many people who have no political axe to grind, such as carrer diplomats, and some of whom are Republicans. What Biden is accused of doing--zero legitimate evidence.
Be serious. What Trump is accused of doing, huge piles of legitimate evidence including transcripts and testimony under oath..
Giuliani associate says Trump knew exactly what was going on...
Another idiotic headline. Another nobody hearing what someone else said or thought he said. And "what is going on" exactly? The Nobody did not say what was going on, but that he thinks Trump knew. Knew what? What was going on depends on who you ask. Commies would say impeachable treason, bribery, abuse of power, quid pro quo, or whatever is the flavor of the day. Reasonable people would say nothing out of ordinary was going on.
What Biden is accused of doing--zero legitimate evidence.
The whole thing just seems so awkward, and obviously so to anyone watching.
President Donald Trump, facing the gravest test of his presidency, signaled a de-escalation of tensions with Iran Wednesday in the wake of Iran's retaliatory attacks against Iraqi bases housing US troops.
In a tweet, Donald Trump said:" All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good!
"Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world," Trump said, striking a somber tone during his White House statement. An early warning system worked well and no American or Iraqi lives were lost, Trump said.
Several US service members were injured during last week's Iranian missile attack on Al-Asad airbase in Iraq despite the Pentagon initially saying that no casualties had taken place. "While no U.S. service members were killed in the Jan. 8 Iranian attack on Al Asad Air base, several were treated for concussion symptoms from the blast and are still being assessed," the US-led military coalition fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria said in a statement Thursday.
A US military official told CNN that 11 service members had been injured in the attack, which was launched in retaliation for the US airstrikes that had killed Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani the previous week. Defense One was first to report on the injured service members. Following the attack the Pentagon said that no casualties had resulted from the 16 missiles fired by Iran. The US military defines a casualty as either an injury or fatality involving personnel.
Lie first, fess up later. Iranians denying initially shooting down the plane, Americans denying initially casualties from Iranian missiles. Whom can you trust?
Jan 8 CNN report
Jan 17 CNN report
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/politics/service-members-injured-iran-strike/index.html
Uh, dude...the symptoms of the concussions showed up later.Yeah, that's what they said. What will be the next statement?
The injuries must be quite serious. 8 of the soldiers were flown to a military hospital in Germany.
Uh, dude...the symptoms of the concussions showed up later.
after the bombardment - they all did not realize directly they had a concussion... ???
At the end of the day, all of this stuff is already baked into the cake with public opinion. What happens here on out with Trump is not going to matter unless some crazy bombshell comes along.My friends who don;t like TRump say they would vote for Biden as they thing Buttigieg, Warren and Sanders are too outside the mainstream. I didn't ask them how excited they were about Biden, but I will. I think there may be a closed convention where a current runner will not get a majority winner during the primaries. That will allow the Democrat inside power brokers to select who they want. So someone in the background now could wind up their nominee.
What is more important is watching the implosion of the Democratic party, at least with regards to the primary. Man, talk about seriously weak candidates, and now Warren, along with CNN, decides to send the Dems down the path they went in 2016. Namely pissing off the Bernie bros so much that they may just sit out the election or vote for Trump. And if you think Biden really has the capacity to bet Trump, ask yourself this, have you ever met a Biden fan? I've met Trump fans, Bernie fans, Warren fans, even Buttigieg fans, but I have never actually met a Biden fan. I've met people who say we must vote for Biden since he is the only one who can, supposedly, beat Trump, but none of them rise to fan level. Not to mention his debate performance are just horrible; can anyone really figure out what he was saying last night?
Former Obama campaign manager and liberal political commentator Van Jones on last nights performance, "there was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out!"
If impeachments keeps your mind off of the Dem's current best and brightest, then enjoy. I'm going sit back and watch the primaries. Ido have to wonder though how long it will be until Warren and Bernie start publicly requesting a short trial, since it is going to keep them off of the campaign. Perhaps Bloomberg will start making inroads with those two stuck in DC.
Wouldn't that be great, the party of billionaire haters winds up with two viable billionaire candidates. Oh the irony.
Last, but not least, let's not forgot we now have a #DemsSoWhite controversy. Those whom start radical revolutions evidentially become victims of it.
My friends who don;t like TRump say they would vote for Biden as they thing Buttigieg, Warren and Sanders are too outside the mainstream. I didn't ask them how excited they were about Biden, but I will. I think there may be a closed convention where a current runner will not get a majority winner during the primaries. That will allow the Democrat inside power brokers to select who they want. So someone in the background now could wind up their nominee.
Bloomberg?Maybe. He's really spreading his money around to other Democratic candidates in other races. Not that I'm saying he's buying their loyalty, of course. That might be impeachable. But who's watching. Everyone is watching the Trump impeachment. Now you see it, now you don;t. :)
Oh, please!!!So Trump acts sanely to prevent expanding an argument into a war. So now all the crazies in the media and elsewhere are disappointed that he standed down without flying off the handle. One wonders who the crazies really are. Where are all those psychologists and psychiatrists when you really need them?
Concussion, schmoncussion. Nobody died, nobody is left without a limb. CNN was delighted to report that first (or at least I saw it there first). They must have been deeply disappointed, however, that the report didn't have any dead or seriously injured. They were sooo looking forward to have something negative to report about Trump. Concussion is something that happens when your drunken head hits the table. Or you play (American) football.
So now all the crazies in the media and elsewhere are disappointed that he standed down without flying off the handle.
Show me a single example of this.
I'm not sure if he stayed cool. His employees reported repeatedly than he has exploded when confronted with less important matters.So both sides "blinked" to avoid a war. Isn't that rationale? To cool it down a little. Does America need another Iraq, only worse? How about a little credit for acting sanely. Maybe the psychiatrists are all wrong and it's just politics.
Maybe he was just paralyzed and couldn't make a decision. Which worked out OK this time.
BTW, he didn't mentioned any injuries on Jan 8, just that "All Is Well".
And the official reports informed us that the Iranians purposely let the missiles fall where they wouldn't inflict any damage. Basically they were "standing down".
Show me a single example of this.
So both sides "blinked" to avoid a war. Isn't that rationale? To cool it down a little. Does America need another Iraq, only worse? How about a little credit for acting sanely. Maybe the psychiatrists are all wrong and it's just politics.
How about a little credit for acting sanely.
Amazing how upset some people are that we did not go war with Iran.
Oh, please!!!
Concussion, schmoncussion. Nobody died, nobody is left without a limb. CNN was delighted to report that first (or at least I saw it there first). They must have been deeply disappointed, however, that the report didn't have any dead or seriously injured. They were sooo looking forward to have something negative to report about Trump. Concussion is something that happens when your drunken head hits the table. Or you play (American) football.
In any case, "negative things" about Trump fall from the sky like leaves in autumn.
Let me put it another way. How many of the anti-Trump media have written about Trumps' cool, calm and insightful handling of this whole situation. They all jumped on how he nearly started WWIII when he killed the terrorist. Then they said nothing or very little how he so adroitly handed the counter attack, despite there being some injuries to American troops. No matter what he does, he's wrong, crazy, insane, erratic, etc.
Only for those who hate trump passionately, Peter. And you're going to have four more years to hate Trump with passion. You're also gonna be able to hate the fact that the entire government is Republican. The Dems just can't get off the trigger and stop shooting themselves in the foot.
And let me point out that there is essentially no "anti-Trump media."
Same question to you - show me one example. (OK two - I'll give you Bolton.)
And let me point out that there is essentially no "anti-Trump media."
I kind of meant it is jest directed at some people here.
But anyway, how about the entire mainstream news media just saying non-stop for the first day or say that this was the start of WWIII, and then completely dropping the subject like Slobo stated. They did not even bother to report about how the day after the funeral young Iranians were chanting death to the Ayatollah and refused to walk over the USA and Israel flag.
A week after millions of Iranians flooded the streets following the death of one of the country's top generals, Qassem Soleimani, a contrasting symbolic image played out in Tehran on Sunday.
Crowds of people outside Beheshti University refused to trample over giant U.S. and Israeli flags that had been painted on the ground, according to video filmed at the scene that has been verified by NBC News.
...there are different types of anger amid the demonstrators. Some are simply angry the government did this while others are calling for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.
In Iran, demonstrators are calling for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to step down and for those responsible for downing the plane to be prosecuted.
"Khamenei have shame. Leave the country," chanted protesters in the capital, Tehran, in footage posted on social media.
As crowds gathered in the capital Tehran for a candlelight vigil on Saturday to commemorate victims, protesters called for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to step down and for those responsible for downing the plane to be prosecuted. Familiar chants of "Death to America," were traded for "Death to the dictator" and "Death to the liar." In one video, demonstrators chanted, "Khamenei have shame. Leave the country."
Protestors gathered in Iran for the second straight day, chanting "down with the regime", after the government reversed course and admitting it shot down a passenger plane, killing all 176 people aboard. Cal Perry breaks down the situation, including Pres. Trump tweeting support for the protestors.
The Iranian government had tried to conceal that its military accidentally shot down the plane, killing all on board. When it finally admitted its culpability, protesters reacted with rage and fury.
It shattered the perception of national unity that seemed to exist last week, when thousands of Iranians turned out to mourn the death of Qassem Soleimani, the powerful general killed in a US targeted strike.
?
NBC (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-protests-crowds-tehran-refuse-walk-u-s-israeli-flags-n1114371)
CNN (https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/01/12/gps-0112-iranian-government-faces-uproar-over-downed-plane.cnn)
CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/12/middleeast/iran-protests-ukraine-plane-uk-ambassador-intl-gbr/index.html)
CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/world/iran-protest-analysis-intl/index.html)
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/weekends-with-alex-witt/watch/thousands-protest-in-iran-after-government-admits-it-shot-down-passenger-plane-76556357868)
Vox (https://www.vox.com/2020/1/16/21065638/iran-protests-soleimani-trump-jcpoa)
Any of these front page stories?
I'm not a regular watcher of MSNBC or a regular reader of NBC, so no idea (the MSNBC piece was a video, so not sure how to categorize that) but CNN did cover this quite extensively (there we probably 5+ more links I could have posted from them) so likely (At least) some were, and Vox is kind of like the Atlantic - no "front page" per se.
I cant say that I saw the same level of coverage by CNN nor MSNBC as the imminent WWIII with Iran headlines.
Dont worry, I understand that nearly everyone on the left has lost their sense of humor,...
But that's not what you said, you said, "They did not even bother to report about how the day after the funeral young Iranians were chanting death to the Ayatollah and refused to walk over the USA and Israel flag." Which is demonstrably, clearly, untrue.
Personally, *I* can't say that domestic protests in Iran over a shot-down Ukranian airliner are as significant as heating up tensions with an unfriendly regional power by assassinating a major figure in that country, so, whatever.
Then again, at this very instant as I write this, both Fox and CNN's headline stories are that Harry and Megan got the boot from the royal family. (But Fox's headline story take up more of the page)
That's because it's been beaten out of us by anti-vaxxers, brexiteers, flat-earthers, climate change deniers, and the antics of the Trump administration/GOP.
It seems to me, as an impartial but curious and far-away observer, that the outcome is pretty much inevitable. I'm interested to see that at least one highly-regarded and influential news publication shares my view (https://politics.theonion.com/republican-senators-maintain-they-ll-weigh-all-evidence-1841067235).
Jeremy
I'm thinking about headlines, not some by-line story buried somewhere few people see without searching for it. It's nearly the same thing.There is usually more to read than headlines... and tweets...
I'm thinking about headlines, not some by-line story buried somewhere few people see without searching for it. It's nearly the same thing.
I didn't get the reading that both sides cooled down.Bluster on both sides. Better than escalating into all-out war. First Trump gets attacked for being war-like. Then he gets attacked for avoiding war by not counter-attacking. It's all politics. Fake news.
First, we heard Trump threatening Iran with military attacks on their cultural sites (if that meant anything for the religious fanatics and it was totally unnecessary, irresponsible and inflammatory statement), then Iran trying their best to inflict serious damage to US bases, which was first minimized by Trump, followed a week later by admission of material and physical injuries, subsequent praise of those missiles attacks by Khameni, promising additional retaliatory actions, and Trump's tweets in Farsi encouraging the protesters in Teheran. It may indeed take a psychiatrist to figure it all out.
Dude.. Just admit you made a wrong assumption and move on.
... It's all politics. Fake news.Unfortunately - it is all real, not fake...
It's interesting that quite a few of the former Trump associates and fans turned later against him.
For example, Anthony Scaramucci, Michael Cohen, Lev Parnas and others. These are people who knew Trump quite well, up close and personal.
What? ???
;D ;D ;D
Let me get this straight, you actually take seriously a man under federal indictment, out on bail, for lying and falsifying documents, and who's ground breaking documents sent to the dems are handwritten notes on hotel stationary? Even after everyone in Ukraine said this guy cant be trusted or taken seriously? This is your new savior?
And the Mooch, who only lasted two weeks, was ridiculed by the media the entire time, finally fired for being a wacko (like seriously he was one of the craziest personalities we have seen in politics ever), but now he is what you are holding onto.
LOL, you guys really are getting desperate.
I guess if my idols were saying that it was inevitably that we would be loosing, I would too. :-\
“They will mark this day ... as the day Donald Trump was reelected because once again the Democrats, the liberals, the left couldn’t get it together,” Micheal Moore predicted last week. (Just in case you forgot, Moore called the election in 2016.)
Another, “I didn’t see anybody ... that really said ‘I’m taking charge, I can be president,’” Sharpton.
Another, “There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out,” Van Jones.
On top of that, you have AOC and her squad supporting radical progressives in moderate districts, pretty much telling all of America that if you are not a far left wing Marxist, we don't want you in the party. And yes, AOC is the voice of the party now whether you like it or not. Pelosi capitulated that to her last year when she failed to get her caucus to condemn anti-semitism in the Democratic party, which has only increased since then btw.
I’m not sure what your problem is. Trump assures is that he only hires “the best people.” If we are to be mocked for their character now what dies it say about the man that chose these people to work for him?
It's interesting that quite a few of the former Trump associates and fans turned later against him.
For example, Anthony Scaramucci, Michael Cohen, Lev Parnas and others. These are people who knew Trump quite well, up close and personal.
The Parnas "evidence" reminds me of the last minute Democrat smear campaign against the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. It didn't work then. But that doesn;t stop them. They're known for their desperate and underhanded "October" surprises.
I’m not sure what your problem is. Trump assures is that he only hires “the best people.” If we are to be mocked for their character now what does it say about the man that chose these people to work for him?
There was a tremendously ironic story just the other day about this. Trump hires a bunch of low-life, lying, sleazeballs to do his dirty work, and then when they testify against him it's "You can't believe them because they are low-life, lying, sleazeballs."
Below is a great quote from Supreme Court Justice Justice Robert H. Jackson, who was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, that pretty much sums up what every republican and many independents think of the current impeachment:So Trump committed a crime, but should not be impeached because the opposite party has a majority in the House.
“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”
... Trump assures is that he only hires “the best people.” If we are to be mocked for their character now what does it say about the man that chose these people to work for him?
So Trump committed a crime, but should not be impeached because the opposite party has a majority in the House.
Below is a great quote from Supreme Court Justice Justice Robert H. Jackson, who was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, that pretty much sums up what every republican and many independents think of the current impeachment:
“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”
That’s a fair question, James.
So should prosecutors pick a person whom they dont like and just non-stop, for more then 3 years, search the law books until they can find something to pin on that person? Because that is exactly what has been done hear. Literally, non-stop, for over three years, the Dems have been looking for something, anything, to pin on Trump merely because they dont like him.
Somewhere this very moment, Hillary Clinton is rolling her eyes at you so hard that her head's about to pop off.Exactly. It was politics then. It's politics now. Now one gives a crap about the constitution. It's all about power - getting it and holding it. However, in the past, Americans mainly relied on elections. Now we've created a situation where going forward, impeachment will become too commonplace. Whenever the House and the presidency are from different parties, there will be pushes for impeachment. A lousy way to run a constitutional democratic republic. WE fight about who's in power rather than how government can do its job for the people. Maybe it's good that nothing much get done. Less chance for mischief by the government.
Somewhere this very moment, Hillary Clinton is rolling her eyes at you so hard that her head's about to pop off.
Biden campaign warns media over impeachment disinformation...
Biden campaign warns media over impeachment disinformation.
https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEFdkO1kKo5AZ6fJzsSXs7JYqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowvIaCCzDnxf4CMP2F8gU?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
Is a release of tax data even legal? I wouldn’t be happy if someone released mine.
Why does Biden bother? Any legitimate press already knows that the GOP have been spreading misinformation for a long time.VP Biden was warned by other Democrats in the Obama administration to recuse himself from involvement in Ukraine. He should not have gotten rid of the prosecutor looking into the corrupt corporation Burisma his son was getting $50K a month from. Biden refused and continued his involvement either because he's stupid, politically inept after being a politician for 45 years, or because he deliberately did what he did to help his son. That's not misinformation. Biden looks corrupt except for the press trying to protect him. The president argument will be he ask Ukraine to investigate corruption before releasing money. Since there's an appearance of corruption on Biden;s part, that's a perfectly legal request. Biden's democrat opponents are not saying anything but they're drooling behind the scenes.
One year from today Trump will start his second term. ;D ;D :D :D
Among President Donald Trump’s most compelling reasons to work as hard as possible to remain in the White House might be to stay out of prison, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said Tuesday.
second term in the old office or first term in another placeI wonder how many terms you;re allowed in prison? :)
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-avoiding-prison-adam-schiff_n_5c87f336e4b038892f47f47b?ri18n=true&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNhLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEclXP4Zo5lAFoF8glTjEO0IJ2Dy_DJZVxhbejTdAihEkIdR2DqEFrRi3O7eagYz7j3sYuQuqMhco_RTm0NwjerHojFQEB4DrFTtHGm3aq2kwE0ugFQNGK4zVuEqWAbgOCRvb8P7-Tn5cYsnvlmL3dMPO0t2xmxIs2smka7VTiZD
VP Biden was warned by other Democrats in the Obama administration to recuse himself from involvement in Ukraine. He should not have gotten rid of the prosecutor looking into the corrupt corporation Burisma his son was getting $50K a month from. Biden refused and continued his involvement either because he's stupid, politically inept after being a politician for 45 years, or because he deliberately did what he did to help his son. That's not misinformation. Biden looks corrupt except for the press trying to protect him. The president argument will be he ask Ukraine to investigate corruption before releasing money. Since there's an appearance of corruption on Biden;s part, that's a perfectly legal request. Biden's democrat opponents are not saying anything but they're drooling behind the scenes.
False. Biden and his allies worked to oust the Ukrainian prosecutor because he *WAS NOT* pursuing corruption cases. Shokin (the prosecutor) was facing international calls for his ouster, and he was ousted by the Ukrainian parliament. His lack of action on corruption has been verified by Ukrainian officials and several Ukraine experts in the US gov't. He was not looking into the gas company or anything else, it seems. This is all crapola invented by Giuliani.
And what's wrong with Biden's son making $50k a month simply for lending his name to the company? Michael Jordan makes $15 MILLION a month for letting Nike use his name.
And Trump himself has licensed his name at least 50 times for money.
second term in the old office or first term in another place
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-avoiding-prison-adam-schiff_n_5c87f336e4b038892f47f47b?ri18n=true&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNhLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEclXP4Zo5lAFoF8glTjEO0IJ2Dy_DJZVxhbejTdAihEkIdR2DqEFrRi3O7eagYz7j3sYuQuqMhco_RTm0NwjerHojFQEB4DrFTtHGm3aq2kwE0ugFQNGK4zVuEqWAbgOCRvb8P7-Tn5cYsnvlmL3dMPO0t2xmxIs2smka7VTiZD
..Biden looks corrupt...... except for the press trying to protect him...yes he can't help it... its just how he looks... not as handsome and honest looking as Trump....
... not as handsome and honest looking as Trump...... as he spits his coffee on his laptop screen...
False. Biden and his allies worked to oust the Ukrainian prosecutor because he *WAS NOT* pursuing corruption cases. Shokin (the prosecutor) was facing international calls for his ouster, and he was ousted by the Ukrainian parliament. His lack of action on corruption has been verified by Ukrainian officials and several Ukraine experts in the US gov't. He was not looking into the gas company or anything else, it seems. This is all crapola invented by Giuliani.Biden's son couldn't do a dunk shot if he stood on Michael Jordan's shoulders.
And what's wrong with Biden's son making $50k a month simply for lending his name to the company? Michael Jordan makes $15 MILLION a month for letting Nike use his name.
And Trump himself has licensed his name at least 50 times for money.
LOLTrump is the future? The older the better? Old cynical men reign
Biden is the past. ...
Trump is the future? The older the better? Old cynical men reign
In small countries like Austria or Finland, you can have 33-34 olds as head of the state.
The bigger the country, the older the president.
Of course. When the country is the size of a post stamp, it doesn’t take that many years to walk around and get to know all the aspects of it (there aren't that many to begin with, due to a more homogeneous religious, racial, ethnic, etc. culture).So I understand that if your country is small it takes less time to walk from border to border;
Legal scholars demolish Trump's main defense in the impeachment trial...
Legal scholars demolish Trump's main defense in the impeachment trial.
Some do, some don't. 'Tis ever thus; 100% consensus is a rare beast.
Jeremy
There's money to be made on both sides!
Some do, some don't. 'Tis ever thus; 100% consensus is a rare beast.
Jeremy
I'd like to hear <insert usual suspects here> defend the White House refusal to release documentation and to permit informed witness testimony.
If the records show that they're innocent, isn't it in their interest to produce those records?
The usual suspect would like to reiterate, for the millionth time, that the very basics of the Western justice is that the accused do not need to prove their innocence.Nonsense. That's a modern civilized procedure that won't get the results we want. We should place the accused Trump on the rack and stretch him until he begs for mercy and admits his guilt. If it worked in the 14th century, it should work now.
... To be fair, Trump or no Trump, MOST without a direct interest argue that statutory crimes are not required for impeachment...
Which is what I said several pages back, based on my, admittedly, rudimentary understanding of the subject. I said then, and now, that the Constitution technically allows the Congress to impeach Trump for being... orange. No crime required. Being orange with a combover is already a high misdemeanor. Now, in reality, although technically possible, that wouldn't sit well with most Americans, independents in particular, who would still expect some serious crime behind impeachment.Asking a foreign head of state to dig up dirt on a political rival isn't enough for most Americans? Obviously not the conservatives, but most Americans?
Which is what I said several pages back, based on my, admittedly, rudimentary understanding of the subject. I said then, and now, that the Constitution technically allows the Congress to impeach Trump for being... orange. No crime required. Being orange with a combover is already a high misdemeanor. Now, in reality, although technically possible, that wouldn't sit well with most Americans, independents in particular, who would still expect some serious crime behind impeachment.
Asking a foreign head of state to dig up dirt on a political rival...
This, of course, I just your opinion. I do not agree that's what happened.I didn't expect you to agree with me. I just don't buy the argument that choosing Joe Biden as the only person to investigate for corruption was a pure coincidence.
I didn't expect you to agree with me. I just don't buy the argument that choosing Joe Biden as the only person to investigate for corruption was a pure coincidence.
“Why would an innocent man, and a jury interested in the truth, not want all the evidence out and all the witnesses to testify?"The problem was that the jury in the House was made up of Democrats, apparently sworn to destroy Trump at all costs. Even at the expense of justice.
