The Democratic Party has made an error in judgment and it just might backfire.
What's the error in judgement? Protecting the United States from foreign interference in the 2020 elections and from a rogue President and a complicit cowardly Republican party?
Trump said he did it, though of course he's flip flopped all over the place. Just read the the memo of the call, "Do us a favor". Trump sent his personal lawyer to force a foreign country to invent dirt on a political opponent. The facts have been corroborated by many multiple witnesses. He's hiding many more witnesses but they won't stay hidden forever.
He's obstructing Congress. Republicans are flat on the wrong side of this issue, their little temper tantrums and crying and cowardice are a distraction, facts are facts. More truth will come out OR Republicans will turn the United States into a dictatorship of the President over what? This elderly dipshit? Come on what are you guys doing lol?
Democrats made an error in judgment? Get lost, Trump made the error in judgement and all the Republicans that are protecting him are on the wrong side of the issue. They're a bunch of cowards and shortsighted fools.
Dude, it's an error of judgment if it doesn't work, or worse, backfires!
Liberals seriously need to look at reality sometimes. I know you hate to look at politics as a game but it really is. This idea that people are going to suddenly wake up and realize, "Oh my God, this completely changes my mind!", is a pipe dream.
How? Backfires? Impossible. He's guilty as sh-er "heck" on both counts and more. He's not going to change his corruption and terrible personality either going forward. If the Senate lets him remain in office, despite demanding foreign interference in our elections, then it exposes them as partisan hacks at best.
Ok, it exposes them. If most people say 'whoop de doo, the economy is still good and I have a job' what good does it do? It makes some people feel good about themselves and that's it. Ephemeral feelings of righteousness don't change reality. The reality is that some of your policies just aren't that popular. Sorry...
In Europe they've had to dial back free immigration policies to stave off the far right. That might be a good start for the Democrats seeing as that's a major reason for right wing hysteria (mostly the working class that the left used to care about).
Throw the working class a bone instead of calling them ignorant morons and deplorables and I will fucking guarantee a Democratic victory in 2020. Nobody will listen to me though so I don't know why I bother...
When you say "working class" you are referring to the same voters everyone in the media is when they say it. Which is middle-class white people who work with their hands. These are LITERALLY the ONLY people anyone deems worthy of catering to in this country. People in the inner-city are "lazy" when they can't get a job. But try tell someone from Scranton they might not be able to have the same factory job that pulls 60k a year with full benefits from cradle to grave, and all hell breaks loose.
I'm giving you a formula for sticking a fork in the Republican Party. Possibly permanently, forcing them to move away from the far right or become irrelevant. Immigration is the key to Trump's popularity. Move right on that issue and they will have to move left on others. I'm serious...
Edit: Just think about it before rejecting it outright. What's the most important issue for liberals? Is it really immigration? The polls don't show it.
And no, I don't mean a totally idiotic wall either. Even most Republicans don't buy that load of malarkey...
I don't believe that. I think it's just retroactive plausible deniability. Maybe you didn't believe it. You'll never convince me the people at those rallies were just engaging in some kind of metaphorical wordplay. And this, of course, is another problem. Everything Trump says is to either be taken seriously or not taken seriously entirely based on whether it is convenient for the argument a Trump supporter (not you specifically) at any given time. One second he's the ultimate straight-shooter, and 15 seconds later he was "just joking".
And no, I don't mean a totally idiotic wall either. Even most Republicans don't buy that load of malarkey...
I don't believe that. I think it's just retroactive plausible deniability. Maybe you didn't believe it. You'll never convince me the people at those rallies were just engaging in some kind of metaphorical wordplay. And this, of course, is another problem. Everything Trump says is to either be taken seriously or not taken seriously entirely based on whether it is convenient for the argument a Trump supporter (not you specifically) at any given time. One second he's the ultimate straight-shooter, and 15 seconds later he was "just joking".
He didn't have enough support from his own party to move it forward in Congress. I wasn't talking about voters per se. Sorry, I don't necessarily mean Republicans when I talk about voters. Many voters don't identify with a party...
The reason I don't associate Republicans for Trump voters is that I think many Trumpers would ditch the Republican Party in a split second if they didn't tow the line. I believe that the Republicans know this too which is why they're petrified of standing up to him. I also believe the Democratic Party is just as terrified of their fringe deserting them. This is precisely why a two party system is totally flawed at it's core. Both of our current parties are totally beholden to the very people that make compromise next to impossible.
Not to mention, that deplorable comment was taken out of context, even though Steve Miller is still part of this administration and the right shrugs.
But have some independent professor make reference to Barron, look out! Time to start swinging everything out of context again to paint these name-calling-dems as unable to represent the people properly because feelings.
@Balrog99 you still seem to be concentrating on the short term. Lots of political actions can be unpopular in the short term - but are taken anyway. Something like drink driving laws were unpopular when they were introduced, but they are not unpopular now. Their introduction reflected the need to balance liberties - the right to drink what you want against other people's rights to be safe on and around the roads.
In this instance the issue is whether the President should have the right to do whatever he wants. The original debate around the Constitution considered this question and one view put forward was that there was sufficient protection through the time limited nature of the Presidency. However, the prevailing view was that the opportunities for corruption and the potential for damage to the Republic were so great that a process of impeachment was necessary. The debate of July 20, 1757 was also interesting in the specific examples given of impeachable conduct - examples which are eerily relevant to what is happening at the moment :
Col. MASON. No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice? Above all shall that man be above it, who can commit the most extensive injustice? When great crimes were committed he was for punishing the principal as well as the Coadjutors. There had been much debate & difficulty as to the mode of chusing the Executive. He approved of that which had been adopted at first, namely of referring the appointment to the Natl. Legislature. One objection agst. Electors was the danger of their being corrupted by the Candidates; & this furnished a peculiar reason in favor of impeachments whilst in office. Shall the man who has practised corruption & by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt?
Mr. MADISON thought it 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.
