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.
Funny I saw a quote from a voter from the UK saying basically he had enough of all the crap going on and he voted Conservative because he wanted change.
Bad dum tiss.
See because Conservatives have been in charge in the UK for the past 8 years and have been causing the things that guy complained about plus "Conservative" literally meaning to conserve the status quo, not for change.
Ah nevermind.
People are being stupid digesting right wing propaganda which divides us. We're surrounded by opportunists dragging us down, divide and conquer style.
But you didn't I meant what I said. The degrees of difference between them is light years. Right wing misinformation divides us and dwarfs the entirety of misinformation in news media.
While today's maniacal 6-page letter indicates that Trump clearly never actually thought the Democrats would go thorough with it, tomorrow he will become the 4th President to be impeached. A bit of a historical primer:
While 4 Presidents (Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump) have (or will be) impeached, no one has ever been removed from office with this mechanism. In the case of Nixon, this is basically a technicality, as he WOULD have been removed from office had he not resigned. Functionally, the result was the same, and it was the result of the impeachment proceedings. Why was each President impeached??
1.) Andrew Johnson- Johnson took office after Lincoln's assassination, and while one could easily argue that his soft stance on the Confederate States was the true starting point, he was impeached for ignoring a law called the Tenure of Office Act (which passed by overriding his veto). The Tenure of Office Act decreed that Johnson could not dismiss appointed officials without the consent of Congress. Though this law was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1926, Johnson violated it in 1867, a good 55 years before that would be a mitigating factor. He survived by a single vote.
2.) Richard Nixon- Nixon's staff spearheaded an operation to break into the Democratic Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. When Nixon learned of the plot after the fact, he readily agreed to pay the burglars hush money to keep quiet. But what killed Nixon was his obstruction of Congress and refusal to turn over evidence. Nixon had a taping system installed in the White House, and despite clear attempts to alter or even destroy certain sections of the tapes (and refusing to turn them over to Congress) it was eventually revealed on audio recordings that Nixon had ordered the cover-up. He resigned in disgrace.
3.) Bill Clinton- Clinton was a known philanderer, and was in the midst of a civil sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a woman named Paula Jones. Eventually it was revealed that Clinton had possibly perjured himself in depositions given in the Jones case about his relationship with a White House intern name Monica Lewinsky. Essentially, the entire thing boiled down to whether oral sex is officially "sex", and while Clinton was ostensibly being impeached for lying under oath, no one anywhere actually believed it was about anything other than the affair itself. Clinton easily survived the Senate trial.
4.) Donald Trump- We know the deal here. Based on all available evidence, Trump sent his personal fixer Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. He then purposefully held up military aide appropriated by a duly-elected Congress, attempting to trade nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money for a promise from a foreign country to investigate his most likely 2020 General Election opponent. When a whistleblower came forward to report this, the White House attempted to unlawfully keep this report from Congress, and issued a blanket refusal to produce any documents or witnesses once the investigation started.
One can make up their own minds about the severity of each of these charges. I think it's pretty damn clear that in order of magnitude, they go Trump, Nixon, Johnson, Clinton, but people can form their own opinions. But no matter what he says, this NOT a list Trump ever wanted to be included in. But he will be all the same.
Technically Nixon was not impeached. The Judiciary Committee had voted in favor of that, but the full House had not yet confirmed the vote when Nixon resigned - persuaded by the level of cross-party support that he would definitely lose in the House and probably in the Senate. I agree though that he belongs on a list of Presidents subject to impeachment procedures.
As for Trump's letter, I don't think that is maniacal. In fact it seems to me to be internally pretty consistent and tactically quite clever. Some of the points I think it's designed to make are:
1) It's the Democrats that are abusing their powers (whenever Trump is being accused of something, he passes that accusation on to someone else - even if his counter-accusation doesn't entirely stick, it gives the impression that everyone is up to the same game).
2) The transcript of the call with Zelensky proves Trump is innocent. The release of this transcript provides a much better damage limitation than has typically been the case in his response to allegations. The point is that the transcript in itself looks pretty damning and is therefore not inconsistent with all the witness testimony that's been heard about this issue. However, there's still enough room for maneuver for Trump to claim it's all a matter of perspective - and make it a party political issue.
3) There is no criminal act to see here. This is designed to make impeachment into a criminal process, where it's necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal act occurred. As I posted the other day, impeachment should be about fitness for office - it's entirely possible for instance to commit abuses of power which are not also criminal acts.
