Well there will be a next time too because he won't stop violating the Constitution.
As long as this guy is in office it will continue to be scandal after scandal after corruption after corruption punctuated by reality TV antics. All while Republicans trip over themselves to excuse his flip flops, law breaking, and disgusting behavior.
There is literally nothing more meaningless than a presidential censure. It's not even the functional equivalent of "go sit in the corner for 5 minutes".
What do you think impeachment without removal is, something serious? If I were Trump I would be ignoring it, too.
As things stand right now, if the election were today he would get four more years and there is no way that Democrats are going to pick up 20 seats in the Senate, meaning that impeachment during his second term will also be irrelevant. This means that Trump's optimal strategy is "keep doing exactly what I am doing".
So socialism is a loaded term and Venezuela does not equate to what Bernie Sanders is proposing. Nor is being socialist the only reason why Venezuela’s Economy crashed.
Look more towards the success of nations such as Denmark or even Canada as the type of socialism that someone like Sanders strives for.
~~
Nancy tearing up the speech was brilliant. Instead of the right wing media proclaiming how amazing and completely accurate Trump’s SOTU speech was, they are instead talking about a trivial thing of a person tearing up paper and how disrespectful it is. Hypocrisy against who they are actually defending, but she changed the news cycle away from Trump and he was pissed about it. 23 retweets about her doing it.
Like I said, "tearing up the speech" will be her entire legacy--that is what people will remember about her 25 or 50 years from now, after which time she will be completely forgotten. Consider Harry Reid's legacy in the Senate--it boils down to "bent the rules to the point where 'going nuclear' is allowable". In fact, it is how the Senate was able to end debate about calling witnesses--propose a measure, attach the amendment you really want want to it, vote on the measure, and the deal is done.
This impeachment was nothing but a power struggle between the House of Representatives and the Oval Office. The House does not control the Oval Office; apparently they needed to be reminded of that Civics 101 lesson.
And you have to respect the opinion that she and the likes of Senator Alexander have, even if you personally do not agree with them: Trump’s actions were bad, but not bad enough to actually remove him from office. But I’d also question: “What in their opinion would be the line to remove Trump?”
Since apparently getting lung cancer after smoking for decades makes you more noble, let me tell a story about Medal of Freedom recipient Rush Limbaugh. It's 1993, maybe 1994. The early years of the Clinton Presidency have catapulted Limbaugh into the stratosphere on radio. ABC gives the greenlight to a half-hour TV show hosted by him on weeknights. Produced by none other than Roger Ailes, it was actually quite the flop as Limbaugh simply wasn't very good on TV. But it was the prototype for FOX News. But that's getting side-tracked. On a certain episode, Limbaugh decides he's going to tell a joke. Socks the Cat was a minor celebrity at this time (the family pet of the Clinton family). Limbaugh then proceeds to compare 13-year old Chelsea Clinton to a picture of a dog. That's Rush Limbaugh. The Rush Limbaugh who one told an African-American caller to "take the bone out of your nose and call me back". The one who said of African-Americans "they're 12% of the population, who cares??"
Yeah, hopefully the man can find peace with himself. There is literally not a single individual in this country who is more responsible for the state of our political discourse. This is his world, and we're living in it. Clinton was, by many standards, basically a moderate Republican. Limbaugh led the charge to not only paint him as someone to the left of Mao, but insinuated DAILY that he and his wife were straight up murderers. Of Vince Foster, of some teens who were found dead on train tracks in Arkansas (apparently killed to cover up the Clinton's illicit cocaine smuggling ring). People literally have NO idea how crazy the right-wing fever swamp was in the 90s. It is ground-zero for all of this. And this next part I know for an absolute FACT since I grew up around it. Rush Limbaugh, back then, might as well have been Walter frickin' Cronkite in ever tractor and pick-up in rural America.
