@Balrog99 "Now it's just a matter of overcoming Trump's ace in the hole. The economy..."
Oh yeah, homelessness is still stupidly high and people are forced to work 3 jobs at minimum wage just to survive. The economy is in SUCH a good place.
Name a time in history where some people didn't have to struggle. That doesn't mean the economy isn't good.
I can name a lot of times in history when significantly LESS people were starving to death, able to work, and had meaningful wages. Most of which occurs before Bush jr. got into office. We never fully recovered. But sure, go ahead and just dismiss the long term effects of the worst recession we experienced short of the Great Depression.
I count myself extremely lucky in the current climate that:
1.) I was able to procure a better job monetarily after losing my last one. This did, however, take a whole summer of searching.
2.). That I don't have the responsibility of (at a bare minimum) half my income going to support a child.
3.) That my region of the country has an extremely low cost of living.
Eliminate one of these factors, and I'm back to living paycheck to paycheck, which I finally escaped within the last year. I also elected not to replace my car due to the ease of public transportation to my work. All of these factors have made me financially "stable" (to a minor extent) in my adult life. I can buy what I want, eat out when I want, pay my bills. But sacrifices in other areas of life have made that happen. Some people don't even have the OPTION of making those.
This is nothing less than an argument that a President can jail or kill his political opponents if he believes it's in the national interest. That's where we're at:
There aren't even any attempts to argue this didn't happen. The argument by Trump's handpicked lawyer is that if Trump BELIEVES something is in the national interest, anything he does to pursue it is legal. This is an authoritarian party. There is no escaping that conclusion. Under this logic, Trump could nuke all large cities in California to flip their electoral votes red, and if Trump believed him staying in office was in the national interest, it would be totally justified. All you need to make it justified is 34 Senators backing your play. We are setting a precedent of essentially NO limits on acceptable Executive behavior and decision-making. Once he gets away with this, what is the next step he takes after being emboldened AGAIN??
Their defense is literally Nixon's famous comment to David Frost. The Republican argument about what is acceptable or legal is now entirely dependent on Donald Trump's state of mind at any given time. It was never a joke. He COULD shoot someone on 5th Ave. There would be no movement among Republicans or his supporters. Within 24 hours, we'd have the high school transcripts of who he shot and 30% of the country would say they deserved to be killed because they got detention in 9th grade.
Trump has taken his Access Hollywood approach to Senate Republicans. He's grabbing them all by the genitals and they are coming along like good little boys.
It's totally ridiculous how corrupt and weak the Republican party is. And they seem to enjoy lying to people. What.
RIP America 1776-2020 brought down by low down greedy GOP elites.
I've been listening over the past week or so to the podcast series 13 minutes to the moon. That's primarily a detailed exploration of the final phase of the first moon landing in 1969, but it includes a little bit of background to the Apollo program as well. That program was clearly the result of nationalistic competition, but what struck me about that was the choice of target. When competing against someone else you can approach that in two ways:
- sabotage your opponent so he does worse than you.
- excel to such an extent your opponent can't match you.
The Apollo program was a grand gesture of the second of those. It's success partly reflected the enormous financial resources thrown at it (at its peak consuming 4% of the national budget and directly employing 400,000 people), but also confidence in the skills and innovation available to it.
Although the program was conceived under Eisenhower, it was JFK who provided the real political commitment to it. He had considered other ways to make that grand gesture, for instance by developing desalination technology to solve water shortages, but decided that landing on the moon offered both a clear goal and one that the whole world could easily share in. I wasn't interested in space myself as a child, but I do remember that my primary feeling about this achievement was that it demonstrated what humanity could do (even if it was the US acting on everyone's behalf).
We've discussed before the way in which you can regard economics as a 'zero-sum game', i.e. you can only win at the expense of someone else, or look for synergies where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It seems to me the same thinking can apply to politics - and that view seems to be currently predominating in many countries. In the US you can see that applying to international relations in general (such as with NATO and the UN). At the individual country level the approach to Iran is clearly not to try and demonstrate the relative failure of their political system by out-competing them, but instead to directly attack that system. That process is a bit less obvious in relation to China, but it seems to me to be heading the same way.
Reading through the above I'm not sure I've properly crystallized or explained my thoughts, but I'm out of time for now. I'll post it anyway in case anyone is interested in exploring further - either my thoughts or the podcast .
We are poised on the precipice of history. Trump, the third impeached President in US history is about to be acquitted by the Republican party. There is no way to explain allowing a President to bully foreign countries to help his re-election bid that will look acceptable in the history books. The Republican party is completely overwhelmingly corrupt.
Republican Senator Lamar Alexander in explains why he's going to vote against allowing witnesses in the trial makes this argument: Yes. Trump used the weight of the US government to cheat our upcoming election. But we, the Republican Party, have decided cheating in elections is fine. And if you don't like it, let's have an election.
The senators in the Republican party, their best people, are exposed as partisan hacks.
Republicans have just given Trump carte blanche to cheat elections. No one can trust our elections after this.
What the hell happened to the Republican party? They used to pretend to have values. Now they bring shame on the country.
When you and your spouse have gone past bickering and fighting to the point where you simply cannot stand to be in the same room with each other, including being in the same room at the marriage counselor's office, then the remedy is "divorce", not "the other person needs to change". Why don't the Democrat States simply secede, form their own new nation, run it how they see fit, then let the Republicans run their States as they see fit? That way, neither side will have to worry about the other any more. Seriously, if you really are that unhappy then *do* something about it.