4) This is not just an attack on Trump personally, but an assault by Democrats on the Republican party as a whole. Trump hasn't always cared what 'his' party said, but this is clearly an instance where he needs party support and he will make the price as high as possible for any Republican that may be considering breaking ranks.
5) The impeachment allegations are not really about the Ukraine at all - that is simply the latest excuse in a long-running campaign to overturn the result of democratic elections. That also provides a hook for him to state his case for why he would be re-elected in 2020.
6) He once more states that the Mueller report was just a Witch Hunt and reinforces the idea that it was the FBI (in cahoots with the Democrats) that were corrupt.
We've never seen the transcript of the call. It disappeared in to the secret server, which somehow isn't even part of the discussion anymore (nor is the initial attempt to bury the whisteblower report completely). We know for certain portions were left out, and we have sworn testimony from Vindman that portions he recalled and attempted to have put back in the memorandum (which is all we ever got, which was bad enough) were ignored. So this whole "read the transcript" argument is a bunch of bullshit. 1.) because I would bet $1000 site unseen that every Trump supporter using that line hasn't read it themselves and 2.) it isn't a transcript. If one exists, it's either been destroyed or disappeared never to be seen, and it sure as shit never was produced to the Congressional committees.
As for impeachment now supposedly requiring the standard of criminal conviction.....do the people arguing this even realize the stupendous hypocrisy of their argument?? When it came to Mueller and the obstruction of justice, he couldn't be held accountable because a President is immune to criminal prosecution. Which left only one remedy to hold him accountable. Congress. Now this comes along, and the argument is that it needs to meet a criminal burden of proof, even though the FIRST time he got off for total abuse of power was because we were told he isn't ALLOWED to be held to that burden. I mean, I'm not susceptible to this nonsense. I've read Catch-22. I recognize a paradox when I see one.
I agree the transcript is a fake, but the point I was making is it's a more intelligent fake than some of the previous excuses he's come up with (like the purpose of his son meeting with the Russians being all about adoption). As it's not possible even for him to suppress all the facts about discussions with Ukraine he needed to provide something that could explain why witnesses were raising concerns, while still being able to argue those concerns are unfounded.
It's not a totally unreasonable argument to make that impeachment should be conducted on the same lines as a criminal trial. If you accept the argument (which I don't) that the Constitution was intended to prevent the President from being prosecuted while in office, then it's reasonable to see impeachment as the intended alternative to criminal prosecution to ensure that not even the President is above the law. It may then seem fair that impeachment should be conducted to the same standards as a criminal prosecution.
Personally I think it makes more sense both logically and as an interpretation of what the Founders actually intended to say that no-one, including the President, is above the law. Impeachment is not then a substitute for criminal prosecution, but a separate proceeding to remove a President who is abusing or incapable of meeting the obligations of his office.
Despite the lies Republicans and Trump tell on a daily basis, the White House was given EVERY attempt to provide exculpatory evidence in the House investigation. But they refused to hand over documents, and refused to allow Mulvaney and Pompeo to testify. They could have set the record straight at any time. In all likelihood, McConnell will also not allow them at a Senate trial. If they had anything exculpatory to say, they would have done so. They didn't show up for one reason, which is that they'd either have to confirm what we already know, or perjure themselves. Those who did show up were doing it out of duty or self-preservation. Everyone knows what happened. It's just that a portion of the country has declared it is totally acceptable behavior, but only if THEIR guy is doing it.
As an anecdotal story, I heard a co-worker on the phone on Monday very warmly wish someone "Happy Holidays". My immediate thought was "it's only a matter of time before she gets excoriated by someone for this". Last night she turns to me and says sarcastically "are you part of the War on Christmas??" I replied "Yeah, I'm a General in the War on Christmas, have been for 15 years". Of course, she had been asked if she wasn't allowed to say Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays.
Imagine being a sentient human being in America, going to any public place from November to January, and still buying into this nonsense that Christmas is under attack. But tell me more about how overly sensitive liberals are. I can't possibly muster the restraint not to be a sarcastic ass when this subject comes up.
He must be held to account to protect our elections in the future. This can't be allowed to become normal no matter how much Republican crocodile tears are shed.
This is exactly the thing the founding fathers wanted to protect against - foreign interference in our elections and corrupt politicians abusing their office for re-election purposes. It is literally why impeachment was added as a political mechanism to the Constitution.
