If Trump called off the election in November, 33% of the country would cheer him on. THAT is what's frightening. Trump is an authoritarian. This shit does not happen overnight. As I've described countless times before, it happens in incrmental steps, each designed to be slightly less shocking than the last, each designed to further normalize what's going on. When it arrives, your kids will still go to school that day. You're grocery store will be open. There won't be tanks on your street. But what was there before will be gone.
I think you agree with me more than most so-called liberals in this thread. It's time for the Democrats to finally put up or shut up. So do you want to be a real liberal or a Republican light? Seriously, I've heard for decades now how supposedly popular the ideas are on the left. Now you've really got a chance to prove it. What will you all do with this opportunity? Biden? Buttigieg?? Klobuchar??? I like Klobuchar honestly but I don't think she has the chops to take on Trump. Buttigieg has no chance. Biden will be savaged in debates. He doesn't seem to have the energy required to win. Warren is not likeable. To me it's between billionaire Bloomberg and Sanders. Which one would be the better president? It's going to be an interesting race. Either could beat Trump but neither is a shoo-in...
I would probably have to get myself drunk to vote for Bloomberg. I supported Warren and Harris. Plenty progressive, but not in any way radically so. They aren't going to be the nominees. So I'll support Bernie. I have many reasons for doing so. First off, I'm not "old", but I'm no longer young. My generation got our guy in Obama. This generation of liberals clearly want Bernie Sanders. I'm not gonna stand in the way. He'll fight, god knows his people will fight. Good enough for me. If the Democratic establishment tries to shoe-horn in Mike Bloomberg as the alternative to Bernie, they will destroy the party.
If Trump called off the election in November, 33% of the country would cheer him on. THAT is what's frightening. Trump is an authoritarian. This shit does not happen overnight. As I've described countless times before, it happens in incrmental steps, each designed to be slightly less shocking than the last, each designed to further normalize what's going on. When it arrives, your kids will still go to school that day. You're grocery store will be open. There won't be tanks on your street. But what was there before will be gone.
I think you agree with me more than most so-called liberals in this thread. It's time for the Democrats to finally put up or shut up. So do you want to be a real liberal or a Republican light? Seriously, I've heard for decades now how supposedly popular the ideas are on the left. Now you've really got a chance to prove it. What will you all do with this opportunity? Biden? Buttigieg?? Klobuchar??? I like Klobuchar honestly but I don't think she has the chops to take on Trump. Buttigieg has no chance. Biden will be savaged in debates. He doesn't seem to have the energy required to win. Warren is not likeable. To me it's between billionaire Bloomberg and Sanders. Which one would be the better president? It's going to be an interesting race. Either could beat Trump but neither is a shoo-in...
I would probably have to get myself drunk to vote for Bloomberg. I supported Warren and Harris. Plenty progressive, but not in any way radically so. They aren't going to be the nominees. So I'll support Bernie. I have many reasons for doing so. First off, I'm not "old", but I'm no longer young. My generation got our guy in Obama. This generation of liberals clearly want Bernie Sanders. I'm not gonna stand in the way. He'll fight, got knows his people will fight. Good enough for me. If the Democratic establishment tries to shoe-horn in Mike Bloomberg as the alternative to Bernie, they will destroy the party.
We have a young intern at work that is a huge Bernie supporter. He has a water-cooled computer at his house that is totally devoted to mining Bit-Coin and all his proceeds are going to the Sander's campaign. I shit you not!
He has point-blank told me that if Bernie doesn't win the primary he will vote Libertarian. That's even if Warren is the nominee. The fanaticism of the younger Liberals should not be discounted. Sanders supporters don't seem to hold any allegiance to the Democratic Party...
If a majority of Senators really thought Trump was guilty then there would not have been majority votes to acquit. Their personal feelings are irrelevant; only the vote matters.
I'd be astonished if more than a handful of Senators thought Trump was not guilty. The vote does not represent evidence Senators considered him innocent, but that they did not feel removal from office was appropriate. Alexander was perfectly clear about the basis for his vote when considering the issue of whether witnesses should be called - Trump's guilt was already so obvious there was no point in spending time hearing from witnesses, but he did not feel the issue was sufficiently important to justify removal of the President. Other Senators may have been more reticent about explaining what they were thinking, but I'm sure many felt the same way.
Once again, though, I see that far too many people simply cannot understand the simple concept of "innocent until proven guilty". People who are accused do not have to provide documents and testimony to prove their innocence, only to have their accusers ask "if you have nothing to hide then why aren't you producing the documents?". No, the responsibility to prove guilt via documents and testimony is on those levying the accusations, after which the accused has the option of producing exculpatory documentation or testimony.
As I've said before, impeachment was specifically set up in the constitution to not be a criminal process. It does not have criminal penalties (the only remedies available from the process are removal from office and barring from taking office in future), can be (and often has been) used as a remedy against non-criminal actions and does not follow criminal laws of evidence.
However, even if it were a criminal process, "innocent until proven guilty" is not some absolute protection under the law that allows a suspect to evade investigation. In general, prosecuting authorities are entitled to seek evidence of guilt and suspects are not entitled to withhold potential evidence. It's true there are extremely detailed rules about when evidence can be sought which need to be complied with. However, if this were a legal case, the idea that a judge would accept that witnesses would be prevented from being called to give testimony or that documentary evidence (like the true transcript of the call with Zelensky) would be withheld is far-fetched in the extreme.