My aunt isn't the most politically aware person in the world, but even her, last night, sends me a text saying "Rush Limbaugh getting the Medal of Freedom??". She is a transplant to my hometown. You could ask her how her half-black daughter was treated as the only African-American in our rural Minnesota area. How she had to transfer to another school 20 miles away by the time she was a freshman to get away from it. It was Limbaugh's rhetoric that created that culture. She knows without really knowing. The stuff people don't have the balls to say to your face but you hear about anyway. The subtle ways her kid is treated completely differently by every teacher. A parent doesn't forget that.
I saw a bumper sticker recently that said "Make racists afraid again," and I really couldn't agree more. Can you imagine if liberals and minorities started open carrying like they were texas conservatives? I'd bet a million dollars that as soon as that started heppening, the republican party would do a complete 180 on gun control.
The myth of the violent white extremists terrorizing innocent people of color is so ridiculous. The statistics do not bear this out at all, in fact they bear out the opposite. Whites attack blacks in this country less often than the other way around, by a huge margin. You are more likely to be a victim then an aggressor in general, as a white person.
I seem to recall a lot of yelling about the destruction of norms but throwing a temper tantrum and ripping up the SOTU on camera doesn't seem to be a political norm. I don't really care, because I never took any that talk seriously in the first place. There never was a "respectable" high ground, at least the pretense has slipped away.
I seem to recall a lot of yelling about the destruction of norms but throwing a temper tantrum and ripping up the SOTU on camera doesn't seem to be a political norm. I don't really care, because I never took any that talk seriously in the first place. There never was a "respectable" high ground, at least the pretense has slipped away.
When a norm is broken, then it’s gone. Pelosi ripping up his speech was a response to the flagrant polarization of the SOTU and of Trump’s presidency.
It greatly amuses most progressives to see conservatives clutching their pearls over Pelosi but staying silent over Trumps antics.
Conservatives got played. Their reaction is the story.
Pelosi will be remembered like all other house majority leaders: barely. Anyone trying to suggest otherwise probably couldn’t name the last 10 leaders without looking.
I seem to recall a lot of yelling about the destruction of norms but throwing a temper tantrum and ripping up the SOTU on camera doesn't seem to be a political norm. I don't really care, because I never took any that talk seriously in the first place. There never was a "respectable" high ground, at least the pretense has slipped away.
When a norm is broken, then it’s gone. Pelosi ripping up his speech was a response to the flagrant polarization of the SOTU and of Trump’s presidency.
It greatly amuses most progressives to see conservatives clutching their pearls over Pelosi but staying silent over Trumps antics.
Conservatives got played. Their reaction is the story.
Pelosi will be remembered like all other house majority leaders: barely. Anyone trying to suggest otherwise probably couldn’t name the last 10 leaders without looking.
Pelosi, Ryan, Boehner, Pelosi, Hastert, Gingrich, Wright, O'Neill. Not ten, and I think I missed one, but I didn't cheat.
Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich and Tip O'Neill are all far more consequential than the others. And only 1 of the 8 I mentioned is an outright pedophile, so we have that going for us.
@jjstraka34 - that’s better than I could do. I recognize those names upon you writing them, but I wouldn’t have gotten past Gingrich I don’t think.
@WarChiefZeke - I suspect if you control for population, you’ll find that racial violence (that is - violence specifically acted on out of racism, so hate crimes) disproportionality targets minorities.
Edit - Looks like Romney is expected to vote to convict Trump. I guess he is taking over for McCain as the opposition to Trump from within the GOP.
Edit2 - I know this won’t make him any friends in the Left, but respect is due when earned: He’s putting country above party when very few people are willing do so these days. Wonder if any of the Democrats will cross and vote to acquit (Manchin, Synema and Jones?)
I seem to recall a lot of yelling about the destruction of norms but throwing a temper tantrum and ripping up the SOTU on camera doesn't seem to be a political norm. I don't really care, because I never took any that talk seriously in the first place. There never was a "respectable" high ground, at least the pretense has slipped away.