The problem is, the jury is made up of Republicans, apparently sworn to defend Trump at all costs. Even at the expense of justice.
The argument that no crime has to have been committed is in opposition to the Constitution. It's false and an argument used by the Democrats and those opposed to Trump to justify a political impeachment that had no basis as a crime, which is required.
The constitutional phrase says impeachment is for :"...Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The text uses the word crimes. What could be clearer? It also compares High crimes to Treason and Bribery which are crimes. These are serious offenses and crimes that could lead to execution in the case of Treason. Sure, Congress can do what it wants. That doesn't mean they are conforming with the intent and specification of the Constitution.
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its 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. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body. Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry? The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?
The concept of impeachment was used by the British Parliament as early as 1376, as a legislative safeguard against overreach by the aristocracy, and the terms in question were part of the process early on.
“In England a lot of the impeachment cases had relied on this language of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ from the 1640s onward,” Bernadette Meyler, a law professor at Stanford Law School, explains.
But the phrase didn’t have a set definition in British practice; it was used to describe whatever thing the person was being impeached for, according to Bowman. There were several things for which people were impeached during this era: ordinary crimes, treason, corruption, abuse of power, ordinary incompetence and misbehavior in relation to foreign policy. Notably, the King could not be impeached.
When the framers of the U.S. Constitution realized they needed a way to remove executive officials who abused the nature of their positions, they decided to add a definition for an impeachable offense. Though many suggestions were made at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, by the end of the summer they’d winnowed it down to two examples: treason and bribery.
But George Mason of Virginia took issue with limiting it to the two definitions, arguing they were too narrow. At the same time the Constitution was being drafted, newspapers were covering the impeachment of a statesman named Warren Hastings for misconduct during his time the Governor General of India. Mason pointed out that under their current definition, Hasting wouldn’t be impeachable. Mason suggest they broaden the definition to include “maladministration,” meaning mismanagement or ineffective governance. James Madison argued back that the word would be too broad, and make it so the President would be serving at the “pleasure of the Senate.” He worried Senators could remove the President if they disliked a policy move.
George Mason then proposed including the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” instead, and that’s the term they settled on.
Bottom line is the Senate should dismiss the impeachment based on the fact that it did not specify a crime. This is important for the future. Otherwise, we will have political impeachments every time the congress and the presidents are from different parties or whenever congress feels that it;s a good idea to impeach. There would be no standards. By drawing a line now, the Senate will prevent stupid impeachments in the future. Otherwise we're going to face this as a regular situation which is very destructive to the democratic process. That's why we have elections.
The argument that no crime has to have been committed is in opposition to the Constitution. It's false and an argument used by the Democrats and those opposed to Trump to justify a political impeachment that had no basis as a crime, which is required. The constitutional phrase says impeachment is for :"...Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The text uses the word crimes. What could be clearer? It also compares High crimes to Treason and Bribery which are crimes. These are serious offenses and crimes that could lead to execution in the case of Treason. Sure, Congress can do what it wants. That doesn't mean they are conforming with the intent and specification of the Constitution.I know that you don't like to educate yourself by reading about a topic before pronouncing on it, but a perusal of Federalist 65 will show that you are mistaken.
“Why would an innocent man, and a jury interested in the truth, not want all the evidence out and all the witnesses to testify?"
The problem is, the jury is made up of Republicans, apparently sworn to defend Trump at all costs. Even at the expense of justice.
The problem was, there were several witnesses who delivered corroborated, sworn testimony implicating Trump of crimes, including a type of bribery (QPP) and abuse of power.
Mulvaney copped to the QPP on television, realized his error and recanted what he said on the video recordings. How much proof do you need?
Later, he effected obstruction of Congress by refusing to release documentation and continues to do so.
Despite Slobodan's partly valid excuse of "innocent until proven guilty", you can't in your wildest dreams call the Senate shenanigans a fair trial. Withholding evidence remains a crime.
You're okay with this stuff? You really think this is "all just politics"? You really think he's innocent?
Or are you just playing politics yourselves?
Preposterous bafflegab. Mulvaney said what he said. Go and review the tape if you like.
Even the Government Accountability Office called the aid-withholding a crime.
https://www.businessinsider.com/top-government-watchdog-says-trump-illegally-withheld-aid-to-ukraine-2020-1
Has Trump gone yet?
Has Trump gone yet?
:-)
Okay, so I think we can all get a laugh out of this one.
Lawmakers only allowed to drink milk, water on the Senate floor (https://nypost.com/2020/01/21/lawmakers-only-allowed-to-drink-milk-water-on-the-senate-floor/)
Fortunately, when I am watching the trial, I have more choices !
Fortunately, when I am watching the trial, I have more choices !
I think Senator Cruz put it that best, "if you have the facts, you bang the facts, if you have the law, you bang the law, and if you dont have either, you bang the table! ... we've seen a whole lot of table banging."
Man, so many great Billy C. jokes here.
And if all you have is Stormy Daniels? :)
Sorry. Couldn’t help myself. If just popped into my mind.
Why would a prosecution rush through an inquiry, and then expect the judge and jury to find evidence to help him out?
You have an odd definition of "rush." The inquiry was officially opened on Sept 24. In Oct the three committees involved started deposing witnesses and gathering (or requesting) other evidence. On Dec 16 the Judiciary Committee voted to approve the articles of impeachment and on the 18th the full house voted to send them to the Senate. This is rushing?
It would appear that it’s the Republicans who are doing all the rushing.
The usual suspect would like to reiterate, for the millionth time, that the very basics of the Western justice is that the accused do not need to prove their innocence.
He's gone from Davos.
Oh good, it's a start!
:-)
Oh good, it's a start!
He was socking it to the fundamentalists today in the abortion argument; I was most taken by a blonde behind him with constantly shining teeth and a red coat. They all looked so happy as he looked so seriously earnest as he blew his achievements trumpet. It's sure to get him elected again. Ayatollahs take note: you need more chicks on show.
:-)
Yes, it is the beginning of his next five years as our President.
Uh, dude...the symptoms of the concussions showed up later.
Trump had initially said he was told that no troops had been injured in the Jan. 8 strike. he Jan. 8 strike. The military said symptoms were not immediately reported after the strike and in some cases became known days later.
After the first reports that some soldiers had been hurt, Trump referred to them as “headaches” and said the cases were not as serious as injuries involving the loss of limbs.
Hoffman’s disclosure that 34 had been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, or TBI, was the first update on the number injured in Iran’s missile attack on Ain al-Asad air base in western Iraq since the Pentagon said on Jan. 17 that 11 service members had been flown out of Iraq with concussion-like symptoms.
Well then, since they did such a thorough job, I guess they don’t need to worry about new evidence or testimony.
They did as thorough a job as they could given the three or four important witnesses whom Trump ordered not to testify, despite subpoenas. Now we'd like to hear from these people so the evidence is more complete. But the last thing the GOP wants is complete evidence.
Peter, for someone who writes with a sense of authority, you have a fairly sophomoric understanding of US Civics.
You, and many others here, seem to completely ignore we have a judicial branch that settles disputes between the executive branch and the legislative branch. Are you purposely ignoring this, or just that uninformed on civics?
Not that <insert usual suspects here> would ever have watched the last three days presentations..
Not that <insert usual suspects here> would ever have watched the last three days presentations, but I gotta say, having watched a lot of it, if I was in legal trouble, I’d want Schiff as my lawyer.
Not that <insert usual suspects here> would ever have watched the last three days presentations, but I gotta say, having watched a lot of it, if I was in legal trouble, I’d want Schiff as my lawyer.I didn't watch it. But I agree he's an effective speaker; most politicians are. Although there's something sleazy about him that comes off. I suspect the Republicans will have some effective speakers as well.
.
But they (the Dems) refused to argue their subpoenas in court. They even went so far as to pull John Bolton's subpoena after he, himself, went to court to see if he could testify.
That's right, John Bolton said he wanted to testify and went to court to see if he could. And then, the Dems pulled his subpoena. Not the best optics for their case.
So, no, they did not do a thorough job. If they were really concerned about the country, they would have done their job and taken the subpoenas to court (like with Nixon) but did not.
Since they lacked the courage of their convictions, I see no reason why the Senate should do their job for them, unless of course they are okay with Hunter Biden taking the stand.
So, no, they did not do a thorough job. If they were really concerned about the country, they would have done their job and taken the subpoenas to court (like with Nixon) but did not.
You, and many others here, seem to completely ignore we have a judicial branch that settles disputes between the executive branch and the legislative branch.
And answer me this: Why is the "innocent" Trump so anxious to keep so many witnesses and documents away from Congress? We all know why, some of us just won't admit it.
I didn't watch it. But I agree he's an effective speaker; most politicians are. Although there's something sleazy about him that comes off. I suspect the Republicans will have some effective speakers as well.
I love it how the usual suspects are now compiling a list of excuses for the botched impeachment.
Mommy, mommy, snif, they didn't want to testify :-X Mommy, why do we need to wait for years for courts to come to our rescue?! Whaaaay, mommy, whaaaay!? :'(
George Conway, husband of Presidential advisor Kellyanne, gets it right. The one witness who can clear all of this mess up is...............................President Trump himself!! A 15 minute White House deposition would end it all pretty quickly (this was in fact done with President Clinton).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/24/george-conway-oped-impeachment-witness/
This a complex issue and the case law is sparse. But the two Supreme Court decisions that are directly applicable hold (1) that a president may not assert executive privilege to avoid complying with a subpoena issued pursuant to a criminal investigation* and (2) that the enforcement of a congressional subpoena issued as part of the impeachment process is a nonjusticiable "political question" that the courts are not constitutionally authorized to resolve.**
___
*In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), the Supreme Court decision involving President Nixon, the subpoena was issued by the Watergate special prosecutor. In other words, the Court resolved a dispute about a claim of presidential privilege between the president and another official of the executive branch of the federal government.
**Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), a case involving the impeachment of a different Nixon (a federal judge).
Btw, are you an attorney?
I have a law degree and am a member of the District of Columbia Bar, but I've never practiced law. Many years ago, as a young news reporter, I spent 12 years covering the U.S. Supreme Court, the Watergate investigations of the Senate select committee and the U.S. special prosecutor, and the hearings by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives that resulted in the preparation of the articles of impeachment against President Nixon.
George Conway, husband of Presidential advisor Kellyanne, gets it right. The one witness who can clear all of this mess up is...............................President Trump himself!! A 15 minute White House deposition would end it all pretty quickly (this was in fact done with President Clinton).Why would anyone testify when the whole thing is a Democrat party political hit job that's been going on for 3 1/2 years? Why add credibility to the circus? No, he's better off just going about doing the president's business serving the public's interest like he has been doing signing deals with China for example. Just let the politicians throw pot shots at each other. The public will see it for what it is. Politics. Nothing more.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/24/george-conway-oped-impeachment-witness/
So, how long before we hear the verdict?
A few weeks ago.
... The outcome of the impeachment trial is predetermined, so she focuses on inflicting as much damage to the Trump reelection campaign as possible...
;D ;D ;D
So, it is not about the Constitution, national security, truth, blah,[...]
Of course the impeachment about the Constitution, but the Republicans seemingly don't care.Bart: You can;t take back what you said. Slobodan called you on it. It's about damaging Trump for the re-election. That's all it's been about for 3 1/2 years. Nobody gives a damn about the constitution. These are politicians we're talking about. All they care about is power.
So, wadaya gonna to do ..., have it backfire on them.
Bart: You can;t take back what you said. Slobodan called you on it. It's about damaging Trump for the re-election. That's all it's been about for 3 1/2 years. Nobody gives a damn about the constitution. These are politicians we're talking about. All they care about is power.
I was watching a recent interview with Daniel Hannan on Brexit and he made an interesting point. He noted that after a while, the Labour Party's constant objections on the conditions of the Brexit deal made it obvious it was about voiding the vote and staying in the EU. This did nothing but piss off the voters who choose to leave and set up the perfect condition for the recent win for Boris Johnson and the Tories.
Yesterday, I was listening to an interview with Victor Davis Hanson who, without even mentioning Breixt or Daniel Hannan, pretty much said he is seeing the same set up with our election this year. Even within his state of CA, he seeing a lot of anger amongst conservatives about having the last 3 years robbed from them by the Dems' non-stop partisan inquiries.
Unless Biden suddenly become charismatic and creates a level of enthusiasm beyond, "we need to vote for him because he says he can beat Trump," the Dems are in for a rude awakening this Autumn.
... But the survey shows you something about people's attention to politics.Shooting Out Loud Whatever the contents... seems very effective...
...he received the exact same minority of votes that Trump did.
We never spoke of our countrymen as the British People...
Not from the Electoral College, Peter. What they both got was a significant majority. It's gonna be deja vu all over again this November. Prepare to eat your heart out.If that occurs, it will be a real shame that the country will have to endure four more years of Trump.
Perhaps because you’ve never been people, only the Queen’s subjects? 😉
If that occurs, it will be a real shame that the country will have to endure four more years of Trump.
Perhaps because you’ve never been people, only the Queen’s subjects? 😉
Hoe exactly are you worse off today?
If that occurs, it will be a real shame that the country will have to endure four more years of Trump.
We are ALL worse off today.
We are ALL worse off today.
In what way, Peter?
look at this tweet: It says it all in a nutshell...
Remember; this is the president of the United States-
not your nextdoor neighbour ( i hope for you)
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!
In what way, Peter?
And you think this is an inaccurate statement about Schiff?I think this president is an embarrassment for the US.
In what way, Peter?
We’ll probably be able to continue with economic growth of more than 4 percent.
Unemployment claims probably will drop even lower than the 49-year low we see at the moment.
Drip, drip, drip, drip...................................................... Stuff keeps coming out every day. We now have a video of President Trump requesting that Ambassador Yovanovitch be removed from office. Tonight we have the outlines of what John Bolton might say if called to testify. The NY Times has an article on what is in the draft of the book and it's not painting a pretty picture: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html What morsels will come out tomorrow? Where is the President's key lawyer, Mr. Giuliani, when he is really needed?
Of course the truth doesn't matter in this age of bots and hashtags.
The GOP is at it again with this "overturn the election" crapola. More hysterical nincompoopery to stir up the "base." If it were the case that Clinton would become president on Trump's removal, there would be some validity in that claim. But it would be Mike "hallucinator" Pence who would take over. And he received the exact same minority of votes that Trump did.Pence wasn't elected president. Trump was. So it would be overturning the election. The losing party wants to overturn an American presidential election. As Pelosi said, she's been working at it for 2 1/2 years.
The GOP is at it again with this "overturn the election" crapola. More hysterical nincompoopery to stir up the "base." If it were the case that Clinton would become president on Trump's removal, there would be some validity in that claim. But it would be Mike "hallucinator" Pence who would take over. And he received the exact same minority of votes that Trump did.Pence wasn't elected president. Trump was. So it would be overturning the election. The losing party wants to overturn an American presidential election. As Pelosi said, she's been working at it for 2 1/2 years.
I watched a comedy show recently, can't remember which one, that sent out a "reporter" on the street to ask people if they had voted yet on the "impeachment". They didn't show the ones who saw through it all, it is just a comedy show, but they found a fair number who treated the question seriously and even a few who admitted to having voted.
If I were a US voter with no a priori axe to grind, the one thing I would certainly take away from the whole impeachment show is that witnesses were prevented from speaking. People can spin that all they want, I know what I think about it. Whether the average US voter has even noticed is a different matter.
Whatever is going at the level of the media, or social media, or anywhere else, the one thing that the Democrats should be doing at the grass roots level is to get people to register to vote. From what has been widely reported, there has been a widespread systematic effort to dis-enfranchise federal voters in the US and given the ignorance of most people on how the system works, it might be a full-time job for a lot of staffers to educate their supporters about how to vote. From my point of view, this silliness exists only because the US insists on making the right to vote a political matter instead of what it should be, a civic issue dealt with by a public body. (Btw, Alan is going to pipe in now to tell me that the way the US does it is the best way possible just like he did the last time I brought this up. And he will still be wrong.)
I was amused by Pompeo blowing up at a reporter who asked him a question he didn't like. Politics 101: when politicians get angry at journalists, that's a sure sign that the journalist is on to something.
Drip, drip, drip, drip...................................................... Stuff keeps coming out every day. We now have a video of President Trump requesting that Ambassador Yovanovitch be removed from office. Tonight we have the outlines of what John Bolton might say if called to testify. The NY Times has an article on what is in the draft of the book and it's not painting a pretty picture: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html What morsels will come out tomorrow? Where is the President's key lawyer, Mr. Giuliani, when he is really needed?
Of course the truth doesn't matter in this age of bots and hashtags.
... We now have a video of President Trump requesting that Ambassador Yovanovitch be removed from office...
In an August 2019 discussion with Bolton, Trump said he preferred sending no aid to Ukraine until officials there turned over all materials they had about the investigation that involved Biden, as well as Hillary Clinton backers in Ukraine.
The White House has directed Bolton and other administration officials not to cooperate with the impeachment probe, although Bolton has said he would testify on the matter if subpoenaed.
As an outsider, I don't understand why is White House banning Bolton from testifying at Trump's impeachment hearing? Isn't that suppression of critical and factual information related to the impeachment?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-bolton/trump-told-bolton-he-wanted-to-hold-ukraine-aid-pending-help-on-biden-probe-nytimes-idUSKBN1ZP0VD?il=0 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-bolton/trump-told-bolton-he-wanted-to-hold-ukraine-aid-pending-help-on-biden-probe-nytimes-idUSKBN1ZP0VD?il=0)
So?
It is a presidential prerogative to appoint and recall ambassadors.
Listen to the recording and see if you agree with the way he chose to do that. His words and his tone of voice. Presidential?
Man, this is so confusing. I thought Trump and Bolton were best buds. What happened?
It's a sh*t show.
Listen to the recording and see if you agree with the way he chose to do that. His words and his tone of voice. Presidential?
[/font][/size]
[size=78%]
[/size]
[size=78%]P.S. Apologies for the garbled post, this appears to be a new forum glitch [/size]
So?
It is a presidential prerogative to appoint and recall ambassadors.
For personal reasons?
Slobodan,
I doubt that the formatting problem you are experiencing is caused by the forum software. More likely by the combination of various factors at your end.
What device and browser are you using for writing? Is the Internet speed fast enough or does it slow down as you write?
Have you ever heard the term "serving at the pleasure of the President"? Besides, nothing personal about that. If an ambassador does not support President's policy, they should either resign, or be kicked out.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump told a then-top aide in August he wanted to freeze security aid to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden, the New York Times reported on Sunday.
Hmm, let me name the ways. You are living in a world where Iran is more likely to get the bomb. You are living in a world where the climate is more likely to change in disastrous ways. W where the air and water are more polluted. You are living in a country where scientific expertise is being stripped from the government. Where mendacity and venality have become the norm at the highest levels of government. Where the rule of law is flouted. Etc etc etc.
Are you really not aware of all this? Or do you just not care?
So you prefer a corrupt President over a valuable and respected diplomat, just because he can fire people at will, or start a war?...
You want fries with those jobs?
The most one can say about Trump is that he didn't screw it up.
Hi, Peter. I'm fully aware that this is the kind of garbage our fake news media pump out by the bushel. I'm aware enough of what's really going on to ignore it. How about you? Guess not.
Which Obama did, again and again.
Yes, because that's who we elected. We didn't elect her and couldn't care less about her "value and respectability." However, my "yes" doesn't mean I agree with your descriptor "corrupt."
The economy has been on an upward trajectory since after the 2008 crash. Tying current economic performance with the sitting President's actions is a mug's game. They manipulate strategic levers, which by definition means that their effects are diffuse and felt over the long term. Correlating the number of jobs created last month with current politics is propaganda. Unfortunately, everyone engages in it.
Your assertion that Obama screwed up the economy is simply ridiculous. You're just repeating Trump talking points. We have enough of that from politicians.
More generally, the constant references back to Obama and Hilary are getting old. Change the record.
Hi, Peter. I'm fully aware that this is the kind of garbage our fake news media pump out by the bushel. I'm aware enough of what's really going on to ignore it. How about you? Guess not.
So your answer is that you don't care. Why am I not surprised.
The economy has been on an upward trajectory since after the 2008 crash. Tying current economic performance with the sitting President's actions is a mug's game. They manipulate strategic levers, which by definition means that their effects are diffuse and felt over the long term. Correlating the number of jobs created last month with current politics is propaganda. Unfortunately, everyone engages in it.
Your assertion that Obama screwed up the economy is simply ridiculous. You're just repeating Trump talking points. We have enough of that from politicians.
More generally, the constant references back to Obama and Hilary are getting old. Change the record.
... but others have the right to judge that action, maybe even the duty to call him on it. You may not like that, but that's ok.
But I'm afraid we'll all pay the piper later on.
We'd appreciate it if you shared with us your alternate sources of information, given that the ones mentioned so far are so unreliable.
"afraid" ? Really? Debt is debt. The chickens will come home to roost. He stole that money from your kids and their kids.Well, congress is responsible for spending and the budget. They should have cut spending the same time they cut taxes. Of course he's involved as much as they are. But so are the voters who refuse to ever give up a government benefit. SO all the politicians, president and congressmen and senators alike, all go on spending like drunken sailors. Otherwise they''ll lose our greedy vote. It's all our fault and it's been going on for decades.
Yes, because that's who we elected. We didn't elect her and couldn't care less about her "value and respectability." However, my "yes" doesn't mean I agree with your descriptor "corrupt."
Relevant to this topic is a new poll where a bunch of people all over the political spectrum were presented with a list of 30 media sources, ranging from very liberal to very conservative, and asked which ones they trusted. The conservative-leaning responders trusted only 7, and 4 of them were Fox, Breitbart, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. Amazing! Four or the most inaccurate news sources on earth, as proven over and over, and so many people actually trust them?!?! I knew this, of course, but to see it laid out in black and white.....?
"We" did not elect him. "We" (the American people) rejected him by a large majority.We're going in circles. We already nauseously discussed the electoral system ad infinitum.
"We" did not elect him. "We" (the American people) rejected him by a large majority.
Relevant to this topic is a new poll where a bunch of people all over the political spectrum were presented with a list of 30 media sources, ranging from very liberal to very conservative, and asked which ones they trusted. The conservative-leaning responders trusted only 7, and 4 of them were Fox, Breitbart, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. Amazing! Four or the most inaccurate news sources on earth, as proven over and over, and so many people actually trust them?!?! I knew this, of course, but to see it laid out in black and white.....?
Validation, please. This document says that you're exaggerating by a factor of two.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
You want fries with those jobs?
Not directly Trump-related, but I am sure he would approve. The GOP government of North Dakota passed a law that in order to register to vote you must have a valid street address, such as 123 Main St, Anytown, ND. The GOP knew perfectly well that the Native American reservations, where thousands of citizens live, simply are not set up with street addresses. So thousands of people do not have street addresses and cannot get them--and these most original of US citizens, who lean Democratic, are not allowed to vote.
The GOP continues its long slide into vileness.
Where are you getting this horse-hockey, Peter? Oh yeah. I see that some of it comes from NPR, that famously unbiased, taxpayer-supported outfit. Here are the facts:The sources you linked to confirm Peter's position, that in ND if you don't have a residential street address, you can't vote.
https://vip.sos.nd.gov/idrequirements.aspx
https://www.courthousenews.com/eighth-circuit-upholds-north-dakota-voter-id-law/
and
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/oct/23/occupy-democrats/native-americans-werent-last-get-right-vote-occupy/
Right, Fab, so this acceptable form of identification rules out native Americans?What part of "current North Dakota residential address" don't you understand. If you don't have a street address, you can't vote.