Another point which has been only briefly touched on in this debate concerns the appropriate standard of proof when considering impeachment. The Constitution partly provides for impeachment by the legislature, rather than the judiciary, because the President is responsible for appointing judges. However, it's worth remembering where the concept of impeachment came from. This was a process used in England at the time to remove office holders, but the process was not triggered by "high crimes and misdemeanors", but by "maladministration", i.e. being bad at your job. The quote from Madison above about impeachment being a remedy for lack of capacity shows that this original concept was still very much in the minds of those considering what impeachment should be in future.
From this perspective it becomes clear that the appropriate standard of proof is not a criminal one. As with the discussion a while ago on Kavanaugh, it seems to me that the appropriate standard is more like the one applied in a job interview. I've seen a number of comments from those defending Trump along the lines of "there's insufficient evidence to convict" - and, in a criminal context, that is likely to remain the case as long as witnesses are prevented from giving evidence and relevant documents are withheld. In a criminal case such obstruction would be grounds for a separate conviction of course, but this is not a criminal case - and the appropriate remedy for this type of abuse is to remove the abuser from office.
The Democratic Party has made an error in judgment and it just might backfire.
What's the error in judgement? Protecting the United States from foreign interference in the 2020 elections and from a rogue President and a complicit cowardly Republican party?
Trump said he did it, though of course he's flip flopped all over the place. Just read the the memo of the call, "Do us a favor". Trump sent his personal lawyer to force a foreign country to invent dirt on a political opponent. The facts have been corroborated by many multiple witnesses. He's hiding many more witnesses but they won't stay hidden forever.
He's obstructing Congress. Republicans are flat on the wrong side of this issue, their little temper tantrums and crying and cowardice are a distraction, facts are facts. More truth will come out OR Republicans will turn the United States into a dictatorship of the President over what? This elderly dipshit? Come on what are you guys doing lol?
Democrats made an error in judgment? Get lost, Trump made the error in judgement and all the Republicans that are protecting him are on the wrong side of the issue. They're a bunch of cowards and shortsighted fools.
Dude, it's an error of judgment if it doesn't work, or worse, backfires!
Liberals seriously need to look at reality sometimes. I know you hate to look at politics as a game but it really is. This idea that people are going to suddenly wake up and realize, "Oh my God, this completely changes my mind!", is a pipe dream.
How? Backfires? Impossible. He's guilty as sh-er "heck" on both counts and more. He's not going to change his corruption and terrible personality either going forward. If the Senate lets him remain in office, despite demanding foreign interference in our elections, then it exposes them as partisan hacks at best.
Ok, it exposes them. If most people say 'whoop de doo, the economy is still good and I have a job' what good does it do? It makes some people feel good about themselves and that's it. Ephemeral feelings of righteousness don't change reality. The reality is that some of your policies just aren't that popular. Sorry...
In Europe they've had to dial back free immigration policies to stave off the far right. That might be a good start for the Democrats seeing as that's a major reason for right wing hysteria (mostly the working class that the left used to care about).
Throw the working class a bone instead of calling them ignorant morons and deplorables and I will fucking guarantee a Democratic victory in 2020. Nobody will listen to me though so I don't know why I bother...
When you say "working class" you are referring to the same voters everyone in the media is when they say it. Which is middle-class white people who work with their hands. These are LITERALLY the ONLY people anyone deems worthy of catering to in this country. People in the inner-city are "lazy" when they can't get a job. But try tell someone from Scranton they might not be able to have the same factory job that pulls 60k a year with full benefits from cradle to grave, and all hell breaks loose.
I'm giving you a formula for sticking a fork in the Republican Party. Possibly permanently, forcing them to move away from the far right or become irrelevant. Immigration is the key to Trump's popularity. Move right on that issue and they will have to move left on others. I'm serious...
Edit: Just think about it before rejecting it outright. What's the most important issue for liberals? Is it really immigration? The polls don't show it.
It won't matter for one. Republicans push fear of the "other" there will always be others - anyone who isn't lily white from Oklahoma or Kansas is the enemy in the end. Now they've pushed the boundaries out to illegal immigrants but if you somehow solved that, they'd just pick a new group like "educated people" or "city folk" or "brown people". First they are coming for immigrants, once that would be over they'll move on to another group. That's how that works.
For another thing, what are you recommending? The left will never outflank Trump to the right on immigration. I mean he has a white nationalist in charge of his immigration policies and is caging kids for God's sake. He's denying kids with cancer medical care and arresting doctors who want to give them flu shots for free. So there's not much we can do or would want to do that's to the right of that, he's already extreme crazy right on that issue only thing further is genocide.
The Democratic Party has made an error in judgment and it just might backfire.
What's the error in judgement? Protecting the United States from foreign interference in the 2020 elections and from a rogue President and a complicit cowardly Republican party?
Trump said he did it, though of course he's flip flopped all over the place. Just read the the memo of the call, "Do us a favor". Trump sent his personal lawyer to force a foreign country to invent dirt on a political opponent. The facts have been corroborated by many multiple witnesses. He's hiding many more witnesses but they won't stay hidden forever.
He's obstructing Congress. Republicans are flat on the wrong side of this issue, their little temper tantrums and crying and cowardice are a distraction, facts are facts. More truth will come out OR Republicans will turn the United States into a dictatorship of the President over what? This elderly dipshit? Come on what are you guys doing lol?
Democrats made an error in judgment? Get lost, Trump made the error in judgement and all the Republicans that are protecting him are on the wrong side of the issue. They're a bunch of cowards and shortsighted fools.
Dude, it's an error of judgment if it doesn't work, or worse, backfires!
Liberals seriously need to look at reality sometimes. I know you hate to look at politics as a game but it really is. This idea that people are going to suddenly wake up and realize, "Oh my God, this completely changes my mind!", is a pipe dream.
How? Backfires? Impossible. He's guilty as sh-er "heck" on both counts and more. He's not going to change his corruption and terrible personality either going forward. If the Senate lets him remain in office, despite demanding foreign interference in our elections, then it exposes them as partisan hacks at best.
Ok, it exposes them. If most people say 'whoop de doo, the economy is still good and I have a job' what good does it do? It makes some people feel good about themselves and that's it. Ephemeral feelings of righteousness don't change reality. The reality is that some of your policies just aren't that popular. Sorry...