When a norm is broken, then it’s gone. Pelosi ripping up his speech was a response to the flagrant polarization of the SOTU and of Trump’s presidency.
It greatly amuses most progressives to see conservatives clutching their pearls over Pelosi but staying silent over Trumps antics.
Conservatives got played. Their reaction is the story.
Pelosi will be remembered like all other house majority leaders: barely. Anyone trying to suggest otherwise probably couldn’t name the last 10 leaders without looking.
Pelosi, Ryan, Boehner, Pelosi, Hastert, Gingrich, Wright, O'Neill. Not ten, and I think I missed one, but I didn't cheat.
Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich and Tip O'Neill are all far more consequential than the others. And only 1 of the 8 I mentioned is an outright pedophile, so we have that going for us.
@WarChiefZeke - I suspect if you control for population, you’ll find that racial violence (that is - violence specifically acted on out of racism, so hate crimes) disproportionality targets minorities.
Just controlling for population still leaves a disparity, but if you also control for socio-economic factors that disappears, i.e. poor whites are as likely to commit crimes as poor blacks and, after adjusting for the different levels of population, there is no difference in the levels of inter-racial crime.
This article provides background to explain why the narrative that black-on-white crime is a particular problem is so prevalent - though it links to a number of academic studies, however, the article is by the Southern Poverty Law Center and I imagine will not be to everyone's tastes.
Romney voting to convict is as much as statement as Gabbard voting "present" and will result in the same thing: his party will ostracize him just like they did her (CNN did not invite her to any New Hampshire events).
Given that we have demonstrated that Speakers of the House are not remembered, even within our own lifetime, does anyone really care that Nancy tore up a copy of a speech? I know that I don't, other than to note how petty and childish she can be. That will still be her legacy, though.
Romney voting to convict is as much as statement as Gabbard voting "present" and will result in the same thing: his party will ostracize him just like they did her (CNN did not invite her to any New Hampshire events).
Given that we have demonstrated that Speakers of the House are not remembered, even within our own lifetime, does anyone really care that Nancy tore up a copy of a speech? I know that I don't, other than to note how petty and childish she can be. That will still be her legacy, though.
I would posit that between the number of people who have specifically responded and referenced it - yes. Clearly people care. Even people who preface it by saying “I don’t care” proceed to use emotionally charged language and value judgements to discuss it.
@WarChiefZeke - I suspect if you control for population, you’ll find that racial violence (that is - violence specifically acted on out of racism, so hate crimes) disproportionality targets minorities.
Just controlling for population still leaves a disparity, but if you also control for socio-economic factors that disappears, i.e. poor whites are as likely to commit crimes as poor blacks and, after adjusting for the different levels of population, there is no difference in the levels of inter-racial crime.
This article provides background to explain why the narrative that black-on-white crime is a particular problem is so prevalent - though it links to a number of academic studies, however, the article is by the Southern Poverty Law Center and I imagine will not be to everyone's tastes.
Would you mind just pointing me to where it controls for economic factors? This is extremely long and almost all of it is entirely irrelevant, an attempt to poison the well, so I just don't want to read through it all.
Nevermind, I found it. That claim is based on a single study, not saying it's wrong, but it's worth keeping in mind.
Schumer is still whining on the floor of the Senate that the current Administration was never going to comply with the House impeachment inquiry. erm...Chuck? The Executive does not *have* to comply with that process if it chooses not to, which is why you should have gone to the Judicial to enforce compliance. He needs to reread the discussions for "separation of powers" and "checks and balances".
@WarChiefZeke - I suspect if you control for population, you’ll find that racial violence (that is - violence specifically acted on out of racism, so hate crimes) disproportionality targets minorities.
Just controlling for population still leaves a disparity, but if you also control for socio-economic factors that disappears, i.e. poor whites are as likely to commit crimes as poor blacks and, after adjusting for the different levels of population, there is no difference in the levels of inter-racial crime.