"Tribal government issued identification (including those issued by BIA for a tribe located in North Dakota, any other tribal agency or entity, or any other document that sets forth the tribal member’s name, date of birth, and current North Dakota residential address)"
Not directly Trump-related, but I am sure he would approve. The GOP government of North Dakota passed a law that in order to register to vote you must have a valid street address, such as 123 Main St, Anytown, ND. The GOP knew perfectly well that the Native American reservations, where thousands of citizens live, simply are not set up with street addresses. So thousands of people do not have street addresses and cannot get them--and these most original of US citizens, who lean Democratic, are not allowed to vote.Here's an AP article covering: Native Americans not stripped of voting rights in North Dakota
The GOP continues its long slide into vileness.
How do you know if the poll wasn;t biased? Why don;t you provide the link so we can check?
We're going in circles. We already nauseously discussed the electoral system ad infinitum.
Yet what I say is still true.
Find it yourself, I am not your librarian. Anyway, if you don't like the result you'll just squawk "fake news" and ignore it.
Last I checked, Hannity is not a media source. He is a biased commentator, which he admits to. Second, why the hell would you put Limbaugh on that list? He too is not a news source, which I would consider an entire network or company.
Seems like this could be a stacked sample to make a point. Please provide the entire study.
I did not make the list of news sources, the survey people did. And don't ask me to provide the link. I am not your librarian. You can look it up yourself. But of course, if you manage to find it, you will immediately label it as "fake news."
Peter, from now on, anything you post regarding some 3rd party source without you verifying it I am going to consider it made up BS on your part.
Just like any professor grading an essay.
FYI, the polite thing to do would be to at least mention where you read it, which I would find impossible to believe you forgot altogether. But you’re not the most polite person on this forum.
American politics has been dominated by the Democratic and Republican Parties since the Civil War. That gives us the illusion of stability — that today’s political divisions cut roughly the same lines as yesteryear.
But in recent decades, the two parties have been changing, and fast. Those changes are ideological — the Democratic Party has moved left, and the Republican Party has moved right. But more fundamentally, those changes are compositional: Democrats have become more diverse, urban, young and secular, and the Republican Party has turned itself into a vehicle for whiter, older, more Christian and more rural voters.
This is the root cause of intensifying polarization: Our differences, both ideological and demographic, map onto our party divisions today in ways they didn’t in the past. But the changes have not affected the parties symmetrically.
Put simply, Democrats can’t win running the kinds of campaigns and deploying the kinds of tactics that succeed for Republicans. They can move to the left — and they are — but they can’t abandon the center or, given the geography of American politics, the center-right, and still hold power. Democrats are modestly, but importantly, restrained by diversity and democracy. Republicans are not.
A simple search on Google, it was the 3rd link in the list of results (the other two linked to older topics), turned up this article:
Opinion
Why Democrats Still Have to Appeal to the Center, but Republicans Don’t
Polarization has changed the two parties — just not in the same way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/opinion/sunday/democrats-republicans-polarization.html
A simple search on Google, it was the 3rd link in the list of results (the other two linked to older topics), turned up this article:Well, the story was in the New York Times, and we know that supporters of Trump think the New York Times is fake news.
Opinion
Why Democrats Still Have to Appeal to the Center, but Republicans Don’t
Polarization has changed the two parties — just not in the same way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/opinion/sunday/democrats-republicans-polarization.html
Hi, Peter. So as far as you're concerned, the only jobs worth having are as CEO of a multinational?I didn't say that. You did. Please don't volunteer my opinions for me.
You'd rather have your government hand out taxpayers' money to unemployed people than let them make a buck pushing hamburgers and fries? Well, that's certainly the spirit that pumped up Venezuela's economy to its world-beating level.
What's "Presidential"?
. But many presidents have resorted to vulgar language at some point during their tenure in the Oval Office. Yet some presidents had more of a reputation for their foul mouths than others.
I didn't say that. You did. Please don't volunteer my opinions for me.
Venezuela failed due to corruption, cronyism, mismanagement and failure to adjust to falling oil prices, not due to paying the unemployed to work in fast food restaurants.
... Venezuela failed due to corruption, cronyism, mismanagement and failure to adjust to falling oil prices...
Ambassadors not only serve at the pleasure of the president. They are the president's voice.
Artist previously known as Socialism.
Nadler, Lofgren, and Jeffries are working tirelessly to dislodge President Trump for delaying aid to Ukraine when they themselves voted to stop such relief, dead in its tracks.
On July 26, 2018, all three voted against the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which included $250 million in security assistance to Ukraine.
Even worse, Nadler opposed $300 million in aid to Ukraine when he voted against the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. Astonishingly, Nadler’s vote was on December 11, 2019, two days after he chaired a Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing and exactly one week before he was the House floor manager for the December 17 debate and December 18 votes on articles of impeachment.
Seems to me they should be the country's voice, not the president's, or do you think you live in a dictatorship.
Oh, please! Enough with those cutesy proclamations!
What exactly is the "country's voice"? When was the last time, this country, or any country, in any point in history, spoke with a single voice as the "country's voice"? That's why we have executive and legislative branches, to represent the country. As you can imagine, the "country's voice" under Democrats is quite different than the "country's voice" under Republicans. Or any other political division in any other country.
For a bunch of people who claim to be clear-eyed and cynical about the world, the slavish adulation of a goofball like him is alarming.
Democrat impeachment managers voted AGAINST military aid to Ukraine
Please don't insult our intelligence, and list which other elements were in that NDAA 2019 which could explain why certain Representatives voted in favor of, or against, the total package.
It's so funny to watch the former Florida AG going after Hunter Biden's joining the board of Burisma. One could equally attack Elaine Chao, aka Ms. Mitch McConnell for her service on US corporate boards. She served on the Wells Fargo board for a number of years when I was a shareholder and never raised any objection to the predatory actions for which Wells Fargo was fined and sanctioned. If this is the best that the President's team can do it's pretty pathetic. Of course we could also discuss the Chinese trademarks that were mysteriously granted to Ivanka Trump and the phony stuff the Trump family pulled in trying to sell condo units in a building where nobody wanted to live. Corruption is endemic with this family and one reason the President wants to stay in office is he will be facing a number of criminal and civil lawsuits when he leaves office.
It's so funny to watch the former Florida AG going after Hunter Biden's joining the board of Burisma. One could equally attack Elaine Chao, aka Ms. Mitch McConnell for her service on US corporate boards. She served on the Wells Fargo board for a number of years when I was a shareholder and never raised any objection to the predatory actions for which Wells Fargo was fined and sanctioned. If this is the best that the President's team can do it's pretty pathetic. Of course we could also discuss the Chinese trademarks that were mysteriously granted to Ivanka Trump and the phony stuff the Trump family pulled in trying to sell condo units in a building where nobody wanted to live. Corruption is endemic with this family and one reason the President wants to stay in office is he will be facing a number of criminal and civil lawsuits when he leaves office.
One big question is why the Republican Congress in 2017 when the President first came into office did not launch any oversight investigations of Hunter Biden. It was only after VP Biden announced his candidacy that this happened and of course the Republicans had already lost the House. This is all just too funny and I can't wait for the next Parnas video drop.
Currently on TV live the Republicans are making the case in front of the Senate about Biden's corruption - how Hunter got a sweetheart deal and how his father the VP Joe Biden protected him by insisting that Ukraine fire the prosecutor or Obama would withhold 1 billion dollars in military aid. So it seems the Bidens were doing what everyone is accusing Trump of doing. Small world.
Like I posted previously, this is all bad for Biden's nomination. I don't understand why Pelosi pushed it. She's shooting Biden while aiming at Trump. Biden gets smeared but Trump will get off because the Republicans will vote to acquit. Maybe Democrats want to destroy Biden because they feel he's going to lose against TRump. That opens the nomination to a closed convention where a Bloomberg or so other stronger candidate (Hillary?) would wind up being selected to run against Trump.
Because, Alan, They. Are. LYING. The timeline is all wrong - Neither Burisma nor Biden was under investigation when Ukraine was pressured into removing Shokin. Further, the EU, independent of Biden, the US, had been pushing for the same as a matter of policy. Further still, all of these people wanted Shokin replaced because he WASN'T being aggressive enough. Every source at the time confirms this, and I linked several contemporaneous articles here from various EU media sources that were published at the time.Yes it was very convenient that the prosecutor was a crook. Then the real reason VP Biden had for getting rid of him, to protect his son, could be explained away. VP Biden was told to recuse himself by other Democrats including President Obama because it wouldn't look good being involved in this matter because his son worked for the corrupt corporation Burisma that was being investigated. But he didn't. Why not? Well, protecting his son could be the reason. Certainly there's an appearance of something afoul that would call for an investigation. So Trump did his job calling for it. Biden should have recused himself. Now he and his son look like crooks.
What don't y'all understand about this??? Literally, this has the same factual credibility as it would if Trump was claiming Biden was a space alien.
Not Trump. He can hardly put five words together in a sentence. This is not an opinion, this is an observation.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-bolton-idUSKBN1ZP0VD
How are you Trump supporters going to explain us why the Republicans will not ask Bolton to testify?
Cheers,
Bernard
How about we actually find out If the WP is actually telling the truth, before you run off all half cocked...You mean by having Bolton testify?
Because, Alan, They. Are. LYING. The timeline is all wrong - Neither Burisma nor Biden was under investigation when Ukraine was pressured into removing Shokin. Further, the EU, independent of Biden, the US, had been pushing for the same as a matter of policy. Further still, all of these people wanted Shokin replaced because he WASN'T being aggressive enough. Every source at the time confirms this, and I linked several contemporaneous articles here from various EU media sources that were published at the time.
What don't y'all understand about this??? Literally, this has the same factual credibility as it would if Trump was claiming Biden was a space alien because he was trying to cut off SETI funding lest he be outed..
Well why don’t you prove your point about all of this by posting your research? Then we can compare your “timeline” woth Glenn Becks, who has invested considerable effort to actually review court documents from Ukraine. He made some very interesting finds.Glenn Beck? Seriously?
You mean by having Bolton testify?
You mean by having Bolton testify?Let's get the Bidens to testify. Then we can find out how everyone is corrupt. Which is worse? Trump using his office to get re-elected. Or Biden using his office to enrich his son? I think bribery is in the constitution as a High Crime. If Biden wins the presidency, then the House could impeach him for Bribery. The Constitution doesn;t define a time limit. He didn't have to do it during a future presidency. He could be impeached for previous bribery while being vice president under Obama. Now wouldn't that be interesting. :)
Glenn Beck? Seriously?
I have no problem with Bolton testifying. But has he either confirmed or denied the story by the WP? Maybe the WP can actually give it’s readers something other than their current raft of nameless “sources”. Don’t you want from your “news” outlets? Or is it any port in a storm when it benefits your TBS?It's a NYT story. I don't know what TBS stands for.
It's a NYT story. I don't know what TBS stands for.
Glenn Beck? Seriously?
Well why don’t you prove your point about all of this by posting your research? Then we can compare your “timeline” woth Glenn Becks, who has invested considerable effort to actually review court documents from Ukraine. He made some very interesting finds.
Currently on TV live the Republicans are making the case in front of the Senate about Biden's corruption - how Hunter got a sweetheart deal and how his father the VP Joe Biden protected him by insisting that Ukraine fire the prosecutor or Obama would withhold 1 billion dollars in military aid. So it seems the Bidens were doing what everyone is accusing Trump of doing. Small world.
What on earth does that have to do with the charges against Trump?If the Bidens hadn't done anything that is or has the appearance of being corrupt, there would have been no point in Trump calling for their investigation. An investigation under these circumstances makes it perfectly legal. A twelve year-old knows what the Bidens did looks fishy. Only someone in complete denial thinks VP Biden acted in the country's interest only by getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired. How can you see corruption so clearly with Trump but are oblivious to it with Biden? Of course Trump did the same thing. Using a legitimate reason for an investigation as the excuse to go after his opponent. But people are allowed to walk and chew gum at the same time. Biden should have recused himself. I guess his son;s job was more important.
... The timeline is all wrong - Neither Burisma nor Biden was under investigation when Ukraine was pressured into removing Shokin. Further, the EU, independent of Biden, the US, had been pushing for the same as a matter of policy. Further still, all of these people wanted Shokin replaced because he WASN'T being aggressive enough. Every source at the time confirms this, and I linked several contemporaneous articles here from various EU media sources that were published at the time.
What don't y'all understand about this???...
Because those are just claims without proof. I have yet to see a single piece of compelling evidence for the above. From what I remember, you did post ONE link to an Irish news piece with a generic complaint about corruption in Ukraine. Never seen anything linking the ouster of Shokin to, say, MMF loan, or anything concrete, like Biden's 1 billion blackmail. Yes, everybody complained about corruption in Ukraine, but that is a far cry from linking it to a single person.
So, several questions:
- if investigation into Burisma was stalled because Shokin was not aggressive enough, what happened after his ouster? The investigation renewed with a gusto? Didn't happen.
- does anyone really believe that the source of corruption in Ukraine was one guy??? Hence his ouster would end it? And a billion dollars can be freely given without fear of further corruption? Several years later, Ukraine is still #1 corrupt country in the world.
- everyone involved in the investigation of Burisma, and that is not just Ukraine and Shokin, but EU was investigating it, was perfectly aware that the son of the US vice-president is sitting on its board. And everyone involved understood how awkward would be to investigate it, if not downright dangerous (for one's career). Especially after Biden so publicly put everyone in their place with his $1 billion blackmail. Nobody had to say a word, but everyone involved understood without a question that investigating Burisma is out of the question.
- if the EU complained that they could not finalize their investigation in Burisma because Shokin was dragging his feet, why didn't they continue after his ouster? Instead they freed Burisma's frozen funds soon after Biden's blackmail.
- where were the brave leftie whistleblowers to talk to their congressman about how uncomfortable they were with the glaringly apparent VP's conflict of interest? They wouldn't betray their guy, of course.
- if the aid to Ukraine was of such a national security importance, was it really in the U.S. national interest to withhold one.billion.dollars over a single guy!?
If the Bidens hadn't done anything that is or has the appearance of being corrupt, there would have been no point in Trump calling for their investigation.
Trump didn't ask for an investigation, he just wanted them to announce an investigation, in order to hurt his personal opponent.
Btw, “personal” opponent!?
Bart, are you scheduled to testify soon? I am surprised you have not already been invited, given your first-hand knowledge.
I have no problem with Bolton testifying. But has he either confirmed or denied the story by the WP? Maybe the WP can actually give it’s readers something other than their current raft of nameless “sources”. Don’t you want from your “news” outlets? Or is it any port in a storm when it benefits your TBS?
American taxpayers don't give our dollars to foreign countries for nothing. We expect something from them. We're not in the charity business. Certainly Trump isn;t. Quid quo pros are perfectly normal.
I have just counted, it's the 72nd time you write the same non sense.
No, quid pro quos are not normal, and certainly not when what is being exchanged is a personal favor to the president that will provide him an advantage against a key political rival.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, if you stop making the same point, I'll stop making the same counterpoint. :)
In any case, don't you think it's amusing that the Democrats are calling Trump's quid pro quo illegal while VP Biden and the Obama administration did the same thing. Obama and Biden threatened to withhold 1 billion military aid from Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor and cleared up their corruption. It's like they're accusing the Republicans for the same thing they did in the same country - Ukraine. Either quid pro quos are legal or illegal. Make up your mind.
That's exactly what you said, and I quote: "You want fries with those jobs?"
No, Venezuela failed due to socialism, which pays the unemployed to be faithful socialists.
As mentioned, the story is coming from the NYT.
What happens if Bolton confirms the story? Is that going to change your earlier reading of the testimony of Sonderland about the existence of a Quid Pro Quo?
Or are you going to tell us that Bolton's story will only be relevant if he testifies officially?
Cheers,
Bernard
And Obama and Biden didn’t benefit from it.
Cheers,
Bernard
ROFLMAO
Nice attempt at deflection. Now why not answer the question?
Go back in the thread... it's there. As I recall from the Glenn back stuff, he thinks the fact that George Soros talked to someone is important, relies on Shokin himself claiming he was wronged and was TOTALLY INNOCENT, and on a false report that a "do not prosecute"list was given to Ukraine by Yavanovitch.
But hey, you do you. It totally makes more sense than the idea that Donald Trump did something petty and stupid. Really. ::)
Your question, I believe, was "What's presidential?" "Presidential" begins with honorable behavior. Of that, we have seen none.
Do we really need to list them again? Just off the top of my head, here are a few. They are legion, but it's bed time and you won't read this anyway.
He lies constantly about things that are easily disproved, can't speak, spell or write coherently or accurately, brags of his sexual assaults, stiffs his creditors, settles with consumers for tens of millions of dollars in partial compensation for his business malpractices, diverts charity funds for his own use, pays porn stars to have sex with him, physically shoves people aside when there are cameras around, can't close an umbrella, is the laughing stock of most of the western political world and he cheats at golf.
Totally different situations and you know it.Biden benefitted by getting the prosecutor fired who was investigating Burisma, the company that his son was getting paid $50K a month for a no show job because he was the VP Biden's son and had a channel into the White House. Wink Wink nod nod.
The firing of the prosecutor was an international action that went through official channels.
And Obama and Biden didn’t benefit from it.
Cheers,
Bernard
So I found your “research”. Went and found the articles. This stuff is weak. So many holes. But at least I now know where you are coming from.
Now, Beck. Your claim the do not prosecute list was a false claim, Beck has the docs that prove that one wrong. Shokin is allowed to make his claims, and again Beck has the docs. It’s really quite clear you don’t know what Bech has at all. Spend the two hours and watch him lay it all out. You might actually learn something.
Interesting note. I don’t listen to his radio show often but I had to drive an hour last Friday to a meeting so I listened. He has Ukrainian court docs. ( and I’ll admit I’ve not Seen them) that supposedly show Hunter Biden was scheduled to be deposed about Burisma the day AFTER Shokin was fired. If true, it’s a game changer. Just don’t expect the weasel MSM to actually try and dig that one out.
Then read John Soloman’s.stuff. If you don’t you can’t make an informed decision.
So was JFK “presidential”? Shall we ask Miss Monroe? Clinton? Johnson? Heck even Obama could not even tell the truth about ACA, and bowed down to the world.
You may not have done so but I didn’t vote for “presidential”. I didn’t vote for a priest. I voted for exactly the opposite. I much prefer results. I’m thrilled with what we got.
So was JFK “presidential”?He took America to the moon, ensuring the admiration of the entire world. Stared down Russian adventurism in Cuba, ensuring the admiration of the entire world.
Shall we ask Miss Monroe?What shall we ask her? She was a movie star, not a political actor.
Clinton?Clinton presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history. During the last three years of Clinton's presidency, the Congressional Budget Office reported a budget surplus—the first such surplus since 1969. (since you're "thrilled" with such things)
Johnson?Johnson is ranked favorably by many historians because of his domestic policies and the passage of many major laws that affected civil rights, gun control, wilderness preservation, and Social Security, although he also drew substantial criticism for his escalation of the Vietnam War.
Heck even Obama could not even tell the truth about ACA,But he did earn the respect of most of the world's politicians (and many of it's citizens) and incidentally rescue America (and possibly the western world) from the economic disaster resulting from corruption and greed fostered by previous administrations.
I much prefer results. I’m thrilled with what we got.
Is it the islamophobic part, the white nationalist part, or the third grade reading and speaking level that thrills you the most? Just curious.
OK, I'll challenge your whataboutism just one more time. But then it really is time for bed.
He took America to the moon, ensuring the admiration of the entire world. Stared down Russian adventurism in Cuba, ensuring the admiration of the entire world.
He published his book Profiles in Courage, which won a Pulitzer Prize. Trump had his books written for him, but claimed authorship. (see "cheats at golf", above)
What shall we ask her? She was a movie star, not a political actor.
Clinton presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history. During the last three years of Clinton's presidency, the Congressional Budget Office reported a budget surplus—the first such surplus since 1969. (since you're "thrilled" with such things)
Johnson is ranked favorably by many historians because of his domestic policies and the passage of many major laws that affected civil rights, gun control, wilderness preservation, and Social Security, although he also drew substantial criticism for his escalation of the Vietnam War.
But he did earn the respect of most of the world's politicians (and many of it's citizens) and incidentally rescue America (and possibly the western world) from the economic disaster resulting from corruption and greed fostered by previous administrations.
Good for you. And all the others who put their pocketbooks ahead of their brains.
Is it the islamophobic part, the white nationalist part, or the third grade reading and speaking level that thrills you the most? Just curious.
Ok. So contemporary accounts from the EU, before anyone had any reason to slant the coverage, are “weak” but retroactive claims from Glenn Beck and John Solomon are solid? That’s your claim?
OK, I'll challenge your whataboutism just one more time. But then it really is time for bed.Peter, I was there and remember the "staring down the Russian missiles" nearly started a nuclear WWIII. Because of Kennedy's Bay of Pigs fiasco, Castro invited the Russians to install their missiles in Cuba creating the crisis. Kennedy's amateurish and weak response when he met Soviet Chairman Khrushchev convinced the Russian he had nothing to fear from Kennedy. So he install the missiles, cementing the crisis. You need to read some history to get the facts right.
He took America to the moon, ensuring the admiration of the entire world. Stared down Russian adventurism in Cuba, ensuring the admiration of the entire world.
He published his book Profiles in Courage, which won a Pulitzer Prize. Trump had his books written for him, but claimed authorship. (see "cheats at golf", above)
What shall we ask her? She was a movie star, not a political actor.
Clinton presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history. During the last three years of Clinton's presidency, the Congressional Budget Office reported a budget surplus—the first such surplus since 1969. (since you're "thrilled" with such things)
Johnson is ranked favorably by many historians because of his domestic policies and the passage of many major laws that affected civil rights, gun control, wilderness preservation, and Social Security, although he also drew substantial criticism for his escalation of the Vietnam War.
But he did earn the respect of most of the world's politicians (and many of it's citizens) and incidentally rescue America (and possibly the western world) from the economic disaster resulting from corruption and greed fostered by previous administrations.
Good for you. And all the others who put their pocketbooks ahead of their brains.
I would have no problem if he confirmed it, because in my opinion it’s still not impeachable.
[...]
Shall I go on?
American taxpayers don't give our dollars to foreign countries for nothing. We expect something from them. We're not in the charity business. Certainly Trump isn;t. Quid quo pros are perfectly normal.
Which must be the reason why the lawyers of Trump have insisted that the lack of a direct witness was a key aspect demonstrating his innocence... ;D ;D ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, you 'forgot' Bush (Sr & Jr) ...OK. Jr lied about WMD and I'm not sure what Sr. did. But the point is our presidents are far less than angels when it comes to personal and political deceptiveness. Isn't that the definition of a politician? Plus most of them are lawyers and well, no disrespect to any counselors here. But they know how to spin a tale or two. Trump has the burden of never have done politics and not being a lawyer. So he's not smooth like the slippery and sleazy Schiff or Pocahontas. Heck, President William Clinton was called Slick Willie in his home state of Arkansas before he moved on to bigger and better corruptions. So our people understand our pols pretty well.