In Europe they've had to dial back free immigration policies to stave off the far right. That might be a good start for the Democrats seeing as that's a major reason for right wing hysteria (mostly the working class that the left used to care about).
Throw the working class a bone instead of calling them ignorant morons and deplorables and I will fucking guarantee a Democratic victory in 2020. Nobody will listen to me though so I don't know why I bother...
When you say "working class" you are referring to the same voters everyone in the media is when they say it. Which is middle-class white people who work with their hands. These are LITERALLY the ONLY people anyone deems worthy of catering to in this country. People in the inner-city are "lazy" when they can't get a job. But try tell someone from Scranton they might not be able to have the same factory job that pulls 60k a year with full benefits from cradle to grave, and all hell breaks loose.
I'm giving you a formula for sticking a fork in the Republican Party. Possibly permanently, forcing them to move away from the far right or become irrelevant. Immigration is the key to Trump's popularity. Move right on that issue and they will have to move left on others. I'm serious...
Edit: Just think about it before rejecting it outright. What's the most important issue for liberals? Is it really immigration? The polls don't show it.
It won't matter for one. Republicans push fear of the "other" there will always be others - anyone who isn't lily white from Oklahoma or Kansas is the enemy in the end. Now they've pushed the boundaries out to illegal immigrants but if you somehow solved that, they'd just pick a new group like "educated people" or "city folk" or "brown people". First they are coming for immigrants, once that would be over they'll move on to another group. That's how that works.
For another thing, what are you recommending? The left will never outflank Trump to the right on immigration. I mean he has a white nationalist in charge of his immigration policies and is caging kids for God's sake. He's denying kids with cancer medical care and arresting doctors who want to give them flu shots for free. So there's not much we can do or would want to do that's to the right of that, he's already extreme crazy right on that issue only thing further is genocide.
The Democratic Party has made an error in judgment and it just might backfire.
What's the error in judgement? Protecting the United States from foreign interference in the 2020 elections and from a rogue President and a complicit cowardly Republican party?
Trump said he did it, though of course he's flip flopped all over the place. Just read the the memo of the call, "Do us a favor". Trump sent his personal lawyer to force a foreign country to invent dirt on a political opponent. The facts have been corroborated by many multiple witnesses. He's hiding many more witnesses but they won't stay hidden forever.
He's obstructing Congress. Republicans are flat on the wrong side of this issue, their little temper tantrums and crying and cowardice are a distraction, facts are facts. More truth will come out OR Republicans will turn the United States into a dictatorship of the President over what? This elderly dipshit? Come on what are you guys doing lol?
Democrats made an error in judgment? Get lost, Trump made the error in judgement and all the Republicans that are protecting him are on the wrong side of the issue. They're a bunch of cowards and shortsighted fools.
Dude, it's an error of judgment if it doesn't work, or worse, backfires!
Liberals seriously need to look at reality sometimes. I know you hate to look at politics as a game but it really is. This idea that people are going to suddenly wake up and realize, "Oh my God, this completely changes my mind!", is a pipe dream.
If you think of this as a game, then presumably you should be happy with sanctioning someone who refuses to play by the rules - ultimately I think that tends to lead to them being thrown out of the game ...
While I can see there's an attraction to describing politics (or, indeed, life) as a game, I'm not sure that's the most helpful way to look at these issues. Politics is normally dominated by short-term considerations, but every now and then things do pop up that have clear long-term consequences as well. Such moments provide an opportunity to consider what type of society you want to live in. Whether you think impeaching Trump is going to be popular right now or not, what sort of message do you want to send to the future?
If you think it is not appropriate for a President to use the power of the state for his own personal purposes, then this looks to me like the time to signal that. If Trump is not challenged now after having been caught trying such a blatant abuse of power, that will set a precedent. Whatever you think of Democrats or Republicans now, their philosophy and the way parties operate is subject to change. What won't change though is that there will always be someone interested in abusing power. It does not seem sensible to me to accept at the very highest level of government and society that that's OK.
You're all putting words in my mouth. I am absolutely not saying I condone Trump's behaviour. None of you can seem to see how much politics is illusion. Liberals get gamed over and over again and never seem to learn. You're not going to win by demonizing your opponents. That only works for conservatives. That's their zone. Your zone is appealing to the everyday worker but you've completely forgotten them and are pandering to your fringe.
For someone who doesn't condone Trump's behaviour, you sure make a lot of excuses for him...
"I just think Liberals are terrible poker players... "
That might actually mean something if we were playing fricken poker.
Good. If isn't willing to lose his seat on the principle of the matter, let him join the other side where that kind of thing is in vogue. Plenty of vulnerable Democrats are sticking their necks out. The ones who set this whole thing into motion are in vulnerable seats. The fact is, this guy is actually in a position where he is more likely to win as a Republican than win his primary against another Democrat, precisely because of this position. His switching is pure opportunism. If this guy will go meet with Trump and switch parties, well.....with friends like these is the phrase that comes to mind. This guy actually had the nerve to ask his staffers to stay on if he switched parties. They told him to take a hike:
Van Drew and Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson were the only House Democrats who voted against formalizing the impeachment inquiry in October, and both have said they will probably vote against impeaching the president later this week.
So let me tell you something about his other compatriot here, Colin Peterson. Colin Peterson represents the district I grew up in in MN. I remember him visiting my elementary school. The district I lived in (and am still very close to geographically), from a demographic and political perspective, might as well be rural Alabama. Frankly I have no idea how he has managed to keep getting elected every two years for the last 3 decades in this area, or why he is still a Democrat after all this time. He's been a Republican in all but name the entire time. But it has something to do with how Democrats are actually on the ballot in MN, which is as the Democratic Farm Labor Party, or DFL. Those last two words carry enough weight in certain places to override the the first one, and god knows the farmers around here get enough handouts (to the point where it often doesn't even matter if you sell your crops or not), and Peterson is the one who keeps them flowing. I guess Peterson long ago learned that as long as you are giving money away to the ACCEPTABLE people (i.e. white farmers), no one will call you a socialist or call the recipients free-loaders. After all, THEY deserve it. It's everyone else who is a lazy bum. Doesn't really matter if you have a bad harvest in this neck of the woods. You'll still be driving a brand-new pick-up every 2 or 3 years.