Congress is not in charge of the Executive Branch, which is apparently a lesson they needed to relearn.
Congress is not in day to day charge of the Executive branch, but they do have a constitutional oversight role - that's the basis for the impeachment clause.
The US Constitution was designed to balance powers between the 3 branches, but that design did not allow for the impact of overlaying party politics on the political process - that's not surprising, given that the majority of the Framers of the Constitution did not believe in party politics (see here for a bit of information about that and the way in which attitudes towards parties changed after the Constitution was adopted).
I think it's often overlooked that the constitutional basis for Trump's impeachment was not to do with party politics. The reason for the abuse of power charge was that Trump was subverting the will of Congress on an area of policy where Congress has the prime responsibility (the Constitution divides policy areas between the Executive and Legislative branches - with Congress having prime responsibility for most, but not all of those).
In narrow political terms, the Democrats probably would have been better off seeking a censure of the President's actions rather than impeaching him. That would almost certainly have been passed by the Senate, which would both have made the constitutional point and given them ammunition to attack the President specifically without also attacking the Republicans - giving them a better chance of capturing votes in the next Presidential election from independents, floating voters and those Republicans less fond of Trump. However, I think pursuing impeachment was the correct course of action from the point of view of upholding the Constitution. The verdict of history has shown that there were no constitutional issues at stake in the previous impeachment of Bill Clinton. I'm pretty sure that in 20 years time, Trump's impeachment will be seen as having been more significant - if the Constitution survives that long.
Censure is utterly meaningless, but ABSOLUTELY meaningless to someone like Donald Trump. You might be able to work it in as a some kind of moral lesson in a Frank Capra movie from the 1950s, but it essentially amounts to "Mr. President, go stand in the corner for 5 minutes and think about what you've done". Trump hasn't felt a single ounce of remorse or guilt for anything in his entire life. The man only understands power and how to leverage it, and how other people are willing to leverage it against him. It would have been such a weak-ass move in contrast to what he did that I can hardly even begin to express how pathetic it would have made the Democrats look.
And, for the record, it would have gotten exactly as much support from Republicans as impeachment did. You are giving far, FAR too much credit to Senate Republicans, who as much as Trump himself are responsible for where we're heading. There isn't a single shred of evidence from the last 3 years that even remotely hints at the idea that they'd turn on him for ANY reason in ANY circumstance.
Censure is utterly meaningless, but ABSOLUTELY meaningless to someone like Donald Trump. You might be able to work it in as a some kind of moral lesson in a Frank Capra movie from the 1950s, but it essentially amounts to "Mr. President, go stand in the corner for 5 minutes and think about what you've done". Trump hasn't felt a single ounce of remorse or guilt for anything in his entire life. The man only understands power and how to leverage it, and how other people are willing to leverage it against him. It would have been such a weak-ass move in contrast to what he did that I can hardly even begin to express how pathetic it would have made the Democrats look.
And, for the record, it would have gotten exactly as much support from Republicans as impeachment did. You are giving far, FAR too much credit to Senate Republicans, who as much as Trump himself are responsible for where we're heading. There isn't a single shred of evidence from the last 3 years that even remotely hints at the idea that they'd turn on him for ANY reason in ANY circumstance.
While it would be meaningless as far as effect goes presumably it would be a notice that more meaningful action might be taken. It would be a notice that Senate Republicans are not blind partisans. It would show 4gat they have the courage to do the right thing.
Unfortunately, they don't have that courage and they are bound partisans. And they did send the message to the President that acquittal gives - it was a permission slip. That message was received loud and clear.
And, for the record, it would have gotten exactly as much support from Republicans as impeachment did. You are giving far, FAR too much credit to Senate Republicans, who as much as Trump himself are responsible for where we're heading. There isn't a single shred of evidence from the last 3 years that even remotely hints at the idea that they'd turn on him for ANY reason in ANY circumstance.
What, evidence apart from the fact that a number of Republican Senators said publicly that the President's actions had been wrong you mean? It's precisely because a censure would have little direct impact that it would have been likely that could have got a majority in the Senate. That would have at least had the virtue of exposing one of the big issues over Trump's Presidency - his seeking to gain more power for the Presidency at the expense of the other 2 branches of the government - rather than that issue potentially being lost in a partisan fight between parties.
From your posts over a number of years I get the feeling that at heart you would prefer a consensus approach to politics, but have decided that's no longer a practical solution given the way the Republican party has evolved over the last generation. The point I was making though is that party loyalty is not the sole influence on Congressional representatives. Those facing potentially difficult elections for instance clearly have more of an eye on the views of their electorates than some of their colleagues. Foreign policy is another area where different loyalties can apply - and Trump has had a number of defeats in Congress over aspects of his foreign policy.
I also think there are those who believe in the constitutional role of Congress and that that should not be subordinated to the Presidency - that group won't give an automatic carte blanche to Trump's encroaching on that role. There are similar issues in relation to the judicial branch. That's why I don't think there should be an automatic presumption the Supreme Court will support him (for instance in rulings over whether he is subject to the law) - they will consider how that affects their own standing as well as how it affects the Presidency.
I think it's often overlooked that the constitutional basis for Trump's impeachment was not to do with party politics.
Here we must disagree. This impeachment had everything to do with politics. The House had other opportunities to impeach Trump--mostly for Emoluments, which was the route I had suggested early on--but they chose the phone call with Ukraine only because one person got his feelings hurt about a phone call, a phone call of which he was not part--he had no direct, firsthand evidence of anything, only guesses based on other people's perceptions.
