Everyone brings up this point. But what if Republicans just say, in 2024 "Trump is our candidate because the populace wants him to continue being president." He's been planting the seeds that this is his motive for the last year and half now. The "he's joking" argument doesn't comply.
Why would they do this? Trump is not popular, not competent, and likely doesn't even want the job.
Imagining dark conspiracies to overthrow the government and install Trump as King are going to make you look just as silly as all the lefties who were certain Bush/Cheney were going to do the same thing.
Are states just going to leave him off the ballots? Great, plays right into their hand that the swamp and democratic establishments are too afraid to run against him since he won twice already. Start having a write in vote, make sure no other republican candidate runs leaving the democratic candidate running unopposed. Unopposed means no national debates, which means everything is left to the campaign trail and advertisements.
The constitution has no teeth and its meaning is dictated by the supreme court. If he gets this far, expect Trump and his enablers to muddy the water as much as they can to continue to cling to power.
~
The other thing that they can do is have one of his children run as a puppet and keep him around as an "advisor" who attends all the meetings, takes part in all the phone calls, still holds all his rallies and attacks anyone who gets out of line on twitter.
Why would any of this make it likely he would actually be elected? Why precisely does no Republican want to run for President, again? A write-in candidate winning a federal election with an electorate of hundreds of millions, are you serious?
And hey, I'll flip it around, I guess: if the American people voted for this buffoon a third time despite everything including his not actually being the official candidate of any party and it violating the Constitution for him to run at all, then I guess the American people deserve him, don't they? Vive la démocratie.
One of the main arguments against Hillary? That's a massive stretch. I actually can't recall a time when anyone warned about the dangers of a Clinton Dynasty, but maybe we just travel in different circles. It was certainly not a major criticism from anyone I know of. It was more about her public policy record. Same goes for Bush, though admittedly my recollection from 20 years ago isn't the best.
Since it was a concern mostly among the left (who are not friendly towards the Clintons), that is likely why you were not aware of it. But googling "Clinton dynasty" will find you no shortage of articles on the subject.
Last year, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin blocked a Democratic request for the president’s tax filings, saying Democrats had no legitimate legislative purpose for seeking the documents.
“The legal implications of this request could affect protections for all Americans against politically-motivated disclosures of personal tax information, regardless of which party is in power,” Mnuchin said in an April 2019 letter.
Today, the Treasury Department gave congressional Republicans sensitive financial information related to Hunter Biden. Seems they were not really concerned about privacy or politically motivated disclosures.
Republicans stand for nothing but covering up for Trump. Throw every one, except Mitt Romney apparently, out of office. Dump the turd Nov 3rd.
The problem I have with the ban guns to stop suicides argument is that it is only effective under a total gun ban. Restricting assault weapons or other such half measures won't stop a man from getting a hunting rifle or handgun.
But they say they don't want total gun bans. Well, which is it? This line of reasoning can only go one way.
This article I posted before explains how making the chosen method of suicide even a little bit harder can make a big difference to suicide rates - that doesn't require a total gun ban (which no-one is proposing). Things like using permits to purchase, red flag laws, encouraging safe storage and providing information about suicide can all have a significant impact on the numbers.
This was actually good, far better than the SPLC it has results from a number of different suicide methods and a number of different countries.
Although it looks like method prevention is a "whack a mole" scenario, there were cultural trends toward gas oven suicides, poison suicides, and firearm suicides. There's gonna be a lot of stuff to ban, in the end, if this is how we are to treat it. Although I no longer doubt it's effectiveness.
It also seems rather meaningless to save a life and offer nothing to improve the quality of that person's life. If they need help to the point of trying suicide, method prevention is treating a symptom and not a cause.
I prefer the more active treatment methods that deal with the root cause, because they are far more politically feasible to expand upon, they intrude less on the rights of others, the vast majority seek help before attempting it, and most importantly it improves quality of life.
Not that I would complain about more gun restrictions as a suicide prevention method, just that it seems more ideological than practical when there are a variety of effective methods that would be easier to accomplish and that do more to resolve the problem.
But they say they don't want total gun bans. Well, which is it? This line of reasoning can only go one way.
Ooh, ooh, can I say it? There is no legitimate reason for civilians to own firearms in a stable democracy with a functional police force (and in countries that aren't these, civilians will have weapons regardless of what laws say), with the virtually sole exception of rural residents who have legitimate need of a rifle for livestock-related purposes.
Countries that have these laws both exist and are better off then the US in every way regarding gun violence, and absolutely none of the feverish fantasies of Americans about what will happen when they "take away your guns" actually ever occur.
And I don't know how to tell those on the right this, but Joe Biden isn't gonna be the nominee. That is close to being certain now, and it is a lock if he finishes 4th again on Monday.
Mayyyyybe you might want to wait until a state that isn't 92% white votes before you are quite so certain of that?
But they say they don't want total gun bans. Well, which is it? This line of reasoning can only go one way.
Ooh, ooh, can I say it? There is no legitimate reason for civilians to own firearms in a stable democracy with a functional police force (and in countries that aren't these, civilians will have weapons regardless of what laws say), with the virtually sole exception of rural residents who have legitimate need of a rifle for livestock-related purposes.
Nah, "I own it because I want it and I'm not hurting anyone else" is 100% legitimate and always will be. The state can go eff itself if it thinks otherwise and I would never support any government that presumed to have such power over me. Now multiply that by millions of people and you have a large section of the American mindset.
The power of gun ownership is legitimate morally, and legitimate politically, supported by the communities that practice it, embedded within the social fabric, enshrined in the highest law.
Europe is also not "better than us in every way", which is a common refrain from the left. When you get right down to it, Americans are as happy as anyone, right up there with the best European countries.
I'll take the health care, which solves most disparities right there,but that's about it. The politics of Western Europe are abhorrent to me, but Russia, Poland, and Hungary are cool.
So Vindman was not only fired today, he was escorted out of the building. Reports are that his BROTHER, who had nothing to do with any of this, was fired as well. Sondland also has been recalled. I have little sympathy for him, he bought himself into his job. But Vindman did NOTHING but answer a lawful subpoena issued by the House of Representatives and swear to tell the truth under oath. It has been suggested by those in this thread that he has to accept the "consequences of his actions". Interesting, I didn't realize following the law was subject to this kind of retaliation, making it seem as though he got behind the wheel of a car after 5 Long Island Ice Teas.
Nothing says "I'm totally innocent" like firing everyone who testified under oath in the matter (and in this case, their family member who had no tie to it whatsoever). And that is something none of the people defending Trump on this can possibly counter-argue. The fact is, your boy (along with Mulvaney and Pompeo) didn't have the fucking balls to testify under oath themselves. They're chicken-shit cowards. It's been pointed out INFINITE times that in all the instances Trump accuses people of lying, and that he is going to sue them (mostly his sexual assault accusers) he NEVER follows through. Ever. Because he know he can't. The one time he WAS dragged into a deposition, he was caught in so many lies it makes your head spin to even read the accounting of it.