The claim being made is that "no witnesses" means "the acquittal is not legitimate". *sigh* The time for witnesses was in the House--the House should have subpoenaed all the witnesses it wanted then waited for the courts to enforce the subpoenas. The Senate portion is "jury deliberation", not "discovery and testimony"--the "witnesses" from Clinton's impeachment had already given testimony in the House, their comments were merely for the sake of clarity, not "new testimony". Anyway....people can *say* that the acquittal is not legitimate all they want to but once the Senate votes to acquit *that* will be the legal reality.
After acquittal, what then? Impeach again? What for?
edit/add: *laugh* okay, Trump tweeted that Schiff lies awake at night "sweating like a dog". erm...Don? Dogs don't sweat, which is why they pant.
Seriously folks, read Catch-22. Because that's what this is. It's, by the end, an exhausting book, and at long last, I finally understand why.
They flatly REJECTED the idea that the House even has the power to compel anyone to testify. For the sake of posterity, the GOP is now on record as saying:
1.) The President cannot be held criminally accountable for anything.
2.) The President cannot even be legitimately investigated by any federal or state law enforcement.
3.) The House doesn't have any right to conduct oversight.
4.) If a President believes it's in the national interest that he be reelected, he can do anything he wants as a means to that end.
I'm not gonna lie, there is a small, dark part inside of me that wants to see a Democrat try 1/10th of this shit just so I can see every person shrugging their shoulders do a complete 180 in their position, which I am absolutely 110% sure they would.
Actually, a Federal judge *can* enforce a House subpoena against a person in the Executive Branch; this is why the House should have waited for the courts instead of rushing their job. Now they will have to live with the situation they created.
As I noted, though, if they are that unhappy then why not walk away? If they were to do so, Democrats could write their own new Constitution and by decree get everything they could possibly want from a policy perspective. Not only that, once those Republican States fail (as Democrats know they will) they can dictate the terms of their reabsorption and the former Republicans would have no choice but to accept the terms. There is no downside for Democrats if they choose that option. Remember--there is no reconciliation after all this.
Right, dictating the terms. They could even call it something like......Reconstruction. Oh wait, that was abandoned. As a matter of fact, it being abandoned is (in reality) part of the reason Andrew Johnson was impeached.
@Mathsorcerer This whole impeachment process IS doing something. Its not like 44% of the country can just divorce the rest. Last time someone tried to secede, it was decided that killing them was the better than letting them go.
We are poised on the precipice of history. Trump, the third impeached President in US history is about to be acquitted by the Republican party. There is no way to explain allowing a President to bully foreign countries to help his re-election bid that will look acceptable in the history books. The Republican party is completely overwhelmingly corrupt.
Republican Senator Lamar Alexander in explains why he's going to vote against allowing witnesses in the trial makes this argument: Yes. Trump used the weight of the US government to cheat our upcoming election. But we, the Republican Party, have decided cheating in elections is fine. And if you don't like it, let's have an election.
The senators in the Republican party, their best people, are exposed as partisan hacks.
Republicans have just given Trump carte blanche to cheat elections. No one can trust our elections after this.
What the hell happened to the Republican party? They used to pretend to have values. Now they bring shame on the country.
Alexanders stance is that the evidence provided shows Trump acted "inappropriately," but calling witnesses would be redundant and repetitive to what was already presented.
IMO, it is a pretty good middle ground to play in his situation. He is pretty much saying he'll side with Democrats and vote for removal (he's retiring, he doesn't care if Trump puts him on blast) but won't drag out the trial appealing to the Republicans.
~~
Not going through the courts is how the Democrats got their second impeachment charge of obstruction of congress. They also didn't want to go through the courts because that takes time, to the point, that Trump and Co would huff and puff that the court proceedings were interfering with the election (much like he did with the Mueller report) demanding everything be put on hold till after the election.
And since cheating the upcoming election is at the heart of the accusations, this is course of action and delay wouldn't be appropriate.
And as jjstraka has been pointing out, Trump defense has pretty much been "I can break the law." It's like being pulled over for speeding and going to court to fight the ticket and saying "My car can go 120 km/h, so that is how fast I am allowed to drive it." It's is wasting everyone's time, and everyone knows it is a waste a time, but wasting time Is the benefit that Trump wants.
A civics and history reminder: One can not legally “decide to secede”. We fought a small war over the question, and results were pretty convincing. Almost all legal scholars agree on this point, @Mathsorcerer aside, of course.
Subpoenas would have taken forever, and there is no guarantee that the SCOTUS would have allowed them in the end.
This is ultimately potentially helpful to Democrats, even if it does represent yet another smashing of political norms by Conservatives.
The majority of Americans think witnesses should be heard. If damning evidence leaks out (Say, in Bolton’s book), the GOP will rightly look like they tried to hide evidence to acquit Trump. That has a knock on effect of potentially hurting embattled senators.
Impeachment may indeed be "doing something" but perhaps they should have done it correctly. As things are, no witnesses will be called--as they should not be in the Senate portion, the time for witnesses being when the process is in the House--and then Trump will be acquitted. Oh, and Nancy may say that Trump was impeached *forever* and she may say that acquittal is not valid if no witnesses are called, but the reality of the situation is that Trump will actually be acquitted...and acquitted forever. Once the House decided to hold impeachment inquiries everyone knew exactly how things would turn out--there are no surprises here.
After that, what then?
I did like how Chief Justice Roberts refused to read the question about Eric Ciaramella, the whistleblower whose name everyone knows but is too scared to say.