Actually, we have to disagree on one other point: just because Congress asks the Executive for something does not necessarily mean that the Executive has to roll over and submit. There have been many instances of claiming "Executive privilege" by both parties over the years. When Congress launches a politically-motivated investigation--and these days, all investigations are politically motivated--its normal oversight authority (which is already tenuous at best) becomes a political matter, not a Constitutional one.
When the Republicans retook the House during Obama's second term, they had the option of impeaching him for some flimsy, questionable reason...but they did not do so. Why? The answer is simple: they did not want to make impeachment a political weapon. The Democrats just did that--the first attempts to impeach Trump happened in May 2017, when he had been in office for only 5 months. Currently, the split in the Senate is Republicans 53, Democrats 45, Independents 2. Up to 18 Republican senators could have voted "guilty", which would have made the trial vote "not guilty: 35, guilty 65" which would have sent a clear message--you were wrong to act the way you did, Trump--but would not have been the 67 votes necessary to remove him from office. The fact that only one of them did--but only once--means either a) Trump has them all scared (highly unlikely), b) they recognized that the impeachment was political in nature (which it was) and they did not want it weaponized, or c) they really did not think he was guilty. (the correct answers are b and c)
Impossible and overblown fear is both impossible and overblown. There is no such thing as "calling off the election", so why are you even mentioning it except to try and generate a little fearmongering?
I would love for all the Bernie Bros to vote Libertarian, even if they are doing so for the wrong reason. People should choose Libertarianism because they want what is actually best for the nation and they are tired of the False Dichotomy of Democrat/Republican, which are the real reasons the United States has the problems it has. That is what made Babylon 5 so great--at its climax the younger species finally grew up and told the Vorlons and Shadows to get the hell out and leave them alone.
The President of the United States is now attacking individual JURORS in the Roger Stone case. You know, the people who got sucked out of their jobs for weeks or months with little to no pay to serve in that position. Another step. And we just keep walking straight to the graveyard.
Roger Stone would not have been guilty of anything had the Mueller Investigation not taken place. That being said, this is going to wind up becoming another impeachment....but they had better hurry.
As I've said before, impeachment was specifically set up in the constitution to not be a criminal process. It does not have criminal penalties (the only remedies available from the process are removal from office and barring from taking office in future), can be (and often has been) used as a remedy against non-criminal actions and does not follow criminal laws of evidence.
Then the process was valid. I'm not sure the point of the sour grapes about this, since this isn't a criminal trial and doesn't have to follow those procedures, and if it was a criminal trial, the same outcome would have occurred since they had nothing solid anyway. There isn't anyone who was going to say anything we don't already know, and it wouldn't have changed anything as it is. It was a total failure to make their case no matter which way you look at it.
Roger Stone would not have been guilty of anything had the Mueller Investigation not taken place. That being said, this is going to wind up becoming another impeachment....but they had better hurry.
So let's see where we're at on this. Should the juror have "known what they were getting into" and "accept the consequences of their actions" because they answered a jury summons?? The penalty of which for not doing so would have been contempt of court?? Are you ok with a totally random citizen who was chosen after jury selection by both a prosecution and defense concluded being singled out by the most powerful man in the country??
That is the point--although impeachment is not a criminal trial it is still subject to "innocent until proven guilty" and no one can prove guilt if they don't have evidence. Of course, when the prosecutors choose not to wait to get the evidence they need by going to the courts to enforce subpoenas then they really aren't trying to convict. As I have said before, they *could* have impeached Trump for violating Emoluments and they would have had a much better case; it is not my fault they chose the wrong reasons to impeach.
Schumer thinks impeachment has been good for Democrats. Losing is typically not considered a "good" thing, but I guess if you don't *feel* like a loser then you aren't really a loser (except for the fact that you did not win).
Bloomberg is not on the ballot in Nevada but the DNC is going to let him go to debates/town halls anyway, because money talks.
So let's see where we're at on this. Should the juror have "known what they were getting into" and "accept the consequences of their actions" because they answered a jury summons?? The penalty of which for not doing so would have been contempt of court?? Are you ok with a totally random citizen who was chosen after jury selection by both a prosecution and defense concluded being singled out by the most powerful man in the country??
No, when you get a jury summons you show up and do what you need to do. I would have advised Trump to stay out of the Stone case altogether but I know for a fact that he would ignore my sound advice and do whatever the heck he feels like doing regardless of the wisdom or the optics of his actions. Remember: I am not a Republican and don't necessarily support Trump; instead, I oppose Democrats--those are two separate things.
edit/add: remind to remind myself not to try and respond to everyone and everything--I am posting over my own posts
They had evidence - it is partisan conservatives that have decided to move the goal posts on what evidence should be considered enough.
The idea that the GOP didn’t impeach Obama because they didn’t want to weaponize the process is absurd, and you can provide zero evidence to support your claim. More likely - they knew they didn’t have anything that they could make a compelling case out of, and the fear of Clinton’s impeachment benefits Democrats in the midterm made them wait.
Impeachment hasn’t materially hurt Democrats. Trumps approval rating hasn’t meaningfully changed. Around 50% of the country thinks it was worth doing. Democrats also always knew he’d be acquitted - so the framing that Democrats “lost” is disingenuous.
They had evidence - it is partisan conservatives that have decided to move the goal posts on what evidence should be considered enough.