But there was no Quid Pro Quo, according to Trump.He's entitled to his opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I'm saying that calling for an investigation and threatening withholding foreign aid is acceptable when the Bidens may have broken American law.
Which must be the reason why the lawyers of Trump have insisted that the lack of a direct witness was a key aspect demonstrating his innocence... ;D ;D ;D
And also why Mitt Romney and Susan Colins are now requesting the testimony of Bolton...
You are making a lot of sense here Craig and demonstrating more objectivity. Yes, I am being ironic.
But I am not surprised, you are aligned with the "deep lie" approach of other key Republicans such as Alan Dershowitz who now claims that a crime is needed to impeach a president while he claimed the exact opposite before the impeachement of Bill clinton. Truth doens't seem to have any relevance for you guys, does it?
Cheers,
Bernard
Trump derangement syndrome.
Which must be the reason why the lawyers of Trump have insisted that the lack of a direct witness was a key aspect demonstrating his innocence... ;D ;D ;DThe NY Times and others on the left always have an October surprise. They drag out information that they supposedly got at the last minute to damage the other side. They do this every October before the November elections, hence the term. They did it with Justice Kavanaugh. Who's the reporter who did it against Bush, I think he was from CBS, and lost his job. It's a smear campaign based on rumor that's hard to counter. You think the public would have learned already and not be fooled so easily.
And also why Mitt Romney and Susan Colins are now requesting the testimony of Bolton...
You are making a lot of sense here Craig and demonstrating more objectivity. Yes, I am being ironic.
But I am not surprised, you are aligned with the "deep lie" approach of other key Republicans such as Alan Dershowitz who now claims that a crime is needed to impeach a president while he claimed the exact opposite before the impeachement of Bill clinton. Truth doens't seem to have any relevance for you guys, does it?
Cheers,
Bernard
I love it that people now have a handle to use.
Yes, you 'forgot' Bush (Sr & Jr) ...
Boys, boys...this is silly. You can take any president in history and find both good and bad things that he did.That's something we finally agree on. :)
But there was no Quid Pro Quo, according to Trump.
More infantile behavior from this administration. After Pompeo fell to the floor and drummed his heels over unwanted questions from an NPR reporter, the State Dept. has taken a different NPR reporter off the press list for Pompeo's upcoming official trip to Ukraine.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/27/npr-reporter-pompeo-clash-plane-106969
The problem isn't the existence of a quid pro quo. The problem is that it was for Trump's personal gain.The issue is whether what he did was legal. Getting a side benefit does not make it illegal. We all do things for different reasons. But we can't get into the heads of people to try to determine these things. Since the Bidens appear to have done something illegal, the president, any president, is allowed to follow up to ask for an investigation.
Boy the brain washing runs deep in you.
...and yes it is late and I was up at 5 so I'll be happy to rebut your "whataboutyisms" tomorrow.
I'm saying that calling for an investigation and threatening withholding foreign aid is acceptable when the Bidens may have broken American law.
What "American law" are you referring to? The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 U.S.C. §78dd-1) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78dd-1),* prohibits certain American business entities from paying bribes to officials of other countries. I'm not aware that President Trump or even any of his most ardent defenders has accused former Vice President Biden of violating it or any other federal statute.
The issue of Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine was raised in 2015 by career officials of the U.S. State Department, who were concerned that it created the appearance of a conflict of interest for the then vice president. (Biden-père could only have had an actual conflict of interest if he had personally been receiving some of the income paid by the Ukrainian company to Biden-fils, which no one has ever alleged.) When the State Department contacted Biden's staff to discuss the issue, an aide reportedly declined to raise it with the vice president, saying Biden didn't have the "bandwidth" to deal with Hunter Biden's business arrangements in Ukraine while his other son was dying of cancer.
___
*In 2017, President Trump reportedly told then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to "get rid of the law" because it is "just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas." Tillerson had to explain to Trump that an act of Congress is required to repeal a law.
The conflict of interest is that Joe Biden used his VP office to pressure a foreign country to fire their investigator looking into corruption of the firm his son Hunter Biden was getting paid $50k a month from for a no-show job. Exactly why they hired his son in the first place. For protection. Wink wink nod nod. All the rest is conversation.Alan, maybe you should start a new thread about Hunter Biden, now you are just repeatingly polluting this thread that is about the real and actual impeachment of Donald Trump.
Amazing, innit? What historical fact can do?
Breathlessly awaiting your point-by point rebuttal of my answers to your request.
No need to reply point by point since you entire post is a non sequitur.
zzzzz
Peter, I was there and remember the "staring down the Russian missiles"So that gives you over-arching power to pass judgment on those events?
You need to read some history to get the facts right.I have done so, thank you.
Clinton lied to a grand jury about "not having sex with that woman"Yup. He did. In fact he lied to me. He stared right into the lens and made that statement. For which I hated him.
Shall I go on?
Nice to know you failed again. Great work.
Ah, so it's not about facts, it's about winning. Thanks for that re-clarification. You stated this position before.
And then ask yourself if JFK's personal faults in regards to Miss Monroe are "Presidental".
Definitely more discreet and more presidential and also showing a class and a good taste.
Now thats funny. I wonder if Jackie found it classy and "a good taste".
Alan, maybe you should start a new thread about Hunter Biden, now you are just repeatingly polluting this thread that is about the real and actual impeachment of Donald Trump.
If she were the French First Lady, she might have. Not in the country where the god fearing men wear 2 feet long swimming shorts.
The conflict of interest is that Joe Biden used his VP office to pressure a foreign country to fire their investigator looking into corruption of the firm his son Hunter Biden was getting paid $50k a month from for a no-show job. Exactly why they hired his son in the first place. For protection. Wink wink nod nod. All the rest is conversation.
Maybe here the shorts need to be that long :)Cloak or deception?
Wrong wrong wrong. The Ukrainian investigator was fired because he *was not* investigating corruption. The dismissal was advocated by the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform--and Joe Biden. And somehow the Trumplets have turned this around into a big lie--and some saps believe it. Unfortunately these saps vote.
Cloak or deception?
Wrong wrong wrong. The Ukrainian investigator was fired because he *was not* investigating corruption. The dismissal was advocated by the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform--and Joe Biden. And somehow the Trumplets have turned this around into a big lie--and some saps believe it. Unfortunately these saps vote.The optics look awful. Biden was told to recuse himself, to not be involved because his son was working for a corrupt Ukrainian corporation. So what does he do? He gets a prosecutor fired and than brags about it. Is that the kind of political sense you want in your president?
Definitely more discreet and more presidential and also showing a class and a good taste. Compared with some deplorables who boast publicly about their p***y grabbing exploits.
The facts often lead to winning. In your case your "facts" were a loser.
Precisely. JFK didn't brag about it.
Yet you studiously avoided contesting (let alone discussing) any of my facts, instead stating they were "A perfect example of a non sequiter".
How do you know he didnt brag about it?
Just take your lumps. admit you did it wrong and move on. Just a suggestion, mind you.
If he did, at least he didn't get caught on tape doing it.
If he did, at least he didn't get caught on tape doing it.Trump never was a politician until becoming president. So he didn't care much. That's why many people like him. He tells it like it is. Of course that gets him into trouble very often today because he is a politician.
That's why many people like him. He tells it like it is.
Thanks for admitting you were wrong...again.
I wonder how all this will affect Biden's nomination.
Trump never was a politician until becoming president. So he didn't care much. That's why many people like him. He tells it like it is. Of course that gets him into trouble very often today because he is a politician.
Interesting things about the Impeachment Hearings, nearly all of which I've watched live, including the sessions before and after the holidays:
1) Those lawyers are good! Both Schiff's and Sekulow's presentations were very, very convincing.
2) The only television network in the US to offer continuous, live, commercial-free broadcast of the hearings in their entirety is the ever-hated target of <insert usual suspects here> the despicable beacon of MSM, CNN.
By contrast, Fox News studiously avoided any live coverage.
3) These hearings are an excellent window into the opaque world of US politics. Witnessing these proceedings live and unedited is privilege for all of us, especially foreigners.
[sarcasm on] At least I have the courage to do so. [/sarcasm off]
continuous, live, commercial-free broadcast of the hearings in their entirety
In case you need remedial work in reading comprehension.
By contrast, Fox News studiously avoided any live coverage
... boast publicly about their p***y grabbing exploits.
Maybe here the shorts need to be that long :)
... The dismissal was advocated by the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform...
Sorry, Les, it was not public, it was a private conversation, that should have never aired publicly.
Please quote some sources for the above claims.
...Gotta work ;)
Much better choice :)
Should be good for Buttigieg.
You probably need to think before you write, Bernard. His lawyers aren't saying anything about his "innocence." What they're saying is that an opinion isn't evidence. All we've heard or seen so far are opinions coming from people with bad cases of Trump derangement syndrome. It isn't evidence. It's the cheapest kind of hearsay and it's clearly biased.
OK, so I am the one not thinking here... ;D When you say "a proof that he is not guilty is that there is no first hand testimony", how are you not saying "a proof that he is innocent is that there is no first hand testimony"?
And... how are you not saying "our arguments would be demolished if a person with first hand evidence did testify"?
Besides, Sonderland would be a "bad case of Trump derangement syndrome"?
I wonder whether you realize that your insistence on the misguided usage of rethorics only goes to highlight how desperate your arguments are?
Cheers,
Bernard
In Western courts, you don't prove you are innocent, since you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. You just need to show you are not guilty.
Pretty basic stuff.
Exactly. I am glad to see we agree.
Proof of non guilt means innocence since innocence can only be proven by the lack of guilt.
So when the lawyers of Trump are saying he is not guilty due to the lack of first hand testimony, they are demonstrating he is innocent.
And this demonstration fails the moment a first hand testimony demonstrating his guilt is brought forward, such as the one of Bolton.
So by refusing the testimony of Bolton the Republicans are obviously preventing the demonstration of guilt from being made, which can only be seen as an obstruction to the spirit of the impeachement process.
Cheers,
Bernard
LOL, your last statement is quite the stretch btw. The whole process up to now has been nothing but partisan. That goes for the Dems just as much as it goes for the Republicans, if not more so.
Well... Bolton's (let's not forget he is a right winged Republican) testimony will demonstrate that everything the Democrats have been saying was true, which makes their action non partisan.
They just followed the spirit of the constitution and have tried to protect the Democracy in the US. Any civil servant faced with this situation who would not have started an impeachment process would have failed to execute his/her duty. Like it or not, this is the constitution of the US.
What is clearly partisan on the other hand is the way Republicans are currently conducting the Senate inquiries.
But by now this doesn't matter anymore really, all these facts demonstrate with sufficient clarity where the truth is. The only outcome of the current trial is going to be a fatal loss of credibility for the GOP. Those here sticking to their position represent a few % of the population and are mostly irrelevant.
The honest and hard working Americans have understood by now.
Exactly. I am glad to see we agree.
Proof of non guilt means innocence since innocence can only be proven by the lack of guilt...
In Western courts, you don't prove you are innocent, since you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. You just need to show you are not guilty...
Hunter could be subpoenaed to testify but then not show up, or claim the 5th, after Bolton has testified.
Well... Bolton's (let's not forget he is a right winged Republican) testimony will demonstrate that everything the Democrats have been saying was true, which makes their action non partisan.
They just followed the spirit of the constitution and have tried to protect the Democracy in the US. Any civil servant faced with this situation who would not have started an impeachment process would have failed to execute his/her duty. Like it or not, this is the constitution of the US.
What is clearly partisan on the other hand is the way Republicans are currently conducting the Senate inquiries.
But by now this doesn't matter anymore really, all these facts demonstrate with sufficient clarity where the truth is. The only outcome of the current trial is going to be a fatal loss of credibility for the GOP. Those here sticking to their position represent a few % of the population and are mostly irrelevant.
The honest and hard working Americans have understood by now.
Cheers,
Bernard
In that case the Senate would more then likely give him testimonial amunity, and hold him in contempt if he then refused to testify.I'm not sure how that would be done since the DOJ prosecutes as do the states. Why just call Hunter? Call Joe Biden as well since it's his testimony that would confirm or refute whether there as something illegal going on. If Bidens got nothing to hide, he should be willing to testify. No? :)
Well... Bolton's (let's not forget he is a right winged Republican) testimony will demonstrate that everything the Democrats have been saying was true, which makes their action non partisan.Bernard, The Democrats are not concerned with the Constitution. They have their eyes on the 2020 presidential election and winning it. That's what the whole impeachment noise has been about since Trump was elected. It's been a smear campaign from day one.
They just followed the spirit of the constitution and have tried to protect the Democracy in the US. Any civil servant faced with this situation who would not have started an impeachment process would have failed to execute his/her duty. Like it or not, this is the constitution of the US.
What is clearly partisan on the other hand is the way Republicans are currently conducting the Senate inquiries.
But by now this doesn't matter anymore really, all these facts demonstrate with sufficient clarity where the truth is. The only outcome of the current trial is going to be a fatal loss of credibility for the GOP. Those here sticking to their position represent a few % of the population and are mostly irrelevant.
The honest and hard working Americans have understood by now.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, The Democrats are not concerned with the Constitution. They have their eyes on the 2020 presidential election and winning it. That's what the whole impeachment noise has been about since Trump was elected. It's been a smear campaign from day one.As i recall it were the republicans that made a 180 degrees turn when they realized that Trump was going to be the winning candidate; The democrats just were and are and stayed the democrats.
Well... Bolton's (let's not forget he is a right winged Republican) testimony will demonstrate that everything the Democrats have been saying was true, which makes their action non partisan.
They just followed the spirit of the constitution and have tried to protect the Democracy in the US. Any civil servant faced with this situation who would not have started an impeachment process would have failed to execute his/her duty. Like it or not, this is the constitution of the US.
What is clearly partisan on the other hand is the way Republicans are currently conducting the Senate inquiries.
But by now this doesn't matter anymore really, all these facts demonstrate with sufficient clarity where the truth is. The only outcome of the current trial is going to be a fatal loss of credibility for the GOP. Those here sticking to their position represent a few % of the population and are mostly irrelevant.
The honest and hard working Americans have understood by now.
Cheers,
Bernard
As i recall it were the republicans that made a 180 degrees turn when they realized that Trump was going to be the winning candidate; The democrats just were and are and stayed the democrats.
From day one Trump has been ...lying about the most simple facts anybody could check... has been daily vomiting on twitter ... has turned the presidency into a kind of family Soprano dynasty ... has even changed the course of hurricanes if they did not suite him.
And now he has tried to change the course of the election of 2020 to his advantage by abusing his presidential power.
It is in this light the consitution is under threat and action is a neccessity for democrats and republicans alike.
As i recall it were the republicans that made a 180 degrees turn when they realized that Trump was going to be the winning candidate; The democrats just were and are and stayed the democrats.You don;t know anything about America. We don;t fired our presidents. We unelect them.
From day one Trump has been ...lying about the most simple facts anybody could check... has been daily vomiting on twitter ... has turned the presidency into a kind of family Soprano dynasty ... has even changed the course of hurricanes if they did not suite him.
And now he has tried to change the course of the election of 2020 to his advantage by abusing his presidential power.
It is in this light the consitution is under threat and action is a neccessity for democrats and republicans alike.
That has got to be the craziest thing posted in this tread yet.
You don;t know anything about America. We don;t fired our presidents. We unelect them.
As they say; you don't have to go to the Antarctic to know it is cold...Looking at photos of the Grand Canyon is not the same as visiting.
Craig, you have to understand that Bernard resides in Japan. He's completely out of touch except for the "news" media and TV, both of which are oriented in one direction. He only gets one side of the story, so don't expect him to understand the situation.
It was stunning yesterday, watching the heads of Israel and of the States hold hands and mutually kiss ass, both of them under investigation for crimes of one sort or another, blithely think it wonderfull to carve out parts of the Jordan Valley and Palestinian territory. One has to wonder if they are truly mad or just think of the Palestinians as non-people; you know, like the tribes that had the run of America before the Europeans moved in with their superior weaponry.
How amazingly comforting for Benji to be negotiating Israeli expansionism with the Jewish son-in-law of the "most powerful man in the world"; and yet, some question why the Palestinians refuse to attend and thus legitimise those cosy sewing meetings! As it's said, turkeys choosing how to be cooked for Christmas seems something from the land of the absurd. Funny only the Palestinians realise that tiny detail.
Just ask how the people of Florida might feel if some non-American third party decided to tell them how little they should be allowed to retain of their own land, controlled their boat access to the Gulf and the Atlantic, and by road into the other states.
Maybe that's why the modern gun lobby is what it is: it learned from the Palestinians what can happen to you.
Rob
... One has to wonder if they are truly mad or just think of the Palestinians as non-people...
I'm not sure how that would be done since the DOJ prosecutes as do the states. Why just call Hunter? Call Joe Biden as well since it's his testimony that would confirm or refute whether there as something illegal going on. If Bidens got nothing to hide, he should be willing to testify. No? :)
Rob, wasn't it the Brits who royally (how else) screwed the Palestinians post WWII?
You don;t know anything about America. We don;t fired our presidents. We unelect them.
The testimony would be inadmissible in any court proceeding.
This is an interesting link to the Ukraine timeline and the document includes a lot of supporting links.
Great website name too. Sure to make Lib heads explode with claim of “ this is not a reputable source”. But let them dispute the claims. Nope, no need to investigate the Bidens..
https://thedonald.win/p/3ijH7Ac/the-real-ukraine-scandal-part-1/
Can anyone with the wits of an oyster take seriously a website called thedonald.win? Obviously, the answer is "no." This is on the same level as the "swift boat" gang who spent a lot of time and money spreading lies about John Kerry's service in Vietnam.
What the Bidens did or didn't do is totally irrelevant to the impeachment proceedings. They could be corrupt as hell or totally innocent, doesn't matter. The issue is what Trump did to get the Ukraine to investigate them. So, the GOP trying to call them as witnesses is nothing more than a distraction and delaying tactic.
It was stunning yesterday, watching the heads of Israel and of the States hold hands and mutually kiss ass, both of them under investigation for crimes of one sort or another, blithely think it wonderfull to carve out parts of the Jordan Valley and Palestinian territory.
What the Bidens did or didn't do is totally irrelevant to the impeachment proceedings. They could be corrupt as hell or totally innocent, doesn't matter. The issue is what Trump did to get the Ukraine to investigate them. So, the GOP trying to call them as witnesses is nothing more than a distraction and delaying tactic.
Rob, wasn't it the Brits who royally (how else) screwed the Palestinians post WWII?
...in particular, former national security advisor John Bolton, who has already revealed in the manuscript of a forthcoming memoir what he believes were Trump's motives for delaying congressionally-appropriated military assistance to Ukraine.
I'm not familiar enough with Israeli law or politics to know how the announcement will benefit Netanyahu, but the timing from Trump's perspective couldn't be better. Perhaps as soon as the end of the week, the Senate will decide by majority vote whether to summon witnesses in the impeachment trial, several of whom could provide testimony that would undermine Trump's defense—in particular, former national security advisor John Bolton, who has already revealed in the manuscript of a forthcoming memoir what he believes were Trump's motives for delaying congressionally-appropriated military assistance to Ukraine.I see it somewhat differently Chris. While Congress and the senate in particular are fussing around with political nonsense accomplishing nothing, Trump is doing stuff with Isreal, has just signed a new NAFTA agreement regarding trade between America and Canada and Mexico, and doing the other business of America. What are the Democrats going to say they did in November's election? He'll still be president.
Public opinion surveys indicate that a large majority of likely voters, including approximately half of those who identify themselves as Republicans, want witnesses to be called. But public sentiment in general tends to have less influence over American politicians than the views of the political activists within their respective parties.
I suspect the timing of the announcement of the Middle East "peace plan" and quite possibly at least to some extent its substance were intended to energize parts of Trump's political base that could influence Republican Party senators who are considering voting with the Democrats to include witness testimony rather than proceed immediately to judgment. The critical constituency isn't Jewish voters or donors, who are divided both in their party affiliations and their approach to an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, but Christian evangelicals, who believe the Jewish state is a biblical imperative and whose support or opposition is critical to many of the Republican senators who must run for re-election this year.
As many other peope, including those in Rhodesia.
It does nor forgive Israeli (100% supported physically if sometimes not verbally by the USA) and the USA for the charade taking place today and over many years.
And for Craig: lobbing rockets over the fence is tit for tat. What would you do if held virtual prisoner in your slum? Apart from emboldening Israel in grabbing ever more land for settlements, the US has contributed what, apart from arms? In echoes of Ukraine, the US also played the withholding game concerning aid to the Palestinians. Nice.
What John Bolton "believes" about Trump's "motives" is not evidence. Not even close.
It depends on what those believes are based on. Maybe Trump told him?
Rob, they have had over 30 years to work this out. Its not going to happen. Unless you destroy Israel, which I think is the goal. At least for Hamas.
Maybe that would be true in The Netherlands, Bart, but what somebody "believes," no matter what those beliefs are based on isn't admissible evidence in the United States.
No, his testimony as to what Trump said to him is admissible in any legal forum as evidence of what Trump said to him, although not as to the truth of what Trump said.
You're right, of course, Chris. I didn't say it very well. But in the end, it's the truth of what he said that matters.
I can just imagine Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow making the argument:
"Senators, you have heard John Bolton's testimony that President Trump said he was withholding congressionally-appropriated assistance to Ukraine as leverage to get the Ukrainian president to publicly announce he was investigating the Bidens, but can you believe what the president said was true?
"You all know the president is a serial liar. He makes things up all the time to suit his purpose of the moment and then, when circumstances change, claims the exact opposite of what he previously said. John Bolton testified that he believed President Trump when he spoke about Ukraine, which only goes to undermine Mr. Bolton's credibility. How could anyone be so naive as not to question everything that comes out of the president's mouth? For all we know, Mr. Trump wouldn't be able to point out Ukraine on one of Mike Pompeo's maps.
"Common sense dictates that you ignore Bolton's testimony and vote according to your political instincts, as the president's supporters expect you to do if you want them to stick with you in your next election.
"I rest my case."
Trump said to Bolton, maybe others, "That guy Biden is a crook. He shouldn't be president and should be investigated. I'm going to ask Ukraine to follow up or I'll withhold the money."
All perfectly legal.
Trump said to Bolton, maybe others, "That guy Biden is a crook. He shouldn't be president and should be investigated. I'm going to ask Ukraine to follow up or I'll withhold the money."
All perfectly legal.
No, it was a decision made by Congress to supply the funding. It was not up to Trump to withold (without approval of Congress). Especially not when for his personal benefit, and not in the (military) interests of the USA.It was not up to Obama to make a treaty with Iran without Senate approval. Our constitution states that very clearly. How about presidents that have gone to war without congressional approval. A lot worse. Presidents do all sorts of things bending the rules. But none of it's impeachable. It's like when you tell your wife "No, you can't have that new dress." And she goes out and buys it anyway. Do you get a divorce? :)
It's like when you tell your wife "No, you can't have that new dress." And she goes out and buys it anyway. Do you get a divorce? :)
No, it was a decision made by Congress to supply the funding. It was not up to Trump to withold (without approval of Congress). Especially not when for his personal benefit, and not in the (military) interests of the USA.
The aftermath of a Trump rally in New Jersey. Great citizens, these Trump supporters, real examples for their children.It would have been nice if they furnished a few more garbage cans for people's junk. What I don;t get is I counted about ten chairs people left.