This article provides background to explain why the narrative that black-on-white crime is a particular problem is so prevalent - though it links to a number of academic studies, however, the article is by the Southern Poverty Law Center and I imagine will not be to everyone's tastes.
Would you mind just pointing me to where it controls for economic factors? This is extremely long and almost all of it is entirely irrelevant, an attempt to poison the well, so I just don't want to read through it all.
Nevermind, I found it. That claim is based on a single study, not saying it's wrong, but it's worth keeping in mind.
Well I did suggest it might not be to your taste .
I'm not sure which study you're referring to - I think the three cited in footnotes 59-61 all relate to the interaction of socio-economic disadvantage and race.
If you think there are credible studies that support the proposition that there is a disproportionate level of black-on-white violence, I would be interested in looking at those.
I always refer to FBI statistics for crime because many of their statistics don't care *why* a crime occurred, instead asking only the "who", "what", "where", "when", and "how" questions.
edit: the vote on article 1 is happening *right now*. I expect 51/49 for not guilty/guilty, mostly along party lines with one or two dissenters here and there. I also expect the same result on the second article. We should know here in about 10 minutes. It is not outside the realm of possibility that more than 51 vote "guilty", which would mean "we disapprove of the POTUS as a body" but would not remove him from office.
edit/add 2: I was close--52/48 on the "abuse of power" charge. This also means that Romney was the *only* dissenter to cross party lines.
edit/add 3: here comes the vote on article 2, "obstruction of Congress". 53/47 not guilty/guilty.
Anyone voting no on obstruction is out of their minds. They flat-out ANNOUNCED with a frickin' bullhorn they would not produce documents or witnesses. A blanket denial of both to the oversight branch.
Again, I have to reiterate the point that the Legislative Branch does not get to control or oversee the Executive Branch whenever it feels like it. If Congress issues a subpoena to the Executive Branch then it needs to ask the Judicial Branch to enforce the subpoena. That is how the system works and it works quite nicely.
edit/add: Finished. Now we can put this whole impeachment nonsense behind us--Trump found "not guilty" on both articles of impeachment. The most powerful tactic they had at their disposal has failed, so now the *only* way Democrats defeat Trump is to front someone who can beat him in the election this coming November.
The myth of the violent white extremists terrorizing innocent people of color is so ridiculous. The statistics do not bear this out at all, in fact they bear out the opposite. Whites attack blacks in this country less often than the other way around, by a huge margin. You are more likely to be a victim then an aggressor in general, as a white person.
What do you think impeachment without removal is, something serious? If I were Trump I would be ignoring it, too.
He isn't ignoring it at all. He hasn't shut up about it for months. Also, this being only the third time in history a president was impeached, its hard to say it won't have a long-lasting impact. If Trump loses the election, history will certainly consider the impeachment as part of his tenure's "troubles" that led to that loss (rightly or wrongly).
I'm curious, though: your commentary seems to indicate that you think that impeachment is something Pelosi and the Democrats actually wanted to do, as opposed to it being something they were incredibly unenthusiastic about that was foisted on them because the vast majority of their base wanted it. The latter interpretation is, I think, very strongly supported by Pelosi's statements and position on the matter prior to the Ukraine situation.
Actually, I am going based on many Democrats openly talking about impeaching Trump going all the way back to May 2017, when he had been in office only 6 months. The *only* reason they waited as long as they did is that they could not actually impeach him until they controlled the House. Pelosi did not want it for the longest time; the only reason she relented was from the growing pressure from her own Party to push for it. Once they did it, though, they did not do a very good job at it--they should have waited for the courts to enforce subpoenas from the House, not rush to the Senate. Ultimately, though, if they did not *want* to do it then they did not *have* to do it--no one forced them to impeach. Yes, they may claim "we had no choice under the Constitution" but the Constitution does not *require* impeachment; instead, it gives the *option* of impeachment. Long story short: they chose it.