The idea that the GOP didn’t impeach Obama because they didn’t want to weaponize the process is absurd, and you can provide zero evidence to support your claim. More likely - they knew they didn’t have anything that they could make a compelling case out of, and the fear of Clinton’s impeachment benefits Democrats in the midterm made them wait.
Impeachment hasn’t materially hurt Democrats. Trumps approval rating hasn’t meaningfully changed. Around 50% of the country thinks it was worth doing. Democrats also always knew he’d be acquitted - so the framing that Democrats “lost” is disingenuous.
Republicans rigged the trial. Republicans don't care about the country but instead prefer dictatorship by Trump's whims.
That's the main thing we learned from impeachment.
The idea that the GOP didn’t impeach Obama because they didn’t want to weaponize the process is absurd, and you can provide zero evidence to support your claim.
Fortunately, I do not have to provide proof. Everything here is "op-ed", not "investigative journalism".
Most political scenarios are non-loss/non-win situations. In this particular instance, though, impeachment did not give Trump any cause for reflection--he is proceeding as the stereotypical bull in the china shop, causing even some of his own supporters to say "whoa". When you get a speeding ticket most normal people do not do a donut in the parking lot before peeling out back onto the street.
And here we see the premise that every single argument in American conservatism. The facts don't matter, let's just spout whatever we want and dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary. Because the truth doesn't matter, only what we WANT to be true. How dare you bring facts and evidence into this?
"The president is innocent of everything, I know this because I've never read the Mueller report."
"The impeachment is a sham, and even though Trump admitted to what he was impeached for, he's still innocent of it."
"Those aren't concentration camps, we are only putting children into detention centers with the same conditions that historical camps operated under. Its totally different because awe aren't German! Don't listen to actual concentration camp survivors or historians. THey only know what they are talking about."
"Its all the liberals fault for trying to stop us. We aren't responsible for our own actions."
"Liberals want to destroy the constitution, even though Republicans are the ones who have been ingnoring the rules for about 30 years."
At this point, benefit of the doubt is out the window. If you support this administration then you are, at best, intentionally ignorant of what is going on, or actively malicious.
Let the hate flow through you. People who suffer from OMBS (Orange Man Bad Syndrome) will not be cured with facts because they automatically reject any fact which does not adhere to their worldview. For example, consider Kings College professor Liam Kennedy who is crying about "Paw Patrol" because *gasp* it dares to present a capitalist point of view to young children, as well as presenting the elected officials in the show as either corrupt or incompetent. He also argues against the individualism presented in the show with its phrase "no job is too big; no pup is too small". Basically, his argument is that because the show does not present a collectivist mindset or instill automatic loyalty of elected leaders into the minds of young children that young children should not be watching that show. I guess he wants all nations to be the DPRK.
Jussie Smollett is facing more charges relating the the fake racist/homophobic attack he got some guys to perpretrate on him before lying to the police about it. Mr. Smollett set back those two causes by several years, because his "crying wolf" will make the next legitimate attack less credible.
YouTube pulled some videos of Rand Paul asking a question on the floor of the Senate, after the impeachment hearings, which named the whistleblower. I have only two words with which to respond to that: Eric Ciaramella.
Back in 2008, Bloomberg blamed ending the practice of redlining as being one of the causes of the housing collapse. This, combined, with his "stop and frisk" policy, makes me confused as to why *any* black person would vote for, much less endorese, his candidacy. That being said, everyone is free to make their own choices...no matter how illogical those choices might be.
People who do not have the same political views I have are neither ignorant nor malicious, merely misguided. I don't think as negatively of others as do those on the other side, which says a lot.
You seem to take significant delight in saying the whistleblower's name as often as possible. I mean, if you're trying to prove a point, you have done so. Far be it from me to stop you. But in any CORPORATE setting (at least where I work) there is a reason the whistleblower process is anonymous and outside the chain of command. And no, you don't have to have firsthand knowledge to report something. I know this because the training course on it had a quiz at the end, and I answered the question pertaining to that as "false" and, lo and behold, I got the question correct. I've taken this course twice now. Employees are required to take it every year.
Unlike the others @deltago so meticulously laid out in a post last week, this guy did everything exactly by the book, testified to under oath by his Trump appointed superior. It's the Administration who ignored that statute and refused to turn over the complaint within 7 days to Congress as required by law. And then, MAGICALLY, as if some fairy came in and sprinkled dust over the White House, the moves started being made to release the aide and concoct a story. Because the SUBJECT of the complaint was handed an advanced copy before anyone who SHOULD have gotten it even knew it existed. It's pretty easy to flush a couple kilos of cocaine down the toilet if you know a week in advance what day the cops are busting in.
I have to take that sort of quiz, too, but he was not in a corporate setting--an apple is not an orange, even if they are both the fruit of a tree.
I see that Congress is seriously considering reigning in the War Powers Act--finally. Not only should we have never been in Vietnam in the first place--thanks, France, for pawning that problem off onto us in the late 1950s--but Congress at the time should never have given LBJ that much freedom to act militarily. If we want to be in a war, then Congress needs to declare a war and the full resources of the military should be deployed in an effort to attain victory. We have troops deployed around the world--literally--many of whom are in places where we have absoluately no business having a military presence.