If, as you suggest, 44% of the country cannot divorce the other 56% (are you saying that only 44% of the country is Democrat? either way, it doesn't matter) then do you truthfully think that the 44% will *ever* reconcile with the other 56%? I don't see it happening under any circumstances outside "non-terrestrials land on the planet" or "a large meteor crashes into the planet".
"A majority of Americans think witnesses should be heard" is irrelevant. Those witnesses should have been heard in the House of Representatives; "hearing witnesses" is not the job of the Senate. There is a civics and history reminder for people who apparently don't know enough about the process.
I forgot how amusing a lot of the comments here can be. I have been receiving some fascinating feedback by quoting them over on the other forum. They are often more fun than "Russian dashcam" or "public freakout" videos.
Impeachment may indeed be "doing something" but perhaps they should have done it correctly. As things are, no witnesses will be called--as they should not be in the Senate portion, the time for witnesses being when the process is in the House--and then Trump will be acquitted. Oh, and Nancy may say that Trump was impeached *forever* and she may say that acquittal is not valid if no witnesses are called, but the reality of the situation is that Trump will actually be acquitted...and acquitted forever. Once the House decided to hold impeachment inquiries everyone knew exactly how things would turn out--there are no surprises here.
After that, what then?
I did like how Chief Justice Roberts refused to read the question about Eric Ciaramella, the whistleblower whose name everyone knows but is too scared to say.
If, as you suggest, 44% of the country cannot divorce the other 56% (are you saying that only 44% of the country is Democrat? either way, it doesn't matter) then do you truthfully think that the 44% will *ever* reconcile with the other 56%? I don't see it happening under any circumstances outside "non-terrestrials land on the planet" or "a large meteor crashes into the planet".
"A majority of Americans think witnesses should be heard" is irrelevant. Those witnesses should have been heard in the House of Representatives; "hearing witnesses" is not the job of the Senate. There is a civics and history reminder for people who apparently don't know enough about the process.
I forgot how amusing a lot of the comments here can be. I have been receiving some fascinating feedback by quoting them over on the other forum. They are often more fun than "Russian dashcam" or "public freakout" videos.
But beyond that, most people know what the motive is when one side says they don't even want to HEAR testimony. The ONLY reason to not hear testimony is because you are afraid of what will be revealed. There IS no other reason for it. No one can offer one. Just like when someone takes the 5th, any rational person will assume they are guilty of SOMETHING. No one even offers a defense of what has transpired either. The argument has been boiled down to absolutely nothing but "anything that keeps liberals out of power is justified." Which is what 30%+ of the country actually believes.
What's really interesting, is that what this boils down to is that Donald Trump is a cheater. He is attempting to subvert the rules of the game to win. In sports, the viewing public at large does not tolerate this. In recent years, the New England Patriots in the NFL and Houston Astros in MLB have been caught red-handed cheating in their championship seasons. They are now hated franchises by everyone outside their local fans, and while the institutions won't strip them of their ill-gotten titles, a solid majority of fans of both sports view them as illegitimate champs at BEST. Trump is the political equivalent of the Houston Astros, stealing signs with a camera in centerfield so he knows what pitch is coming. And while the institution here (the Senate) will also look the other way, the public may have a very different perception of what went on here. Even if the polling on witnesses is 20 points off in one direction (which is pretty much statistically impossible), there would STILL be a solid majority who believe the should have been called.
As for the people who take such pride in the outing of the whistleblower, all I have to say is thank god you don't work in a corporate HR department. Or at least I hope you don't. And no one is SCARED of saying it. They just paid attention to why it's important to keep them anonymous in the training you get in any job worth it's salt at a large company. In this particular case, the complaint literally went DIRECTLY to the person the complaint was about. Which would be patently absurd in any business. If it went down like this is corporate America, the company would get sued for millions of dollars, and they would lose, badly.
Election. Where I give Trump and Co a 75% chance of attempting to use foreign influence again, (and this time I am guessing it will be to accept a boat load of money from the Saudis). This will be done out in the open where everyone will point to it and say "this is not right!" Where Trump and his supporters will just say "Look, they are crying wolf again. First Russia, then Ukraine, now Saudi Arabia. They'll run out of countries soon right." The average voter will get tired of it, and just not vote. Trump and his GOP enablers will all be re-elected with the worst approval rating and popular vote in the history of the country where the right will just shrug and say "This is the system we use, stop being sore losers."
After that, who knows. My guess is they follow the Russia model, and redo the constitution to allow longer presidential terms either out of the interest of the United States or on National Security Grounds.
Impeachment may indeed be "doing something" but perhaps they should have done it correctly. As things are, no witnesses will be called--as they should not be in the Senate portion, the time for witnesses being when the process is in the House--and then Trump will be acquitted. Oh, and Nancy may say that Trump was impeached *forever* and she may say that acquittal is not valid if no witnesses are called, but the reality of the situation is that Trump will actually be acquitted...and acquitted forever. Once the House decided to hold impeachment inquiries everyone knew exactly how things would turn out--there are no surprises here.
After that, what then?
I did like how Chief Justice Roberts refused to read the question about Eric Ciaramella, the whistleblower whose name everyone knows but is too scared to say.
If, as you suggest, 44% of the country cannot divorce the other 56% (are you saying that only 44% of the country is Democrat? either way, it doesn't matter) then do you truthfully think that the 44% will *ever* reconcile with the other 56%? I don't see it happening under any circumstances outside "non-terrestrials land on the planet" or "a large meteor crashes into the planet".