Pelosi will be remembered like all other house majority leaders: barely. Anyone trying to suggest otherwise probably couldn’t name the last 10 leaders without looking.
I had to look it up, but I have to say this is pretty much unfair, as when you count back 10, Carl Albert served as chair from 1971-1977, and that's if you count Pelosi twice. That's longer than most people here have been alive, or at least interested in politics. You changed the question from a political one, to a historical one.
Did you know time now...
Polk was the only President of the United States to be president and House Speaker.
There was also a Winthrop speaker of the house. Sadly, he nor anyone he was related to such as Wait Still Winthrop, his great-great grandfather, owned an Inn.
Theodore M. Pomeroy served as speaker of the house for one day. His predecessor, Schuyler Colfax was being sworn in as Vice President the next day and had to resign on March 3, 1869, which was the final full of the 40th Congress.
~~
Impeaching Trump. As I said, you can respect politicians for saying what Trump did does not rise to level of Impeachment, even if you personally don't agree to it. You do have to hold some of them to double standards however, as any of them thought what Clinton did was far worse and should have been removed for lying about a blowjob. That there is your double standard. For the others, you'd have to question what is the level of impeachment if this, specifically, isn't it. I haven't heard anyone state what this hypothetical scenario is, probably because they know Trump might cross it.
Pelosi will be remembered like all other house majority leaders: barely. Anyone trying to suggest otherwise probably couldn’t name the last 10 leaders without looking.
I had to look it up, but I have to say this is pretty much unfair, as when you count back 10, Carl Albert served as chair from 1971-1977, and that's if you count Pelosi twice. That's longer than most people here have been alive, or at least interested in politics. You changed the question from a political one, to a historical one.
Did you know time now...
Polk was the only President of the United States to be president and House Speaker.
There was also a Winthrop speaker of the house. Sadly, he nor anyone he was related to such as Wait Still Winthrop, his great-great grandfather, owned an Inn.
Theodore M. Pomeroy served as speaker of the house for one day. His predecessor, Schuyler Colfax was being sworn in as Vice President the next day and had to resign on March 3, 1869, which was the final full of the 40th Congress.
~~
Impeaching Trump. As I said, you can respect politicians for saying what Trump did does not rise to level of Impeachment, even if you personally don't agree to it. You do have to hold some of them to double standards however, as any of them thought what Clinton did was far worse and should have been removed for lying about a blowjob. That there is your double standard. For the others, you'd have to question what is the level of impeachment if this, specifically, isn't it. I haven't heard anyone state what this hypothetical scenario is, probably because they know Trump might cross it.
I dont think it's unfair at all. It serves a point. Someone was trying to argue that 50 years from now, Pelosi's legacy will be ripping up a piece of paper.
In all likelihood, 50 years from now, no one will be particularly concerned with who was Speaker of the House in 2020, nor her legacy.
We'll remember Trump. Just like we remember Nixon, Clinton and Johnson.
Edit: It works even better as apparently Carl Albert was speaker approximately 50 years ago. I've lucked into my random number of 10 being relevant on the time scale it was in response to.
Welp, he was 100% innocent and got cleared again. Swing and a miss.
Not even close. He was quite guilty. Even a few who voted to acquit him admit that several variations on "gee what he did was wrong but I won't vote to convict him." Senator Collins said gee what he did was wrong but he learned his lesson (also I'm not voting to convict) which Trump quashed like immediately upon being asked by saying no I didn't learn my lesson lol.
So the Republican party, except for literally one guy, just showed they don't have the guts to defend America from a would-be tyrant who trampled over the Constitution. They aren't up to the tough aspects of the job and fold like a wet blanket when faced with the prospect of getting a mean tweet in their direction.
Said it before, saying it again the Republican party now stands for nothing. The only ideology or position is "yeah yeah whatever but are you loyal to Trump?"
The goalposts have sailed off the edge of the planet with Republicans and now we have a President who feels emboldened and vindicated for abusing his power and obstructing oversight.