Van Drew was elected by the same deplorable whites that voted for Obama.
I never called them anything. Simply pointing out that I spent my entire youth listening to people who would rag on poor people and minorities for getting "handouts" while at the same time taking checks to literally let crops rot in a grain bin. And it's happening again, this time with the Chinese tariffs. A entire class of people utterly immune from the consequences of anything. The fact is, there isn't really ANYONE who has a problem taking free stuff from the government. They just have a problem when it's anyone but them. It's quite the deal when you can vote overwhelmingly for someone who will literally cause you to stop being able to sell your product, and then just cut you a check for doing so. Nice work if you can get it. But stop with the nonsense about the free market. Farming doesn't just involve growing things and harvesting them. It ostensibly also involves SELLING it. But you no longer have to engage in that part if you live in the right places. And let me tell you, there aren't any black family farms in the Midwest.
I am for the “ you are not allowed to switch parties until the election.” You can sit as an independent (really, I do not k ow why there isn’t more “I” in the US) but the voting public voted more for a party and it’s platform than for you, and switching over is always a selfish opportunist move.
I despise it whenever someone does it in Canada regardless of party and I am cringing at this bloke now. I am wondering how he’ll be received by the public the next time he is up for election.
I am for the “ you are not allowed to switch parties until the election.” You can sit as an independent (really, I do not k ow why there isn’t more “I” in the US) but the voting public voted more for a party and it’s platform than for you, and switching over is always a selfish opportunist move.
I despise it whenever someone does it in Canada regardless of party and I am cringing at this bloke now. I am wondering how he’ll be received by the public the next time he is up for election.
It actually doesn't turn out to well for the people that do it most of the time. On average, they lose the next time up. Angus King of Maine being one exception, but he didn't switch parties so much as switch who he caucuses with.
Van Drew was elected by the same deplorable whites that voted for Obama.
I never called them anything. Simply pointing out that I spent my entire youth listening to people who would rag on poor people and minorities for getting "handouts" while at the same time taking checks to literally let crops rot in a grain bin. And it's happening again, this time with the Chinese tariffs. A entire class of people utterly immune from the consequences of anything. The fact is, there isn't really ANYONE who has a problem taking free stuff from the government. They just have a problem when it's anyone but them. It's quite the deal when you can vote overwhelmingly for someone who will literally cause you to stop being able to sell your product, and then just cut you a check for doing so. Nice work if you can get it. But stop with the nonsense about the free market. Farming doesn't just involve growing things and harvesting them. It ostensibly also involves SELLING it. But you no longer have to engage in that part if you live in the right places. And let me tell you, there aren't any black family farms in the Midwest.
A word of advice. Don't ever hate the player, hate the game.
Well riddle me this: the prevailing conventional wisdom is that this is a POLITICAL mistake for Democrats. Most Americans will also scream from cradle to grave that they hate it when people make decisons based on politics rather than principles. So if a.) Democrats are going to be hurt politically and b.) people hate it when people base decisions on politics are BOTH true, then by the own internal logic of these two thoughts, you would have to conclude that Democrats are impeaching on principle. And it would simply reveal that the idea that people hate "politics" is generally a horsehit, disingenuous argument.
But that's it. People do like politics so much that they will use it to hate their fellow human for a difference of opinion. That is disingenuous.
I know you're a very passionate person @jjstraka34 and that you really want change but this new age Social Democrat self loathing party thing is not going to work if we want to break the game. Only if we see each other as equals will finally make everyone know who the real bad guys are and then that will force change. Complaining about those who exploit the system will not change the system, it just creates a greater divide. Going after those who are responsible is the key and breaking down their first line of defence (the media) is the only starting place.
Leave it to Canadians to try and fix a substantially American problem. Two people are suing Smith and Wesson $150 million because their stolen gun was used in a downtown Toronto shooting that killed 2 people (one 10 year old and one 18 year old girl) and injured 13 others.
If they win, I expect other people who were innocent victims of un crimes or mass shootings to follow suit. If they can't take guns away, they might as well start making them safer and harder for criminals to use.
Leave it to Canadians to try and fix a substantially American problem. Two people are suing Smith and Wesson $150 million because their stolen gun was used in a downtown Toronto shooting that killed 2 people (one 10 year old and one 18 year old girl) and injured 13 others.
If they win, I expect other people who were innocent victims of un crimes or mass shootings to follow suit. If they can't take guns away, they might as well start making them safer and harder for criminals to use.
It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of this. In the meantime, here's an article I found on smart guns that's pretty interesting.
Just like everything else these days, the reality is complicated...
Edit: I have no skin in the gun-control game. I don't own, nor do I want to own a handgun. I do have a couple of long guns (a 0.22 my dad gave me and a bolt action 0.30-6 I used for deer hunting long ago) and a 12 gauge shotgun I use(d) for duck hunting. I'm really not too concerned about UN troopers storming my house and taking them, however.
We're halfway through December and Biden's numbers don't appear to be going anywhere. Bloomberg has somehow bought his way to 6 or 7%, but I have a feeling he is mostly taking Buttigieg voters, as Mayor Pete is not going to be able to overcome his questionable work at a health insurance company. It's a 3-person race between Biden, Sanders and Warren with it slowly inching toward Biden vs. Sanders.
So in 2020, in all likelihood, a fundamental question about the Democratic Party ia going to be answered. The two lines of thought are that a likable, absolutey centrist known quantity like Biden being a safe bet promising a return to normal is the path forward, or that an insurgent candidacy from Sanders that excites both youth and people who have thought they have nothing to vote for for years is the way victory. Either way, whichever side prevails in the primary is going to either be proven totally right or catastrophically wrong, and if it's the later, that path will be completely discredited going forward.