Moreover, Vindman is the one who confirmed, under oath, that the "transcript" was not complete (you know, despite the assurances we were given by Trump defenders that we'd see the whole thing eventually). He TRIED to add back in the parts that were cut, but was stopped. I suppose you can sit around and pretend this guy is the one lying and that Donald Trump is the one telling the truth. But the simple fact remains is that Trump didn't have the stones to raise his right and say so. And neither did any of the other people who claim to have a story that paints a different portrayal of what happened than those that testified. And if Trump is going to run almost exclusively on this alpha macho bullshit, I'll be damned if I'm not gonna point it out. It's one of the elephants in the room. And any Republican or conservative who ever talks to me about "the troops" again after the Kahn family, the dismissal of the head injuries in the Iran rocket attacks, and this, can seriously go fly a fucking kite. It's nothing but platitudes and horseshit. Always has been.
So Vindman was not only fired today, he was escorted out of the building. Reports are that his BROTHER, who had nothing to do with any of this, was fired as well. Sondland also has been recalled. I have little sympathy for him, he bought himself into his job. But Vindman did NOTHING but answer a lawful subpoena issued by the House of Representatives and swear to tell the truth under oath. It has been suggested by those in this thread that he has to accept the "consequences of his actions". Interesting, I didn't realize following the law was subject to this kind of retaliation, making it seem as though he got behind the wheel of a car after 5 Long Island Ice Teas.
Nothing says "I'm totally innocent" like firing everyone who testified under oath in the matter (and in this case, their family member who had no tie to it whatsoever). And that is something none of the people defending Trump on this can possibly counter-argue. The fact is, your boy (along with Mulvaney and Pompeo) didn't have the fucking balls to testify under oath themselves. They're chicken-shit cowards. It's been pointed out INFINITE times that in all the instances Trump accuses people of lying, and that he is going to sue them (mostly his sexual assault accusers) he NEVER follows through. Ever. Because he know he can't. The one time he WAS dragged into a deposition, he was caught in so many lies it makes your head spin to even read the accounting of it.
Moreover, Vindman is the one who confirmed, under oath, that the "transcript" was not complete (you know, despite the assurances we were given by Trump defenders that we'd see the whole thing eventually). He TRIED to add back in the parts that were cut, but was stopped. I suppose you can sit around and pretend this guy is the one lying and that Donald Trump is the one telling the truth. But the simple fact remains is that Trump didn't have the stones to raise his right and say so. And neither did any of the other people who claim to have a story that paints a different portrayal of what happened than those that testified. And if Trump is going to run almost exclusively on this alpha macho bullshit, I'll be damned if I'm not gonna point it out. It's one of the elephants in the room. And any Republican or conservative who ever talks to me about "the troops" again after the Kahn family, the dismissal of the head injuries in the Iran rocket attacks, and this, can seriously go fly a fucking kite. It's nothing but platitudes and horseshit. Always has been.
He couldn't get his retcons published in the transcript because it never happened. These things go through multiple hands and he was clearly outnumbered by people who preferred accuracy to falsehood. The government is no friend to Trump so I dismiss any notions of him corrupting the process to such an extent that the majority of employees go along with it.
Still, the guy was lucky he did this under Trump. Obama would have tried to throw him in jail under the espionage act.
So Vindman was not only fired today, he was escorted out of the building. Reports are that his BROTHER, who had nothing to do with any of this, was fired as well. Sondland also has been recalled. I have little sympathy for him, he bought himself into his job. But Vindman did NOTHING but answer a lawful subpoena issued by the House of Representatives and swear to tell the truth under oath. It has been suggested by those in this thread that he has to accept the "consequences of his actions". Interesting, I didn't realize following the law was subject to this kind of retaliation, making it seem as though he got behind the wheel of a car after 5 Long Island Ice Teas.
Nothing says "I'm totally innocent" like firing everyone who testified under oath in the matter (and in this case, their family member who had no tie to it whatsoever). And that is something none of the people defending Trump on this can possibly counter-argue. The fact is, your boy (along with Mulvaney and Pompeo) didn't have the fucking balls to testify under oath themselves. They're chicken-shit cowards. It's been pointed out INFINITE times that in all the instances Trump accuses people of lying, and that he is going to sue them (mostly his sexual assault accusers) he NEVER follows through. Ever. Because he know he can't. The one time he WAS dragged into a deposition, he was caught in so many lies it makes your head spin to even read the accounting of it.
Moreover, Vindman is the one who confirmed, under oath, that the "transcript" was not complete (you know, despite the assurances we were given by Trump defenders that we'd see the whole thing eventually). He TRIED to add back in the parts that were cut, but was stopped. I suppose you can sit around and pretend this guy is the one lying and that Donald Trump is the one telling the truth. But the simple fact remains is that Trump didn't have the stones to raise his right and say so. And neither did any of the other people who claim to have a story that paints a different portrayal of what happened than those that testified. And if Trump is going to run almost exclusively on this alpha macho bullshit, I'll be damned if I'm not gonna point it out. It's one of the elephants in the room. And any Republican or conservative who ever talks to me about "the troops" again after the Kahn family, the dismissal of the head injuries in the Iran rocket attacks, and this, can seriously go fly a fucking kite. It's nothing but platitudes and horseshit. Always has been.
He couldn't get his retcons published in the transcript because it never happened. These things go through multiple hands and he was clearly outnumbered by people who preferred accuracy to falsehood. The government is no friend to Trump so I dismiss any notions of him corrupting the process to such an extent that the majority of employees go along with it.
Still, the guy was lucky he did this under Trump. Obama would have tried to throw him in jail under the espionage act.
wow. Just wow.
How about the administration just cracks open the top secret server that this call was placed on (for no apparent reason except to hide the truth) and have the actual transcript made public especially if this is argument people are going to make, not even knowing what he was attempting to add.
Nope, better and attack and call the guy a liar with no proof what so ever. He also didn't have to be outnumbered. He had to be outranked. If Pompeo said his retcons weren't going in, they weren't going in.
Lousy cowards stick around and the good ones are pushed out in support of lies.
Partisan hacks in the Republican party stand for nothing.
He really learned his lesson huh Susan Collins right. You said he did it and he obviously did it, but that he learned his lesson. Fool. You covered for a criminal president.
I fail to understand how the government could be "no friend to Trump" when Trump is literally the President of the United States, he seated a Supreme Court Justice, his party controls both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and, being the president, he appointed the heads of each major government agency. This is why the government is known as the "Trump administration"--because Trump selected the very people who currently run the United States government. The fact that not everyone in the government, down to every diplomat, is Trump's personal stooge does not make him an oppressed figure.
Trump is by far the most powerful man on the planet. He has been since the 2016 election, and he will continue to be the most powerful man on the planet until at least the 2020 election.
Nah, "I own it because I want it and I'm not hurting anyone else" is 100% legitimate and always will be.
No it isn't, because you can't own a tank or a fighter jet, either. There's always a line, but your line gets a whole bunch of people killed to no actual real-world benefit. So do you support civilian access to nuclear weapons, or is there, in fact, a line where "I want it and I'm not hurting anyone else" actually isn't good enough?
And if so, where is your line? And why? I gave you mine: people who have a legitimate need, for their jobs and livelihoods, to own a gun.
The state can go eff itself if it thinks otherwise and I would never support any government that presumed to have such power over me. Now multiply that by millions of people and you have a large section of the American mindset.
But, y'see, those Americans are utterly, empirically wrong both about the benefits of civilian firearm owning, and the consequences of it. Millions of people believe in conspiracy theories, that doesn't make them have any basis in reality.
They also are a minority who get their way through well-funded lobbying, as the majority of Americans (including Republicans) support more gun control and consistently have done so for years.