**TL;DR** this is a timeline of Republican excuses:
- "The complaint doesn't exist."
- "It's not credible."
- "He didn't do that."
- "Okay, he did it on live TV again but it's not quid pro quo."
- "Okay, everyone involved says it's quid pro quo, but they aren't first-hand witnesses or evidence."
- "Okay, there are first hand witnesses and evidence, but.. ignore them and block everything else."
- "He was investigating corruption. It wasn't for personal gain."
- "Okay, he wasn't investigating corruption and it was for personal gain, but Democrats are conducting the inquiry wrong."
- "Okay, ball is in our court now for the trial and we actually have to defend the President."
- "Uhhh... A president can do anything he wants."
- "Congress can't issue subpoenas. It must occur through the courts. Also, the courts can't issue subpoenas. It must happen through Congress."
- "Welp, we can't defend him anymore. Instead of witnesses and evidence like every trial in history, we're going to rush the vote."
- "Okay, we couldn't rush it fast enough before Democrats proved their case. He did it, it was wrong, but it's not enough to convict. He won't do it again."
Comments
As long as this guy is in office it will continue to be scandal after scandal after corruption after corruption punctuated by reality TV antics. All while Republicans trip over themselves to excuse his flip flops, law breaking, and disgusting behavior.
What do you think impeachment without removal is, something serious? If I were Trump I would be ignoring it, too.
As things stand right now, if the election were today he would get four more years and there is no way that Democrats are going to pick up 20 seats in the Senate, meaning that impeachment during his second term will also be irrelevant. This means that Trump's optimal strategy is "keep doing exactly what I am doing".
Look more towards the success of nations such as Denmark or even Canada as the type of socialism that someone like Sanders strives for.
~~
Nancy tearing up the speech was brilliant. Instead of the right wing media proclaiming how amazing and completely accurate Trump’s SOTU speech was, they are instead talking about a trivial thing of a person tearing up paper and how disrespectful it is. Hypocrisy against who they are actually defending, but she changed the news cycle away from Trump and he was pissed about it. 23 retweets about her doing it.
~~
This impeachment was nothing but a power struggle between the House of Representatives and the Oval Office. The House does not control the Oval Office; apparently they needed to be reminded of that Civics 101 lesson.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-murkowski/republican-senator-murkowski-spares-few-in-fiery-impeachment-speech-idUSKBN1ZY06D
And you have to respect the opinion that she and the likes of Senator Alexander have, even if you personally do not agree with them: Trump’s actions were bad, but not bad enough to actually remove him from office. But I’d also question: “What in their opinion would be the line to remove Trump?”
Yeah, hopefully the man can find peace with himself. There is literally not a single individual in this country who is more responsible for the state of our political discourse. This is his world, and we're living in it. Clinton was, by many standards, basically a moderate Republican. Limbaugh led the charge to not only paint him as someone to the left of Mao, but insinuated DAILY that he and his wife were straight up murderers. Of Vince Foster, of some teens who were found dead on train tracks in Arkansas (apparently killed to cover up the Clinton's illicit cocaine smuggling ring). People literally have NO idea how crazy the right-wing fever swamp was in the 90s. It is ground-zero for all of this. And this next part I know for an absolute FACT since I grew up around it. Rush Limbaugh, back then, might as well have been Walter frickin' Cronkite in ever tractor and pick-up in rural America.
My aunt isn't the most politically aware person in the world, but even her, last night, sends me a text saying "Rush Limbaugh getting the Medal of Freedom??". She is a transplant to my hometown. You could ask her how her half-black daughter was treated as the only African-American in our rural Minnesota area. How she had to transfer to another school 20 miles away by the time she was a freshman to get away from it. It was Limbaugh's rhetoric that created that culture. She knows without really knowing. The stuff people don't have the balls to say to your face but you hear about anyway. The subtle ways her kid is treated completely differently by every teacher. A parent doesn't forget that.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/state-union-tv-ratings-tuesday-feb-4-2020-1276465
The myth of the violent white extremists terrorizing innocent people of color is so ridiculous. The statistics do not bear this out at all, in fact they bear out the opposite. Whites attack blacks in this country less often than the other way around, by a huge margin. You are more likely to be a victim then an aggressor in general, as a white person.