The Democratic establishment will not be able to talk their way out of a Biden loss when it comes to 2024. And if Bernie were to get beaten, it would be a death blow to progressives who have been insisting for at least half a decade that all that is required is running a true leftist candidate (and no, Obama was decidedly not that).
The Democratic Party has made an error in judgment and it just might backfire.
What's the error in judgement? Protecting the United States from foreign interference in the 2020 elections and from a rogue President and a complicit cowardly Republican party?
Trump said he did it, though of course he's flip flopped all over the place. Just read the the memo of the call, "Do us a favor". Trump sent his personal lawyer to force a foreign country to invent dirt on a political opponent. The facts have been corroborated by many multiple witnesses. He's hiding many more witnesses but they won't stay hidden forever.
He's obstructing Congress. Republicans are flat on the wrong side of this issue, their little temper tantrums and crying and cowardice are a distraction, facts are facts. More truth will come out OR Republicans will turn the United States into a dictatorship of the President over what? This elderly dipshit? Come on what are you guys doing lol?
Democrats made an error in judgment? Get lost, Trump made the error in judgement and all the Republicans that are protecting him are on the wrong side of the issue. They're a bunch of cowards and shortsighted fools.
Dude, it's an error of judgment if it doesn't work, or worse, backfires!
Liberals seriously need to look at reality sometimes. I know you hate to look at politics as a game but it really is. This idea that people are going to suddenly wake up and realize, "Oh my God, this completely changes my mind!", is a pipe dream.
If you think of this as a game, then presumably you should be happy with sanctioning someone who refuses to play by the rules - ultimately I think that tends to lead to them being thrown out of the game ...
While I can see there's an attraction to describing politics (or, indeed, life) as a game, I'm not sure that's the most helpful way to look at these issues. Politics is normally dominated by short-term considerations, but every now and then things do pop up that have clear long-term consequences as well. Such moments provide an opportunity to consider what type of society you want to live in. Whether you think impeaching Trump is going to be popular right now or not, what sort of message do you want to send to the future?
If you think it is not appropriate for a President to use the power of the state for his own personal purposes, then this looks to me like the time to signal that. If Trump is not challenged now after having been caught trying such a blatant abuse of power, that will set a precedent. Whatever you think of Democrats or Republicans now, their philosophy and the way parties operate is subject to change. What won't change though is that there will always be someone interested in abusing power. It does not seem sensible to me to accept at the very highest level of government and society that that's OK.
You're all putting words in my mouth. I am absolutely not saying I condone Trump's behaviour. None of you can seem to see how much politics is illusion. Liberals get gamed over and over again and never seem to learn. You're not going to win by demonizing your opponents. That only works for conservatives. That's their zone. Your zone is appealing to the everyday worker but you've completely forgotten them and are pandering to your fringe.
For someone who doesn't condone Trump's behaviour, you sure make a lot of excuses for him...
"I just think Liberals are terrible poker players... "
That might actually mean something if we were playing fricken poker.
Politics is as close to poker as real life gets. Seriously...
I thought Obama was kind of dull and pedantic with his speeches. Trump is the complete opposite. It's like listening to Sophia from the Golden Girls ramble on about whatever with no filter at all on what comes out of her mouth.
We're halfway through December and Biden's numbers don't appear to be going anywhere. Bloomberg has somehow bought his way to 6 or 7%, but I have a feeling he is mostly taking Buttigieg voters, as Mayor Pete is not going to be able to overcome his questionable work at a health insurance company. It's a 3-person race between Biden, Sanders and Warren with it slowly inching toward Biden vs. Sanders.
So in 2020, in all likelihood, a fundamental question about the Democratic Party ia going to be answered. The two lines of thought are that a likable, absolutey centrist known quantity like Biden being a safe bet promising a return to normal is the path forward, or that an insurgent candidacy from Sanders that excites both youth and people who have thought they have nothing to vote for for years is the way victory. Either way, whichever side prevails in the primary is going to either be proven totally right or catastrophically wrong, and if it's the later, that path will be completely discredited going forward.
The Democratic establishment will not be able to talk their way out of a Biden loss when it comes to 2024. And if Bernie were to get beaten, it would be a death blow to progressives who have been insisting for at least half a decade that all that is required is running a true leftist candidate (and no, Obama was decidedly not that).
I'll vote for Sanders at this point. He's a little kooky (if you didn't watch the video I posted a few pages back, it's pretty hilarious), but he's the most honest politician out of the whole bunch. He kind of reminds me of Mr. Rogers. "Dude, this guy is totally weird, but for some reason I like him!"
I don't mind Biden but, I'm sorry, he's looking like Reagan did in his final two years. I'd hate for his wife to have to start calling in mediums, using a Ouija board or reading tea leaves to steer US policy decisions...
We're halfway through December and Biden's numbers don't appear to be going anywhere. Bloomberg has somehow bought his way to 6 or 7%, but I have a feeling he is mostly taking Buttigieg voters, as Mayor Pete is not going to be able to overcome his questionable work at a health insurance company. It's a 3-person race between Biden, Sanders and Warren with it slowly inching toward Biden vs. Sanders.
So in 2020, in all likelihood, a fundamental question about the Democratic Party ia going to be answered. The two lines of thought are that a likable, absolutey centrist known quantity like Biden being a safe bet promising a return to normal is the path forward, or that an insurgent candidacy from Sanders that excites both youth and people who have thought they have nothing to vote for for years is the way victory. Either way, whichever side prevails in the primary is going to either be proven totally right or catastrophically wrong, and if it's the later, that path will be completely discredited going forward.
The Democratic establishment will not be able to talk their way out of a Biden loss when it comes to 2024. And if Bernie were to get beaten, it would be a death blow to progressives who have been insisting for at least half a decade that all that is required is running a true leftist candidate (and no, Obama was decidedly not that).
I'll vote for Sanders at this point. He's a little kooky (if you didn't watch the video I posted a few pages back, it's pretty hilarious), but he's the most honest politician out of the whole bunch. He kind of reminds me of Mr. Rogers. "Dude, this guy is totally weird, but for some reason I like him!"