I take back what I said about having to be drunk to vote for Bloomberg. I'd have to have someone knock me out with a tranquilizer, wheel me into the voting booth Weekend at Bernie's-style, and then have them vote for me. His record on race and civil liberties is beyond abysmal. And his attempts to actively PURCHASE the Presidency outright are just appalling. His ads are saturating the entire country, and no one has heard him say a single word about anything or be asked a single question. However, I can't think of anyone Bernie would rather have for a foil than someone like Mike Bloomberg going forward in the primary. He practically looks giddy when asked about him. And Bernie doesn't look giddy about anything.
A month ago I thought Sanders was going to be the one who cracked the DNC into having to have a brokered convention. Now, though, Bloomberg is their number one problem--if he gets enough support via his campaign ads he can roll in to the national convention under the guise of kingmaker, which would be really bad for Democrats. He already weaseled--*ahem* paid-- his way into CNN town halls in Nevada despite not being on the ballot in that State.
A month ago I thought Sanders was going to be the one who cracked the DNC into having to have a brokered convention. Now, though, Bloomberg is their number one problem--if he gets enough support via his campaign ads he can roll in to the national convention under the guise of kingmaker, which would be really bad for Democrats. He already weaseled--*ahem* paid-- his way into CNN town halls in Nevada despite not being on the ballot in that State.
A month ago I thought Sanders was going to be the one who cracked the DNC into having to have a brokered convention. Now, though, Bloomberg is their number one problem--if he gets enough support via his campaign ads he can roll in to the national convention under the guise of kingmaker, which would be really bad for Democrats. He already weaseled--*ahem* paid-- his way into CNN town halls in Nevada despite not being on the ballot in that State.
Frankly, that's good because he has PURPOSEFULLY not wanted to be in any debates up to this point. That is his entire strategy. Exposure to the light is the only thing that will stop his momentum. And yes, a Bloomberg nomination WILL destroy the Democratic Party as we know it. MAYBE he picks up enough "moderates" to win in November. But that 15% of Bernie voters I said would definitely stay home if it was someone else?? Ramp that up to 40% with Bloomberg. They won't vote for him. I don't even know if I can vote for him.
And here we see the premise that every single argument in American conservatism. The facts don't matter, let's just spout whatever we want and dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary. Because the truth doesn't matter, only what we WANT to be true. How dare you bring facts and evidence into this?
"The president is innocent of everything, I know this because I've never read the Mueller report."
"The impeachment is a sham, and even though Trump admitted to what he was impeached for, he's still innocent of it."
"Those aren't concentration camps, we are only putting children into detention centers with the same conditions that historical camps operated under. Its totally different because awe aren't German! Don't listen to actual concentration camp survivors or historians. THey only know what they are talking about."
"Its all the liberals fault for trying to stop us. We aren't responsible for our own actions."
"Liberals want to destroy the constitution, even though Republicans are the ones who have been ingnoring the rules for about 30 years."
At this point, benefit of the doubt is out the window. If you support this administration then you are, at best, intentionally ignorant of what is going on, or actively malicious.
When you are right, you're right.
We're dealing with a cult here.
They suffer from orange man good syndrome (omgs).
Somehow a reality TV conman, that speaks at a 4th grade level, has convinced them that everything he does is perfect and all the doctors, scientists, Democrats, Republicans who recently worked for him, things he himself just said is wrong, and that everyone else but him is lying.
It's funny and sad. It's also dangerous. We can see the country dying in real time cheered on by delusion.
The Nevada Culinary Union is apparently afraid of Sanders and the push for Medicare for All. Ostensibly because they are really attached to $9000/year in premiums and up to $12,000 in out of pocket expenses. Which, by my estimation, would be damn near 50% of their annual salary in a worst case scenario. Americans have been brainwashed into thinking this is normal. Ask any poster from another country in this forum. It isn't:
Take health care off the negotiating table, and maybe unions could actually fight for (gasp!!!) higher wages, instead of being held hostage by fighting tooth and nail to hold onto fairly shitty health insurance benefits instead. The health care system in this country is completely fucked. It's immoral if not downright evil.
You're gonna hear alot in the coming months about how much people "love" their employer provided coverage. Let's address that here. No one "loves" Blue Cross Blue Shield. No one. What people are saying when they are asked this question is that they are happy they are covered at all, because without the employer-based coverage the vast majority of Americans wouldn't be able to pay for 3 months of coverage on their own without going broke.
Fortunately, I do not have to provide proof. Everything here is "op-ed", not "investigative journalism".
Im sorry, I forgot you don’t like it when people challenge your view in this thread.
And speak for yourself - I prefer my discourse to be rational, that is: upon the basis of fact and evidence - which is why I tend to reject conspiracy theories from both sides on here.
Take health care off the negotiating table, and maybe unions could actually fight for (gasp!!!) higher wages, instead of being held hostage by fighting tooth and nail to hold onto fairly shitty health insurance benefits instead. The health care system in this country is completely fucked. It's immoral if not downright evil.
I think this is largely true. One potential issue is that if (by some miracle) MFA becomes a thing, as soon as it is killed (which we can see by the ACA being targeted, you know the GOP would never stop trying to kill MFA) the unions might have to start at the bottom and try to negotiate back up to what they even have now.
We dearly need institutional change - but it can come at a cost.
Once upon a time I was an actuarial analyst for Blue Cross Blue Shield; it was my job to calculate by how much your individual/small group rates were going to go up based on last year's claims paid out versus paid premiums. You are welcome.
That union in Nevada works with the casinos, so if the casinos are happy with it then Nevada is happy with it. If the casinos think that Sanders threatens their bottom line then he won't do very well in that State.