When a norm is broken, then it’s gone. Pelosi ripping up his speech was a response to the flagrant polarization of the SOTU and of Trump’s presidency.
It greatly amuses most progressives to see conservatives clutching their pearls over Pelosi but staying silent over Trumps antics.
Conservatives got played. Their reaction is the story.
Pelosi will be remembered like all other house majority leaders: barely. Anyone trying to suggest otherwise probably couldn’t name the last 10 leaders without looking.
Pelosi, Ryan, Boehner, Pelosi, Hastert, Gingrich, Wright, O'Neill. Not ten, and I think I missed one, but I didn't cheat.
Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich and Tip O'Neill are all far more consequential than the others. And only 1 of the 8 I mentioned is an outright pedophile, so we have that going for us.
@jjstraka34 - that’s better than I could do. I recognize those names upon you writing them, but I wouldn’t have gotten past Gingrich I don’t think.
@WarChiefZeke - I suspect if you control for population, you’ll find that racial violence (that is - violence specifically acted on out of racism, so hate crimes) disproportionality targets minorities.
@Mathsorcerer - Democratic socialism =\= socialism. Democratic socialism =\= Communism either. Think Scandinavia, not Soviet Union.
Edit - Looks like Romney is expected to vote to convict Trump. I guess he is taking over for McCain as the opposition to Trump from within the GOP.
Edit2 - I know this won’t make him any friends in the Left, but respect is due when earned: He’s putting country above party when very few people are willing do so these days. Wonder if any of the Democrats will cross and vote to acquit (Manchin, Synema and Jones?)
I got up to Gingrich before blanking.
Just controlling for population still leaves a disparity, but if you also control for socio-economic factors that disappears, i.e. poor whites are as likely to commit crimes as poor blacks and, after adjusting for the different levels of population, there is no difference in the levels of inter-racial crime.
This article provides background to explain why the narrative that black-on-white crime is a particular problem is so prevalent - though it links to a number of academic studies, however, the article is by the Southern Poverty Law Center and I imagine will not be to everyone's tastes.
Given that we have demonstrated that Speakers of the House are not remembered, even within our own lifetime, does anyone really care that Nancy tore up a copy of a speech? I know that I don't, other than to note how petty and childish she can be. That will still be her legacy, though.
I would posit that between the number of people who have specifically responded and referenced it - yes. Clearly people care. Even people who preface it by saying “I don’t care” proceed to use emotionally charged language and value judgements to discuss it.
Would you mind just pointing me to where it controls for economic factors? This is extremely long and almost all of it is entirely irrelevant, an attempt to poison the well, so I just don't want to read through it all.
Nevermind, I found it. That claim is based on a single study, not saying it's wrong, but it's worth keeping in mind.
Well I did suggest it might not be to your taste
I'm not sure which study you're referring to - I think the three cited in footnotes 59-61 all relate to the interaction of socio-economic disadvantage and race.
If you think there are credible studies that support the proposition that there is a disproportionate level of black-on-white violence, I would be interested in looking at those.
edit: the vote on article 1 is happening *right now*. I expect 51/49 for not guilty/guilty, mostly along party lines with one or two dissenters here and there. I also expect the same result on the second article. We should know here in about 10 minutes. It is not outside the realm of possibility that more than 51 vote "guilty", which would mean "we disapprove of the POTUS as a body" but would not remove him from office.
edit/add 2: I was close--52/48 on the "abuse of power" charge. This also means that Romney was the *only* dissenter to cross party lines.
edit/add 3: here comes the vote on article 2, "obstruction of Congress". 53/47 not guilty/guilty.
edit/add: Finished. Now we can put this whole impeachment nonsense behind us--Trump found "not guilty" on both articles of impeachment. The most powerful tactic they had at their disposal has failed, so now the *only* way Democrats defeat Trump is to front someone who can beat him in the election this coming November.