That Graham quote has been kicking around since this how fiasco started. Once again, it shows which party is acting out of partisan and which one is taking their oath to the constitution seriously.
Graham at least is being honest now stating he’s not going to be impartial juror in this. They don’t care anymore because they feel like they are untouchable in their glaringly red districts. It’s why IMO more Right leaning independents need to start challenging these individuals.
That Graham quote has been kicking around since this how fiasco started. Once again, it shows which party is acting out of partisan and which one is taking their oath to the constitution seriously.
Graham at least is being honest now stating he’s not going to be impartial juror in this. They don’t care anymore because they feel like they are untouchable in their glaringly red districts. It’s why IMO more Right leaning independents need to start challenging these individuals.
Graham wasn't just a supporter of impeachment in '98, he was a House manager, which are the members of the House chosen to prosecute the trial in the Senate.
I guess people can have an argument about whether Clinton "deserved" to be impeached. Did he lie in the deposition?? I mean, yeah. At the very least he was too cute by half in his answers and legalize. But it wasn't anywhere in the same solar system as basically trying to fix an election before it even starts by blackmailing a foreign government. It's like comparing the sniffles to lung cancer. Clinton was also roughly 20 points more popular when he was impeached than Trump is now. He was approaching 70% approval at the time, which is unheard of today.
Donald Trump believed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should have pushed to remove former president George W Bush from office for getting the US into a "horrible war" with Iraq, a resurfaced interview shows.
He said: "Look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant, and they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. Yet Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true."
Well looks like the President has been impeached and it looks like Republicans are all a bunch of partisan hacks who don't believe in the Constitution, separation of powers, or protecting American elections. History has been recorded.
Republican defenses were pathetic, they got nothing but partisanship and loyalty to their king.
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."
@Balrog99 what do you imagine the strategic ramifications are of Trump telling Debbie Dingell at a rally in Michigan that her husband is looking up at her from hell (yes, this happend tonight)??
@Balrog99 what do you imagine the strategic ramifications are of Trump telling Debbie Dingell at a rally in Michigan that her husband is looking up at her from hell (yes, this happend tonight)??
@Balrog99 what do you imagine the strategic ramifications are of Trump telling Debbie Dingell at a rally in Michigan that her husband is looking up at her from hell (yes, this happend tonight)??
Losing my vote for one...
I just got the chance to watch the clip. I think it's the only time I've ever seen his rally audience turn on him.
I don't know why this comes to mind, but it made me think of who I would have considered my arch-nemesis in elementary school, at first because of bullying, and after that just my hard feelings. There was no issue in middle or high school, but we never interacted much in those years. Never really liked each other. My mom dies a year after we graduate. The funeral was across the state as she had moved, not a short drive. And who do I notice at a certain point in the funeral in the pews visibly crying?? My former rival. Still my most vivid memory from that day, and afterwards I made sure to find him and personally thank him for coming.
Point of my story?? Trump has a void where the part of his soul should be that drove this classmate to drive 4 hours to my mom's funeral and me to bury the hatchet afterwards. There is nothing there but a black hole that can't be filled.
@Balrog99 what do you imagine the strategic ramifications are of Trump telling Debbie Dingell at a rally in Michigan that her husband is looking up at her from hell (yes, this happend tonight)??
Losing my vote for one...
I just got the chance to watch the clip. I think it's the only time I've ever seen his rally audience turn on him.
I don't know why this comes to mind, but it made me think of who I would have considered my arch-nemesis in elementary school, at first because of bullying, and after that just my hard feelings. There was no issue in middle or high school, but we never interacted much in those years. Never really liked each other. My mom dies a year after we graduate. The funeral was across the state as she had moved, not a short drive. And who do I notice at a certain point in the funeral in the pews visibly crying?? My former rival. Still my most vivid memory from that day, and afterwards I made sure to find him and personally thank him for coming.
Point of my story?? Trump has a void where the part of his soul should be that drove this classmate to drive 4 hours to my mom's funeral and me to bury the hatchet afterwards. There is nothing there but a black hole that can't be filled.
Yeah, I think he may have screwed himself royally here. Here's a link to a Detroit News article about it.
Incidentally, for those who don't live around here, the Detroit News is more conservative as opposed to the Detroit Free Press which is more liberal (but has Mitch Albom and better comics so I always liked the Free Press better). The News' article was actually harsher than that of the Free Press. John Dingell was well liked in this neck of the woods...