I don't mind Biden but, I'm sorry, he's looking like Reagan did in his final two years. I'd hate for his wife to have to start calling in mediums, using a Ouija board or reading tea leaves to steer US policy decisions...
Reagan was absolutely suffering from early-onset dementia as early as the 1984 debates with Mondale and looking back it's ridiculous to argue otherwise. I also happen to have read the autobiography of his Chief of Staff during that time (Don Regan) because I bought it for like 25 cents at a used book store a decade ago. That shit about Nancy running everything he did through her was no joke or rumor. She was actively shielding his condition from his staff and the public. Nancy wasn't running the country, but she was in total control of access to the person who did. I'd go so far as to say the MAJORITY of his Presidency was staged around his cognitive decline. He was never the same after the assassination attempt. In that way, even though Iran-Contra was worthy of destroying his Presidency the same way Watergate did with Nixon, the fact is I highly doubt he had the first clue what was going on. Because he was a complete figurehead. Everything was being run by Ed Meese, George Shultz, Caspar Weinburger and Alexander Haig.
I also happen to think Reagan's Presidency is ground zero for the economic decline of the middle-class in this country, and while it was viewed positively at the time, long-term his destruction of unions and the devastation to manufacturing and farming that moved ahead full speed under his watch has never been reversed. And America ushered it in with open arms. Republicans have long attempted to create a myth around him that places him in the air of Lincoln or FDR. He ain't that. As a Democrat, I would never argue that Clinton or Obama was the "greatest President in history". I'd place both solidly in the top 15, but I'm not delusional. It doesn't hurt them that they bookend a guy who I would place absolutely no higher than 42nd in George W. Bush. He maybe beats out Andrew Johnson and Herbert Hoover. Trump, Nixon and (Andrew) Johnson are in a category of their own because they are the ones who, despite their policies, either did or in the process of actively eroding the functionality of the United States system of government itself.
We have registration (ala the Jews in Germany) and disappering protesters in India.
More violent protests in Hong Kong and death camps.
Dictator adjacent administration here in the US with child detention camps and rising hate crimes and gun violence.
South America and Australia are literally on fire.
It feels like the world is ending and I don't know how to stop it. I'm sick and tired of people applauding transparent hate and corruption. I'm sick of other people who have their heads so far up their asses that they have no problem watching everything burn down around them becuase "both sides are the same". I'm sick of the vilolence. I'm sick of the hated. And I just want it to fucking stop.
Can someone let me off this ride? I feel physically ill.
Now corporations aren't just paying no taxes, we are actually paying them for the pleasure of their existence to the tune of (in just this one case) a quarter of a billion dollars. Warren's "wealth tax" likely doesn't go far enough. It's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us. We are CHOOSING to prioritize this insane greed over programs that would help everyone.
One last tidbit. For context, my work is having Olive Garden cater a pasta bar on Friday. And that is FAR more than most people probably get:
We have registration (ala the Jews in Germany) and disappering protesters in India.
More violent protests in Hong Kong and death camps.
Dictator adjacent administration here in the US with child detention camps and rising hate crimes and gun violence.
South America and Australia are literally on fire.
It feels like the world is ending and I don't know how to stop it. I'm sick and tired of people applauding transparent hate and corruption. I'm sick of other people who have their heads so far up their asses that they have no problem watching everything burn down around them becuase "both sides are the same". I'm sick of the vilolence. I'm sick of the hated. And I just want it to fucking stop.
Can someone let me off this ride? I feel physically ill.
I can certainly understand why you feel that way. The availability of information now and the bias towards information that is sensationalist means we're constantly bombarded by examples of things going wrong - but that does not mean that more things are actually going wrong.
We've commented in this thread before on the fact that levels of violence have generally been decreasing within Western societies in recent years. This article looks at the worldwide levels of violence, primarily concentrating on conflicts between states, over a longer time scale. While the position is complex, it's certainly reasonable to make the argument that such violence is currently at a historic low.
There have also been huge moves worldwide in the last century or so towards greater social justice, e.g. for women, gays and religious minorities. That doesn't mean there's not more to be done and there are plenty of areas in the world where conditions are still dreadful. However, rather than only concentrating on current troubles, it may also help to think about the many areas where things have greatly improved.
Even some of the big problems seen in the world currently do have positive aspects. In Hong Kong for instance the reason for the protests in recent months is the clearly expressed desire of the majority of the population for a greater democratic say in their future. You'll know from my previous posts how concerned I am about climate change. However, while international progress on this issue has been agonizingly slow, it's still true that the discussions on climate change have seen more international co-operation between nearly all the countries in the world than any other issue since the setting up of the post WW2 institutions. I have my fingers crossed that these discussions will ultimately lead to robust enough processes to avoid the worst of the conflicts that will undoubtedly arise as a result of migration and resource scarcity in a warming world.
Comments
I'm giving you a formula for sticking a fork in the Republican Party. Possibly permanently, forcing them to move away from the far right or become irrelevant. Immigration is the key to Trump's popularity. Move right on that issue and they will have to move left on others. I'm serious...
Edit: Just think about it before rejecting it outright. What's the most important issue for liberals? Is it really immigration? The polls don't show it.
I don't believe that. I think it's just retroactive plausible deniability. Maybe you didn't believe it. You'll never convince me the people at those rallies were just engaging in some kind of metaphorical wordplay. And this, of course, is another problem. Everything Trump says is to either be taken seriously or not taken seriously entirely based on whether it is convenient for the argument a Trump supporter (not you specifically) at any given time. One second he's the ultimate straight-shooter, and 15 seconds later he was "just joking".
He didn't have enough support from his own party to move it forward in Congress. I wasn't talking about voters per se. Sorry, I don't necessarily mean Republicans when I talk about voters. Many voters don't identify with a party...
But have some independent professor make reference to Barron, look out! Time to start swinging everything out of context again to paint these name-calling-dems as unable to represent the people properly because feelings.
In this instance the issue is whether the President should have the right to do whatever he wants. The original debate around the Constitution considered this question and one view put forward was that there was sufficient protection through the time limited nature of the Presidency. However, the prevailing view was that the opportunities for corruption and the potential for damage to the Republic were so great that a process of impeachment was necessary. The debate of July 20, 1757 was also interesting in the specific examples given of impeachable conduct - examples which are eerily relevant to what is happening at the moment
Mr. MADISON thought it 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.