Europe is also not "better than us in every way", which is a common refrain from the left. When you get right down to it, Americans are as happy as anyone, right up there with the best European countries.
I didn't say word one about Europe. Let's talk about all those gun-owning criminals and unstoppable massacres constantly happening in, ooh, let's say, Australia and Japan. I bet they, with their lack of ability to legally own guns, come off really horribly compared to America in firearm deaths, gun crime, and tyrannical governments squashing freedom. Shall we look at some comparative statistics?
We've had the gun discussion so many times here it almost seems pointless to keep going over it. Sadly, the fact is, America is never going to do anything about this issue. Sandy Hook was the all-time litmus test, and we just flat-out failed. If two dozen 1st-graders getting mowed down by an automatic rifle only inspires one side of the political debate to say "well, what we should really be doing to prevent this is arming teachers with their own guns", then we're way, WAY past the point where rational thought has left the building. It is what it is. Hope you're never in the situation. If you are in the situation, and you ARE carrying, high likelihood based on just SIMULATIONS of these type of events is you're going to piss your pants long before you draw your weapon without intensive training (it is in fact, the EXACT reason military and police go through training). Or it could be a guy at the top of a hotel in Las Vegas raining death down on everyone below him, who likely could have only been taken out with a sniper rifle or rocket launcher. And option two would have killed even more people than the shooter did. So yeah. We're keeping weapons of war on the streets. Good for us I guess.
We've had the gun discussion so many times here it almost seems pointless to keep going over it. Sadly, the fact is, America is never going to do anything about this issue.
You believe that it is certain a democratic socialist independent will win the Democratic nomination and has at least a good shot at winning the presidency, and you think beating the gun lobby to enact legislation most Americans support is impossible?
The problem I have with the ban guns to stop suicides argument is that it is only effective under a total gun ban. Restricting assault weapons or other such half measures won't stop a man from getting a hunting rifle or handgun.
But they say they don't want total gun bans. Well, which is it? This line of reasoning can only go one way.
This article I posted before explains how making the chosen method of suicide even a little bit harder can make a big difference to suicide rates - that doesn't require a total gun ban (which no-one is proposing). Things like using permits to purchase, red flag laws, encouraging safe storage and providing information about suicide can all have a significant impact on the numbers.
This was actually good, far better than the SPLC it has results from a number of different suicide methods and a number of different countries.
Although it looks like method prevention is a "whack a mole" scenario, there were cultural trends toward gas oven suicides, poison suicides, and firearm suicides. There's gonna be a lot of stuff to ban, in the end, if this is how we are to treat it. Although I no longer doubt it's effectiveness.
It also seems rather meaningless to save a life and offer nothing to improve the quality of that person's life. If they need help to the point of trying suicide, method prevention is treating a symptom and not a cause.
I prefer the more active treatment methods that deal with the root cause, because they are far more politically feasible to expand upon, they intrude less on the rights of others, the vast majority seek help before attempting it, and most importantly it improves quality of life.
Not that I would complain about more gun restrictions as a suicide prevention method, just that it seems more ideological than practical when there are a variety of effective methods that would be easier to accomplish and that do more to resolve the problem.
There's no argument about the need for longer-term measures. The Gun Shop Project is very similar to strategies referred to in the article you linked - the aim is to create a slight pause at the point someone actively thinks of suicide, to give them a chance to think again and ring a hotline. What is slightly different about this project is the focus on getting gun enthusiasts to promote the materials, to get round the instinctive antipathy that's built up over years among many gun owners to the 'government' or 'scientists' making any suggestions about guns.
We've had the gun discussion so many times here it almost seems pointless to keep going over it. Sadly, the fact is, America is never going to do anything about this issue.
You believe that it is certain a democratic socialist independent will win the Democratic nomination and has at least a good shot at winning the presidency, and you think beating the gun lobby to enact legislation most Americans support is impossible?
Pretty much. Doesn't give me any pleasure to say so. I think Bernie has about a 60-70% shot at this point, provided Mayor Pete doesn't get a surge and beat him in New Hampshire. In which case, I fear we're in big trouble, because I have NO faith he can beat Trump. Even less than I do in Biden.
And as I've said before, even though I agree with Sanders on many things, I see the numbers among his supporters who flat-out state they won't vote for another candidate. It's over 40%. That is......fatal. In this situation, it's simply not much of an option to test their sincerity. We did it once and those same people who stayed home were WAY MORE than enough to give Trump his razor-thin margin in 3 states.
So Vindman was not only fired today, he was escorted out of the building. Reports are that his BROTHER, who had nothing to do with any of this, was fired as well. Sondland also has been recalled. I have little sympathy for him, he bought himself into his job. But Vindman did NOTHING but answer a lawful subpoena issued by the House of Representatives and swear to tell the truth under oath. It has been suggested by those in this thread that he has to accept the "consequences of his actions". Interesting, I didn't realize following the law was subject to this kind of retaliation, making it seem as though he got behind the wheel of a car after 5 Long Island Ice Teas.
Nothing says "I'm totally innocent" like firing everyone who testified under oath in the matter (and in this case, their family member who had no tie to it whatsoever). And that is something none of the people defending Trump on this can possibly counter-argue. The fact is, your boy (along with Mulvaney and Pompeo) didn't have the fucking balls to testify under oath themselves. They're chicken-shit cowards. It's been pointed out INFINITE times that in all the instances Trump accuses people of lying, and that he is going to sue them (mostly his sexual assault accusers) he NEVER follows through. Ever. Because he know he can't. The one time he WAS dragged into a deposition, he was caught in so many lies it makes your head spin to even read the accounting of it.
Moreover, Vindman is the one who confirmed, under oath, that the "transcript" was not complete (you know, despite the assurances we were given by Trump defenders that we'd see the whole thing eventually). He TRIED to add back in the parts that were cut, but was stopped. I suppose you can sit around and pretend this guy is the one lying and that Donald Trump is the one telling the truth. But the simple fact remains is that Trump didn't have the stones to raise his right and say so. And neither did any of the other people who claim to have a story that paints a different portrayal of what happened than those that testified. And if Trump is going to run almost exclusively on this alpha macho bullshit, I'll be damned if I'm not gonna point it out. It's one of the elephants in the room. And any Republican or conservative who ever talks to me about "the troops" again after the Kahn family, the dismissal of the head injuries in the Iran rocket attacks, and this, can seriously go fly a fucking kite. It's nothing but platitudes and horseshit. Always has been.
He couldn't get his retcons published in the transcript because it never happened. These things go through multiple hands and he was clearly outnumbered by people who preferred accuracy to falsehood. The government is no friend to Trump so I dismiss any notions of him corrupting the process to such an extent that the majority of employees go along with it.
Still, the guy was lucky he did this under Trump. Obama would have tried to throw him in jail under the espionage act.
wow. Just wow.
How about the administration just cracks open the top secret server that this call was placed on (for no apparent reason except to hide the truth) and have the actual transcript made public especially if this is argument people are going to make, not even knowing what he was attempting to add.
Nope, better and attack and call the guy a liar with no proof what so ever. He also didn't have to be outnumbered. He had to be outranked. If Pompeo said his retcons weren't going in, they weren't going in.
I agree there is no evidence at all that Vindman was lying - quite the reverse. Everyone who testified gave a consistent account of what happened. That includes Sondland, who was such a strong Trump supporter he donated $1m to his inauguration committee.