The aftermath of a Trump rally in New Jersey. Great citizens, these Trump supporters, real examples for their children.
It was stunning yesterday, watching the heads of Israel and of the States hold hands and mutually kiss ass, both of them under investigation for crimes of one sort or another, blithely think it wonderfull to carve out parts of the Jordan Valley and Palestinian territory. One has to wonder if they are truly mad or just think of the Palestinians as non-people; you know, like the tribes that had the run of America before the Europeans moved in with their superior weaponry.
How amazingly comforting for Benji to be negotiating Israeli expansionism with the Jewish son-in-law of the "most powerful man in the world"; and yet, some question why the Palestinians refuse to attend and thus legitimise those cosy sewing meetings! As it's said, turkeys choosing how to be cooked for Christmas seems something from the land of the absurd. Funny only the Palestinians realise that tiny detail.
Just ask how the people of Florida might feel if some non-American third party decided to tell them how little they should be allowed to retain of their own land, controlled their boat access to the Gulf and the Atlantic, and by road into the other states.
Maybe that's why the modern gun lobby is what it is: it learned from the Palestinians what can happen to you.
Rob
Actually all he had to do was NOTIFY Congress. He then had 45 days. If Congress THEN passed a law saying it approved of his withoulding, he could do it. If not he had to spend it. Of course he did not notify Congress. Instead they issued "footnotes" to document advising of the delay and when they proposed actually releasing the funds.
However the White House lawyers, the DOJ and OMB Lawyers claimed he had immunity from that rule because he was CIC. Others disagree. The thinking was supposed to be that the notification would hinder his bargining power in respect to corruption in Ukraine. No doubt Trump is pushing the envelope. It will be interesing to see if it is tested in court.
Yourfinal point here is still undecided. Did he use the bargining chip for his own personal benefit or was there a national interest? Or both?
Maybe Chris Kern could chime in and fix everything I screwed up here :)
Must be from that 30% of the ticket holders that were Democrats...:)Yeah, it looks like they grabbed the chairs belonging to the Republicans and smashed them in protest. :)
This commentary appeared yesterday on this very topic, in which you might be interested https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/28/the-real-goal-of-trumps-middle-east-plan-108125 (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/28/the-real-goal-of-trumps-middle-east-plan-108125).There may be other reasons as well. The anti-Trump complaints falsely calling Trump an anti-Semite has forced him to go overboard to show he isn't. So first you get an embassy in Jerusalem and now this. You could blame the anti-Trumpers for actually making it harder on the Palestinians.
"Collins, along with Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah, directed the first question at Trump’s defense team.What would you expect the President's lawyer to say? Surely you didn't believe everything else they said in the preceding three days.
“If President Trump had more than one motive for his alleged conduct, such as the pursuit of personal political advantage, rooting out corruption, and the promotion of national interests, how should the Senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of Article I?” the trio asked."
In response, White House counsel Patrick Philbin said that, if there was both public interest and personal interest motivating the president’s actions, that would not be the basis for an impeachable offense. He added that concerns about corruption in Ukraine meant that the president was acting in the public interest.
Actually all he had to do was NOTIFY Congress. He then had 45 days. . . .
Yourfinal point here is still undecided. Did he use the bargining chip for his own personal benefit or was there a national interest? Or both?
Maybe Chris Kern could chime in and fix everything I screwed up here :)
. . . authorizes the deferral of budget authority in a limited range of circumstances: to provide for contingencies; to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or as specifically provided by law. . . . No officer or employee of the United States may defer budget authority for any other purpose.
I'm no expert on the interpretation of the Impoundment Control Act (http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/uscode/uscode1982-00100/uscode1982-001002017b/uscode1982-001002017b.pdf), but the U.S. Government Accountability Office decision of January 16 (https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf) notes that the law
If President Trump withheld the congressionally-appropriated assistance to Ukraine for policy reasons, as he and his defenders have stated―e.g., because he was concerned about corruption in Ukraine or wanted to ensure that European governments were incurring their share of the burden of support to that country―that apparently would be a violation of the statute, which is what the GAO concluded in its decision. In other words, the 45-day notification requirement for authorized deferrals would not apply.
If his request for "a favor" from President Zelensky would have conferred a political benefit to Trump, regardless of whether he may have had another, independent, policy rationale, that would appear to be a violation of 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit . . . [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."
Whether either of these violations of law justifies removal from office pursuant to the constitutional provisions for impeachment is, of course, a decision for the Senate to make.
Craig, you have to understand that Bernard resides in Japan. He's completely out of touch except for the "news" media and TV, both of which are oriented in one direction. He only gets one side of the story, so don't expect him to understand the situation.
My favourite takeaway from today's deliberations:
"In answering questions, Mr. Trump’s lawyers offered their most expansive defense of the president to date, effectively arguing that a president cannot be removed from office for demanding political favors if he believes his re-election is in the national interest."
“If the president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,”
What would you expect the President's lawyer to say? Surely you didn't believe everything else they said in the preceding three days.Frank, the point isn't what Trump's lawyers said. You don't have to believe them. However, the main point is that the wavering Republicans have raised the main question about what Trump did. They are reflecting what I;ve said for weeks. That an act is legal as long as one of the reasons it was done was for public interest. The fact it had a tangential personal value to the president does not make the act illegal or impeachable. So the republican argument in the end will be Trump's act was legal for that reason regardless of any personal benefit he may have received. That will be the justification for the Senate finding him not guilty.
This commentary appeared yesterday on this very topic, in which you might be interested https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/28/the-real-goal-of-trumps-middle-east-plan-108125 (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/28/the-real-goal-of-trumps-middle-east-plan-108125).
The Palestinians should try to make the best deal they can. The train is pulling out of the station.
A fascinating of Republican logic was outlined by Trump's attorney Alan Dershowitz...
"Every public official that I know believes that his reelection is the public's interest... and if a President does something which he believes will get him reelected in the public interest that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment".
Which can be summed up in "you can do anything if you believe in yourself".
We live in a crazy world where this kind of utter crap is said with straight face in from of the Senate of the US... even in North Korea this would be considered as out of this world crazy.
Cheers,
Bernard
I watched it too and found it not only bizarre, but also stupid.
... 2. “Personal” gain!? Half of America wants him to remain president for their own gain...
Thanks, Les.
Dershowitz must have read my post in this thread from a month ago:
I don't know why the thanks, but it can't be disputed that half of America wanted Trump as a president. Although, I'm not sure if the percentage is still the same.
SS officer to a Jew : you can walk to a gas camera yourself or we can make a mincemeat out of your first and drag you in... make the best deal you can
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXZIZ2-Yn20
Such a relevant analysis...
Bernard, please either remove your post or follow the forum rules and provide a sufficient explanation what the link is about.
“Thanks” for calling me stupid, as I argued the same as Dershowitz, a month before him. 😉
As for the percentage, no, it didn’t stay the same. It went up.
We already have a moderator.
To compare today’s US and Israel with Nazi extermination camps is incredibly stupid and crass.
That was not a comparison being made: it was an example to illustrate the Hobson's choice condition of the current game, the choice being offered the Palestinians.
Play fair; you are not a politician.
;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXZIZ2-Yn20
Such a relevant analysis... For the busy ones or those allergic to CNN, it's a factual description of the total change of behavior of Fox News against Bolton... who worked as a consultant for Fox News for 11 years. He has now become a big vilain.
Pathetic.
Watching these people without the least bit of ethics makes me sick.
Cheers,
Bernard
In his defense of President Donald Trump, attorney and Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz added a third variant to Nixon and Louis XIV: If a President thinks his re-election is in the public interest, anything he does in pursuit of his re-election is legal.
The Dershowitz Doctrine would make presidents immune from every criminal act, so long as they could plausibly claim they did it to boost their re-election effort.
Yea and the Dems have hated him for years and now he’s their savior. Sheesh....
Search YouTube for clips of Shiff talking about Bolton in the past. In fact look for clips of Reps hating him too. He’s a war monger, and there is plenty of bad all around this guy. There are two sides to this coin, if you are willing to look.
That was not a comparison being made: it was an example to illustrate the Hobson's choice condition of the current game, the choice being offered the Palestinians....
Absolutely not. The comparison implies death to Palestinians. The offer is actually peace and prosperity, instead of perpetual war and poverty.
As a side note, Palestinians are generally disliked amongst the rest of the Arab world. They would get a much better deal working with Israelis than Arabs.
Absolutely not. The comparison implies death to Palestinians. The offer is actually peace and prosperity, instead of perpetual war and poverty.
As a side note, Palestinians are generally disliked amongst the rest of the Arab world. They would get a much better deal working with Israelis than Arabs.
That was not a comparison being made: it was an example to illustrate the Hobson's choice condition of the current game, the choice being offered the Palestinians.There have been many times the choices for both sides were much better. I remember when PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin all won the Nobel peace prize, much of it under the auspices of America. What happened? As Joe said above, it seems the Palestinians always miss their chance to get a good deal. Well, as time goes on, those deals become less auspicious. Now they have their traditional Arab allies losing patience with them because they have their own issues and need Israel as an ally against Iran. Geopolitics changes. I hope the best for the Palestinians., I feel bad that they have not made a deal. I know they want a good life for their families just like the rest of us. They deserve it. I wish I had a pat answer, but I don't. This is a thorny issue that has gone on for over 70 years. If you have a solution, I'd be glad to hear it.
Play fair; you are not a politician.
;-)
As Richard Nixon said, "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal."
Or as Trump said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters".
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/opinions/begala-impeachment-trial-dershowitz-doctrine/index.html
Craig, you have to understand that Bernard resides in Japan. He's completely out of touch except for the "news" media and TV, both of which are oriented in one direction. He only gets one side of the story, so don't expect him to understand the situation.
That all does not make him a liar... as much as you can disagree with his political view.
and could not resist:
Trump's wall: High winds blow over section of US-Mexico border fence
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51307868
seems Trump has to build a new wall to keep the wind out.
Not just Trump - his lawyers actually made the argument that not only could he not be prosecuted for such a shooting, but that he could not even be *investigated*.
So yes, Trump and his lawyers are *literally* arguing, twice now, that the President is above the law and without restraint. I know a lot of hyperbole gets thrown around about how horrible Trump is, but it's terrifying that people aren't freaking out about that. I can tell you - I guarantee - absolutely guarantee - if my preferred candidate dared to make that argument I'd be actively working against them, period.
I watched a bunch of the questions andanswers yerterday but I guess I must have missed the part where it was said Trump could not even be imvestigated, let alone shoot somebody. Care to provide a link?
And gee, he has been under constant investigation for over 3 years now.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-say-cant-be-investigated-shooting-someone-5th-ave-2019-10 (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-say-cant-be-investigated-shooting-someone-5th-ave-2019-10)
"But it's not FAIR," they whined, incessantly. After a pause, they stood, chanting, "Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!"
Frank, the point isn't what Trump's lawyers said. You don't have to believe them. However, the main point is that the wavering Republicans have raised the main question about what Trump did. They are reflecting what I;ve said for weeks. That an act is legal as long as one of the reasons it was done was for public interest. The fact it had a tangential personal value to the president does not make the act illegal or impeachable. So the republican argument in the end will be Trump's act was legal for that reason regardless of any personal benefit he may have received. That will be the justification for the Senate finding him not guilty.Not really. It will be an up or down vote not tied to any theory of guilt or innocence. The real justification is they don’t want to cross Trump’s base and jeopardize their own re-election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXZIZ2-Yn20
Such a relevant analysis... For the busy ones or those allergic to CNN, it's a factual description of the total change of behavior of Fox News against Bolton... who worked as a consultant for Fox News for 11 years. He has now become a big vilain.
Pathetic.
After watching this piece it became quite clear that Bernard has not spent any time watching Fox. I really liked when Ali quotes a Bongino text that says "no one cares" and Ali suggests wejust let Bolton talk. Well Hannity offered an open ended invitation to Bolton to come on his show and say whatever he wanted. Crickets from Bolton. Linsey Graham suggested Bolton have a press conference and just say what he wanted to say. Again Crickets. Bolton could give his manuscript ( at least this section) to Congress if he choses. Again Crickets. So that leaves some unanswerd questions about Bolton. Maybe its better for his future book sales to lets this leak go unanswered. After all once he talks why buy the book?
Watching these people without the least bit of ethics makes me sick.
Cheers,
Bernard
Just saw this and don't understand. Where are you getting your info if not from "media and TV"?
Taxi drivers and barbers? :)
Rob, there is 1. a Jewish radio host in the USA, Dennis Prager, that has a great saying on the situation, "if all the Jews in Israel put down their guns today, there would be no Jews tomorrow in Israel. If all the Palestinians put down their guns today, there would be a free state of Palestine tomorrow." It's that simple.
I use to be on your side, but after doing some more research, 2. the idea that the Palestinians are getting a raw deal is crazy. The fact is there has never been a peace deal Israel has not wanted to except, and there has never been a peace deal the Palestinians would except, no matter how lop sided that deal may be in favor of the Palestinians.
The Palestinians' wish to kill all Jewish people in the Middle East and destroy the state of Israel is a great motivation then their wish to have a free state.
Well, as Alan said earlier, the train is pulling out, and it really is. 3. This peace deal, for the first time, has united nearly the entirety of the Arab Middle East (with the exception of Iran) to not only recognize Israel's right to exist, but to also support them. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who previously went to war with Israel, have both agreed to recognize this peace deal. Now you could argue that this is a strategic alliance against Iran, but the fact is they excepted it.
With the exception of Iran, the Middle East is moving on in regards to the Palestinians. It would do them best to see the writing on the wall, but it seems that they still never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Not really. It will be an up or down vote not tied to any theory of guilt or innocence. The real justification is they don’t want to cross Trump’s base and jeopardize their own re-election.that's a fair analysis as well. But of course it goes both ways. The Democrats are voting based on political considerations as well. The whole thing has nothing to do with the Constitution.
I was wrong in my thinking about Bolton. Turns out to be just another disloyal political sleaze ball who's only interested in selling books and making money by stabbing people in the back.
After watching this piece it became quite clear that Bernard has not spent any time watching Fox. I really liked when Ali quotes a Bongino text that says "no one cares" and Ali suggests wejust let Bolton talk. Well Hannity offered an open ended invitation to Bolton to come on his show and say whatever he wanted. Crickets from Bolton. Linsey Graham suggested Bolton have a press conference and just say what he wanted to say. Again Crickets. Bolton could give his manuscript ( at least this section) to Congress if he choses. Again Crickets. So that leaves some unanswerd questions about Bolton. Maybe its better for his future book sales to lets this leak go unanswered. After all once he talks why buy the book?
And lets talk about the "ethics" of this CNN personality Don Lemon and Ali. It was just this week thay got caught disparaging Trump voters. Yea, what great ethics.
1. Yes, simple, if you think the deal, any deal so far, has been fair, and that the Palestinian state on offer would be worth more than squat.
2. Israel is happy to accept any deal that gives it the advantage, as is the norm. I have never seen a deal that was "lopsidedly in favour of the Palestinians" and if you look at the map of the new, greatest deal (because it's his deal, Trump's deal), you will see the Palestinian lands near Jordan are isolated into tiny clustered isles in an Israeli sea. Some chance of a united homeland! But hey, it's the best deal, the greatest deal anyone has ever seen: divide and conquer.
As I wrote earlier, I wonder how the Floridians would react to such a deal. And how impartial they'd consider the architect.
3. Which is fine and dandy for Israel; not so for Palestinians. As with many communities where people live, even down to where I live, internal politics and groupings screw the concept of fair play. People form power bocks and voting blocks for all sorts of reasons, few having anything to do with the concept of fair play just as with the "rest" of the Middle East, which has all sorts of motives and alliances.
Were it not for oil and fear of Islamic expansion northwards and westwards, I don't think anyone would give a damn what they do to each other, but as it stands, we have to consider those things because like in NK, time she is a changin' and if Israel really has a nuke, it won't be long before Iran does - if it has not already got there in secret or been sold one from somewhere. Who knows? Using one is, fortunately, only for the suicidal: they are all too close together to survive intact.
Rob
I was wrong in my thinking about Bolton. Turns out to be just another disloyal political sleaze ball who's only interested in selling books and making money by stabbing people in the back.Funny, that's exactly what Giuliani said. Oh wait...
Funny, that's exactly what Giuliani said. Oh wait...Really? Hadn't heard Giuliani yet.
I was wrong in my thinking about Bolton. Turns out to be just another disloyal political sleaze ball who's only interested in selling books and making money by stabbing people in the back.
Like as been stated earlier, the Palestinians have had 60 years to come to the table to negotiate an agreement, but they have not. They instead choose to shoot rockets and send in suicide bombers into Israel, and break every ceasefire agreed upon.
The world's patience has ran out.
Your sense of history is flawed.
+
Start counting the casualties on both sides and come again.
Not just Trump - his lawyers actually made the argument that not only could he not be prosecuted for such a shooting, but that he could not even be *investigated*.
So yes, Trump and his lawyers are *literally* arguing, twice now, that the President is above the law and without restraint....
Bolton wouldn't be a type of person I'd invite to my dinner party, but I doubt that his motivation in becoming National Security Advisor was to write books.He's dropping little tidbits in order to sell a book and make money. That's Sleazy and it's hurtful to the president and to the country. If he has something important to say that reflects on the situation he should just say it. Right now it's just causing more turmoil in the whole country and hurting it. He's doing with his book publisher is telling him to do
According to CNN, he was fired, because he wanted to cancel Trump's worldwide reality show and he didn't share Trump's infatuations with North Korea's Kim and Putin.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/11/politics/donald-trump-john-bolton-national-security/index.html
Oh, come on, James! You know better than that. That being a giant straw man. Put what was said, and what I said a month ago, in proper context. The context being “personal gain” accusation, against which was the public interest mentioned. Even then, the clear underlying assumption is no crime associated with it, and certainly not one that doesn’t rise to the level of high crimes, etc.
Well, go on.The most serious negotiations going towards a real peace were with the Olso accords.
The most serious negotiations going towards a real peace were with the Olso accords.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords
Alas, Rabin was assassinated, a very effective assassination that also killed the peace process from the Israelian side.
Since then the building of more and more Israelian settlements in Palestine territory violated the accords.
Simon Peres started that and Nethanyahu who never wanted a peace process continued on an even larger scale.
about casualties
Here some info about the last 10 years...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/313220/fatalities-between-israel-and-palestina-after-operation-cast-lead/
about 3000 Palestinians and about 50 Israelians got killed.
Apartheid is a good term of how the Palestianans have to live under Israelian pressure.
The most serious negotiations going towards a real peace were with the Olso accords.Exactly why the Palestinians should make a deal now before they lose even more. What do they think is going to happen? The Israelis are going to throw down their rifles, meltdown their tanks, and march into the Mediterranean and drown? They have to face the reality of the situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords
Alas, Rabin was assassinated, a very effective assassination that also killed the peace process from the Israelian side.
Since then the building of more and more Israelian settlements in Palestine territory violated the accords.
Simon Peres started that and Nethanyahu who never wanted a peace process continued on an even larger scale.
about casualties
Here some info about the last 10 years...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/313220/fatalities-between-israel-and-palestina-after-operation-cast-lead/
about 3000 Palestinians and about 50 Israelians got killed.
Apartheid is a good term of how the Palestianans have to live under Israelian pressure.
... Buttigieg is now under intense fire for touting his "American Heartland" roots. Apparently Heartland is now a micro-aggression, and actually means "a place where white people run things."...
Exactly why the Palestinians should make a deal now before they lose even more. What do they think is going to happen? The Israelis are going to throw down their rifles, meltdown their tanks, and march into the Mediterranean and drown? They have to face the reality of the situation.Your word DEAL is the way Trump uses the word: You do what i want you to...or else.
Yea and the Dems have hated him for years and now he’s their savior. Sheesh....
Search YouTube for clips of Shiff talking about Bolton in the past. In fact look for clips of Reps hating him too. He’s a war monger, and there is plenty of bad all around this guy. There are two sides to this coin, if you are willing to look.
Hi Robert, Among others, the Wall Street Journal. You might want to try it. You'd be able to see some real news and some serious discussions about actual, rather than bogus, current events. Considering what I suspect you're viewing on TV, it would be a real revelation.
Oh yes, I am far from agreeing with Bolton's views and nor are the democrats.
I don't believe that any Democrat has changed his views about Bolton. They are just happy that he, for one, is behaving ethically here by doing the simplest thing, which is to tell the truth.
That obviously is a problem for the Republicans. Being part of the team involves telling whatever lie is required to support the party line. It may be how the game is being played in Washington, but I am not sure that a majority of Republican voters support these practices. They are far from being stupid though, if anything this should be a great eye opener.
Cheers,
Bernard
I was wrong in my thinking about Bolton. Turns out to be just another disloyal political sleaze ball who's only interested in selling books and making money by stabbing people in the back.
Oh yes, I am far from agreeing with Bolton's views and nor are the democrats.Ethically? He's trying to sell his book. First we have no idea what Trump told him. Bolton hasn't said. If he was ethical, he would have said it weeks ago. But that would hurt book sales. The NY Times did it again. Another "October" surprise where the come up with some info to hurt a politicians they don;t like, or a supreme court nominee. You think people would be on to their deviousness.
I don't believe that any Democrat has changed his views about Bolton. They are just happy that he, for one, is behaving ethically here by doing the simplest thing, which is to tell the truth.
That obviously is a problem for the Republicans. Being part of the team involves telling whatever lie is required to support the party line. It may be how the game is being played in Washington, but I am not sure that a majority of Republican voters support these practices. They are far from being stupid though, if anything this should be a great eye opener.
Cheers,
Bernard
So Bolton has bad things to say about Trump and you turn against Bolton.He's a sleaze and acting unpatriotically (correction) because he;s putting book sales in front of the country. Creating this controversy to sell books when he could just come out and say now what the president told him and end speculation that's dividing the country and the senate. The more he says nothing, the more people will buy his book and the more the country is going to be in an uproar as to what happened creating more political conflict. That's not being patriotic. That's being greedy. And its hurting the country. He's a greedy sleaze.
Interesting your use of "disloyal". Disloyal to whom, Trump or to the country? I may be wrong but when these guys sign up, I believe they swear allegiance to the country, not to the guy who gave them the job. Which is the greater loyalty, would you say?
Bolton is just the latest in a long line of people who became disgusted with the clown in the big office, but you hold fast at every turn. I don't understand your hero worship, he's just another politician and a spectacularly sleazy one at that. Why the slavish adoration? He's not even a "conservative".
He's a sleaze and acting unpatriotically (correction) because he;s putting book sales in front of the country. Creating this controversy to sell books when he could just come out and say now what the president told him and end speculation that's dividing the country and the senate. The more he says nothing, the more people will buy his book and the more the country is going to be in an uproar as to what happened creating more political conflict. That's not being patriotic. That's being greedy. And its hurting the country. He's a greedy sleaze.
Geez, that's going to a lot of trouble just to sell a book.How many millions? Just for saying nothing, well, just enough.
A vote to call witnesses is expected Friday, and is now likely to be blocked by Republicans, who may move to acquit Trump as soon as Friday night."[/i]
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/lamar-alexander-opposes-witnesses-likely-sealing-quick-end-to-impeachment-trial-2020-01-30
With the anticipated Friday rise of Amazon share price, that should bode for a good end of the week for the investors.