@Balrog99 what do you imagine the strategic ramifications are of Trump telling Debbie Dingell at a rally in Michigan that her husband is looking up at her from hell (yes, this happend tonight)??
Losing my vote for one...
I just got the chance to watch the clip. I think it's the only time I've ever seen his rally audience turn on him.
I don't know why this comes to mind, but it made me think of who I would have considered my arch-nemesis in elementary school, at first because of bullying, and after that just my hard feelings. There was no issue in middle or high school, but we never interacted much in those years. Never really liked each other. My mom dies a year after we graduate. The funeral was across the state as she had moved, not a short drive. And who do I notice at a certain point in the funeral in the pews visibly crying?? My former rival. Still my most vivid memory from that day, and afterwards I made sure to find him and personally thank him for coming.
Point of my story?? Trump has a void where the part of his soul should be that drove this classmate to drive 4 hours to my mom's funeral and me to bury the hatchet afterwards. There is nothing there but a black hole that can't be filled.
Yeah, I think he may have screwed himself royally here. Here's a link to a Detroit News article about it.
Incidentally, for those who don't live around here, the Detroit News is more conservative as opposed to the Detroit Free Press which is more liberal (but has Mitch Albom and better comics so I always liked the Free Press better). The News' article was actually harsher than that of the Free Press. John Dingell was well liked in this neck of the woods...
Why was he so well liked?? In his later years, his Twitter account was usually good for a laugh every few days.
@Balrog99 what do you imagine the strategic ramifications are of Trump telling Debbie Dingell at a rally in Michigan that her husband is looking up at her from hell (yes, this happend tonight)??
Losing my vote for one...
I just got the chance to watch the clip. I think it's the only time I've ever seen his rally audience turn on him.
I don't know why this comes to mind, but it made me think of who I would have considered my arch-nemesis in elementary school, at first because of bullying, and after that just my hard feelings. There was no issue in middle or high school, but we never interacted much in those years. Never really liked each other. My mom dies a year after we graduate. The funeral was across the state as she had moved, not a short drive. And who do I notice at a certain point in the funeral in the pews visibly crying?? My former rival. Still my most vivid memory from that day, and afterwards I made sure to find him and personally thank him for coming.
Point of my story?? Trump has a void where the part of his soul should be that drove this classmate to drive 4 hours to my mom's funeral and me to bury the hatchet afterwards. There is nothing there but a black hole that can't be filled.
Yeah, I think he may have screwed himself royally here. Here's a link to a Detroit News article about it.
Incidentally, for those who don't live around here, the Detroit News is more conservative as opposed to the Detroit Free Press which is more liberal (but has Mitch Albom and better comics so I always liked the Free Press better). The News' article was actually harsher than that of the Free Press. John Dingell was well liked in this neck of the woods...
Why was he so well liked?? In his later years, his Twitter account was usually good for a laugh every few days.
He was around for a very long time. Long enough to be able to buck the party line once in a while. His gun views, for example, made him more popular amongst hunters who normally would steer clear of a Democrat. I liked him for that reason (the independence, not the gun thing). As you know, I'm no fan of parties and he was refreshing so I voted for him, until age seemed to take a toll. He should have retired 10 years ago and rode triumphant off into the sunset to enjoy the years he had left.
My political philosophy in a nutshell. I didn't even know this guy existed and this is a pretty old article. I stopped dabbling in philosophy 20 years ago, so that's the most likely reason I guess. It's a rather lengthy article but well worth the read...
Well for what it's worth, it's pretty clear Trump doesn't really take religion seriously. It's a joke to him. From his "two Corinthians" to reporter: "what's your favorite the old or new testament" Trump: "guh I like both?". "ok what's your favorite part" "Both?
So not shocking he would make a terrible call there.
Well for what it's worth, it's pretty clear Trump doesn't really take religion seriously. It's a joke to him. From his "two Corinthians" to reporter: "what's your favorite the old or new testament" Trump: "guh I like both?". "ok what's your favorite part" "Both?
So not shocking he would make a terrible call there.
It cracks me up that my mom and dad can tell me with a straight face what a great 'Christian' Trump is. I always have to agree to disagree with them after the inevitable argument...