The 'transcript' of the call was no such thing. When I first saw it, it did read like a transcript and I'm sure that was deliberate to provide it with some verisimilitude. However, it was written (and rewritten) months after the call for the specific purpose of damage limitation. Choosing to believe that provides a more accurate summary of what was said than that given by the only witnesses we've heard from is far too much of a stretch for me, even before getting into Trump's general lack of credibility.
Then of course there's the role played by Giuliani and his team (none of whom was prepared to testify despite not being government employees). The story that they went on some sort of personal rogue mission, without any input from Trump, and successfully blagged their way into meetings with top officials in the Ukraine to talk about investigating corruption - well that's about as believable as that Bin Salman knew nothing about a team of rogue assassins flying to another country, where they talked the ambassador into cooperating with them in killing and chopping up Khashoggi ...
My reasoning on supporting Bernie is this: If @Balrog99, who I have friendly disagreements with, and @WarChiefZeke, who I have openly hostile disagreements with, can BOTH see themselves supporting him, that isn't something I can ignore at this juncture. The former likes him because even though I'm sure he ideologically is opposed to most everything he stands for, he intuitively understands Bernie is a no-bullshit guy who isn't corrupted by big money. And since Sanders frames nearly EVERYTHING through a 100% economic prism, he isn't anathema to the later, who I would consider to be on the reactionary right. If he could conceivably pull either of those two's votes, then it means he can beat Trump.
And regular Democrats like me might have preferred someone like Harris, Warren or Klobuchar (in fact, I would). But I know that none of us are going to sit out and refuse to vote for Bernie with Trump on the other end of the ticket. It's not an option, even if some things about Sanders may rub us the wrong way (not so much for me, but others). What I'll call the "adults in the room" type Democrats may not have Bernie in their top 3 or 4 choices. But they are simply not going to sit home because of those disagreements. I cannot in any way say the same thing about Sanders supporters. Even if 40% of them don't stay home, I'm fairly certain 15-20% will (or write his name in). We cannot survive that with the Electoral College.
But the Bernie folks better be ready to put up or shut-up, because if he loses, it will doom the progressive wing of the party for as long as Walter Mondale's loss to Reagan did. And they better be ready for this, because it's coming. And Bill Barr will be the horseman leading the charge:
I think Bernie has about a 60-70% shot at this point, provided Mayor Pete doesn't get a surge and beat him in New Hampshire. In which case, I fear we're in big trouble, because I have NO faith he can beat Trump. Even less than I do in Biden.
I'd ask why you think that, but instead I'm going to point you (and anyone else talking about electability, implicitly or explicitly), to here: You'll Never Know Which Candidate Is Electable.
And as I've said before, even though I agree with Sanders on many things, I see the numbers among his supporters who flat-out state they won't vote for another candidate. It's over 40%. That is......fatal. In this situation, it's simply not much of an option to test their sincerity. We did it once and those same people who stayed home were WAY MORE than enough to give Trump his razor-thin margin in 3 states.
There is very little that is "fatal" against a president that can't get above 45% in the polls, and there is a host of things that could have swung the outcome of the 2016 election another way.
Donald Trump is a weak, unpopular President by every objective metric. The election is not a foregone conclusion, but neither is it a hope and a prayer longshot that requires the Democrats to be preternaturally surefooted... which is good, since they aren't and won't be.
There's almost certainly more antisemites in America than people who would actually vote for Bernie and no other Democratic candidate, and that doesn't doom him to lose the election if he's nominated.
Why would they do that? They think they can beat Sanders despite every poll showing otherwise. So what do they have up their sleeve? They don't leave things up to chance. Sure they screw up all the time and do the worst thing possible but they don't do nothing, so what are they planning?
Consider that:
- After the Mueller Report fizzled out it was what the next day before he was out plotting how to influence the election through foreign intervention again (the Ukraine scheme).
- He has known for a while that he's certain to be cleared in the Ukraine scheme by gutless Republicans so he and his henchmen are definitely planning the next scheme. This next scheme will most likely involve getting foreign intervention to help him in an American election.
- Trump knows no Republican is brave enough to hold him accountable.
So:
- At the State of the Union Trump introduced 'president' Juan Guaido, a guy who is leading a coup of Venezuela.
- Afterwards the SOTU, Guaido was invited to meetings with Trump in the White House. Trump told Guaido he will take new action on Venezuela in the next month. People assume this means additional sanctions which are already crippling the economy there. It doesn't mean that.
-Guaido left Trump "upbeat, thinking this will help him regain momentum on the ground" .
So here's my speculation: Trump's going to have the CIA help Guaido topple Maduro in Venezuela before the election.
The thinking behind this is:
Team Trump gets the opportunity to crow about how sOcIALIzm never works do you want VenEZuEeeeeLaaaaa and blah blah blah something something coMmUniSm.
That's why Trump strategists wants Bernie to be the nominee. Because they are aware this US backed coup is coming soon. They are going to get people killed in Venezuela in search of a talking point about "socializm bad".
Why would they do that? They think they can beat Sanders despite every poll showing otherwise. So what do they have up their sleeve? They don't leave things up to chance. Sure they screw up all the time and do the worst thing possible but they don't do nothing, so what are they planning?
Consider that:
- After the Mueller Report fizzled out it was what the next day before he was out plotting how to influence the election through foreign intervention again (the Ukraine scheme).
- He has known for a while that he's certain to be cleared in the Ukraine scheme by gutless Republicans so he and his henchmen are definitely planning the next scheme. This next scheme will most likely involve getting foreign intervention to help him in an American election.
- Trump knows no Republican is brave enough to hold him accountable.
So:
- At the State of the Union Trump introduced 'president' Juan Guaido, a guy who is leading a coup of Venezuela.
- Afterwards the SOTU, Guaido was invited to meetings with Trump in the White House. Trump told Guaido he will take new action on Venezuela in the next month. People assume this means additional sanctions which are already crippling the economy there. It doesn't mean that.
-Guaido left Trump "upbeat, thinking this will help him regain momentum on the ground" .
So here's my speculation: Trump's going to have the CIA help Guaido topple Maduro in Venezuela before the election.
The thinking behind this is:
Team Trump gets the opportunity to crow about how sOcIALIzm never works do you want VenEZuEeeeeLaaaaa and blah blah blah something something coMmUniSm.
That's why Trump strategists wants Bernie to be the nominee. Because they are aware this US backed coup is coming soon. They are going to get people killed in Venezuela in search of a talking point about "socializm bad".
They think they have it all figured out.
There is some truth to this. I heard Rush Limbaugh talking about 'Crazy Brrnie' and how he thinks Republicans should, maybe, vote for him in states that allow non-partisan voting in primaries (akin to his 'Operation Chaos', where he told his listeners to vote for Hillary over Obama in the 2008 primaries to cause trouble). The idea here is that the 'radical leftist' policies of Bernie would be defeated easily by Trump and his policies. Rush was just kinda mulling the idea over, however, and stopped short of pushing for it. I'm not sure if now is when the right really wants to tangle with a progressive. It could be a massive backfire.
I found this article about "Operation Chaos 2.0". Rush hasn't actively pushed the idea, yet, but some South Carolina Republicans apparently are...
There's too many people involved that's why they can't keep it quiet.