"A majority of Americans think witnesses should be heard" is irrelevant. Those witnesses should have been heard in the House of Representatives; "hearing witnesses" is not the job of the Senate. There is a civics and history reminder for people who apparently don't know enough about the process.
I forgot how amusing a lot of the comments here can be. I have been receiving some fascinating feedback by quoting them over on the other forum. They are often more fun than "Russian dashcam" or "public freakout" videos.
As others have said, trying to take subpoenas through the courts to force witnesses to testify in the House was a non-starter. It would have taken too long with an election coming up, even if there was a guarantee that the Supreme Court would have fast-tracked the case (which there wasn't of course).
There's also no reason why witnesses can't be heard in the Senate. Using the nearest equivalent terms from the criminal system, the House does the investigation and the Senate does the trial. Witnesses are just as relevant in the trial portion, arguably more so - the House's job is to consider whether there is a case to answer and it may not be necessary to call all witnesses to establish that.
While most people (including I'm sure most senators) think witnesses should be called, I don't think anyone will be surprised if they're not. You're right that the outcome of the impeachment looks like being what was generally expected, but that does not mean nothing has been achieved. The impeachment has been helpful in stripping Trump's defense of his actions back to its essentials (I'm the President and can do anything I like). That may potentially have some impact on voting intentions. However, even if that is not the case, I suspect it will lead in future years to legislation clarifying that that is not an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. That will happen either when:
- the Democrats control both House and Senate, irrespective of who is President.
- the Republicans control both House and Senate, with a Democrat President.
As for secession, the Supreme Court have consistently said there are only two possible routes to secession - by agreement of the States and through rebellion. In the case of the Civil War there was a lack of agreement and an unsuccessful rebellion (although the US itself of course was formed through a successful rebellion). As I understand it there has been plenty of discussion about secession in California over the last few years, with 32% of residents favoring that option in a 2017 poll. If Trump does get re-elected and continues to pick fights with the State, that number is likely to rise.
I can live with that. I don't necessarily support Trump--did not vote for him last time, won't vote for him again this time--but I definitely oppose Democrats. Anything which upsets them is pretty much okay by me--watching the two sides despise each other so vehemently is amusing to me because it is making both sides implode. Democrats are shifting so far to the Left that moderates are leaving the Party--or being kicked out, isn't that right, Ms. Gabbard?--for being "not Socialist enough" and Republicans are either becoming "Trump lite" or are simply quitting.
Some people might want to recondiser their position on divorce, too. Do you *really* want to continue living with Republicans when they still have enough power to drag you down with them? As long as they control the Senate Trump, should he win a second term, will never be removed from office no matter how many times the House moves to impeach him. Let me know how that works out for you.
Ah so--I see that Sen. Murkowski has decided that she does not wish to allow witnesses. The vote to end that portion of the process should occur today, and then the vote for acquittal should happen on Saturday, maybe Monday next weeek.
Oh, yes, this "breaking news" about apparent planning by the White House to do whatever it was they were wanting to do vis-a-vis Ukraine....none of that will make one iota of difference. Every Senator in the chamber already knows exactly how they are going to vote, so new information is not going to change anyone's mind.
Schiff is *still* whining and crying about how it isn't right to have a trial without witnesses. You just don't get it, do you, Adam? The *House* should have called witnesses then waited for the courts to enforce the subpoenas. You lost...and now you are just whining because you lost.
In other news, which will upset Democrats--but news which actually upsets *me* as well--we have this from the Texas Tribune: CBP is going to start a pilot program collecting DNA samples from people entering the country via Detroit and Eagle Pass. The claim is "we are trying to reduce crime" but they are also going to be sampling children and teenagers. Yes, in many instances the adults are sharing the children and agents will see the same child coming in with several different families but the kids are not the ones doing anything wrong.
There is no other analogy to make for impeachment other than to compare it to criminal proceedings (which you have done yourself despite saying they don't apply). With that in mind, who knew?? All this time witnesses only talk to investigators and grand juries. It turns out I hallucinated Kato Kaelin and Mark Fuhrman at the OJ trial in 1994. Who knows what else has been a figment of my imagination. I may need to commit myself to a mental institution for my own safety.
I suppose you could counter that sometimes witnesses not on a pre-trial list aren't allowed because they aren't relevant. The idea that Bolton isn't a relevant witness is crazy. As for the subpoenas, ordinary people don't just get to ignore them in perpetuity. Their asses get thrown in jail the second they don't show up, not after long legal battles, and sure as shit not after proclaiming that a subpoena isn't even a valid tool, which this Administration said as a BLANKET statement to providing any witnesses or documents of ANY kind.
After that, who knows. My guess is they follow the Russia model, and redo the constitution to allow longer presidential terms either out of the interest of the United States or on National Security Grounds.
What's really ironic is that we're, supposedly, getting fixes to constitution that will limit presidential terms to maximum of two per person, rather than maximum two consequentially. I guess, makes sense to keep exploiting the loophole while it benefits you, and then close with fanfares when you no longer need it...
I'd like you to educate us on precisely what you think racism means, and what criteria you would use to judge someone racist. Please also name some racist public figures, and why you think they are racist.
Discrimination, especially legal, based on ethnicity. When people trash talk uncivilized barbarians, they mean exactly the lack of skills necessary to find well paying job in modern society.
No idea about public figures though, those I "follow" (for the lack of better term) don't talk politics or do so in places I don't visit.