I came across this article today too. It's very interesting and kind of opened my eyes to your viewpoint. It's not overly preachy so I was able to get through it without getting pissed off. He pegs conservatism pretty accurately but I'd argue that he misses the point that both sides have merit to some degree and eradicating conservatism completely as he argues for would not result in the outcome he thinks. Warning, this is a scholarly paper so it's much longer than the Mother Jones article I posted earlier...
With all that in mind, Haidt identified five foundational moral impulses. As succinctly defined by Northwestern University’s McAdams, they are:
• Harm/care. It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering.
• Fairness/reciprocity. Justice and fairness are good; people have certain rights that need to be upheld in social interactions.
• In-group loyalty. People should be true to their group and be wary of threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty and patriotism are virtues; betrayal is bad.
• Authority/respect. People should respect social hierarchy; social order is necessary for human life.
• Purity/sanctity. The body and certain aspects of life are sacred. Cleanliness and health, as well as their derivatives of chastity and piety, are all good. Pollution, contamination and the associated character traits of lust and greed are all bad.
Haidt’s research reveals that liberals feel strongly about the first two dimensions—preventing harm and ensuring fairness—but often feel little, or even feel negatively, about the other three. Conservatives, on the other hand, are drawn to loyalty, authority and purity, which liberals tend to think of as backward or outdated. People on the right acknowledge the importance of harm prevention and fairness but not with quite the same energy or passion as those on the left.
This is entirely true. In my opinion, the whole article was a good breakdown of why liberals have such a hard time understanding conservatives and their fundamentally different moral viewpoint. It can come as a shock that there are many people in this world who care about more than merely what is the most fair and equal at all times. Some people love the way of life they were born into, and want to preserve it. That is absolutely legitimate, and nobody should have the power to tell a community that isn't theirs that they don't have a right to it. But in this day and age, cosmopolitan universalism will erase all resistance to their edicts, or any right to it. Just the way it is for now, the standard bearers of one moral philosophy hold all actual power in the country and so they will dictate how they will, and you will kiss the ring. Understanding is not needed and so won't happen.
The second article on the other hand:
Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
Was just not at all serious, nor can I take it as such.
Funny that the Mother Jones article was so good and nuanced and the UCLA one was so utterly committed to its own ideology. I will have to give MJ a look once in a while for some hidden gems.
Comments
I wouldn't feel too privileged about getting Olive Garden, that stuff tastes like hot garbage at best.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/majority-of-canadians-think-food-prices-rising-faster-than-household-income-1.5399533
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/87-of-canadians-think-food-prices-rising-faster-than-household-income-poll-1.1363895
Funny I saw a quote from a voter from the UK saying basically he had enough of all the crap going on and he voted Conservative because he wanted change.
Bad dum tiss.
See because Conservatives have been in charge in the UK for the past 8 years and have been causing the things that guy complained about plus "Conservative" literally meaning to conserve the status quo, not for change.
Ah nevermind.
People are being stupid digesting right wing propaganda which divides us. We're surrounded by opportunists dragging us down, divide and conquer style.
Fixed it for you.
While 4 Presidents (Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump) have (or will be) impeached, no one has ever been removed from office with this mechanism. In the case of Nixon, this is basically a technicality, as he WOULD have been removed from office had he not resigned. Functionally, the result was the same, and it was the result of the impeachment proceedings. Why was each President impeached??
1.) Andrew Johnson- Johnson took office after Lincoln's assassination, and while one could easily argue that his soft stance on the Confederate States was the true starting point, he was impeached for ignoring a law called the Tenure of Office Act (which passed by overriding his veto). The Tenure of Office Act decreed that Johnson could not dismiss appointed officials without the consent of Congress. Though this law was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1926, Johnson violated it in 1867, a good 55 years before that would be a mitigating factor. He survived by a single vote.
2.) Richard Nixon- Nixon's staff spearheaded an operation to break into the Democratic Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. When Nixon learned of the plot after the fact, he readily agreed to pay the burglars hush money to keep quiet. But what killed Nixon was his obstruction of Congress and refusal to turn over evidence. Nixon had a taping system installed in the White House, and despite clear attempts to alter or even destroy certain sections of the tapes (and refusing to turn them over to Congress) it was eventually revealed on audio recordings that Nixon had ordered the cover-up. He resigned in disgrace.