With the anticipated Friday rise of Amazon share price, that should bode for a good end of the week for the investors.Trump will probably take the credit for Amazon's increase in price just to stick it to Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post.
Bezos made about $14 billion in one day today. I bet that impressed even Trump. But the firm only made around $3 billion. Yet it's a trillion dollar company. What's the PE? I don't get it. Bezos is the only one making money from Amazon. Well, his ex too. Apple on the other hand has something like a 39% margin on sales. That's about an 80% markup on cost. Now, they know how to make money.
... Why the slavish adoration?...
Another win for Trump:That might be more the work of Michelle Obama, than Trump; If you think somebody who lived in the White house had to do with that.
US life expectancy rises for first time since 2014 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51316030
You suppose having jobs and an income and leading a more normal life might have something to do with it, Pieter?
That point crossed my mind as I wrote to Pieter, Slobodan. I'm sure it couldn't have been an improvement in the economy. Had to be Michelle and the trash barrels full of lunches.
No, James, I don't think so. I know so! All I have to do is look at the employment statistics to see the truth. Those with their heads out can see it. Those with their heads in never will.I thought it was you that said correlations don't have to mean anything... amd don't you think the process of people living longer takes more than 3.5 years?
Oh yes, I am far from agreeing with Bolton's views and nor are the democrats.
I don't believe that any Democrat has changed his views about Bolton. They are just happy that he, for one, is behaving ethically here by doing the simplest thing, which is to tell the truth.
That obviously is a problem for the Republicans. Being part of the team involves telling whatever lie is required to support the party line. It may be how the game is being played in Washington, but I am not sure that a majority of Republican voters support these practices. They are far from being stupid though, if anything this should be a great eye opener.
Cheers,
Bernard
You guys are just goofing right? You don't actually think Trump has anything to do with this, do you?
Isn't it funny that Trump's administration is (rightfully) requesting more openness and collaboration from China about the coronavirus...There's a difference between isolationism and putting America first. Trump actually is acting like many liberals before him. He wants to keep America from getting involved with every situation going on in the world. IT's none of m our business. That's exactly what many of you have argued, and rightfully so. So now that we have a president doing that, you argue for the opposite. Make up your mind.
That is just 180 degrees away from their own policy on most matters.
I hope it means that they have finally understood that their isolationism is simply not relevant on a planet where all the key topics are of global nature. Like it or not.
Cheers,
Bernard
Between 4pm and 4:30pm AMZN price rose by about $250/share. Most likely due to a short squeeze. By the end of the After Hours time frame it dropped to about $2050. It won't stay at that level too long. Their PE is indeed very high (over 80 as of Thursday, and it will be even higher tomorrow), but now some commentators and analysts are forecasting $2,300 share price by year end. That would be another 10% increase this year in stock value, never mind the PE.
AAPL, MSFT and GOOG delivered also great results this week. Especially TSLA which delivered not only a boatload of vehicles, but also a phenomenal increase in its share price.
Another win for Trump:Glad to hear that. Tomorrow's my 75th birthday.
US life expectancy rises for first time since 2014 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51316030
So, Pieter, let me see if I understand what you're saying. I guess you're saying that people getting more jobs and pay increases doesn't "correlate" with Trump's policies. That's not the kind of situation where correlations don't track with results. Climate is an example of the kind of guess based on computer models that depend on the validity of their premises and the validity of their data -- a situation where neither can be confirmed.Better stock market means more money available for retirement when you're older. Less worries, more money for doctors and vacation. More money for photography. G.A.S. problems goes away. :)
Another win for Trump:
US life expectancy rises for first time since 2014 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51316030
You guys are just goofing right? You don't actually think Trump has anything to do with this, do you?
Any more than Trump had anything to do with the current economic boom.
And it fell the previous two years. Want to accredit that to Trump? But anyway, it's a teeny tiny change, about one tenth of one percent, so big whoop. And anyway, Trump (or any president) had nothing to do with this. Any more than Trump had anything to do with the current economic boom.Not true. Lower taxes and less regulation has increased business and employment. It's been over three years since he became president. So you can;t keep crediting Obama for the increase. You have to start giving the current president his due too.
No, James, I don't think so. I know so! All I have to do is look at the employment statistics to see the truth. Those with their heads out can see it. Those with their heads in never will.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Best laugh I've had in a while, though most of the postings on this thread are laughable.
That point crossed my mind as I wrote to Pieter, Slobodan. I'm sure it couldn't have been an improvement in the economy. Had to be Michelle and the trash barrels full of lunches.
Just when i thought no new PC idiotism can surprise me... ;D
What can I say about those with their heads in (or up), Peter? If there hadn't been a rise after the recession we'd still have called it a recession. If your head were out you'd be able to see that.Then there's understanding. Just seeing it doesn't mean you'll understand it.
But they're healthy, Peter. Don't you believe Michelle?
John Kasich says "more information is needed not less". That seems a common sense, and the most basic requirement in any court proceedings.
The improvement in employment started in 2010 when you-know-who was president. Trump had nothing to do with it, other than the faint praise that he hasn't screwed it up.
A number of factors appear to be driving suicide rates up in rural America, including poverty, low income and underemployment, said lead study author Danielle Steelesmith, a postdoctoral fellow at Ohio State University’s Wexner Medical Center..
Lack of access to health care in rural areas further compounds the problem. “Insurance can be a proxy for people’s access to mental health care,” Steelesmith said.
“Lack of health insurance kills people,” [Dr. Albert Wu, an internist and a professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health] said. “More insurance, including the expansion of Medicaid, could help.”
John Kasich says "more information is needed not less". That seems a common sense, and the most basic requirement in any court proceedings.This isn't a court proceeding. It's a political contest where the leading party in the House impeached the president and the leading party in the Senate will find him not guilty. All along party affiliation in both instances. It's now the final inning in a 3 1/2 year long attempt of a coup d'etat.
The official unemployment numbers are always lower than the real unemployment rates which include discouraged workers, laid-off older workers who are forced to take early retirement, some self-employed marginal occupations, and many part-time jobs.That's true but wasn't mentioned much when Obama claimed great unemployment figures. Also, they lied about the true figures in the last quarter running up to his reelection to make them look even better for his campaign.
This isn't a court proceeding. It's a political contest where the leading party in the House impeached the president and the leading party in the Senate will find him not guilty. All along party affiliation in both instances. It's now the final inning in a 3 1/2 year long attempt of a coup d'etat.
That's true but wasn't mentioned much when Obama claimed great unemployment figures.
You were all good until this silliness.If it was only about Ukraine, I would agree with you. But Biden was preceded by Russian collusion, obstruction of justice, paying off bimbos, taxes, emoluments, etc. For 3 1/2 years the Democrats have tried to find things to impeach Trump because they weren't happy they lost the election.
The refusal of the Senate to hear witnesses marks the end of the US as a democracy.
I feel incredibly sorry for all my American friends and also for myself because this is symptomatic of a terrible global slide towards the darkest hours of totalitarianism.
Cheers,
Bernard
The refusal of the Senate to hear witnesses marks the end of the US as a democracy.
I feel incredibly sorry for all my American friends and also for myself because this is symptomatic of a terrible global slide towards the darkest hours of totalitarianism.
Cheers,
Bernard
The refusal of the Senate to hear witnesses marks the end of the US as a democracy.
I feel incredibly sorry for all my American friends and also for myself because this is symptomatic of a terrible global slide towards the darkest hours of totalitarianism....
;D ;D ;D
And just when one smart country escaped the clutches of a real totalitarianism.
;D ;D ;D
And just when one smart country escaped the clutches of a real totalitarianism.
The real problem is worldwide money totalitarianism!
The refusal of the Senate to hear witnesses marks the end of the US as a democracy.
I feel incredibly sorry for all my American friends and also for myself because this is symptomatic of a terrible global slide towards the darkest hours of totalitarianism.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, then again...
farm bankruptcies are through the silo roof (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-farms-bankruptcy-idUSKBN1ZT2YE?fbclid=IwAR2KQm97l7sWfbIQ8zHnj-6CdorR0ZU5zO6wLAYLb_vn9SWLAV8g5Zrx53k)
Now to be fair, the article claims that, "Nearly one-third of projected U.S. net farm income in 2019 came from government aid and taxpayer-subsidized commodity insurance payments, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture." And, "The court data indicates those supports did help prevent a more serious economic fallout, said John Newton, chief economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation. Some of the biggest bankruptcy rate increases were seen in regions, such as apple growers in the Pacific Northwest, that did not receive much or any of the latest round of trade aid from the Trump administration."
So credit where credit is due to Trump for using socialism (https://mises.org/power-market/trumps-road-socialism) to prop up failing industry. Of course, that industry probably wouldn't be failing as much had Trump not gutted the farm industry with his stupid trade wars. But hey, "Trade wars are good, and easy to win." (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/02/trump-trade-wars-are-good-and-easy-to-win.html)
Also, that one-month increase in life expectancy? Largely a result of better cancer and other treatments, the end result of basic research (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/trump-once-again-requests-deep-cuts-us-science-spending) that takes years to come to fruition.
Oh yeah - that increase in cancer survivability? It's offset by an increase in suicides in Trump country (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/suicide-rates-are-rising-especially-rural-america-n1050806). I wonder why that is? Oh wait... it's because
.
But there is hope!
I wonder what program we have that could help with that?
Just curious James, how much farming takes place where you live, just wondering if you observe it much personally? Lots of it around here and I talk to small part time farmers often and spend a lot of time driving in soy bean and corn country. The guys I’ve spoken to are quite happy Trump took on China on trade. And yes they took a short term hit. But they also suffered because of a very wet spring and many did not even plant some field due to the wet. Many who did got them in late and the yields were down. A double wammy.
Now, on ACA. Again do you have any experience with the program? I do. I’ve been self employed for 20 years and my wife works with me. We bought our health insurance from the individual marketplace. Once ACA hit our costs rose, and deductibles went up. Then the company we had used for years stopped providing coverage and we were forced into the ACA marketplace. Only one company was offering coverage that had our dr in the network. Prices were crazy high. And to make matters worse some specialists that were in network would not accept us as patients because of the bad payment practices of our carrier. And the coverage cost us 25k a year with 6k per person out of pocket.
All in all it was a horrible situation. We are now on Medicare and somewhat pricey part b supplements and part d coverages. Better that the lousy ACA plan but let me tell you Medicare is not free.
My point here is that my personal experience with ACA was really bad. And from what I’m seeing, those with lower incomes my have insurance but can’t really afford to use it due to high out of pocket costs. From my cheap seats it is a really bad law. YMMV.
I have a ton of direct experience with the ACA. I owned and was de facto benefits manager for a 20-person media agency both before and after the ACA, with employees across CA, TX and NY. Both my wife and I have direct experience with the insurance market as self-employeds AND, in my wife's case, the impact of the pre-existing coverages and lifetime cap provisions. I can tell you a few things:
1) Yes, costs continued to increase user the ACA.
1a) But more slowly than the did prior to the ACA
1b) And that's even though Republicans keep trying as hard as possible to eliminate funding for, information about, and participation in the program.
2) The idea that the ACA caused people to lose their plans is a red herring. Prior to the ACA, every year I had to re-asses and rebalance coverage for my employees as coverage plans changed, doctors went in and out of network (a real problem for someone like my wife with chronic illness or ongoing treatment for melanoma), etc.
2a) Insurance companies, doctors etc. are happy to blame "The ACA" whenever they have to make a decision that people don't like. I've seen it happen, and the explanations have been largely bogus.
Refusing to hear evidence because it might lead to a conclusion you don't want to hear, sounds an awful lot like conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
I don't care what your politics are, but if truth no longer matters to you, you should be ashamed.
Refusing to hear evidence because it might lead to a conclusion you don't want to hear, sounds an awful lot like conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
I don't care what your politics are, but if truth no longer matters to you, you should be ashamed.
Well said. Refusing witnesses with factual and first hand information is a suppression of truth. This sets a dangerous precedent for justice and politics in USA.
What truth got hidden? Is anyone really uncertain what they think Bolten wants to say? And do you think it might magically change the minds of 20 Rep Senators?If the Democrats cared about truth, they would have waited on impeachment and called all the witnesses after subpoenaing them and getting a court ruling that would force them to appear. But they were too anxious to file the impeachment. After all, they wanted to do that for three years and were running out of time to smear the President before the upcoming election. Instead, they impeached him on weak charges and wanted the Republican senators to do their work to destroy the Republican president, the leader of their party. That's not how politics works and it has nothing to do with the truth. The Democrats short-circuited the impeachment process and the Republicans short-circuited the trial, both for political reasons. Now let's move on.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Best laugh I've had in a while, though most of the postings on this thread are laughable.
Yes, the HOUSE shoud be ashamed of themselves for failing to even TRY to get those first hand witnesses like Bolton. It does indeed set a dangerous precedent.It's set up future impeachments for run-of-the-mill violations of executive power so the opposing party can smear the president. It takes away from good government making it hyper-political, something we have enough of already. It's going to hurt the country.
Laughing at a post is a pretty sure sign that you do not understand it and/or have no valid counter-arguments.
Yes, the HOUSE shoud be ashamed of themselves for failing to even TRY to get those first hand witnesses like Bolton. It does indeed set a dangerous precedent.
I think the problem with high medical costs are real. Passing the cost to the government, which is effectively us, won't solve the problem because the government is broke too with a trillion dollar deficit this year. adding to the already 23+ trillion in debt. Also, government services are never as good as private. It's anticipated that our deficit will be a trillion a year for years going forward. It's unsustainable. No one wants to talk about cutting services, defense, and the myriad other programs the government underwrites. At some point the whole thing is going to fall down. We're just kidding ourselves.
It's a sorry situation. One party is incompetent and the other deceptive. As Alan says, it's bad for the country.
Medical costs are crazy and the payment schemce are just as crazy. One rate fro insurance companies, one - higher - rate for cash payments and a super low rate for Medicare.
When I get my summary statement from Medicare and my suppliment plan it bends my mind. Lets say the hospital charge for a test is $4000. And a Dr to interpret the test charges $150. Medicare will only pay a small portion of the costs. Like $300 for the test and $35 for the Dr. These are hypotheticals but you get the idea. I can't imagine the Hospital can even break even on that payment. Perhaps thats why they charge the insurance companies so much more to recoup.
Now can you imagine if Bernie gets his way and forces everyone into medicare like payments to providers? I cnat imagine that the Hospital/DR/provider system we have now can stand.
What it might do, is stop the nation being screwed by the medical profession. They have nowhere to go: that's the catch when you are already the best paid of your kind in the world; the only other way is downwards to something reasonable. No other western country will (or could) offer them anything near what they make in the US.
Could be the best thing in the world for you.
Or the worst.
Why? Unless they have already bought the bank, they still need to work; you should not forget that many other jobs are also essential, which should not be an automatic passport to milking everyone.
Laughing at a post is a pretty sure sign that you do not understand it and/or have no valid counter-arguments.
A great opinion article about Trump and the deep state.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/impeachment_is_a_badge_of_honor_for_donald_trump.html
'So when President Trump's enemies seek to manipulate us into acquiescing and consenting to his removal from office, their strategy is all backwards. The Left long ago learned to use our virtue against us by appealing to our moral leanings and our sense of shame. They cry out at us: "Look at this man. He betrays all of the customs and traditions of the American government. He lies to us and threatens us and dares to question the absolute truth of the press. He is uncouth and ill mannered and actively seeks to find our pressure points and pour salt in our wounds. He is no true Republican. He is no true conservative. He countermands everything we've stood for, everything we've worked for, everything we've promised to the rest of the world. He finds nothing sacred in what we do." Nothing could make us happier. The more they protest and accuse him of terrible things, the more we see him as a great and dangerous club with which to pound the Deep State and post-constitutional order into the ground"
I suspect retiring Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander spoke for many and perhaps most of his fellow Republicans in the chamber when he said that while the impeachment managers from the House of Representatives proved that President Trump improperly manipulated government policy regarding Ukraine for his own political advantage, his behavior was not sufficiently egregious to meet the high threshold for removal from office—and that, especially with a national election ten months away, the decision about the next president should be left to the voters.
Ironically, Alexander's perspective wasn't that different from that expressed by Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, until her fellow Democrats forced her hand to proceed with impeachment following the revelations about Trump's attempt to pressure the new Ukrainian president.
While the opinion polls suggest the impeachment has increased the public's concern about Trump's behavior, it probably will be a while before there are enough survey data to indicate whether it has had any significant effect on state-by-state support for his re-election. However, I think one thing that is clear is that Pelosi and the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell—two of the shrewdest strategists to lead their respective chambers in many years—both played the political cards they were dealt very well.
Although Pelosi no doubt hopes the impeachment has weakened Trump and thus will increase the likelihood that the eventual Democratic candidate for president will be elected next November, her primary objective has clearly been to maintain her majority in the House of Representatives. It was no secret to anyone that absent a seismic change in public opinion, there was no possibility the Senate would vote to remove Trump from office. However I suspect Pelosi calculated that the very failure to do so would energize Democratic Party activists to make the effort in November to get their less-committed voters to turn out. When turnout is high, both nationally and in many of the states, the Democrats tend to do well, but they face demographic and structural obstacles to getting out their vote: young people and members of minority groups who historically have not been highly motivated voters, hourly workers who must sacrifice wages to stand in line at the polls, and rules in some states that create bureaucratic obstacles to demonstrating eligibility to vote.
McConnell no doubt hopes to see a Republican continue to occupy the White House (although I suspect he would prefer it to be someone other than Trump), but like Pelosi in the House, his primary objective is to hold onto his majority in the Senate. For that—and, indeed, for his own re-election in Kentucky—he simply couldn't afford to take any action during the impeachment proceedings that might antagonize the what might be called the "Trump wing" of the Republican party, a critical core of enthusiastic voters who themselves typically aren't sufficient to swing an election but whose support is necessary for a Republican to be elected in many states. McConnell had to deliver for Trump in the Senate trial and he did: by avoiding testimony from potentially embarrassing witnesses and scheduling a final vote as quickly as the Senate rules would allow. Presumably he can now count on Trump to reciprocate by doing everything he can to help the Republican senators who face difficult re-election campaigns. While Trump's national approval rating has never gone above 50 percent, his support among voters who identify as Republicans remains very high—and there is currently little reason to think that will change before the November election.
This is what happens when meth runs amok in middle America. Seriously - what a contemptible piece of writing.
And statements like yours are what is going to get Trump re-elected once again. Please, keep it up.
Hey man, I'm just tired of "being PC." Just "telling how it is." And that author's rant was straight up deplorable. I mean, I'm just saying it like Trump would, except with bigger words. You don't like it? You must not be a real American.
By all means tell it like you feel it, and tell it loud. Nothing like calling people deplorable, I mean it worked so well for Hillary. Please keep it up!
By all means tell it like you feel it, and tell it loud. Nothing like calling people deplorable, I mean it worked so well for Hillary. Please keep it up!Yep, nothing riles up deplorable people more than calling them out. Then they all join together and do something deplorable.
A fair point. Apparently being a jerk only works when Trump does it, then y'all LOVE it. Weird. (Seriously, that author is unhinged.)
Yep, nothing riles up deplorable people more than calling them out. Then they all join together and do something deplorable.
Do you have any idea how much time a Dr spends just getting to the point of being a Dr? And the money? So now they are just going to be told by the goverment how much they can earn?
Best of luck with that one in America.
What are going to do when its Bernie V Trump.
Do you know that any travel insurance policy that I ever needed to buy automatically excluded the US? One had to take out a much more expensive policy. That tells me something is a bit fishy across the Atlantic.
Calling folks deplorable is not a winning play. But I suggest you plesse keep it up.
Do you know that any travel insurance policy that I ever needed to buy automatically excluded the US? One had to take out a much more expensive policy. That tells me something is a bit fishy across the Atlantic. And it ain't the vanishing cod.
Same when travelling from Canada. Travel insurance which covers emergency medical procedures in USA is now very expensive, especially for seniors.
It's only one anecdotal story but a lady I know flew to a weekend business conference in Vegas from Toronto. She arrived a day early and collapsed in her hotel room shortly after check-in. They took her to emergency and they determined that she'd had a minor stroke. She stayed in the hospital for one night, had some blood work, ate two meals, saw one doctor for a few minutes who explained what happened and left her with some instructions for her GP when she got back home. The silly woman had not bought travel insurance for some incomprehensible reason. The hospital bill was about $23,000 USD.
(Incidentally, the charge you cite seems bizarrely high, even if it included sophisticated imaging services such as an MRI.)The charges don't surprise me in the least. Been treated in the ER and spent a couple of nights in the hospital recently?
You're avoiding the fundamental question of why y'all think it's so groovy when Trump calls people names all day, every day. I mean, answering that was basically the thrust of that garbage pile you linked to above, but it was so frothy that I'd like to hear your more rational, sensible take on it and see if it makes any more sense.
One of my granddaughters is a doctor; yes I do have some idea of the study, the hard work, the crazy hours and the exploitation (my take) of junior doctors. All that said, the job is a vocation and they all have a pretty shrewd idea of what it is. If not a vocation, like photography, you should not be in it.
It strikes me that telling them what they can earn is a perfectly reasonable concept. After all, every damned gig that I undertook came with its budget. Most people who work for their keep work to a price; why not docs too? If they need more than a reasonably good salary, then form a company and get your percentage of what your employees make; the point is that the service they perform be reasonably priced at a level the average guy can afford, or his insurance company can afford without screwing him into the gutter. Do you know that any travel insurance policy that I ever needed to buy automatically excluded the US? One had to take out a much more expensive policy. That tells me something is a bit fishy across the Atlantic. And it ain't the vanishing cod.
The charges don't surprise me in the least. Been treated in the ER and spent a couple of nights in the hospital recently?
I had a kidney stone last year. Happened on a weekend and while they found a DR to blast the stone they could not get some other person neededfor the procedure. So I had an infection, spent a few nights in the hospital, waited for a week and then went in for out patient stone blasting. Total cost $50K. Medicare and my supliment paid 12.5K. Did the hospital/Dr break even?With that experience, I am not sure why you were surprised by the $23,000 charge.
Isn't that because you can use a European Health Insurance Card* for emergency medical services anywhere in the EU, but not in America? However, many private European medical insurance policies do cover services in the United States. (Just as many private U.S. medical insurance policies cover emergency services in other countries.)
―――
*At least until Dec. 31, or whenever the U.K. and the EU complete the transition.
When you took a gig, or me for that matter, did the government tell you what you had to charge to take the job? Thats my problem with the issue. Its a supposed to be a somewhat of a free market. If you don't like the offer you move on and hopefully find someone who will pay what you think you are worth or you accept the offer and do the work. To use photography for an example, I'm sure there are many a wedding photographer who charge way more that what the average joe can afford to spend. But they still find a market. Then there is average joes uncle who just got a new Nikon and who will shoot the dang thing for a sixpack. Mandating wages for Doctors just might give us the wedding photo model, with the really good guys working for those with the bucks, and not the average joe.
But you miss the point: they would be prohibited from charging above an agreed level that permits access for Joe or makes his policy impossible. There would be no chance of docs playing the preferences game favouring the very wealthy. Medicine is not the same as any other service: it is the difference between life and death; no gig is in that league, no toy that important. With the job must, surely, come more than greed? For some, apparently not.
With that experience, I am not sure why you were surprised by the $23,000 charge.