We don't even need witnesses, there's been enough. Sure there should be more witnesses because the Administration has been stonewalling and not turned over a single piece of paper.
Regardless, the GOP, like Senators Rubio and Alexander, are saying yeah we know he is trying to rig elections and we don't care. They know he's guilty and won't do anything about it. Fuck them.
It's another GOP coverup. A vote for a republican is a vote for corruption.
If ending America to own the libs is your idea of fun then that's just a silly position to have and you hate America.
Ah so--the vote to end the prospect of calling witnesses results in a 51-49 decision. Hypothetically speaking, the vote to decide on guilt or acquittal could be as early as tomorrow, but will probably be on Monday. I would suggest going ahead and getting it done so we can get past it and move on, but I am not the one in charge. Disclosure: I also have an ulterior motive for wanting the vote to acquit to occur quickly--I already have the parody lyrics written and ready to post.
The people who truly hate America are the ones like Elizabeth Warren, who wants to make it a *criminal* offense to spread "disinformation" via social media platforms. Who gets to determine what is or is not "disinformation"? Is there room for dramatic license or comedic phrasing? Is reposting someone else's disinformation your own disinformation? If so, does that make you criminally culpable for someone else's words? No, Liz, I am quite confident that the First Amendment forbids you from making that a criminal offense. Thank you for playing, though--we have some wonderful parting gifts for you.
Actually the stories about that are disinformation in and of themselves. Her proposals were dealing STRICTLY with people spreading lies about how and where people can vote. For instance, the longstanding GOP practice of distributing flyers on cars in urban neighborhoods telling people they will be arrested if they show up to the polls. Or deliberately advertising Election Day as the wrong date to suppress turnout. But yeah, you're probably right. It's nearly impossible to combat pure nihilisitc cynicism whose goal is the pursuit of power. The last 4 years have proven that.
Ah so--the vote to end the prospect of calling witnesses results in a 51-49 decision. Hypothetically speaking, the vote to decide on guilt or acquittal could be as early as tomorrow, but will probably be on Monday. I would suggest going ahead and getting it done so we can get past it and move on, but I am not the one in charge. Disclosure: I also have an ulterior motive for wanting the vote to acquit to occur quickly--I already have the parody lyrics written and ready to post.
The people who truly hate America are the ones like Elizabeth Warren, who wants to make it a *criminal* offense to spread "disinformation" via social media platforms. Who gets to determine what is or is not "disinformation"? Is there room for dramatic license or comedic phrasing? Is reposting someone else's disinformation your own disinformation? If so, does that make you criminally culpable for someone else's words? No, Liz, I am quite confident that the First Amendment forbids you from making that a criminal offense. Thank you for playing, though--we have some wonderful parting gifts for you.
Yes if you believe the lies told in fake news conservative media, that might be bad but it's not what she said. Haha fake news.
But what she really wants is to spreading "voting disinformation" online.
“I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information, which has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote.”
Yes having fair elections in the Republican dictatorship is bad, we know and that's why dozens of Conservative fake news sites seem to conveniently leave that part out.
Look, the GOP are anti-American. They fear elections. They fear the truth. They are liars.
Trump and his criminal supporters enthusiastically welcomed foreign interference in 2016.
Republicans confirmed a sexual assaulting alcoholic frat boy to the Supreme Court after rigging the FBI investigation to not even interview Ford or Kavanaugh.
They are putting judges on the bench who are totally unqualified.
The GOP gave us Citizens United. The GOP is the party of corruption. Period.
Republicans are saying it is ok for the President to rig American elections through a bribery plot involving a foreign country. They don't give a damn about America.
Actually the stories about that are disinformation in and of themselves. Her proposals were dealing STRICTLY with people spreading lies about how and where people can vote. For instance, the longstanding GOP practice of distributing flyers on cars in urban neighborhoods telling people they will be arrested if they show up to the polls. Or deliberately advertising Election Day as the wrong date to suppress turnout.
Actually the stories about that are disinformation in and of themselves. Her proposals were dealing STRICTLY with people spreading lies about how and where people can vote. For instance, the longstanding GOP practice of distributing flyers on cars in urban neighborhoods telling people they will be arrested if they show up to the polls. Or deliberately advertising Election Day as the wrong date to suppress turnout.
The legality of robocalls I'm sure varies from state to state. On the subject of robocalls, the most infamous incident was the 2000 Republican primary in SC. John McCain was on the verge of torpedoing Bush Jr.'s coronation, and they pulled out the big guns. All of sudden, residents of South Carolina started receiving robocalls basically claiming McCain had fathered an out of wedlock black child. This was given some measure of plausibility by the fact that he and his wife HAD adopted a dark-skinned girl from Bangladesh. When I finally saw her all these years later at his funeral, it was the first thing I thought of. That is how W. (at least to a degree) got himself the nomination. Just in case people are under the misconception that Trump started all this. These voters have been primed for Trump for 35 years.
Comments
I can name a lot of times in history when significantly LESS people were starving to death, able to work, and had meaningful wages. Most of which occurs before Bush jr. got into office. We never fully recovered. But sure, go ahead and just dismiss the long term effects of the worst recession we experienced short of the Great Depression.
If the stock market keeps going up but your wages don't that just means the rich are getting richer making inequality WORSE.
1.) I was able to procure a better job monetarily after losing my last one. This did, however, take a whole summer of searching.
2.). That I don't have the responsibility of (at a bare minimum) half my income going to support a child.