3.) Bill Clinton- Clinton was a known philanderer, and was in the midst of a civil sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a woman named Paula Jones. Eventually it was revealed that Clinton had possibly perjured himself in depositions given in the Jones case about his relationship with a White House intern name Monica Lewinsky. Essentially, the entire thing boiled down to whether oral sex is officially "sex", and while Clinton was ostensibly being impeached for lying under oath, no one anywhere actually believed it was about anything other than the affair itself. Clinton easily survived the Senate trial.
4.) Donald Trump- We know the deal here. Based on all available evidence, Trump sent his personal fixer Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. He then purposefully held up military aide appropriated by a duly-elected Congress, attempting to trade nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money for a promise from a foreign country to investigate his most likely 2020 General Election opponent. When a whistleblower came forward to report this, the White House attempted to unlawfully keep this report from Congress, and issued a blanket refusal to produce any documents or witnesses once the investigation started.
One can make up their own minds about the severity of each of these charges. I think it's pretty damn clear that in order of magnitude, they go Trump, Nixon, Johnson, Clinton, but people can form their own opinions. But no matter what he says, this NOT a list Trump ever wanted to be included in. But he will be all the same.
As for Trump's letter, I don't think that is maniacal. In fact it seems to me to be internally pretty consistent and tactically quite clever. Some of the points I think it's designed to make are:
1) It's the Democrats that are abusing their powers (whenever Trump is being accused of something, he passes that accusation on to someone else - even if his counter-accusation doesn't entirely stick, it gives the impression that everyone is up to the same game).
2) The transcript of the call with Zelensky proves Trump is innocent. The release of this transcript provides a much better damage limitation than has typically been the case in his response to allegations. The point is that the transcript in itself looks pretty damning and is therefore not inconsistent with all the witness testimony that's been heard about this issue. However, there's still enough room for maneuver for Trump to claim it's all a matter of perspective - and make it a party political issue.
3) There is no criminal act to see here. This is designed to make impeachment into a criminal process, where it's necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal act occurred. As I posted the other day, impeachment should be about fitness for office - it's entirely possible for instance to commit abuses of power which are not also criminal acts.
4) This is not just an attack on Trump personally, but an assault by Democrats on the Republican party as a whole. Trump hasn't always cared what 'his' party said, but this is clearly an instance where he needs party support and he will make the price as high as possible for any Republican that may be considering breaking ranks.
5) The impeachment allegations are not really about the Ukraine at all - that is simply the latest excuse in a long-running campaign to overturn the result of democratic elections. That also provides a hook for him to state his case for why he would be re-elected in 2020.
6) He once more states that the Mueller report was just a Witch Hunt and reinforces the idea that it was the FBI (in cahoots with the Democrats) that were corrupt.
As for impeachment now supposedly requiring the standard of criminal conviction.....do the people arguing this even realize the stupendous hypocrisy of their argument?? When it came to Mueller and the obstruction of justice, he couldn't be held accountable because a President is immune to criminal prosecution. Which left only one remedy to hold him accountable. Congress. Now this comes along, and the argument is that it needs to meet a criminal burden of proof, even though the FIRST time he got off for total abuse of power was because we were told he isn't ALLOWED to be held to that burden. I mean, I'm not susceptible to this nonsense. I've read Catch-22. I recognize a paradox when I see one.
It's not a totally unreasonable argument to make that impeachment should be conducted on the same lines as a criminal trial. If you accept the argument (which I don't) that the Constitution was intended to prevent the President from being prosecuted while in office, then it's reasonable to see impeachment as the intended alternative to criminal prosecution to ensure that not even the President is above the law. It may then seem fair that impeachment should be conducted to the same standards as a criminal prosecution.
Personally I think it makes more sense both logically and as an interpretation of what the Founders actually intended to say that no-one, including the President, is above the law. Impeachment is not then a substitute for criminal prosecution, but a separate proceeding to remove a President who is abusing or incapable of meeting the obligations of his office.
Donald Trump will be impeached and given oral sex by lying Republicans.
Imagine being a sentient human being in America, going to any public place from November to January, and still buying into this nonsense that Christmas is under attack. But tell me more about how overly sensitive liberals are. I can't possibly muster the restraint not to be a sarcastic ass when this subject comes up.
This is exactly the thing the founding fathers wanted to protect against - foreign interference in our elections and corrupt politicians abusing their office for re-election purposes. It is literally why impeachment was added as a political mechanism to the Constitution.
Here's a tweet including a statement from Lindsay Graham that nails what impeachment is really about ...