Agreed. The premise might be faulty though. I'd like to see an unfettered Bernie taking Trump on in debates. Right now he's got his hands tied behind his back because he's battling other Democrats. I think he might be a better candidate than more orthodox people think. He definitely has an enthusiasm that's catchy!
I've figured out a Trump plan that is in progress based on this:
To put it gently, this does not sound like a plot from the mind of a man who got caught blackmailing a foreign leader to investigate a political rival's family because it didn't occur to him that maybe one of the quite a few people with access to the call might not be 100% on board.
To put it even more gently, you very likely put more thought into this conspiracy than Donald Trump has put into any action since he became President.
If Trump did try to coup Venezuela, I guarantee it would be a spur of the moment decision, just like every other dumbass thing he's done (remember when he pulled all US troops out because the president of Turkey reminded him he'd promised to do that once?), and not part of a machiavellian conspiracy to undermine the Republic.
This is why the government is known as the "Trump administration"--because Trump selected the very people who currently run the United States government. The fact that not everyone in the government, down to every diplomat, is Trump's personal stooge does not make him an oppressed figure.
Partially true. There are many bureaucrats who were appointed to office by Obama--and some by Bush--who still hold their jobs because it would not be possible, or wise, to come in and have a new Administration replace everyone. Trump's problem is that he is still trying to run government as if it were a private corporation. Although there some ways in which that would be better--what if government agencies had to turn a profit?--but his corporate management style is "shake things up" and "create two teams working on the same project then set them against each other", which is why the White House has had a revolving door for the last 3 years.
Sondland has been recalled from his Ambassadorship. Now, testifying against a sitting POTUS takes guts *but* did these people really expect *no* sort of retaliation whatsoever? Seriously? While we are on the topic of whistleblowers....remember the good old days when the Obama Administration aggressively targeted and prosecuted whistleblowers and leakers? Good times. If I recall, Eric Snowden is still living in Russia under political asylum.
*************
The House of Representatives could have impeached for violations of Emoluments, whether or not any court cases were successful or were thrown out--if they could have proven the case in the House, which does not require the same high bar as a criminal trial, they might have been a little more successful. Instead, they chose to impeach over the phone call to Ukrainian President Zelensky, where it was suggested that investigators there look into Burisma Holdings.
Why?
Why did the Ukraine phone call make everyone freak out? Some people expressed nervousness over the phone call. Third-party heresay was sufficient to cause Eric Ciaramella (recall that his area of expertise was Ukraine) to become a whistleblower, freak out, and run to Adam Schiff. What is--or was--*really* going on with Burisma, and PrivatBank, the money through which all our aid to Ukraine was funneled? Why are so many people so adamant that we absolutely must never look there, or ask about it, or talk about it, or mention it in any way?
Did you know that when Hunter was named to the board of Burisma, so was Devon Archer? Who is Devon Archer, you ask? At one time he worked on John Kerry's Presidential campaign, he was a founder/principal in BHR Holdings with Hunter, and he is one of the four people in that 2014 golf photo with Joe and Hunter, which would have been several years before he was convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud. There is another principal in BHR Holdings, as well--Christopher Heinz. Yes, of Heinz Ketchup, but he is also John Kerry's stepson (Kerry married Teresa Heinz after her first husband, former Senator from Pennsylvania, died). How weird is that coincidence? Wasn't John Kerry the Secretary of State while Joe Biden was Vice President? The odds of the son of a VP *and* a close friend of the SecState *both* being on a board of directors *at the same time* must be astronomical.
Did you know that BHR Holdings also did a lot of business with the Bank of China, a State Bank (therefore, by extension, a Communist Party-controlled bank)? Did you know that Hunter is a lawyer and that one of his clients was Patrick Ho, an executive with CEFC China Energy Corporation, who has been arrested and charged with bribery here in the United States? Did you know that CEFC's CEO, Ye Jianming, was arreseted in China on corruption charges?
Did you know that PrivatBank, where our aid money to Ukraine goes, used to be 50% owned by Ihor Kolomoyskyi, a Ukrainian "oligarch" (which is short for "part businessman, part mob boss, powerful political connections")? Did you know that a very popular TV show on his 1+1 Media Group cable network, "Servant of the People", featured an actor named Volodymyr Zelensky who played the part of--you can't make this stuff up--the President of Ukraine? Did you know that IMF money going to Ukraine also went through PrivatBank? Did you know that after it got nationalized an audit showed that $5.5 billion was missing?
Why is everyone over here freaking out about investigations in Ukraine?
The whistleblower did not go running to Adam Schiff. He did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do through the proper channels, as was testified to by his own superior, the man TRUMP appointed as DNI. The complaint was required, BY LAW, as plain as day, to be turned over to the House of Representatives if the inspector general of that agency found it credible within 7 days. It wasn't. Instead, it was given directly to the SUBJECT of the complaint. Schiff initially only knew that a complaint hadn't been turned over as required by law. For someone who is so invested in pointing out what is and isn't technically required, the absence of your willingness to do so in regards to the whistleblower statute is......quite revealing. This is, by the way, a process Edward Snowden did NOT follow.
In the rambling, you also didn't make a SINGLE connection between Burisma and PrivatBank, despite leading off with "what is really going on with these two things". Nice trick. Maybe some people wouldn't catch it. Not this person. Furthermore, we KNOW Trump gave a fuck-all about "corruption in Ukraine" because multiple people said he didn't. He wanted an "announcement" of an investigation for the media coverage. The actual investigation was completely immaterial, which gives away the whole ball-game. And I'll reiterate again. Every witness before the House was under threat of perjury. No one offering counter-narratives had the balls.
I'll ask again since literally not a SINGLE person anywhere can answer it: what law did Hunter Biden even hypotetically break that would warrant the President of the United States openly soliciting an investigation of him, an investigation in ANOTHER country, which wouldn't afford him the constitutional protections you claim to be so fond of and quote at every opportunity??
Furthermore, do you believe honoring a lawful subpoena issued by the House of Representatives, elected by the voters of this country and invested with that power, and testifying under oath under penalty of perjruy should make you subject to retaliation?? Do you believe that doing so should make your BROTHER subject to retaliation??
Why is everyone over here freaking out about investigations in Ukraine?
Tell me you understand this: asking Ukraine to do an investigation is not like asking France or the Germany to do an investigation. Those are countries that might do a fair investigation. Ukraine is not one of those places.
Ukraine has historically had corruption problems. Ukraine also has Russia being aggressive militarily and stealing their land (crimea). There is pressure on them and they are weak and corrupt. Trump asked Parnas on tape "How long can they hold out against Russia?" He knows this.
Trump was impeached because his plan was that he was threatening Ukraine with the hope that they will come up with the political investigation that he wants. Sonland testified that Trump didn't even care if Biden was guilty. He just wanted to have the political damage of an announced investigation.
Ukraine, with it's pressure of being weak and corrupt and Russia aggression, was being bribed to announce an investigation.
Finally, why is the President demanding investigations into his political rival's son. Why is he demanding investigations into US citizens? That's not right. WHOSE SIDE IS HE ON. This is not appropriate for the President to do. Can you not see that?
Oh, that's right--I forgot. It is better to *kill* an American citizen without any due process, like Obama did--and then killed the guy's son, for good measure--than to *suggest* an investigation into an American citizen. It is difficult to keep up with the double standards Democrats demand from time to time.