Please provide a link to these "statistics".
He isn't ignoring it at all. He hasn't shut up about it for months. Also, this being only the third time in history a president was impeached, its hard to say it won't have a long-lasting impact. If Trump loses the election, history will certainly consider the impeachment as part of his tenure's "troubles" that led to that loss (rightly or wrongly).
I'm curious, though: your commentary seems to indicate that you think that impeachment is something Pelosi and the Democrats actually wanted to do, as opposed to it being something they were incredibly unenthusiastic about that was foisted on them because the vast majority of their base wanted it. The latter interpretation is, I think, very strongly supported by Pelosi's statements and position on the matter prior to the Ukraine situation.
I had to look it up, but I have to say this is pretty much unfair, as when you count back 10, Carl Albert served as chair from 1971-1977, and that's if you count Pelosi twice. That's longer than most people here have been alive, or at least interested in politics. You changed the question from a political one, to a historical one.
Did you know time now...
~~
Impeaching Trump. As I said, you can respect politicians for saying what Trump did does not rise to level of Impeachment, even if you personally don't agree to it. You do have to hold some of them to double standards however, as any of them thought what Clinton did was far worse and should have been removed for lying about a blowjob. That there is your double standard. For the others, you'd have to question what is the level of impeachment if this, specifically, isn't it. I haven't heard anyone state what this hypothetical scenario is, probably because they know Trump might cross it.
I dont think it's unfair at all. It serves a point. Someone was trying to argue that 50 years from now, Pelosi's legacy will be ripping up a piece of paper.
In all likelihood, 50 years from now, no one will be particularly concerned with who was Speaker of the House in 2020, nor her legacy.
We'll remember Trump. Just like we remember Nixon, Clinton and Johnson.
Edit: It works even better as apparently Carl Albert was speaker approximately 50 years ago. I've lucked into my random number of 10 being relevant on the time scale it was in response to.
Not even close. He was quite guilty. Even a few who voted to acquit him admit that several variations on "gee what he did was wrong but I won't vote to convict him." Senator Collins said gee what he did was wrong but he learned his lesson (also I'm not voting to convict) which Trump quashed like immediately upon being asked by saying no I didn't learn my lesson lol.
So the Republican party, except for literally one guy, just showed they don't have the guts to defend America from a would-be tyrant who trampled over the Constitution. They aren't up to the tough aspects of the job and fold like a wet blanket when faced with the prospect of getting a mean tweet in their direction.
Said it before, saying it again the Republican party now stands for nothing. The only ideology or position is "yeah yeah whatever but are you loyal to Trump?"
**TL;DR** this is a timeline of Republican excuses:
- "The complaint doesn't exist."
- "It's not credible."
- "He didn't do that."
- "Okay, he did it on live TV again but it's not quid pro quo."
- "Okay, everyone involved says it's quid pro quo, but they aren't first-hand witnesses or evidence."
- "Okay, there are first hand witnesses and evidence, but.. ignore them and block everything else."
- "He was investigating corruption. It wasn't for personal gain."
- "Okay, he wasn't investigating corruption and it was for personal gain, but Democrats are conducting the inquiry wrong."
- "Okay, ball is in our court now for the trial and we actually have to defend the President."
- "Uhhh... A president can do anything he wants."
- "Congress can't issue subpoenas. It must occur through the courts. Also, the courts can't issue subpoenas. It must happen through Congress."
- "Welp, we can't defend him anymore. Instead of witnesses and evidence like every trial in history, we're going to rush the vote."
- "Okay, we couldn't rush it fast enough before Democrats proved their case. He did it, it was wrong, but it's not enough to convict. He won't do it again."
He will do it again. Hang in there, America.