Another point which has been only briefly touched on in this debate concerns the appropriate standard of proof when considering impeachment. The Constitution partly provides for impeachment by the legislature, rather than the judiciary, because the President is responsible for appointing judges. However, it's worth remembering where the concept of impeachment came from. This was a process used in England at the time to remove office holders, but the process was not triggered by "high crimes and misdemeanors", but by "maladministration", i.e. being bad at your job. The quote from Madison above about impeachment being a remedy for lack of capacity shows that this original concept was still very much in the minds of those considering what impeachment should be in future.
From this perspective it becomes clear that the appropriate standard of proof is not a criminal one. As with the discussion a while ago on Kavanaugh, it seems to me that the appropriate standard is more like the one applied in a job interview. I've seen a number of comments from those defending Trump along the lines of "there's insufficient evidence to convict" - and, in a criminal context, that is likely to remain the case as long as witnesses are prevented from giving evidence and relevant documents are withheld. In a criminal case such obstruction would be grounds for a separate conviction of course, but this is not a criminal case - and the appropriate remedy for this type of abuse is to remove the abuser from office.
It won't matter for one. Republicans push fear of the "other" there will always be others - anyone who isn't lily white from Oklahoma or Kansas is the enemy in the end. Now they've pushed the boundaries out to illegal immigrants but if you somehow solved that, they'd just pick a new group like "educated people" or "city folk" or "brown people". First they are coming for immigrants, once that would be over they'll move on to another group. That's how that works.
For another thing, what are you recommending? The left will never outflank Trump to the right on immigration. I mean he has a white nationalist in charge of his immigration policies and is caging kids for God's sake. He's denying kids with cancer medical care and arresting doctors who want to give them flu shots for free. So there's not much we can do or would want to do that's to the right of that, he's already extreme crazy right on that issue only thing further is genocide.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Drop amnesty as a platform. That would be my suggestion. I certainly wouldn't expect the left to go further right than Trump!
For someone who doesn't condone Trump's behaviour, you sure make a lot of excuses for him...
"I just think Liberals are terrible poker players... "
That might actually mean something if we were playing fricken poker.
"and then, they will start to fight with themselves."
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/anti-impeachment-democrat-rep-jeff-van-drew-plans-to-join-gop-six-staffers-resign
Good. If isn't willing to lose his seat on the principle of the matter, let him join the other side where that kind of thing is in vogue. Plenty of vulnerable Democrats are sticking their necks out. The ones who set this whole thing into motion are in vulnerable seats. The fact is, this guy is actually in a position where he is more likely to win as a Republican than win his primary against another Democrat, precisely because of this position. His switching is pure opportunism. If this guy will go meet with Trump and switch parties, well.....with friends like these is the phrase that comes to mind. This guy actually had the nerve to ask his staffers to stay on if he switched parties. They told him to take a hike:
Van Drew and Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson were the only House Democrats who voted against formalizing the impeachment inquiry in October, and both have said they will probably vote against impeaching the president later this week.
So let me tell you something about his other compatriot here, Colin Peterson. Colin Peterson represents the district I grew up in in MN. I remember him visiting my elementary school. The district I lived in (and am still very close to geographically), from a demographic and political perspective, might as well be rural Alabama. Frankly I have no idea how he has managed to keep getting elected every two years for the last 3 decades in this area, or why he is still a Democrat after all this time. He's been a Republican in all but name the entire time. But it has something to do with how Democrats are actually on the ballot in MN, which is as the Democratic Farm Labor Party, or DFL. Those last two words carry enough weight in certain places to override the the first one, and god knows the farmers around here get enough handouts (to the point where it often doesn't even matter if you sell your crops or not), and Peterson is the one who keeps them flowing. I guess Peterson long ago learned that as long as you are giving money away to the ACCEPTABLE people (i.e. white farmers), no one will call you a socialist or call the recipients free-loaders. After all, THEY deserve it. It's everyone else who is a lazy bum. Doesn't really matter if you have a bad harvest in this neck of the woods. You'll still be driving a brand-new pick-up every 2 or 3 years.
Van Drew was elected by the same deplorable whites that voted for Obama.
I never called them anything. Simply pointing out that I spent my entire youth listening to people who would rag on poor people and minorities for getting "handouts" while at the same time taking checks to literally let crops rot in a grain bin. And it's happening again, this time with the Chinese tariffs. A entire class of people utterly immune from the consequences of anything. The fact is, there isn't really ANYONE who has a problem taking free stuff from the government. They just have a problem when it's anyone but them. It's quite the deal when you can vote overwhelmingly for someone who will literally cause you to stop being able to sell your product, and then just cut you a check for doing so. Nice work if you can get it. But stop with the nonsense about the free market. Farming doesn't just involve growing things and harvesting them. It ostensibly also involves SELLING it. But you no longer have to engage in that part if you live in the right places. And let me tell you, there aren't any black family farms in the Midwest.
I despise it whenever someone does it in Canada regardless of party and I am cringing at this bloke now. I am wondering how he’ll be received by the public the next time he is up for election.
It actually doesn't turn out to well for the people that do it most of the time. On average, they lose the next time up. Angus King of Maine being one exception, but he didn't switch parties so much as switch who he caucuses with.
A word of advice. Don't ever hate the player, hate the game.
But that's it. People do like politics so much that they will use it to hate their fellow human for a difference of opinion. That is disingenuous.
I know you're a very passionate person @jjstraka34 and that you really want change but this new age Social Democrat self loathing party thing is not going to work if we want to break the game. Only if we see each other as equals will finally make everyone know who the real bad guys are and then that will force change. Complaining about those who exploit the system will not change the system, it just creates a greater divide. Going after those who are responsible is the key and breaking down their first line of defence (the media) is the only starting place.
Plenty more Republicans than one guy have given up, retired, and quit because of Trump's behavior and corruption.