3.) That my region of the country has an extremely low cost of living.
Eliminate one of these factors, and I'm back to living paycheck to paycheck, which I finally escaped within the last year. I also elected not to replace my car due to the ease of public transportation to my work. All of these factors have made me financially "stable" (to a minor extent) in my adult life. I can buy what I want, eat out when I want, pay my bills. But sacrifices in other areas of life have made that happen. Some people don't even have the OPTION of making those.
There aren't even any attempts to argue this didn't happen. The argument by Trump's handpicked lawyer is that if Trump BELIEVES something is in the national interest, anything he does to pursue it is legal. This is an authoritarian party. There is no escaping that conclusion. Under this logic, Trump could nuke all large cities in California to flip their electoral votes red, and if Trump believed him staying in office was in the national interest, it would be totally justified. All you need to make it justified is 34 Senators backing your play. We are setting a precedent of essentially NO limits on acceptable Executive behavior and decision-making. Once he gets away with this, what is the next step he takes after being emboldened AGAIN??
Their defense is literally Nixon's famous comment to David Frost. The Republican argument about what is acceptable or legal is now entirely dependent on Donald Trump's state of mind at any given time. It was never a joke. He COULD shoot someone on 5th Ave. There would be no movement among Republicans or his supporters. Within 24 hours, we'd have the high school transcripts of who he shot and 30% of the country would say they deserved to be killed because they got detention in 9th grade.
It's totally ridiculous how corrupt and weak the Republican party is. And they seem to enjoy lying to people. What.
RIP America 1776-2020 brought down by low down greedy GOP elites.
- sabotage your opponent so he does worse than you.
- excel to such an extent your opponent can't match you.
The Apollo program was a grand gesture of the second of those. It's success partly reflected the enormous financial resources thrown at it (at its peak consuming 4% of the national budget and directly employing 400,000 people), but also confidence in the skills and innovation available to it.
Although the program was conceived under Eisenhower, it was JFK who provided the real political commitment to it. He had considered other ways to make that grand gesture, for instance by developing desalination technology to solve water shortages, but decided that landing on the moon offered both a clear goal and one that the whole world could easily share in. I wasn't interested in space myself as a child, but I do remember that my primary feeling about this achievement was that it demonstrated what humanity could do (even if it was the US acting on everyone's behalf).
We've discussed before the way in which you can regard economics as a 'zero-sum game', i.e. you can only win at the expense of someone else, or look for synergies where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It seems to me the same thinking can apply to politics - and that view seems to be currently predominating in many countries. In the US you can see that applying to international relations in general (such as with NATO and the UN). At the individual country level the approach to Iran is clearly not to try and demonstrate the relative failure of their political system by out-competing them, but instead to directly attack that system. That process is a bit less obvious in relation to China, but it seems to me to be heading the same way.
Reading through the above I'm not sure I've properly crystallized or explained my thoughts, but I'm out of time for now. I'll post it anyway in case anyone is interested in exploring further - either my thoughts or the podcast
Republican Senator Lamar Alexander in explains why he's going to vote against allowing witnesses in the trial makes this argument: Yes. Trump used the weight of the US government to cheat our upcoming election. But we, the Republican Party, have decided cheating in elections is fine. And if you don't like it, let's have an election.
The senators in the Republican party, their best people, are exposed as partisan hacks.
Republicans have just given Trump carte blanche to cheat elections. No one can trust our elections after this.
What the hell happened to the Republican party? They used to pretend to have values. Now they bring shame on the country.
The claim being made is that "no witnesses" means "the acquittal is not legitimate". *sigh* The time for witnesses was in the House--the House should have subpoenaed all the witnesses it wanted then waited for the courts to enforce the subpoenas. The Senate portion is "jury deliberation", not "discovery and testimony"--the "witnesses" from Clinton's impeachment had already given testimony in the House, their comments were merely for the sake of clarity, not "new testimony". Anyway....people can *say* that the acquittal is not legitimate all they want to but once the Senate votes to acquit *that* will be the legal reality.
After acquittal, what then? Impeach again? What for?
edit/add: *laugh* okay, Trump tweeted that Schiff lies awake at night "sweating like a dog". erm...Don? Dogs don't sweat, which is why they pant.
*grumble* I dislike it when the server says "the server timed out" but then it saves my edited comment.
Seriously folks, read Catch-22. Because that's what this is. It's, by the end, an exhausting book, and at long last, I finally understand why.
They flatly REJECTED the idea that the House even has the power to compel anyone to testify. For the sake of posterity, the GOP is now on record as saying:
1.) The President cannot be held criminally accountable for anything.
2.) The President cannot even be legitimately investigated by any federal or state law enforcement.
3.) The House doesn't have any right to conduct oversight.
4.) If a President believes it's in the national interest that he be reelected, he can do anything he wants as a means to that end.
I'm not gonna lie, there is a small, dark part inside of me that wants to see a Democrat try 1/10th of this shit just so I can see every person shrugging their shoulders do a complete 180 in their position, which I am absolutely 110% sure they would.
As I noted, though, if they are that unhappy then why not walk away? If they were to do so, Democrats could write their own new Constitution and by decree get everything they could possibly want from a policy perspective. Not only that, once those Republican States fail (as Democrats know they will) they can dictate the terms of their reabsorption and the former Republicans would have no choice but to accept the terms. There is no downside for Democrats if they choose that option. Remember--there is no reconciliation after all this.