In other news - one of the ways that Democrats can “win” on impeachment is if news continues to come out about the president’s abuse of power with respect to Ukraine. The trial is over and the president will not be removed, but as more and more news comes out that makes the president look bad, it can harm GOP senators who refused to allow witnesses.
John Kelly is speaking out on the situation, and we know Bolton wants to release a book with information on the subject (Yes yes - I know. They’re not credible witnesses because *insert partisan reason here*) - if they add materially to the conversation, then the GOP and Trump look worse and worse.
Witnesses were supposed to happen in the House, but they did not want them enough because they were too impatient to wait for courts to enforce the subpoenas as they should have done. They should have started impeachment in May 2018, not May 2019.
The House, in the meantime, has decided to try and remove the deadline for ratification of the ERA. It is questionable as to whether or not they can do this--they probably can but it may not matter; in any event I am inclined to concur with Justice Ginsburg--don't resurrect the 50-year-old amendment when you can start with a new one. The Fourteenth Amendment already ensures equal protection under the law, so I am uncertain why another amendment is needed. *shrug*
Comments
I would probably have to get myself drunk to vote for Bloomberg. I supported Warren and Harris. Plenty progressive, but not in any way radically so. They aren't going to be the nominees. So I'll support Bernie. I have many reasons for doing so. First off, I'm not "old", but I'm no longer young. My generation got our guy in Obama. This generation of liberals clearly want Bernie Sanders. I'm not gonna stand in the way. He'll fight, god knows his people will fight. Good enough for me. If the Democratic establishment tries to shoe-horn in Mike Bloomberg as the alternative to Bernie, they will destroy the party.
We have a young intern at work that is a huge Bernie supporter. He has a water-cooled computer at his house that is totally devoted to mining Bit-Coin and all his proceeds are going to the Sander's campaign. I shit you not!
He has point-blank told me that if Bernie doesn't win the primary he will vote Libertarian. That's even if Warren is the nominee. The fanaticism of the younger Liberals should not be discounted. Sanders supporters don't seem to hold any allegiance to the Democratic Party...
Edit: BTW - Bloomberg is Satan to this guy.
As I've said before, impeachment was specifically set up in the constitution to not be a criminal process. It does not have criminal penalties (the only remedies available from the process are removal from office and barring from taking office in future), can be (and often has been) used as a remedy against non-criminal actions and does not follow criminal laws of evidence.
However, even if it were a criminal process, "innocent until proven guilty" is not some absolute protection under the law that allows a suspect to evade investigation. In general, prosecuting authorities are entitled to seek evidence of guilt and suspects are not entitled to withhold potential evidence. It's true there are extremely detailed rules about when evidence can be sought which need to be complied with. However, if this were a legal case, the idea that a judge would accept that witnesses would be prevented from being called to give testimony or that documentary evidence (like the true transcript of the call with Zelensky) would be withheld is far-fetched in the extreme.
Congress is not in day to day charge of the Executive branch, but they do have a constitutional oversight role - that's the basis for the impeachment clause.
The US Constitution was designed to balance powers between the 3 branches, but that design did not allow for the impact of overlaying party politics on the political process - that's not surprising, given that the majority of the Framers of the Constitution did not believe in party politics (see here for a bit of information about that and the way in which attitudes towards parties changed after the Constitution was adopted).
I think it's often overlooked that the constitutional basis for Trump's impeachment was not to do with party politics. The reason for the abuse of power charge was that Trump was subverting the will of Congress on an area of policy where Congress has the prime responsibility (the Constitution divides policy areas between the Executive and Legislative branches - with Congress having prime responsibility for most, but not all of those).
In narrow political terms, the Democrats probably would have been better off seeking a censure of the President's actions rather than impeaching him. That would almost certainly have been passed by the Senate, which would both have made the constitutional point and given them ammunition to attack the President specifically without also attacking the Republicans - giving them a better chance of capturing votes in the next Presidential election from independents, floating voters and those Republicans less fond of Trump. However, I think pursuing impeachment was the correct course of action from the point of view of upholding the Constitution. The verdict of history has shown that there were no constitutional issues at stake in the previous impeachment of Bill Clinton. I'm pretty sure that in 20 years time, Trump's impeachment will be seen as having been more significant - if the Constitution survives that long.
And, for the record, it would have gotten exactly as much support from Republicans as impeachment did. You are giving far, FAR too much credit to Senate Republicans, who as much as Trump himself are responsible for where we're heading. There isn't a single shred of evidence from the last 3 years that even remotely hints at the idea that they'd turn on him for ANY reason in ANY circumstance.
While it would be meaningless as far as effect goes presumably it would be a notice that more meaningful action might be taken. It would be a notice that Senate Republicans are not blind partisans. It would show 4gat they have the courage to do the right thing.
Unfortunately, they don't have that courage and they are bound partisans. And they did send the message to the President that acquittal gives - it was a permission slip. That message was received loud and clear.
What, evidence apart from the fact that a number of Republican Senators said publicly that the President's actions had been wrong you mean? It's precisely because a censure would have little direct impact that it would have been likely that could have got a majority in the Senate. That would have at least had the virtue of exposing one of the big issues over Trump's Presidency - his seeking to gain more power for the Presidency at the expense of the other 2 branches of the government - rather than that issue potentially being lost in a partisan fight between parties.