If they win, I expect other people who were innocent victims of un crimes or mass shootings to follow suit. If they can't take guns away, they might as well start making them safer and harder for criminals to use.
It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of this. In the meantime, here's an article I found on smart guns that's pretty interesting.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/nicolenguyen/what-is-smart-gun-technology
Just like everything else these days, the reality is complicated...
Edit: I have no skin in the gun-control game. I don't own, nor do I want to own a handgun. I do have a couple of long guns (a 0.22 my dad gave me and a bolt action 0.30-6 I used for deer hunting long ago) and a 12 gauge shotgun I use(d) for duck hunting. I'm really not too concerned about UN troopers storming my house and taking them, however.
So in 2020, in all likelihood, a fundamental question about the Democratic Party ia going to be answered. The two lines of thought are that a likable, absolutey centrist known quantity like Biden being a safe bet promising a return to normal is the path forward, or that an insurgent candidacy from Sanders that excites both youth and people who have thought they have nothing to vote for for years is the way victory. Either way, whichever side prevails in the primary is going to either be proven totally right or catastrophically wrong, and if it's the later, that path will be completely discredited going forward.
The Democratic establishment will not be able to talk their way out of a Biden loss when it comes to 2024. And if Bernie were to get beaten, it would be a death blow to progressives who have been insisting for at least half a decade that all that is required is running a true leftist candidate (and no, Obama was decidedly not that).
Politics is as close to poker as real life gets. Seriously...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/16/politics/trump-top-lines-2019/index.html
I thought Obama was kind of dull and pedantic with his speeches. Trump is the complete opposite. It's like listening to Sophia from the Golden Girls ramble on about whatever with no filter at all on what comes out of her mouth.
I'll vote for Sanders at this point. He's a little kooky (if you didn't watch the video I posted a few pages back, it's pretty hilarious), but he's the most honest politician out of the whole bunch. He kind of reminds me of Mr. Rogers. "Dude, this guy is totally weird, but for some reason I like him!"
I don't mind Biden but, I'm sorry, he's looking like Reagan did in his final two years. I'd hate for his wife to have to start calling in mediums, using a Ouija board or reading tea leaves to steer US policy decisions...
Reagan was absolutely suffering from early-onset dementia as early as the 1984 debates with Mondale and looking back it's ridiculous to argue otherwise. I also happen to have read the autobiography of his Chief of Staff during that time (Don Regan) because I bought it for like 25 cents at a used book store a decade ago. That shit about Nancy running everything he did through her was no joke or rumor. She was actively shielding his condition from his staff and the public. Nancy wasn't running the country, but she was in total control of access to the person who did. I'd go so far as to say the MAJORITY of his Presidency was staged around his cognitive decline. He was never the same after the assassination attempt. In that way, even though Iran-Contra was worthy of destroying his Presidency the same way Watergate did with Nixon, the fact is I highly doubt he had the first clue what was going on. Because he was a complete figurehead. Everything was being run by Ed Meese, George Shultz, Caspar Weinburger and Alexander Haig.
I also happen to think Reagan's Presidency is ground zero for the economic decline of the middle-class in this country, and while it was viewed positively at the time, long-term his destruction of unions and the devastation to manufacturing and farming that moved ahead full speed under his watch has never been reversed. And America ushered it in with open arms. Republicans have long attempted to create a myth around him that places him in the air of Lincoln or FDR. He ain't that. As a Democrat, I would never argue that Clinton or Obama was the "greatest President in history". I'd place both solidly in the top 15, but I'm not delusional. It doesn't hurt them that they bookend a guy who I would place absolutely no higher than 42nd in George W. Bush. He maybe beats out Andrew Johnson and Herbert Hoover. Trump, Nixon and (Andrew) Johnson are in a category of their own because they are the ones who, despite their policies, either did or in the process of actively eroding the functionality of the United States system of government itself.
More violent protests in Hong Kong and death camps.
Dictator adjacent administration here in the US with child detention camps and rising hate crimes and gun violence.
South America and Australia are literally on fire.
It feels like the world is ending and I don't know how to stop it. I'm sick and tired of people applauding transparent hate and corruption. I'm sick of other people who have their heads so far up their asses that they have no problem watching everything burn down around them becuase "both sides are the same". I'm sick of the vilolence. I'm sick of the hated. And I just want it to fucking stop.
Can someone let me off this ride? I feel physically ill.
Now corporations aren't just paying no taxes, we are actually paying them for the pleasure of their existence to the tune of (in just this one case) a quarter of a billion dollars. Warren's "wealth tax" likely doesn't go far enough. It's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us. We are CHOOSING to prioritize this insane greed over programs that would help everyone.
One last tidbit. For context, my work is having Olive Garden cater a pasta bar on Friday. And that is FAR more than most people probably get:
I can certainly understand why you feel that way. The availability of information now and the bias towards information that is sensationalist means we're constantly bombarded by examples of things going wrong - but that does not mean that more things are actually going wrong.
We've commented in this thread before on the fact that levels of violence have generally been decreasing within Western societies in recent years. This article looks at the worldwide levels of violence, primarily concentrating on conflicts between states, over a longer time scale. While the position is complex, it's certainly reasonable to make the argument that such violence is currently at a historic low.
There have also been huge moves worldwide in the last century or so towards greater social justice, e.g. for women, gays and religious minorities. That doesn't mean there's not more to be done and there are plenty of areas in the world where conditions are still dreadful. However, rather than only concentrating on current troubles, it may also help to think about the many areas where things have greatly improved.
Even some of the big problems seen in the world currently do have positive aspects. In Hong Kong for instance the reason for the protests in recent months is the clearly expressed desire of the majority of the population for a greater democratic say in their future. You'll know from my previous posts how concerned I am about climate change. However, while international progress on this issue has been agonizingly slow, it's still true that the discussions on climate change have seen more international co-operation between nearly all the countries in the world than any other issue since the setting up of the post WW2 institutions. I have my fingers crossed that these discussions will ultimately lead to robust enough processes to avoid the worst of the conflicts that will undoubtedly arise as a result of migration and resource scarcity in a warming world.