Alexanders stance is that the evidence provided shows Trump acted "inappropriately," but calling witnesses would be redundant and repetitive to what was already presented.
IMO, it is a pretty good middle ground to play in his situation. He is pretty much saying he'll side with Democrats and vote for removal (he's retiring, he doesn't care if Trump puts him on blast) but won't drag out the trial appealing to the Republicans.
~~
Not going through the courts is how the Democrats got their second impeachment charge of obstruction of congress. They also didn't want to go through the courts because that takes time, to the point, that Trump and Co would huff and puff that the court proceedings were interfering with the election (much like he did with the Mueller report) demanding everything be put on hold till after the election.
And since cheating the upcoming election is at the heart of the accusations, this is course of action and delay wouldn't be appropriate.
And as jjstraka has been pointing out, Trump defense has pretty much been "I can break the law." It's like being pulled over for speeding and going to court to fight the ticket and saying "My car can go 120 km/h, so that is how fast I am allowed to drive it." It's is wasting everyone's time, and everyone knows it is a waste a time, but wasting time Is the benefit that Trump wants.
Subpoenas would have taken forever, and there is no guarantee that the SCOTUS would have allowed them in the end.
This is ultimately potentially helpful to Democrats, even if it does represent yet another smashing of political norms by Conservatives.
The majority of Americans think witnesses should be heard. If damning evidence leaks out (Say, in Bolton’s book), the GOP will rightly look like they tried to hide evidence to acquit Trump. That has a knock on effect of potentially hurting embattled senators.
After that, what then?
I did like how Chief Justice Roberts refused to read the question about Eric Ciaramella, the whistleblower whose name everyone knows but is too scared to say.
If, as you suggest, 44% of the country cannot divorce the other 56% (are you saying that only 44% of the country is Democrat? either way, it doesn't matter) then do you truthfully think that the 44% will *ever* reconcile with the other 56%? I don't see it happening under any circumstances outside "non-terrestrials land on the planet" or "a large meteor crashes into the planet".
"A majority of Americans think witnesses should be heard" is irrelevant. Those witnesses should have been heard in the House of Representatives; "hearing witnesses" is not the job of the Senate. There is a civics and history reminder for people who apparently don't know enough about the process.
I forgot how amusing a lot of the comments here can be. I have been receiving some fascinating feedback by quoting them over on the other forum. They are often more fun than "Russian dashcam" or "public freakout" videos.
"Civics and history lesson":
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2020/jan/21/tammy-baldwin/Trump-every-other-senate-impeachment-had-witnesses/
But beyond that, most people know what the motive is when one side says they don't even want to HEAR testimony. The ONLY reason to not hear testimony is because you are afraid of what will be revealed. There IS no other reason for it. No one can offer one. Just like when someone takes the 5th, any rational person will assume they are guilty of SOMETHING. No one even offers a defense of what has transpired either. The argument has been boiled down to absolutely nothing but "anything that keeps liberals out of power is justified." Which is what 30%+ of the country actually believes.
What's really interesting, is that what this boils down to is that Donald Trump is a cheater. He is attempting to subvert the rules of the game to win. In sports, the viewing public at large does not tolerate this. In recent years, the New England Patriots in the NFL and Houston Astros in MLB have been caught red-handed cheating in their championship seasons. They are now hated franchises by everyone outside their local fans, and while the institutions won't strip them of their ill-gotten titles, a solid majority of fans of both sports view them as illegitimate champs at BEST. Trump is the political equivalent of the Houston Astros, stealing signs with a camera in centerfield so he knows what pitch is coming. And while the institution here (the Senate) will also look the other way, the public may have a very different perception of what went on here. Even if the polling on witnesses is 20 points off in one direction (which is pretty much statistically impossible), there would STILL be a solid majority who believe the should have been called.
As for the people who take such pride in the outing of the whistleblower, all I have to say is thank god you don't work in a corporate HR department. Or at least I hope you don't. And no one is SCARED of saying it. They just paid attention to why it's important to keep them anonymous in the training you get in any job worth it's salt at a large company. In this particular case, the complaint literally went DIRECTLY to the person the complaint was about. Which would be patently absurd in any business. If it went down like this is corporate America, the company would get sued for millions of dollars, and they would lose, badly.
State of the Union address.
Election. Where I give Trump and Co a 75% chance of attempting to use foreign influence again, (and this time I am guessing it will be to accept a boat load of money from the Saudis). This will be done out in the open where everyone will point to it and say "this is not right!" Where Trump and his supporters will just say "Look, they are crying wolf again. First Russia, then Ukraine, now Saudi Arabia. They'll run out of countries soon right." The average voter will get tired of it, and just not vote. Trump and his GOP enablers will all be re-elected with the worst approval rating and popular vote in the history of the country where the right will just shrug and say "This is the system we use, stop being sore losers."
After that, who knows. My guess is they follow the Russia model, and redo the constitution to allow longer presidential terms either out of the interest of the United States or on National Security Grounds.
As others have said, trying to take subpoenas through the courts to force witnesses to testify in the House was a non-starter. It would have taken too long with an election coming up, even if there was a guarantee that the Supreme Court would have fast-tracked the case (which there wasn't of course).
There's also no reason why witnesses can't be heard in the Senate. Using the nearest equivalent terms from the criminal system, the House does the investigation and the Senate does the trial. Witnesses are just as relevant in the trial portion, arguably more so - the House's job is to consider whether there is a case to answer and it may not be necessary to call all witnesses to establish that.