As far as I know, Hunter never broke any United States laws, which is why my advice to the Trump Administration months ago was "drop it--it isn't worth it". Asking questions almost never hurts anyone, though, which is why I asked them.
Although an impeachment is not quite the same as a criminal trial, if I am put on trial for committing a crime and I am found "not guilty", then I may truthfully claim "I did not commit the crime". The same logic holds for impeachment--Trump may truthfully claim that guilty neither of "abuse of power" nor "obstruction of Congress" (neither or which are crimes since they are not violations of the U. S. Code).
Again, re: Vindland, Sondland, and others....remember the good old days when Obama aggressively targets whistleblowers and leakers? Did they really think there would be *no* consequences? It is not *right* to fire or reassign them, but it isn't *illegal*, either, and anything which is not expressly illegal is permissible.
Fortunately for all of us, the recent impeachment has put us into the age of "allegation = guilt", so now all we have to do is levy an allegation and the person against whom we levied it must prove their innocence. Thank you, House Democrats. It will be nice to get back to "innocent until proven guilty" at some point. The pendulum has not made its full arc yet, though, so we have one or two more over-the-top allegations-proving-guilt before people get sick of it and demand a return to reality.
Comments
Why would they do this? Trump is not popular, not competent, and likely doesn't even want the job.
Imagining dark conspiracies to overthrow the government and install Trump as King are going to make you look just as silly as all the lefties who were certain Bush/Cheney were going to do the same thing.
Why would any of this make it likely he would actually be elected? Why precisely does no Republican want to run for President, again? A write-in candidate winning a federal election with an electorate of hundreds of millions, are you serious?
And hey, I'll flip it around, I guess: if the American people voted for this buffoon a third time despite everything including his not actually being the official candidate of any party and it violating the Constitution for him to run at all, then I guess the American people deserve him, don't they? Vive la démocratie.
Since it was a concern mostly among the left (who are not friendly towards the Clintons), that is likely why you were not aware of it. But googling "Clinton dynasty" will find you no shortage of articles on the subject.
“The legal implications of this request could affect protections for all Americans against politically-motivated disclosures of personal tax information, regardless of which party is in power,” Mnuchin said in an April 2019 letter.
Today, the Treasury Department gave congressional Republicans sensitive financial information related to Hunter Biden. Seems they were not really concerned about privacy or politically motivated disclosures.
Republicans stand for nothing but covering up for Trump. Throw every one, except Mitt Romney apparently, out of office. Dump the turd Nov 3rd.
This was actually good, far better than the SPLC
Although it looks like method prevention is a "whack a mole" scenario, there were cultural trends toward gas oven suicides, poison suicides, and firearm suicides. There's gonna be a lot of stuff to ban, in the end, if this is how we are to treat it. Although I no longer doubt it's effectiveness.
It also seems rather meaningless to save a life and offer nothing to improve the quality of that person's life. If they need help to the point of trying suicide, method prevention is treating a symptom and not a cause.
I prefer the more active treatment methods that deal with the root cause, because they are far more politically feasible to expand upon, they intrude less on the rights of others, the vast majority seek help before attempting it, and most importantly it improves quality of life.
Not that I would complain about more gun restrictions as a suicide prevention method, just that it seems more ideological than practical when there are a variety of effective methods that would be easier to accomplish and that do more to resolve the problem.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/three-suicide-prevention-strategies-show-real-promise-how-can-they-reach-more-people
Ooh, ooh, can I say it? There is no legitimate reason for civilians to own firearms in a stable democracy with a functional police force (and in countries that aren't these, civilians will have weapons regardless of what laws say), with the virtually sole exception of rural residents who have legitimate need of a rifle for livestock-related purposes.
Countries that have these laws both exist and are better off then the US in every way regarding gun violence, and absolutely none of the feverish fantasies of Americans about what will happen when they "take away your guns" actually ever occur.
Mayyyyybe you might want to wait until a state that isn't 92% white votes before you are quite so certain of that?
Nah, "I own it because I want it and I'm not hurting anyone else" is 100% legitimate and always will be. The state can go eff itself if it thinks otherwise and I would never support any government that presumed to have such power over me. Now multiply that by millions of people and you have a large section of the American mindset.
The power of gun ownership is legitimate morally, and legitimate politically, supported by the communities that practice it, embedded within the social fabric, enshrined in the highest law.
Europe is also not "better than us in every way", which is a common refrain from the left. When you get right down to it, Americans are as happy as anyone, right up there with the best European countries.
I'll take the health care, which solves most disparities right there,but that's about it. The politics of Western Europe are abhorrent to me, but Russia, Poland, and Hungary are cool.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/new-high-americans-satisfied-personal-life.aspx
Nothing says "I'm totally innocent" like firing everyone who testified under oath in the matter (and in this case, their family member who had no tie to it whatsoever). And that is something none of the people defending Trump on this can possibly counter-argue. The fact is, your boy (along with Mulvaney and Pompeo) didn't have the fucking balls to testify under oath themselves. They're chicken-shit cowards. It's been pointed out INFINITE times that in all the instances Trump accuses people of lying, and that he is going to sue them (mostly his sexual assault accusers) he NEVER follows through. Ever. Because he know he can't. The one time he WAS dragged into a deposition, he was caught in so many lies it makes your head spin to even read the accounting of it.
Moreover, Vindman is the one who confirmed, under oath, that the "transcript" was not complete (you know, despite the assurances we were given by Trump defenders that we'd see the whole thing eventually). He TRIED to add back in the parts that were cut, but was stopped. I suppose you can sit around and pretend this guy is the one lying and that Donald Trump is the one telling the truth. But the simple fact remains is that Trump didn't have the stones to raise his right and say so. And neither did any of the other people who claim to have a story that paints a different portrayal of what happened than those that testified. And if Trump is going to run almost exclusively on this alpha macho bullshit, I'll be damned if I'm not gonna point it out. It's one of the elephants in the room. And any Republican or conservative who ever talks to me about "the troops" again after the Kahn family, the dismissal of the head injuries in the Iran rocket attacks, and this, can seriously go fly a fucking kite. It's nothing but platitudes and horseshit. Always has been.
He couldn't get his retcons published in the transcript because it never happened. These things go through multiple hands and he was clearly outnumbered by people who preferred accuracy to falsehood. The government is no friend to Trump so I dismiss any notions of him corrupting the process to such an extent that the majority of employees go along with it.
Still, the guy was lucky he did this under Trump. Obama would have tried to throw him in jail under the espionage act.
wow. Just wow.
How about the administration just cracks open the top secret server that this call was placed on (for no apparent reason except to hide the truth) and have the actual transcript made public especially if this is argument people are going to make, not even knowing what he was attempting to add.
Nope, better and attack and call the guy a liar with no proof what so ever. He also didn't have to be outnumbered. He had to be outranked. If Pompeo said his retcons weren't going in, they weren't going in.
Lousy cowards stick around and the good ones are pushed out in support of lies.
Partisan hacks in the Republican party stand for nothing.
He really learned his lesson huh Susan Collins right. You said he did it and he obviously did it, but that he learned his lesson. Fool. You covered for a criminal president.
Trump is by far the most powerful man on the planet. He has been since the 2016 election, and he will continue to be the most powerful man on the planet until at least the 2020 election.
No it isn't, because you can't own a tank or a fighter jet, either. There's always a line, but your line gets a whole bunch of people killed to no actual real-world benefit. So do you support civilian access to nuclear weapons, or is there, in fact, a line where "I want it and I'm not hurting anyone else" actually isn't good enough?