From your posts over a number of years I get the feeling that at heart you would prefer a consensus approach to politics, but have decided that's no longer a practical solution given the way the Republican party has evolved over the last generation. The point I was making though is that party loyalty is not the sole influence on Congressional representatives. Those facing potentially difficult elections for instance clearly have more of an eye on the views of their electorates than some of their colleagues. Foreign policy is another area where different loyalties can apply - and Trump has had a number of defeats in Congress over aspects of his foreign policy.
I also think there are those who believe in the constitutional role of Congress and that that should not be subordinated to the Presidency - that group won't give an automatic carte blanche to Trump's encroaching on that role. There are similar issues in relation to the judicial branch. That's why I don't think there should be an automatic presumption the Supreme Court will support him (for instance in rulings over whether he is subject to the law) - they will consider how that affects their own standing as well as how it affects the Presidency.
I would just like to register my pleasure that someone else has read this excellent, excellent book.
Here we must disagree. This impeachment had everything to do with politics. The House had other opportunities to impeach Trump--mostly for Emoluments, which was the route I had suggested early on--but they chose the phone call with Ukraine only because one person got his feelings hurt about a phone call, a phone call of which he was not part--he had no direct, firsthand evidence of anything, only guesses based on other people's perceptions.
Actually, we have to disagree on one other point: just because Congress asks the Executive for something does not necessarily mean that the Executive has to roll over and submit. There have been many instances of claiming "Executive privilege" by both parties over the years. When Congress launches a politically-motivated investigation--and these days, all investigations are politically motivated--its normal oversight authority (which is already tenuous at best) becomes a political matter, not a Constitutional one.
When the Republicans retook the House during Obama's second term, they had the option of impeaching him for some flimsy, questionable reason...but they did not do so. Why? The answer is simple: they did not want to make impeachment a political weapon. The Democrats just did that--the first attempts to impeach Trump happened in May 2017, when he had been in office for only 5 months. Currently, the split in the Senate is Republicans 53, Democrats 45, Independents 2. Up to 18 Republican senators could have voted "guilty", which would have made the trial vote "not guilty: 35, guilty 65" which would have sent a clear message--you were wrong to act the way you did, Trump--but would not have been the 67 votes necessary to remove him from office. The fact that only one of them did--but only once--means either a) Trump has them all scared (highly unlikely), b) they recognized that the impeachment was political in nature (which it was) and they did not want it weaponized, or c) they really did not think he was guilty. (the correct answers are b and c)
Impossible and overblown fear is both impossible and overblown. There is no such thing as "calling off the election", so why are you even mentioning it except to try and generate a little fearmongering?
I would love for all the Bernie Bros to vote Libertarian, even if they are doing so for the wrong reason. People should choose Libertarianism because they want what is actually best for the nation and they are tired of the False Dichotomy of Democrat/Republican, which are the real reasons the United States has the problems it has. That is what made Babylon 5 so great--at its climax the younger species finally grew up and told the Vorlons and Shadows to get the hell out and leave them alone.
Then the process was valid. I'm not sure the point of the sour grapes about this, since this isn't a criminal trial and doesn't have to follow those procedures, and if it was a criminal trial, the same outcome would have occurred since they had nothing solid anyway. There isn't anyone who was going to say anything we don't already know, and it wouldn't have changed anything as it is. It was a total failure to make their case no matter which way you look at it.
So let's see where we're at on this. Should the juror have "known what they were getting into" and "accept the consequences of their actions" because they answered a jury summons?? The penalty of which for not doing so would have been contempt of court?? Are you ok with a totally random citizen who was chosen after jury selection by both a prosecution and defense concluded being singled out by the most powerful man in the country??
Schumer thinks impeachment has been good for Democrats. Losing is typically not considered a "good" thing, but I guess if you don't *feel* like a loser then you aren't really a loser (except for the fact that you did not win).
Bloomberg is not on the ballot in Nevada but the DNC is going to let him go to debates/town halls anyway, because money talks.
No, when you get a jury summons you show up and do what you need to do. I would have advised Trump to stay out of the Stone case altogether but I know for a fact that he would ignore my sound advice and do whatever the heck he feels like doing regardless of the wisdom or the optics of his actions. Remember: I am not a Republican and don't necessarily support Trump; instead, I oppose Democrats--those are two separate things.
edit/add: remind to remind myself not to try and respond to everyone and everything--I am posting over my own posts
The idea that the GOP didn’t impeach Obama because they didn’t want to weaponize the process is absurd, and you can provide zero evidence to support your claim. More likely - they knew they didn’t have anything that they could make a compelling case out of, and the fear of Clinton’s impeachment benefits Democrats in the midterm made them wait.
Impeachment hasn’t materially hurt Democrats. Trumps approval rating hasn’t meaningfully changed. Around 50% of the country thinks it was worth doing. Democrats also always knew he’d be acquitted - so the framing that Democrats “lost” is disingenuous.
Republicans rigged the trial. Republicans don't care about the country but instead prefer dictatorship by Trump's whims.
That's the main thing we learned from impeachment.
Fortunately, I do not have to provide proof. Everything here is "op-ed", not "investigative journalism".
Most political scenarios are non-loss/non-win situations. In this particular instance, though, impeachment did not give Trump any cause for reflection--he is proceeding as the stereotypical bull in the china shop, causing even some of his own supporters to say "whoa". When you get a speeding ticket most normal people do not do a donut in the parking lot before peeling out back onto the street.
And here we see the premise that every single argument in American conservatism. The facts don't matter, let's just spout whatever we want and dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary. Because the truth doesn't matter, only what we WANT to be true. How dare you bring facts and evidence into this?