While most people (including I'm sure most senators) think witnesses should be called, I don't think anyone will be surprised if they're not. You're right that the outcome of the impeachment looks like being what was generally expected, but that does not mean nothing has been achieved. The impeachment has been helpful in stripping Trump's defense of his actions back to its essentials (I'm the President and can do anything I like). That may potentially have some impact on voting intentions. However, even if that is not the case, I suspect it will lead in future years to legislation clarifying that that is not an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. That will happen either when:
- the Democrats control both House and Senate, irrespective of who is President.
- the Republicans control both House and Senate, with a Democrat President.
As for secession, the Supreme Court have consistently said there are only two possible routes to secession - by agreement of the States and through rebellion. In the case of the Civil War there was a lack of agreement and an unsuccessful rebellion (although the US itself of course was formed through a successful rebellion). As I understand it there has been plenty of discussion about secession in California over the last few years, with 32% of residents favoring that option in a 2017 poll. If Trump does get re-elected and continues to pick fights with the State, that number is likely to rise.
Some people might want to recondiser their position on divorce, too. Do you *really* want to continue living with Republicans when they still have enough power to drag you down with them? As long as they control the Senate Trump, should he win a second term, will never be removed from office no matter how many times the House moves to impeach him. Let me know how that works out for you.
Ah so--I see that Sen. Murkowski has decided that she does not wish to allow witnesses. The vote to end that portion of the process should occur today, and then the vote for acquittal should happen on Saturday, maybe Monday next weeek.
Oh, yes, this "breaking news" about apparent planning by the White House to do whatever it was they were wanting to do vis-a-vis Ukraine....none of that will make one iota of difference. Every Senator in the chamber already knows exactly how they are going to vote, so new information is not going to change anyone's mind.
In other news, which will upset Democrats--but news which actually upsets *me* as well--we have this from the Texas Tribune: CBP is going to start a pilot program collecting DNA samples from people entering the country via Detroit and Eagle Pass. The claim is "we are trying to reduce crime" but they are also going to be sampling children and teenagers. Yes, in many instances the adults are sharing the children and agents will see the same child coming in with several different families but the kids are not the ones doing anything wrong.
I suppose you could counter that sometimes witnesses not on a pre-trial list aren't allowed because they aren't relevant. The idea that Bolton isn't a relevant witness is crazy. As for the subpoenas, ordinary people don't just get to ignore them in perpetuity. Their asses get thrown in jail the second they don't show up, not after long legal battles, and sure as shit not after proclaiming that a subpoena isn't even a valid tool, which this Administration said as a BLANKET statement to providing any witnesses or documents of ANY kind.
Hopefully I won't need to explain the difference between low technological level and ethnicity itself.
Discrimination, especially legal, based on ethnicity. When people trash talk uncivilized barbarians, they mean exactly the lack of skills necessary to find well paying job in modern society.
No idea about public figures though, those I "follow" (for the lack of better term) don't talk politics or do so in places I don't visit.
Regardless, the GOP, like Senators Rubio and Alexander, are saying yeah we know he is trying to rig elections and we don't care. They know he's guilty and won't do anything about it. Fuck them.
It's another GOP coverup. A vote for a republican is a vote for corruption.
If ending America to own the libs is your idea of fun then that's just a silly position to have and you hate America.
The people who truly hate America are the ones like Elizabeth Warren, who wants to make it a *criminal* offense to spread "disinformation" via social media platforms. Who gets to determine what is or is not "disinformation"? Is there room for dramatic license or comedic phrasing? Is reposting someone else's disinformation your own disinformation? If so, does that make you criminally culpable for someone else's words? No, Liz, I am quite confident that the First Amendment forbids you from making that a criminal offense. Thank you for playing, though--we have some wonderful parting gifts for you.
Yes if you believe the lies told in fake news conservative media, that might be bad but it's not what she said. Haha fake news.
But what she really wants is to spreading "voting disinformation" online.
“I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information, which has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/29/warren-proposes-criminal-penalties-for-spreading-disinformation-online.html
Yes having fair elections in the Republican dictatorship is bad, we know and that's why dozens of Conservative fake news sites seem to conveniently leave that part out.
Look, the GOP are anti-American. They fear elections. They fear the truth. They are liars.
Trump and his criminal supporters enthusiastically welcomed foreign interference in 2016.
Republicans confirmed a sexual assaulting alcoholic frat boy to the Supreme Court after rigging the FBI investigation to not even interview Ford or Kavanaugh.
They are putting judges on the bench who are totally unqualified.
The GOP gave us Citizens United. The GOP is the party of corruption. Period.
Republicans are saying it is ok for the President to rig American elections through a bribery plot involving a foreign country. They don't give a damn about America.
wow that's not illegal in the states?
It was a shit-show a couple elections back here when one rogue conservative worker set up robocalls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Canadian_federal_election_voter_suppression_scandal
The legality of robocalls I'm sure varies from state to state. On the subject of robocalls, the most infamous incident was the 2000 Republican primary in SC. John McCain was on the verge of torpedoing Bush Jr.'s coronation, and they pulled out the big guns. All of sudden, residents of South Carolina started receiving robocalls basically claiming McCain had fathered an out of wedlock black child. This was given some measure of plausibility by the fact that he and his wife HAD adopted a dark-skinned girl from Bangladesh. When I finally saw her all these years later at his funeral, it was the first thing I thought of. That is how W. (at least to a degree) got himself the nomination. Just in case people are under the misconception that Trump started all this. These voters have been primed for Trump for 35 years.