And if so, where is your line? And why? I gave you mine: people who have a legitimate need, for their jobs and livelihoods, to own a gun.
But, y'see, those Americans are utterly, empirically wrong both about the benefits of civilian firearm owning, and the consequences of it. Millions of people believe in conspiracy theories, that doesn't make them have any basis in reality.
They also are a minority who get their way through well-funded lobbying, as the majority of Americans (including Republicans) support more gun control and consistently have done so for years.
I didn't say word one about Europe. Let's talk about all those gun-owning criminals and unstoppable massacres constantly happening in, ooh, let's say, Australia and Japan. I bet they, with their lack of ability to legally own guns, come off really horribly compared to America in firearm deaths, gun crime, and tyrannical governments squashing freedom. Shall we look at some comparative statistics?
You believe that it is certain a democratic socialist independent will win the Democratic nomination and has at least a good shot at winning the presidency, and you think beating the gun lobby to enact legislation most Americans support is impossible?
There's no argument about the need for longer-term measures. The Gun Shop Project is very similar to strategies referred to in the article you linked - the aim is to create a slight pause at the point someone actively thinks of suicide, to give them a chance to think again and ring a hotline. What is slightly different about this project is the focus on getting gun enthusiasts to promote the materials, to get round the instinctive antipathy that's built up over years among many gun owners to the 'government' or 'scientists' making any suggestions about guns.
Pretty much. Doesn't give me any pleasure to say so. I think Bernie has about a 60-70% shot at this point, provided Mayor Pete doesn't get a surge and beat him in New Hampshire. In which case, I fear we're in big trouble, because I have NO faith he can beat Trump. Even less than I do in Biden.
And as I've said before, even though I agree with Sanders on many things, I see the numbers among his supporters who flat-out state they won't vote for another candidate. It's over 40%. That is......fatal. In this situation, it's simply not much of an option to test their sincerity. We did it once and those same people who stayed home were WAY MORE than enough to give Trump his razor-thin margin in 3 states.
I agree there is no evidence at all that Vindman was lying - quite the reverse. Everyone who testified gave a consistent account of what happened. That includes Sondland, who was such a strong Trump supporter he donated $1m to his inauguration committee.
The 'transcript' of the call was no such thing. When I first saw it, it did read like a transcript and I'm sure that was deliberate to provide it with some verisimilitude. However, it was written (and rewritten) months after the call for the specific purpose of damage limitation. Choosing to believe that provides a more accurate summary of what was said than that given by the only witnesses we've heard from is far too much of a stretch for me, even before getting into Trump's general lack of credibility.
Then of course there's the role played by Giuliani and his team (none of whom was prepared to testify despite not being government employees). The story that they went on some sort of personal rogue mission, without any input from Trump, and successfully blagged their way into meetings with top officials in the Ukraine to talk about investigating corruption - well that's about as believable as that Bin Salman knew nothing about a team of rogue assassins flying to another country, where they talked the ambassador into cooperating with them in killing and chopping up Khashoggi ...
And regular Democrats like me might have preferred someone like Harris, Warren or Klobuchar (in fact, I would). But I know that none of us are going to sit out and refuse to vote for Bernie with Trump on the other end of the ticket. It's not an option, even if some things about Sanders may rub us the wrong way (not so much for me, but others). What I'll call the "adults in the room" type Democrats may not have Bernie in their top 3 or 4 choices. But they are simply not going to sit home because of those disagreements. I cannot in any way say the same thing about Sanders supporters. Even if 40% of them don't stay home, I'm fairly certain 15-20% will (or write his name in). We cannot survive that with the Electoral College.
But the Bernie folks better be ready to put up or shut-up, because if he loses, it will doom the progressive wing of the party for as long as Walter Mondale's loss to Reagan did. And they better be ready for this, because it's coming. And Bill Barr will be the horseman leading the charge:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/will-trumps-operatives-now-biden-bernie
“Everything is impossible until it’s not." - Bernie Sanders
I'm pretty sure this is irony?
I'd ask why you think that, but instead I'm going to point you (and anyone else talking about electability, implicitly or explicitly), to here: You'll Never Know Which Candidate Is Electable.
There is very little that is "fatal" against a president that can't get above 45% in the polls, and there is a host of things that could have swung the outcome of the 2016 election another way.
Donald Trump is a weak, unpopular President by every objective metric. The election is not a foregone conclusion, but neither is it a hope and a prayer longshot that requires the Democrats to be preternaturally surefooted... which is good, since they aren't and won't be.
There's almost certainly more antisemites in America than people who would actually vote for Bernie and no other Democratic candidate, and that doesn't doom him to lose the election if he's nominated.
Republicans urging GOP voters to vote for Sanders in South Carolina primary: report
https://thehill.com/homenews/481489-republicans-urging-gop-voters-to-vote-for-sanders-in-south-carolina-primary-report
Why would they do that? They think they can beat Sanders despite every poll showing otherwise. So what do they have up their sleeve? They don't leave things up to chance. Sure they screw up all the time and do the worst thing possible but they don't do nothing, so what are they planning?
Consider that:
- After the Mueller Report fizzled out it was what the next day before he was out plotting how to influence the election through foreign intervention again (the Ukraine scheme).
- He has known for a while that he's certain to be cleared in the Ukraine scheme by gutless Republicans so he and his henchmen are definitely planning the next scheme. This next scheme will most likely involve getting foreign intervention to help him in an American election.
- Trump knows no Republican is brave enough to hold him accountable.
So:
- At the State of the Union Trump introduced 'president' Juan Guaido, a guy who is leading a coup of Venezuela.
- Afterwards the SOTU, Guaido was invited to meetings with Trump in the White House. Trump told Guaido he will take new action on Venezuela in the next month. People assume this means additional sanctions which are already crippling the economy there. It doesn't mean that.
-Guaido left Trump "upbeat, thinking this will help him regain momentum on the ground" .
So here's my speculation:
Trump's going to have the CIA help Guaido topple Maduro in Venezuela before the election.
The thinking behind this is:
Team Trump gets the opportunity to crow about how sOcIALIzm never works do you want VenEZuEeeeeLaaaaa and blah blah blah something something coMmUniSm.
That's why Trump strategists wants Bernie to be the nominee. Because they are aware this US backed coup is coming soon. They are going to get people killed in Venezuela in search of a talking point about "socializm bad".
They think they have it all figured out.
There is some truth to this. I heard Rush Limbaugh talking about 'Crazy Brrnie' and how he thinks Republicans should, maybe, vote for him in states that allow non-partisan voting in primaries (akin to his 'Operation Chaos', where he told his listeners to vote for Hillary over Obama in the 2008 primaries to cause trouble). The idea here is that the 'radical leftist' policies of Bernie would be defeated easily by Trump and his policies. Rush was just kinda mulling the idea over, however, and stopped short of pushing for it. I'm not sure if now is when the right really wants to tangle with a progressive. It could be a massive backfire.
I found this article about "Operation Chaos 2.0". Rush hasn't actively pushed the idea, yet, but some South Carolina Republicans apparently are...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/operation-chaos-2-0-south-carolina-gop-revives-limbaugh-tactic-by-seeking-votes-for-sanders?_amp=true
Agreed. The premise might be faulty though. I'd like to see an unfettered Bernie taking Trump on in debates. Right now he's got his hands tied behind his back because he's battling other Democrats. I think he might be a better candidate than more orthodox people think. He definitely has an enthusiasm that's catchy!