The U.S. Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395dd) is a federal statute that requires hospitals with emergency departments that accept government Medicare payments (essentially all hospitals in the United States) to treat and stabilize anyone who requires emergency medical care. If the patient has medical insurance, the hospital may file an insurance claim on the patient's behalf. If the patient is not insured, the hospital can request payment, but may not condition treatment on the patient's consent to pay. There are substantial financial penalties for hospitals and physicians that do not comply with the provisions of the law and no institution is likely to risk loss of Medicare eligibility over failure to treat an emergency patient. (Incidentally, the charge you cite seems bizarrely high, even if it included sophisticated imaging services such as an MRI.)
Thats even worse. They have a skill, they should be allowed to sell it for whatever they choose. Sounds like John Galt is needed.
Actually I dont think its all that groovy when Trump calls people names. In fact there is a lot I don't like about Trump. I have heard this expressed by other Trump voters as well. I wish he would curtail his tweets but sadly its his outlet to talk to the world. But it's who Trump is and I'll take him warts and all over Hillary or the rest. We never get the perfect candidate, so you need to make a choice or sit on the sidelines. We singular citizens have very little power to shape our country except for our vote. So I'll continue to make a choice, and deal with that it brings.
My take on the article is simple. Many people are really tired of the same old Washington. They want something differenet and they want someone to take on the old guard. Watch A Trump rally. These folks are telling the country something. They don't want what 'normal" politicians are selling. Even those on the far left are saying the same thing. The problem for those who oppose Trump is that its now the squishy middle that is moving his way. Data collected at his rally show a very large percentage of ticket requests come from self described Democrats and another decent percentage who did not vote last election. Chris Mathews reported hte other night that a source in Pennsylvania that republician voter registrations are going through the roof. Polls are showing a big increase in support for Trump from African Americans. You have to ask why? Something he is saying or doing is moving them.
These same people are pretty much sick of the media as well, no doubt egged on by Trump. But IMO they have good reason. The media sucks when it comes to Trump...and Trump voters too. I don't know the current stats and I'm simply too lazy to look them up now but the negative story number is in the 90% range. Now I don't care how much you dont Like Trump, 90 percent of what he has done as President is not negative.
I may be from the Midwest but I'm not doing Meth, or any other drug including booze, so my opinion is befing fueled by either. And I'm reasonably sure its not true for the vast majority of Trump voters either.
So now the question I'll put to you, James, is what do you find so deplorable about that opinion piece?
Uh, last I looked there were 17 ( plus one hidden) witnesses in this trial. And also last time I looked, The House decided not to pursue Bolton’s testimony.
Enjoy your memodrama.
We are talking about the Senate where an overwhelming 75% of the population in the US expected additional witnesses to be called.
And you know full well the the white house refused tesstimomies during the congress hearings that led to impeachment. This refusal to collaborate was even one of the two articles part of the impeachment in case you needed a reminder.
When the opinion of 75% of the population is ignored by the ruling party on such an essential matter that involved the core of the democratic process, why on earth do you think that the willingness of Americans would he taken into account in the future?
Cheers,
Bernard
Added on edit. The first link at the top of a quick google. Notive the article states “witnesses” not additional witnesses.
Additional witnesses?
The Senate has not called any witnesses. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
This by itself seems like a derelict of duty ...
So, because Congress has not called any witnesses that were instructed by 'The White House' to not cooperate, the Senate feels no need to get to the bottom of the issue?
Obviously, getting a court order to have the witnesses testify would have taken many months, by which time the scheduled Presidential elections (that were being tampered with) will already be taling place, duh.
So you seem to support rigged/unchallenged elections. Banana republic style?
Like in the Clinton impeachment no witness were called to testify. They played taped depositions. In this impeachment trial they played taped testimony.
If you want to call a witness who disputes your subpoena you go to court. People and administrations have right to dispute. That’s the rules. So you want to throw the rules out?
Basically it seems the feeling by Republicans is a Trump asked for the investigations and tried to use the aid as a club, but it does not rise to a level of removal from office.
The new testimony would not change that.
What rigged elections?
Prepostutual assumption, and an unhelpful misrepresentation, although it's a telling M.O. ...
There is a possible case for making that ('does it rise to a level') argument if it weren't as seriously damaging to the constitution of the USA. It does rise to that level.
doesn't come into determining that, wouldn't you agree?
Wow! Doesn't it strike you as rigged when a foreign power has to be asked (under the pressure of (not) alleviating a war effort that kills people everyr week) to cast doubt on a potential political opponent's credibility? An immorally odd course of action (that's assumed to be illegal in civilized countries), to say the least.
That’s the rules, dude, deal with it. Clearly this is beyond your ken
When you took a gig, or me for that matter, did the government tell you what you had to charge to take the job? Thats my problem with the issue. Its a supposed to be a somewhat of a free market. If you don't like the offer you move on and hopefully find someone who will pay what you think you are worth or you accept the offer and do the work. To use photography for an example, I'm sure there are many a wedding photographer who charge way more that what the average joe can afford to spend. But they still find a market. Then there is average joes uncle who just got a new Nikon and who will shoot the dang thing for a sixpack. Mandating wages for Doctors just might give us the wedding photo model, with the really good guys working for those with the bucks, and not the average joe.
Okay, so you do not want to debate. Sad, but telling.
On the additional witnesses (FYI, witnesses were called in the house and admitted into evidence into the trial, so yes, I do mean additional), I listened to a Podcast today with Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham that made some very good points on why the vote went the way it did.Joe, I think it's simpler than that. Why would a defense attorney help the prosecutor make their case. It would be like them giving the rope to the prosecutor to hang their client.
The main point was that regardless if what Bolton said was true, the president is still allowed to investigate perceived corruption. So there was nothing Bolton could have testified to that would have changed this, especially considering Bolton alluded to 2016 interference being the cause for the requested investigation, not for a 2020 advantage.
Second was that the Dems, especially Warren, made it impossible for either Lamar Alexander or Murkowski to vote for witnesses, creating a 50/50 split. Alexander, who is an institutionalist, was pretty much a no vote early Thursday for the pure reason that he did not want to put the Senate into a position to make judgements on the law for the first time ever, instead of the courts. He wanted to preserve the institution as much as possible. However, Murkowski at this point was still up in the air.
Then Warren sent in her question asking if Justice Roberts, along with the Supreme Court, should be embarrassed by the proceeding, and it became obvious that if a 50/50 vote happened, regardless if Roberts declined to vote himself or voted for no additional witnesses, the Dems would use this as a way to delegitimize the Supreme Court. This enraged republicans much more then what the Dems anticipated and it was at this point that both Alexander and Murkowski decided it would be best to have a 51/49 vote so the Dems would not be given the opportunity to destroy the legitimacy of the Supreme Courts (along with everything other institution they have demolished since 2016).
Essentially the Dems, especially Warren, helped push the Republicans towards this 51/49 vote.
... Frustrating because these people by and large don't take the time to educate themselves on what they actually want...
The main point was that regardless if what Bolton said was true, the president is still allowed to investigate perceived corruption. So there was nothing Bolton could have testified to that would have changed this, especially considering Bolton alluded to 2016 interference being the cause for the requested investigation, not for a 2020 advantage.
20. Do you think witnesses should be allowed to testify in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, or not?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot
Yes/Be allowed 75%
There you go again, the tired old trope that if one is a Trump supporter, they must be uneducated.
In short, its nothing but unfocused populist rage that doesn't care who, or what, it breaks. I understand that there's a swell of people that are fed up with politicians and you're absolutely correct - I see it in Trump folks AND the hardcore Bernie people, and honestly, it's both frustrating and scary.You may be describing Bernie supporters but not Trump supporters.
Frustrating because these people by and large don't take the time to educate themselves on what they actually want (Slobodan posted an NPR article awhile back that quoted some idiot talking about how she "doesn't like" whomever "decided" that a certain cleaning agent was bad for the environment, so she thinks they should be ignored or voted out or something) and it's a proven fact that evidence contrary to imbedded opinion actually makes people dig in harder. Scary because they're being worked up, deliberately IMHO by Trump, probably Bernie as well, to the point where they just want to break stuff. And that's BS. I do care to an extent about disaffection and the legitimate issues people have. I have nothing for contempt for people that just want to break the world because they've been stirred up for political purposes.
Joe, I think it's simpler than that. Why would a defense attorney help the prosecutor make their case. It would be like them giving the rope to the prosecutor to hang their client.
The House Democrats failed to do their job. They didn't get the evidence they needed during the House impeachment phase. Democrats rushed to judgement for political reasons producing a weak case. Then they expected the Republicans to roll over and help them make their case. This from former trial lawyers who understand the adversarial relationship. The Democrats should be voted out of office for incompetency rather than for anything else.
Beautiful thinking... we will not hear witnesses because... the President is innocent. ;D ;D ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
Indeed.
Cheers,
Bernard
Additional witnesses?
The Senate has not called any witnesses. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
This by itself seems like a derelict of duty ...
"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," Dershowitz said. "And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
The Democrat party is setting the stage for a brokered convention to get someone who could beat Trump. Socialists need not apply. Well, if the Republicans can have a billionaire president, so can the Democrats!
Michael Moore: DNC Changing Rules To Allow "Billionaire Republican Mayor Of NYC" Mike Bloomberg On Debate Stage
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/01/michael_moore_dnc_changing_rules_to_allow_bloomberg_on_debate_stage_because_he_has_a_billion_fcking_dollars.html
Actually, Alex Dershowitz's incredibly stupid statement that president can do anything to help his re-election will destroy any credibility the Republicans had.Les, He made his point inarticulately and expanded it afterwards. What he meant and as I stated myself, was that a president often makes public policy with one eye on an election. He'll ignore what's good for the country by deciding what's good for his re-election. Not only is that legal. It's what they should do in many cases. In a democracy, leaders are elected. They respond to their voters. When Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in 2011 against his military advisors advice that he would create a vacuum for ISIS, he did it anyway. Why? Because he was soon to run for re-election and wanted his voters to know he keeps his word. So public policy is often decided by what leaders think their voters want from them. That's the point Dershowitz was making.
"If a President thinks his re-election is in the public interest, anything he does in pursuit of his re-election is legal".
That would include arresting your opponent, suppressing evidence, and spreading out daily new lies.
I read last night DNC leaders are mulling a rule change to allow super delegates to vote in the first round. Talk about a socialism panic.I hadn't read that. So they'll go back to what happened with Hillary and Sanders, when Clinton had all the superdelegates locked up even before the first vote. That should make the Sander's voters happy. If they pull that again, none of them will show up to vote at all making it really easy for Trump to win. This is what happens when you don't trust your own voters. This is what inside politics is all about - the Deep State, that both Sanders and Trump complain about. The Brexit folks too.
Well, if they do, there goes the neighborhood ... of downtown Milwaukee that is.
Les, He made his point inarticulately and expanded it afterwards. What he meant and as I stated myself, was that a president often makes public policy with one eye on an election. He'll ignore what's good for the country by deciding what's good for his re-election. Not only is that legal. It's what they should do in many cases. In a democracy, leaders are elected. They respond to their voters. When Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in 2011 against his military advisors advice that he would create a vacuum for ISIS, he did it anyway. Why? Because he was soon to run for re-election and wanted his voters to know he keeps his word. So public policy is often decided by what leaders think their voters want from them. That's the point Dershowitz was making.
"What I've learned from this trial is nothing I do or say has any consequence," he says. "The call to Ukraine wasn't perfect, it was illegal.
"I cheat all the time at golf, taxes, wives, elections," he continues. "I cut the funding to the CDC, so this Wang Chung virus is really going to be bad."
There you go again, the tired old trope that if one is a Trump supporter, they must be uneducated.
I hadn't read that. So they'll go back to what happened with Hillary and Sanders, when Clinton had all the superdelegates locked up even before the first vote. That should make the Sander's voters happy. If they pull that again, none of them will show up to vote at all making it really easy for Trump to win. This is what happens when you don't trust your own voters. This is what inside politics is all about - the Deep State, that both Sanders and Trump complain about. The Brexit folks too.
Not "Trump supporters." Populists. Both ends of the spectrum have them and I promise you, if someone wants to post a screed from some rabid Bernie Bro along the same lines, I'll be equally as scornful.Actually the founders had very little faith in the public. Hence, they wrote the COnstitution to have had electors electing the president and state legislatures electing senators before amending it in the 20th century to let the people select their senators. They feared the public would bankrupt the nation in their ever increasing desire for free things. When the government ran out of money to pay for those "free" things, government created the Federal Reserve to print money. The whole thing all made Bernie Madoff look like a piker.
Pretty much what they are thinking about.
DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083?fbclid=IwAR3J3VH47bGStqzBo4EMY_6rMqip2FDr4O0sNQg0rmGw4TjXpsiXFDK3wr4)
Along with not showing up to vote, I also think Milwaukee will be burned to the ground by Antifa and Bernie Bros. The national guard will need to be called in just like with the DNC Chicago convention in 1968.
Actually, Alex Dershowitz's incredibly stupid statement that president can do anything to help his re-election will destroy any credibility the Republicans had.
"If a President thinks his re-election is in the public interest, anything he does in pursuit of his re-election is legal".
That would include arresting your opponent, suppressing evidence, and spreading out daily new lies.
The Democrat party is setting the stage for a brokered convention to get someone who could beat Trump. Socialists need not apply. Well, if the Republicans can have a billionaire president, so can the Democrats!
Michael Moore: DNC Changing Rules To Allow "Billionaire Republican Mayor Of NYC" Mike Bloomberg On Debate Stage
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/01/michael_moore_dnc_changing_rules_to_allow_bloomberg_on_debate_stage_because_he_has_a_billion_fcking_dollars.html
Actually, Alex Dershowitz's incredibly stupid statement that president can do anything to help his re-election will destroy any credibility the Republicans had.
"If a President thinks his re-election is in the public interest, anything he does in pursuit of his re-election is legal".
That would include arresting your opponent, suppressing evidence, and spreading out daily new lies.
but plenty of animal cunning and shameless deceit, not to mention downright lying.
... If there's one thing I think we call all agree on, it's that politics is an ugly, shameless, corrupt and nasty business.
Anyone disagree?
Slobodan,Douchewitz has for decades taken to most provocative positions to support his clients. There is nothing he won't say A large part of this is just drawing attention to himself. It's me, me, me. I am on TV. Just interrupt him and ask him about his massage at Jeffrey Epstein's place.
I listened to the original Dershowitz's statement, then to him again next day trying to twist that statement, and then again to Cuomo&Dershowitz interview. His original statement was incredibly ridiculous. The only unclear thing is whether he is really so stupid or just desperate? Professor! No wonder, the university students get radicalized listening to such BS.
I do not disagree.
That's why we elected the ugliest, most shameless, and nastiest guy to win that game ;)
No, Les, just no. The quote is deliberately taken out of context.
Well certainly innocent of any crime. He was not even charged with one. Insofar as the actual two articles, they just do not rise to the level of impeachment regardless, IMO.
"witnesses" not "Additional wittnesses"
Les, He made his point inarticulately and expanded it afterwards. What he meant and as I stated myself, was that a president often makes public policy with one eye on an election. He'll ignore what's good for the country by deciding what's good for his re-election. Not only is that legal. It's what they should do in many cases. In a democracy, leaders are elected. They respond to their voters. When Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in 2011 against his military advisors advice that he would create a vacuum for ISIS, he did it anyway. Why? Because he was soon to run for re-election and wanted his voters to know he keeps his word. So public policy is often decided by what leaders think their voters want from them. That's the point Dershowitz was making.
Der Impeachment-Prozess gegen Donald Trump ist faktisch am Ende. Die republikanische Partei ist es auch.
Headline in today's German Spiegel:
Translation: The impeachment process against Donald Trump is effectively finished. The Republican Party, too.
;D ;D ;D
Foreign press, they are always the barameter of USA sentiment.
Foreign press, they are always the barameter of USA sentiment.
Bernard, you are (almost) endearingLy cute in your unwavering belief that you are right, not the 63 million Americans, and that your opinion, gathered by reading information from half the world across, is the truth. It is like claiming to be a neurosurgeon after reading a few textbooks.
... read the textbooks, and probably without moving his lips...
Taking a decision that is against the interest of the country but in favor of a re-election is fine as long as the decision is legal.
The fact that such an incompatibility of interest isn't in itself illegal is totally irrelevant to the point being discussed.
Even if you don't run you have a better chance than Sanders of becoming President.
The House was the outfit that should have called the witnesses they wanted to hear from. Sure, they wanted to call close Trump advisers, and the administration declined to send them, naturally. The President has every right to confidentiality when it comes to his advisers. If the House didn't like the result they could have taken the situation to the courts. But that wasn't part of their playbook. For one thing, the Democrats want their people to be able to get out there and campaign (ridiculous as their campaigns have been). In addition, the House refused to call witnesses the Republicans wanted to hear from, and refused to allow Republicans to cross-examine the Democrat fabricators. There was plenty of dereliction of duty, Bart, but it wasn't the Senate that was derelict.
You are exactly right. Presidents are *supposed* to do things that benefit the country, and that *should* improve their reelection chances. But Trump's actions were solely for his own personal benefit and not for the country's. The Ukrainian prosecutor was fired because he *was not* investigating corruption, not because he was looking into Burisma. And this guy's ouster had been requested by several international organizations as well as anti-corruption activists within Ukraine. This is all well-established but those who live in their tidy little Fox-Limbaugh-Hannity-Breitbart bubble are impervious to such information.
Absolutely and completely wrong. Witnesses are called DURING THE TRIAL--i.e., the Senate proceedings, so the jury (the senators) can hear the evidence and make up their minds. But the GOP senators (all but two) fell into their goose-stepping line behind Trump and McConnell and said "no." We all knew from day 1 that the Senate would not remove Trump, so the goal is to get all the evidence out there for the public to evaluate. And the GOP has been saying all along that we should let the people decide at the election, but then they do their best to keep information from the voters. Gee, why do you think?Impeachment has only been done a few times in the 225 years history of the USA. WE just don;t go there for petty political games.
Absolutely and completely wrong. Witnesses are called DURING THE TRIAL--i.e., the Senate proceedings, so the jury (the senators) can hear the evidence and make up their minds. But the GOP senators (all but two) fell into their goose-stepping line behind Trump and McConnell and said "no." We all knew from day 1 that the Senate would not remove Trump, so the goal is to get all the evidence out there for the public to evaluate. And the GOP has been saying all along that we should let the people decide at the election, but then they do their best to keep information from the voters. Gee, why do you think?
Absolutely and completely wrong. Witnesses are called DURING THE TRIAL--i.e., the Senate proceedings, so the jury (the senators) can hear the evidence and make up their minds. But the GOP senators (all but two) fell into their goose-stepping line behind Trump and McConnell and said "no." We all knew from day 1 that the Senate would not remove Trump, so the goal is to get all the evidence out there for the public to evaluate. And the GOP has been saying all along that we should let the people decide at the election, but then they do their best to keep information from the voters. Gee, why do you think?
And you are wrong about getting the evidence out their for the public to evaluate. That's what elections are for.
Try the Wall Street Journal, Peter. If you watch TV for your news you're almost always getting fake news.
Does that apply to Fox News also?
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, you are (almost) endearingLy cute in your unwavering belief that you are right, not the 63 million Americans, and that your opinion, gathered by reading information from half the world across, is the truth. It is like claiming to be a neurosurgeon after reading a few textbooks.
Which is only relevant for you in your attempt to desguise the reality that the Senate violated the will of the people they are supposed to be representing.
The reality is that the people who answered this question were hoping to see the Senate have witnesses testify, regardless of whether there were already witnesses heard from the congress.
So "witnesses" always meant "additional witnesses". That's the default understanding of the meaning of the word in the context and what common sense dictates.
Taking a decision that is against the interest of the country but in favor of a re-election is fine as long as the decision is legal.
The fact that such an incompatibility of interest isn't in itself illegal is totally irrelevant to the point being discussed.
The nature of the decison has to be measured against the law and the constitution, and in the case of Trump most legal experts assess the usage of a quid pro quo with a foreign leader as being unconstitutional.
But again, we see that the Republican camp is abusing the usage of twisted logic to manipulate the opinion.
Fortunately, the people aren't stupid and every additional layer of manipulation is simply reducing the credibility of the Republican camp.
Everybody understands that there is no need to twist logic when you have a clear and sound case.
Cheers,
Bernard
Does that apply to Fox News also?
Cheers,
Bernard
How much Fox news do you actually watch Bernard? What hard news shows, what opinion shows? Based on your viewing which hard news shows take a soft approach towards Trump, and which ones are fair in respect to the days headlinesw?Unless you are retired and sit around watching news during the day, you are pretty much limited to the opinion shows on all the channels.
Not "Trump supporters." Populists. Both ends of the spectrum have them and I promise you, if someone wants to post a screed from some rabid Bernie Bro along the same lines, I'll be equally as scornful.
Shiff reduced to begging for a single Republican vote...
He laid it on thick today in his closing argument, even suggesting Trump shoud be impeached for what he MIGHT do in the future. and then he begs for a single Republican vote.
"Every single vote, even a single vote by a single member can change the course of history. It is said that a single man or woman of courage makes a majority. Is there one among you who will say ‘enough!’?" Schiff asked.
Does that apply to Fox News also?
Cheers,
Bernard
Regrettably, there was no one. They should have sent into that room some hot Oriental who would cough and sneeze.
The arbitrators of the issue of Trumps actions being against the law and the consitiution rests completely on the Senate. No other body can decide, be it the House of Represenatives, the Courts or the people. This power is of course vested to the Senate by the Constitution. Their verdict is legal and binding. Deal with it Bernard.
Which is of course complete and utter bullcrap. The words were PLAINLY written. Words have meaning. It this case the meaning was QUITE clear. You, like Shiff are simply making things up
Sometimes, Bernard, but they tend to be a lot more accurate than the rest of the TV crocks.
Yes, words have a meaning that is impacted by a context at a given point in time.
The poll we are discussing here was made after the Senate hearings started and it's 100% obvious that the only possible interpretation of the question was "should the Senate hear additional witnesses".
Cheers,
Bernard
What part of this is impossible for you to understand? The only possible interpretation is exactly what it said,
...witnesses. Just admit you screwed up Bernard. If they had wanted to ask about additional witnesses, they would have worded the question that way like in other polls did.
You got scammed. Learn to live with your shortcomings.
Which means that, according to your interpretation, the impeachment process clearly outlined in the constitution with clear guidelines about applicability, is an empty shell since it will always be at the mercy of partisanship in the Senate.
In other words, a President would - again according to your interpretation - only be impeachable if the Senate is in the hands of the opposition. This is obviously not what the great founders had in mind when they embedded in the constitution the possibility of a president to be impeached.
Note that this is only the case because Republicans are not playing their role in applying the constitution they made an oath to protect.
Were they to follow the spirit of the constitution, they would look at facts, hear what the legal experts have to say in terms of the cases that can be impeached and hear the required witnesses to establish the truth in terms of were the facts lie relative to the cases outlined by the experts.
This has not happened the way it should have and this tells us how unethical the Republican Senate is relative to their duty.
Craig,
It looks like you quoted me partially, probably a context and timing issue...
With all due respect, I seriously doubt that any objective person reading our conversation would conclude that you are making sense here.
But I was not expecting you to change your position. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
They apply the constitution in this instance based on what THEY feel is correct. They are playing their role exactly as the constitution requires.