Graham at least is being honest now stating he’s not going to be impartial juror in this. They don’t care anymore because they feel like they are untouchable in their glaringly red districts. It’s why IMO more Right leaning independents need to start challenging these individuals.
Graham wasn't just a supporter of impeachment in '98, he was a House manager, which are the members of the House chosen to prosecute the trial in the Senate.
I guess people can have an argument about whether Clinton "deserved" to be impeached. Did he lie in the deposition?? I mean, yeah. At the very least he was too cute by half in his answers and legalize. But it wasn't anywhere in the same solar system as basically trying to fix an election before it even starts by blackmailing a foreign government. It's like comparing the sniffles to lung cancer. Clinton was also roughly 20 points more popular when he was impeached than Trump is now. He was approaching 70% approval at the time, which is unheard of today.
He said: "Look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant, and they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. Yet Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-pelosi-impressive-impeach-bush-wolf-blitzer-interview-cnn-a9252716.html
Well looks like the President has been impeached and it looks like Republicans are all a bunch of partisan hacks who don't believe in the Constitution, separation of powers, or protecting American elections. History has been recorded.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidential_impeachments
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."
Losing my vote for one...
I just got the chance to watch the clip. I think it's the only time I've ever seen his rally audience turn on him.
I don't know why this comes to mind, but it made me think of who I would have considered my arch-nemesis in elementary school, at first because of bullying, and after that just my hard feelings. There was no issue in middle or high school, but we never interacted much in those years. Never really liked each other. My mom dies a year after we graduate. The funeral was across the state as she had moved, not a short drive. And who do I notice at a certain point in the funeral in the pews visibly crying?? My former rival. Still my most vivid memory from that day, and afterwards I made sure to find him and personally thank him for coming.
Point of my story?? Trump has a void where the part of his soul should be that drove this classmate to drive 4 hours to my mom's funeral and me to bury the hatchet afterwards. There is nothing there but a black hole that can't be filled.
Yeah, I think he may have screwed himself royally here. Here's a link to a Detroit News article about it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.detroitnews.com/amp/2692307001
Incidentally, for those who don't live around here, the Detroit News is more conservative as opposed to the Detroit Free Press which is more liberal (but has Mitch Albom and better comics so I always liked the Free Press better). The News' article was actually harsher than that of the Free Press. John Dingell was well liked in this neck of the woods...
Why was he so well liked?? In his later years, his Twitter account was usually good for a laugh every few days.
He was around for a very long time. Long enough to be able to buck the party line once in a while. His gun views, for example, made him more popular amongst hunters who normally would steer clear of a Democrat. I liked him for that reason (the independence, not the gun thing). As you know, I'm no fan of parties and he was refreshing so I voted for him, until age seemed to take a toll. He should have retired 10 years ago and rode triumphant off into the sunset to enjoy the years he had left.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/conservatives-live-different-moral-universe8212and-heres-why-it-matters/
So not shocking he would make a terrible call there.
It cracks me up that my mom and dad can tell me with a straight face what a great 'Christian' Trump is. I always have to agree to disagree with them after the inevitable argument...
I came across this article today too. It's very interesting and kind of opened my eyes to your viewpoint. It's not overly preachy so I was able to get through it without getting pissed off. He pegs conservatism pretty accurately but I'd argue that he misses the point that both sides have merit to some degree and eradicating conservatism completely as he argues for would not result in the outcome he thinks. Warning, this is a scholarly paper so it's much longer than the Mother Jones article I posted earlier...
https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html
This is entirely true. In my opinion, the whole article was a good breakdown of why liberals have such a hard time understanding conservatives and their fundamentally different moral viewpoint. It can come as a shock that there are many people in this world who care about more than merely what is the most fair and equal at all times. Some people love the way of life they were born into, and want to preserve it. That is absolutely legitimate, and nobody should have the power to tell a community that isn't theirs that they don't have a right to it. But in this day and age, cosmopolitan universalism will erase all resistance to their edicts, or any right to it. Just the way it is for now, the standard bearers of one moral philosophy hold all actual power in the country and so they will dictate how they will, and you will kiss the ring. Understanding is not needed and so won't happen.
The second article on the other hand:
Was just not at all serious, nor can I take it as such.
Funny that the Mother Jones article was so good and nuanced and the UCLA one was so utterly committed to its own ideology. I will have to give MJ a look once in a while for some hidden gems.