"The president is innocent of everything, I know this because I've never read the Mueller report."
"The impeachment is a sham, and even though Trump admitted to what he was impeached for, he's still innocent of it."
"Those aren't concentration camps, we are only putting children into detention centers with the same conditions that historical camps operated under. Its totally different because awe aren't German! Don't listen to actual concentration camp survivors or historians. THey only know what they are talking about."
"Its all the liberals fault for trying to stop us. We aren't responsible for our own actions."
"Liberals want to destroy the constitution, even though Republicans are the ones who have been ingnoring the rules for about 30 years."
At this point, benefit of the doubt is out the window. If you support this administration then you are, at best, intentionally ignorant of what is going on, or actively malicious.
Jussie Smollett is facing more charges relating the the fake racist/homophobic attack he got some guys to perpretrate on him before lying to the police about it. Mr. Smollett set back those two causes by several years, because his "crying wolf" will make the next legitimate attack less credible.
YouTube pulled some videos of Rand Paul asking a question on the floor of the Senate, after the impeachment hearings, which named the whistleblower. I have only two words with which to respond to that: Eric Ciaramella.
Back in 2008, Bloomberg blamed ending the practice of redlining as being one of the causes of the housing collapse. This, combined, with his "stop and frisk" policy, makes me confused as to why *any* black person would vote for, much less endorese, his candidacy. That being said, everyone is free to make their own choices...no matter how illogical those choices might be.
People who do not have the same political views I have are neither ignorant nor malicious, merely misguided. I don't think as negatively of others as do those on the other side, which says a lot.
Unlike the others @deltago so meticulously laid out in a post last week, this guy did everything exactly by the book, testified to under oath by his Trump appointed superior. It's the Administration who ignored that statute and refused to turn over the complaint within 7 days to Congress as required by law. And then, MAGICALLY, as if some fairy came in and sprinkled dust over the White House, the moves started being made to release the aide and concoct a story. Because the SUBJECT of the complaint was handed an advanced copy before anyone who SHOULD have gotten it even knew it existed. It's pretty easy to flush a couple kilos of cocaine down the toilet if you know a week in advance what day the cops are busting in.
I see that Congress is seriously considering reigning in the War Powers Act--finally. Not only should we have never been in Vietnam in the first place--thanks, France, for pawning that problem off onto us in the late 1950s--but Congress at the time should never have given LBJ that much freedom to act militarily. If we want to be in a war, then Congress needs to declare a war and the full resources of the military should be deployed in an effort to attain victory. We have troops deployed around the world--literally--many of whom are in places where we have absoluately no business having a military presence.
Frankly, that's good because he has PURPOSEFULLY not wanted to be in any debates up to this point. That is his entire strategy. Exposure to the light is the only thing that will stop his momentum. And yes, a Bloomberg nomination WILL destroy the Democratic Party as we know it. MAYBE he picks up enough "moderates" to win in November. But that 15% of Bernie voters I said would definitely stay home if it was someone else?? Ramp that up to 40% with Bloomberg. They won't vote for him. I don't even know if I can vote for him.
When you are right, you're right.
We're dealing with a cult here.
They suffer from orange man good syndrome (omgs).
Somehow a reality TV conman, that speaks at a 4th grade level, has convinced them that everything he does is perfect and all the doctors, scientists, Democrats, Republicans who recently worked for him, things he himself just said is wrong, and that everyone else but him is lying.
It's funny and sad. It's also dangerous. We can see the country dying in real time cheered on by delusion.
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/02/13/the-culinary-health-insurance-is-not-that-great/
Take health care off the negotiating table, and maybe unions could actually fight for (gasp!!!) higher wages, instead of being held hostage by fighting tooth and nail to hold onto fairly shitty health insurance benefits instead. The health care system in this country is completely fucked. It's immoral if not downright evil.
You're gonna hear alot in the coming months about how much people "love" their employer provided coverage. Let's address that here. No one "loves" Blue Cross Blue Shield. No one. What people are saying when they are asked this question is that they are happy they are covered at all, because without the employer-based coverage the vast majority of Americans wouldn't be able to pay for 3 months of coverage on their own without going broke.
Im sorry, I forgot you don’t like it when people challenge your view in this thread.
And speak for yourself - I prefer my discourse to be rational, that is: upon the basis of fact and evidence - which is why I tend to reject conspiracy theories from both sides on here.
I think this is largely true. One potential issue is that if (by some miracle) MFA becomes a thing, as soon as it is killed (which we can see by the ACA being targeted, you know the GOP would never stop trying to kill MFA) the unions might have to start at the bottom and try to negotiate back up to what they even have now.
We dearly need institutional change - but it can come at a cost.
That union in Nevada works with the casinos, so if the casinos are happy with it then Nevada is happy with it. If the casinos think that Sanders threatens their bottom line then he won't do very well in that State.
John Kelly is speaking out on the situation, and we know Bolton wants to release a book with information on the subject (Yes yes - I know. They’re not credible witnesses because *insert partisan reason here*) - if they add materially to the conversation, then the GOP and Trump look worse and worse.
The House, in the meantime, has decided to try and remove the deadline for ratification of the ERA. It is questionable as to whether or not they can do this--they probably can but it may not matter; in any event I am inclined to concur with Justice Ginsburg--don't resurrect the 50-year-old amendment when you can start with a new one. The Fourteenth Amendment already ensures equal protection under the law, so I am uncertain why another amendment is needed. *shrug*