To put it gently, this does not sound like a plot from the mind of a man who got caught blackmailing a foreign leader to investigate a political rival's family because it didn't occur to him that maybe one of the quite a few people with access to the call might not be 100% on board.
To put it even more gently, you very likely put more thought into this conspiracy than Donald Trump has put into any action since he became President.
If Trump did try to coup Venezuela, I guarantee it would be a spur of the moment decision, just like every other dumbass thing he's done (remember when he pulled all US troops out because the president of Turkey reminded him he'd promised to do that once?), and not part of a machiavellian conspiracy to undermine the Republic.
Partially true. There are many bureaucrats who were appointed to office by Obama--and some by Bush--who still hold their jobs because it would not be possible, or wise, to come in and have a new Administration replace everyone. Trump's problem is that he is still trying to run government as if it were a private corporation. Although there some ways in which that would be better--what if government agencies had to turn a profit?--but his corporate management style is "shake things up" and "create two teams working on the same project then set them against each other", which is why the White House has had a revolving door for the last 3 years.
Sondland has been recalled from his Ambassadorship. Now, testifying against a sitting POTUS takes guts *but* did these people really expect *no* sort of retaliation whatsoever? Seriously? While we are on the topic of whistleblowers....remember the good old days when the Obama Administration aggressively targeted and prosecuted whistleblowers and leakers? Good times. If I recall, Eric Snowden is still living in Russia under political asylum.
*************
The House of Representatives could have impeached for violations of Emoluments, whether or not any court cases were successful or were thrown out--if they could have proven the case in the House, which does not require the same high bar as a criminal trial, they might have been a little more successful. Instead, they chose to impeach over the phone call to Ukrainian President Zelensky, where it was suggested that investigators there look into Burisma Holdings.
Why?
Why did the Ukraine phone call make everyone freak out? Some people expressed nervousness over the phone call. Third-party heresay was sufficient to cause Eric Ciaramella (recall that his area of expertise was Ukraine) to become a whistleblower, freak out, and run to Adam Schiff. What is--or was--*really* going on with Burisma, and PrivatBank, the money through which all our aid to Ukraine was funneled? Why are so many people so adamant that we absolutely must never look there, or ask about it, or talk about it, or mention it in any way?
Did you know that when Hunter was named to the board of Burisma, so was Devon Archer? Who is Devon Archer, you ask? At one time he worked on John Kerry's Presidential campaign, he was a founder/principal in BHR Holdings with Hunter, and he is one of the four people in that 2014 golf photo with Joe and Hunter, which would have been several years before he was convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud. There is another principal in BHR Holdings, as well--Christopher Heinz. Yes, of Heinz Ketchup, but he is also John Kerry's stepson (Kerry married Teresa Heinz after her first husband, former Senator from Pennsylvania, died). How weird is that coincidence? Wasn't John Kerry the Secretary of State while Joe Biden was Vice President? The odds of the son of a VP *and* a close friend of the SecState *both* being on a board of directors *at the same time* must be astronomical.
Did you know that BHR Holdings also did a lot of business with the Bank of China, a State Bank (therefore, by extension, a Communist Party-controlled bank)? Did you know that Hunter is a lawyer and that one of his clients was Patrick Ho, an executive with CEFC China Energy Corporation, who has been arrested and charged with bribery here in the United States? Did you know that CEFC's CEO, Ye Jianming, was arreseted in China on corruption charges?
Did you know that PrivatBank, where our aid money to Ukraine goes, used to be 50% owned by Ihor Kolomoyskyi, a Ukrainian "oligarch" (which is short for "part businessman, part mob boss, powerful political connections")? Did you know that a very popular TV show on his 1+1 Media Group cable network, "Servant of the People", featured an actor named Volodymyr Zelensky who played the part of--you can't make this stuff up--the President of Ukraine? Did you know that IMF money going to Ukraine also went through PrivatBank? Did you know that after it got nationalized an audit showed that $5.5 billion was missing?
Why is everyone over here freaking out about investigations in Ukraine?
In the rambling, you also didn't make a SINGLE connection between Burisma and PrivatBank, despite leading off with "what is really going on with these two things". Nice trick. Maybe some people wouldn't catch it. Not this person. Furthermore, we KNOW Trump gave a fuck-all about "corruption in Ukraine" because multiple people said he didn't. He wanted an "announcement" of an investigation for the media coverage. The actual investigation was completely immaterial, which gives away the whole ball-game. And I'll reiterate again. Every witness before the House was under threat of perjury. No one offering counter-narratives had the balls.
I'll ask again since literally not a SINGLE person anywhere can answer it: what law did Hunter Biden even hypotetically break that would warrant the President of the United States openly soliciting an investigation of him, an investigation in ANOTHER country, which wouldn't afford him the constitutional protections you claim to be so fond of and quote at every opportunity??
Furthermore, do you believe honoring a lawful subpoena issued by the House of Representatives, elected by the voters of this country and invested with that power, and testifying under oath under penalty of perjruy should make you subject to retaliation?? Do you believe that doing so should make your BROTHER subject to retaliation??
Tell me you understand this: asking Ukraine to do an investigation is not like asking France or the Germany to do an investigation. Those are countries that might do a fair investigation. Ukraine is not one of those places.
Ukraine has historically had corruption problems. Ukraine also has Russia being aggressive militarily and stealing their land (crimea). There is pressure on them and they are weak and corrupt. Trump asked Parnas on tape "How long can they hold out against Russia?" He knows this.
Trump was impeached because his plan was that he was threatening Ukraine with the hope that they will come up with the political investigation that he wants. Sonland testified that Trump didn't even care if Biden was guilty. He just wanted to have the political damage of an announced investigation.
Ukraine, with it's pressure of being weak and corrupt and Russia aggression, was being bribed to announce an investigation.
Finally, why is the President demanding investigations into his political rival's son. Why is he demanding investigations into US citizens? That's not right. WHOSE SIDE IS HE ON. This is not appropriate for the President to do. Can you not see that?
As far as I know, Hunter never broke any United States laws, which is why my advice to the Trump Administration months ago was "drop it--it isn't worth it". Asking questions almost never hurts anyone, though, which is why I asked them.
Although an impeachment is not quite the same as a criminal trial, if I am put on trial for committing a crime and I am found "not guilty", then I may truthfully claim "I did not commit the crime". The same logic holds for impeachment--Trump may truthfully claim that guilty neither of "abuse of power" nor "obstruction of Congress" (neither or which are crimes since they are not violations of the U. S. Code).
Again, re: Vindland, Sondland, and others....remember the good old days when Obama aggressively targets whistleblowers and leakers? Did they really think there would be *no* consequences? It is not *right* to fire or reassign them, but it isn't *illegal*, either, and anything which is not expressly illegal is permissible.
Fortunately for all of us, the recent impeachment has put us into the age of "allegation = guilt", so now all we have to do is levy an allegation and the person against whom we levied it must prove their innocence. Thank you, House Democrats. It will be nice to get back to "innocent until proven guilty" at some point. The pendulum has not made its full arc yet, though, so we have one or two more over-the-top allegations-proving-guilt before people get sick of it and demand a return to reality.