And that is exactly what they have done. Sadly, for you, the outcome appears not to be the one you want. Too bad. This is how our Representative Republic works.
But they have lived up to their duty, the problem is you don’t like the outcome. So cry me a river.
Well Bernard it appears you changed you post as I was creating mine. Not my problem.
Objective people can read the exact wording of the question and find no need to invent context to try and make it fit a failed position like you are attempting.
And I hold no illusions that you will admit you screwed up.
Which means that, according to your interpretation, the impeachment process clearly outlined in the constitution with clear guidelines about applicability, is an empty shell since it will always be at the mercy of partisanship in the Senate. In other words, a President would - again according to your interpretation - only be impeachable if the Senate is in the hands of the opposition. This is obviously not what the great founders had in mind when they embedded in the constitution the possibility of a president to be impeached.
Note that this is only the case because Republicans are not playing their role in applying the constitution they made an oath to protect.
Were they to follow the spirit of the constitution, they would look at facts, hear what the legal experts have to say in terms of the cases that can be impeached and hear the required witnesses to establish the truth in terms of were the facts lie relative to the cases outlined by the experts.
This has not happened the way it should have and this tells us how unethical the Republican Senate is relative to their duty.
Cheers,
Bernard
You're wrong Bernard. If a president committed a real high crime, as Republican President Nixon did, both parties will enforce the constitution. Nixon resigned when his fellow party Republicans told him privately in the Oval OFfice he went too far and that they, the Republicans from his own party, would vote to impeach him along with Democrats making acquittal in the Senate not something he could expect. Nixon resigned rather than having to face his own party's guilty verdict before they even voted.
As I am sure you have understood, my comment isn't about the outcome, it's about the process that was - not - followed to gather the facts and listen to witnesses.
The issue here is that Republican senators have taken a priori stance - a purely partisan and political one - that Trump was innocent and as a result have prevented the provision of objective facts through additional testimonies that could have impacted their feeling.
So their feeling is based on nothing but partisanship, and this is clearly what not the great founders were expecting from Senators when they wrote the constitution.
As a result, it seems fair an objective to call the behaviour of Republican Senators unethical, and I would date to say, unlawful.
Cheers,
Bernard
The fact that the meaning of a word is contextual is just that, a fact that's at the core of every communication between humans. It is thanks to context that we don't need to define every single word we use in every single sentence we write.
That you deny something this basic and obvious renders any conversation with you meaningless.
Cheers,
Bernard
The part in bold is correct, I see no relationship between that and me being wrong.
You are again justifying the innocence of Trump by the behviour of Republican Senators who based their actions on a a priori stance that Trump was innocent. As a result, you are saying nothing but "The proof of Trump's innocence is that he was considered innocent by partisan Senators".
You cannot not see the logical fallacy here.
Which means that you are not being honest in this conversation. You are just trying to be right at the cost of logic and truth.
Keep in mind that, as a free man, you have the liberty at any point in time to adhere back to your Republican principal of rightness and truth. You don't need to continue lying to yourself.
Cheers,
Bernard
As someone with degrees in Mathematics and who has studied statistics fairly intensely, not including the word "additional" would, at best, make it a flawed question in a survey. At worse, it could be seen as personal bias on part of the pollster.
Creating a bias free poll is extremely difficult and the fact is that flaws and biases on the part of the pollsters happen all of the time. A lot of the time, if the pollster only ever interacts with people of his own opinion, he will never even be able to spot any biases in his poll since his counterparts have the same biases as himself and would just as easily looked over it.
Just something to keep in mind when looking at any set of statistics.
I agree (as a former Marketing Analyst, coming from a background with a fair level of statistical analysis), and would like to add that picking an aselect sample to interview is really hard, especially in the case where (like in the USA) the political views are very polarized (due to a mainly 2-party system).There's a lot of shaming going on as well. People don't want to acknowledge their beliefs because they'll be made fun of being called Nazis, bigots, and racists, accusations that you would never hear in this forum. :)
Which means that, according to your interpretation, the impeachment process clearly outlined in the constitution with clear guidelines about applicability, is an empty shell since it will always be at the mercy of partisanship in the Senate. In other words, a President would - again according to your interpretation - only be impeachable if the Senate is in the hands of the opposition. This is obviously not what the great founders had in mind when they embedded in the constitution the possibility of a president to be impeached.
Note that this is only the case because Republicans are not playing their role in applying the constitution they made an oath to protect.
So the first voting appears to be in from Iowa Democrats nomination. I don;t know if this is the final. But Biden didn't do too well. Buttgieg won. The Democrats must be getting nervous. Time to impeach Trump again.
Buttigieg 27.6%
Sanders 26.3
Warren 20.5
Biden 13.8
Klobuchar 11.5
So let’s review. Bernard wants to ask a question to Americans to see if they want “additional” witnesses to the impeachment trial. So he writes the question ; “ Do you want witnesses in the impeachment trial?”
He must depend upon the reader to determine his intention is to ask about additional witnesses beyond the witnesses already part of the trial., many of which have no idea there are already witnesses in the trial.
Instead, other polls asked; “Do you want ADDITIONAL witnesses to the impeachment trial? ”. No need for convoluted distortions to get the reader to infer context that is obscure. Just a clearly worded question that requires no implication.
You need to be mentally challenged to find Bernards contorted position even remotely plausible.
He simply screwed up and is looking to save face.
My post said nothing about Trump's innoence. I responded to your point that a president couldn't get impeached by his party. Nixon proved your statement wrong. If there's enough evidence of a real High Crime, both parties will impeach and convict. The problem is the Democrat House used political charges to impeach, rather than real High Crimes. So the president's party dismissed them for political reasons. GIGO_Garbage In Garbage Out.
Your side seems to have a problem with the American Constitution. You also don;t like the way our electoral system works constantly complaining that Trump didn't really win the presidency because Clinton got more popular votes. So now you're doing it again complaining that the Senate didn't do it's constitutional job. You seem to have problems handling losing.
And how do you know when they are accurate and when they are not?..l
So the first voting appears to be in from Iowa Democrats nomination. I don;t know if this is the final. But Biden didn't do too well. Buttgieg won. The Democrats must be getting nervous. Time to impeach Trump again.
Buttigieg 27.6%
Sanders 26.3
Warren 20.5
Biden 13.8
Klobuchar 11.5
It helps to live here.
No Bernard, it is relevant to everyone , well except you. Its a classic example of you getting duped by a poll designed to fool people. The question was quite clear..."witnesses" and not "additional witneses", and was asked in such a way to elicit the most favorable responses even though the trial DID have witness testimony presented. As for "violating" the will of the people, if you look at the polls, they tell you that the people are pretty much evenly divided for and against impeachment. Given the fact that Republican respondants are almost in complete ageement against Impeachment and the Senators who are against ADDITIONAL witnesses are Rebublicans, it appears they are being faithful to their constituents.
The reality is, IMO and that of others is the vast majority of American had no idea how this trial would work. Its not like they happen very often or that the average American is actually paying attention to the trial. Most are tuning it out. If you were to ask Americans what a witness at a trial looks like I suspect the overwhelming answer would be someone sitting in the dock, being sworn in and being questioned DIRECTLY with in front of the jury. Like they see on Law and Order. Of course, your original stated position was "additional witnesses" Now you are simply trying to do the backstroke.
Which is of course complete and utter bullcrap. The words were PLAINLY written. Words have meaning. It this case the meaning was QUITE clear. You, like Shiff are simply making things up
Voting is a mess in Iowa. Still no official results. Some precincts are reporting that the APP has crashed and they are reduced to calling the results in, and being on hold for an hour. Gonna be cry’s of foul come tomorrow.Wouldn't it be something if my numbers are right? Interesting that Buttgieg claimed victory in his speech last night "stronger" than the others. Biden acted like he came in fourth which would be awful for him. He even sent a letter to the Iowa Democratic committee warning them not to release the final vote count until they review them with him. That tells me he's really scared he did poorly there. That would confirm my prediction that the Democrats aimed their guns at Trump when they impeached him but will wound up shooting Biden instead.
I agree with you that Senators had higher ethical standards in the past. It's sad to see how Trump's influence has lowered the standards of the Republican Senators.I guess we'll just have to disagree. That's what makes a horse race.
But this isn't about Democrats. They just did their job when they identified a clearly impeachable offence.
This is a very interesting example of manipulative technique. Let me spell it out for those who wouldn't be familiar with it.
You group 2 statements:
- one correct: I am indeed convinced that the impeachement senate hearings were not conducted ethically/legally,
- one not correct: I am absolutely not of the opinion that the US electoral system isn't proper or was not applied the way it should have during Trump's election.
-> You derive something from the incorrect statement and make it a generality by implying it would apply to the correct statement.
In this case, you make it look like my "side" (I am only on the side of the truth) is having a problem with the constitution.
While in fact, I am the one defending your constitution against the way it was not respected by Republicans.
Cheers,
Bernard
We have reached the point of complete absurdity!Frankly, the fact presidents have so much power, any president, is the Congress's fault. Over the decades, they have turned their constitutional power over to them rather than making the important decisions about war and peace themselves. They have no one to blame but themselves.
"If abuse of power is not impeachable ... Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and let Jared Kushner run the country, delegating to him the decision whether to go to war," Schiff said.
Frankly, the fact presidents have so much power, any president, is the Congress's fault. Over the decades, they have turned their constitutional power over to them rather than making the important decisions about war and peace themselves. They have no one to blame but themselves.
I agree.Well, there's no push for that and I doubt if it would fly. With getting rid of the electoral system for president, and going to a national popular vote, you will have small states opposed. But with Senators, I don;t see America going back to legislator's selection.
I would even want us to return to Senators being picked by state legislators.
He is a top, then?
Evermore despicable. Is the well of despicability not yet empty?
Well, there's no push for that and I doubt if it would fly. With getting rid of the electoral system for president, and going to a national popular vote, you will have small states opposed. But with Senators, I don;t see America going back to legislator's selection.
First off, that would make senators from the same party as the state legislature. At least now, there's a possibility senators and legislature can be from separate parties. PLus in NY where I was from and even here in NJ where I now live, both are among the most corrupt legislators in the country. Members are always getting caught taking bribes and going to jail. Who wants them to pick my senators? Of course Sen Menendez from NJ is among the most corrupt anyway. You can;t win.
Well, if you ever elect such a President, you’d want him to be on top of things, wouldn’t you?
The thought of a person like Trump being on top of things really makes me cringe.
New polling by Gallup reveals that President Trump's approval rating is at an all-time high, as he prepares to deliver his third State of the Union address Tuesday night and the Senate is expected to acquit him in his impeachment trial on Wednesday.
Trump's job approval rating now sits at 49 percent, with a 94 percent approval rating among Republicans and a 42 percent rating with independents, both numbers being highs for Trump's presidency. The GOP itself is also seeing a significant boost...
...In addition to Trump seeing a rise in approval, the Republican party as a whole is now viewed more favorably than it has since 2005, according to Gallup's data. Their report states that 51 percent of Americans now have a positive view of the GOP, compared to just 43 percent in September 2019.
I'm a small federal government guy and would rather see most issues being handled by the states. If the Senators were picked by the state legislature, they would be less likely to ceed any power of the state to the federal government since doing so may end up getting them removed from office.
Allowing the people to decided the Senators weakens this significantly, hence one reason why the federal government has gotten so big.
I'm a small federal government guy and would rather see most issues being handled by the states. If the Senators were picked by the state legislature, they would be less likely to ceed any power of the state to the federal government since doing so may end up getting them removed from office.
Allowing the people to decided the Senators weakens this significantly, hence one reason why the federal government has gotten so big.
The thought of a person like Trump being on top of things really makes me cringe.
Add to that, although the results from yesterday are still any one's guess, turn out was significantly lower then expected.Also, if things are going pretty well for people, they're not too interested in politics. They have other things to do. Terrorism is at a real low, we're not in a major conflict with Turkey or the Kurds, the economy is good. I don;t think we're going to hear much from Iran after the last drone strike. CHina's got it's own problems. NK isn;t saying much. The EU has to deal with Brexit and trying to hold the rest of the EU together. What's America to complain about? Trump is Trump. Sure, the Democrats are making an issue out of him. But they've been doing that for 3 1/2 years. People get tired of the old same-o' same-o'. They're going to continue to talk about him through the election. They've got nothing else to run on.
Just maybe, just maybe, those in the media and the Beltway are grossly over estimating just how much middle American dislikes the president.
Trump approval rating hits new high in Gallup poll, despite impeachment trial
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/trump-approval-hits-new-high-in-gallup-poll-despite-impeachment.html
Pelosi's anger by ripping up the speech weakens her argument for the impeachment. It just looks like a temper tantrum in both cases.
Trump approval rating hits new high in Gallup poll, despite impeachment trial
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/trump-approval-hits-new-high-in-gallup-poll-despite-impeachment.html
Alan, I am deeply hurt... you don’t read even my posts anymore!? I posted that on the previous page.... with quotes ;)
Trump approval rating hits new high in Gallup poll, despite impeachment trial
It’s the first time she lowers herself to the level of Trump.
Cheers,
Bernard
... Trump is Trump and him snubbing a handshake...
Alan, I am deeply hurt... you don’t read even my posts anymore!? I posted that on the previous page.... with quotes ;)Sorry about that. I probably read it independently in the paper before reading your thread comment about it and posted it. All the credit is yours.
I agree. It was not a classy act. Différence entre un homme et une femme. I don't think a man would react that way, but no doubt, she'll say that he drove her to do it.I think it's a metaphor for what Democrats are doing in the election. They don't have ideas for America, or counter-arguments to his policies. They just attack Trump personally. The temper tantrum has been going on for 3 1/2 years. All the name calling and demeaning vituperation that extends to his supporters as well. But few intellectual arguments against his policies. Ripping up his speech is thusly a symbol of all they've got.
Did she do it because of the handshake snub, was it a reaction to the actual speech or did she plan it already before the event?
Being an outsider, I wonder if the official handshake before the commencement of the speech is a standard procedure or is it something like a friendly and polite pat.
Pelosi said "It was the courteous thing to do considering the alternatives, It was such a dirty speech."
In a statement she doubled down, calling it a "manifesto of mistruths".
Personally, I didn't think that the address was an exemplary literary piece. To put it mildly, it was quite irritating self-gratulatory speech.
Slobodan, give up hope all ye who enter therein.
That little bubble is so tightly sealed that not even the warmth of noon sunshine gets in to disturb the cobwebs with a delicate little ripple of motion. As for the absorption of anything an inch to either side of the catechism... the perfect, unquestioning disciple, in other words.
You'd be better off interacting with the menu of a Fuji or a Sony.
;-)
Never get in a fight with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it!I think she went ahead with the impeachment because of his insults. It's how Florida Senator Rubio lost the Republican nomination in 2016 when he tried to respond similarly to Trump's insults of him by insulting back. It didn't work because Rubio isn't like that. Rubio failed and everyone wrote him off. He wasn't true to himself.
This pretty much sums up how Trump deals with his adversaries. Trump is Trump and him snubbing a handshake from the lady who is trying to remove him from office through impeachment, although puerile, is part of his brand. People expect it and when he does it, it does not move anyone.
However, Pelosi lowering herself and ripping up the speech, showing he true self, looks real bad for her. In the last 6 or 7 months, Trump has goaded Pelosi into destroying her respectable reputation. He has done this with everyone too.
Add to that, this only gins up enthusiasm amongst his supporters, and, judging by the posts here, does nothing to help out Pelosi or the Dems.
Maybe she should get on the Trump re-election pay roll.
PS, I have to agree with my liberal friends here, Trump is no great orator, or even a mediocre orator. For someone who can captivate giant audiences at his rallies, he gives one boring as hell speech.
You've gotta give Trump credit for one thing -- consistent falsehoods. In this speech, here's his score for nine of his major brags:No one cares. All they're going to remember is Pelosi ripping up his speech.
True: 2
Misleading/partly true: 2
False: 5
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/state-union-fact-check-what-s-true-what-s-false-n1130311
You've gotta give Trump credit for one thing -- consistent falsehoods. In this speech, here's his score for nine of his major brags:
True: 2
Misleading/partly true: 2
False: 5
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/state-union-fact-check-what-s-true-what-s-false-n1130311
The question isn't whether it would have been better to add "additional" to the question or not. A more accurate wording is obviously always better.
The question is whether a majority of people living in the US (and I have been told insistently by several of you here that living in the US is enough to have a much better understand of the stakes than mine) could misunderstand the context in which the question "Do you want witnesses in the impeachment trial?" is being asked by not understanding that this is about the upcoming/on-going second phase Senate hearings.
When a trial takes place in 2 phases and when the first phase is already over, when there is a brewing public debate about the need to have additional witnesses during the second phase (the Senate trials), it seems fair to think that a large majority of people taking the time to answer the survey are reasonnably well informed and will correctly interpret the question as being related to the addition of witnesses during second phase of the trial (the Senate part).
Otherwise, the question would have been phrased "was it right to have witnesses during the Congress trial?". Note the past tense here.
But would it appear that we have a different perception of common sense. ;D
And I find it fascinating that you try this hard to be right about this question. It tells me you understand that having 75% of people unhappy about the way the Senate trials were conducted doesn't mean good things for your camp.
Cheers,
Bernard
There is some conversation now that Nancy broke the law when she destroyed a Govenment document. The copy of the speach was the official HOUSE copy. The law calls for a 2k fine and or up to three years in prison. How does Nancy look in orange?Still less orange than Donald without an orange suit.
Still less orange than Donald without an orange suit.
It surely looks that way from the photograph Pelosi posted. However, if you watch the video of the "incident," it leaves room for a different explanation. He was giving copies of his speech to the VP and her. The VP didn't extend his hand after receiving his copy, which sets the stage for not expecting Pelosi to extend her. From the video, it is clear that Trump was already turning around when she extended her hand, leaving the possibility that he simply did not see her. Poor peripheral vision?I agree with that. He didn't shake the VP's hand so why would he shake her hand? Also, he looked very nervous when he first entered the House chamber. Talking to the entire Congress and all the American people can;t be an easy thing for a non-politician.
I am not claiming that he didn't do it intentionally, just that there is a possibility he didn't see it.
Having said that, he is not a stranger to jerkish, non-gentlemanly behavior, I remember him visiting the White House after the election, with Obama and Michelle waiting outside, shoulder to (non-naked) shoulder, when Trump exited his side of the limousine, didn't hold the door for Melania, didn't wait for her to join him in approaching the Obamas, but continue walking toward the entrance, leaving poor Melania several steps behind. Just plain piggish.
It surely looks that way from the photograph Pelosi posted. However, if you watch the video of the "incident," it leaves room for a different explanation. He was giving copies of his speech to the VP and her. The VP didn't extend his hand after receiving his copy, which sets the stage for not expecting Pelosi to extend her. From the video, it is clear that Trump was already turning around when she extended her hand, leaving the possibility that he simply did not see her. Poor peripheral vision?
I am not claiming that he didn't do it intentionally, just that there is a possibility he didn't see it.
Having said that, he is not a stranger to jerkish, non-gentlemanly behavior, I remember him visiting the White House after the election, with Obama and Michelle waiting outside, shoulder to (non-naked) shoulder, when Trump exited his side of the limousine, didn't hold the door for Melania, didn't wait for her to join him in approaching the Obamas, but continue walking toward the entrance, leaving poor Melania several steps behind. Just plain piggish.
Most of the speeches by Reagan, Clinton and Obama were quite uplifting, making you feel better.Trump is a doer not a speaker. His State of the Union report was a financial statement to the board of directors, asking for another four years as CEO.
Trump's State of Union 2020 speech was not only boring and annoying, but a total waste of time. His rally performances are much more entertaining.
I did not watch the speech, just because he is a boring speech giver. Yet I have been reading snippets, and it was not partisan at all. It was not a braggadocio speech. It was not a one-side speech.I agree. Trump's speech will appeal to independents because of the balance in his presentation. It lacked braggadocio other than the pride of doing a good job. No anger like Pelosi's and other Democrats who failed to acknowledge when he did things right. Voters will be comparing his eventual competitor against a new Trump, not the old Trump. Voters will forget his bull in the China shop approach to politics over the next few months. They won;t buy democrat charges that he's crazy and vile. He's smart enough to become a different guy. I think he's planned it all along.
It was genuinely a pro-America speech and many of positives that everyone on both sides could have appreciated.
Pelosi ripping the speech up not only will get people to actually read it but destroy much of her case with independents.
"Senate acquits Trump on abuse of power, obstruction of Congress charges"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-acquits-president-trump-impeachment-vote
Please don't cry! There is plenty of time for a few more coup attempts until November ;)
"Senate acquits Trump on abuse of power, obstruction of Congress charges"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-acquits-president-trump-impeachment-vote
Please don't cry! There is plenty of time for a few more coup attempts until November ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Time for tears passed a while back. What you have now is the official confirmation of no more moral high ground. What y'all just did was blow it. And it ain't coming back.
Does not a one of you see what has just been approved to great cheering, the national self-harm that's been achieved?
The officialization that cheating and breaking the law is fine as long as you have the right friends.
Nihil novi sub sole
Nihil novi sub sole
Yes, but this is reaching new heights.
"Senate acquits Trump on abuse of power, obstruction of Congress charges"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-acquits-president-trump-impeachment-vote
...
P.S. Now, recall Romney!
P.S. Now, recall Romney!
From a piece Mike Huckabee wrote...Exactly what you would expect Mike Huckabee to say. No news there. I am sure the Rush Limbaugh fans were ecstatic too.
After Trump was elected, but before he took office, I was commiserating with a friend. I expressed my belief that there were enough honorable and honest Republican Senators, Representatives, etc. to keep Trump in check. Boy was I ever wrong. They have almost all turned into a bunch of sniveling toadies who don't give squat about this country. But bravo to Romney.
Many years ago there was an Emperor so exceedingly fond of new clothes that he spent all his money on being well dressed. He cared nothing about reviewing his soldiers, going to the theatre, or going for a ride in his carriage, except to show off his new clothes. He had a coat for every hour of the day, and instead of saying, as one might, about any other ruler, "The King's in council," here they always said. "The Emperor's in his dressing room."
In the great city where he lived, life was always gay. Every day many strangers came to town, and among them one day came two swindlers. They let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid.
...
So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said. "Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on." "But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last. The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.
I predict Romney will run in 2024. He thinks voting to convict Trump now will win him votes from swing democrats later. It's the ol' "enemy of my enemy is my friend" move. Yeah, right, sure, uhha.
Exactly what you would expect Mike Huckabee to say. No news there. I am sure the Rush Limbaugh fans were ecstatic too.
Time to open a new thread: “Recalling Mitt Romney.”
I predict Romney will run in 2024. He thinks voting to convict Trump now will win him votes from swing democrats later. It's the ol' "enemy of my enemy is my friend" move. Yeah, right, sure, uhha.
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes states to provide for the recall of a federal senator or a member of the House of Representatives. The two federal legislative chambers are responsible for determining whether and, pursuant to their respective rules, how their members may be removed from office prior to the expiration of their elective terms.Of course, if the Republican majority in the Senate wanted to remove Romney, they have the ability to do it.
Edited to eliminate my earlier reference to removal by a majority: a two-thirds supermajority of a chamber is required to remove one of its members by Article I §5 of the U.S. Constitution.
So, why did we waste almost 200 pages on this?