The Fora: A Higher Education Community

It is with reluctance and sadness that I now favor moving on impeachment. 

No other choice at this point.

Why didn't you before this? And what has actually changed?

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 22, 2019, 08:44:07 AM
Why didn't you before this? And what has actually changed?

I've generally favored impeachment since before the inauguration.  However, it is necessary to balance the obvious gains from impeaching Dump with the serious negatives that will accrue with a Prez. Pence.

One lunatic a a time , please.

And how likely do you think that two thirds of the senate will vote to convict? What do you think the effect would be of the senate holding that vote and voting NOT to convict? Do you think voters will get tired of an impeachment investigation starting now, by November 2020? And finally, do you think the Democratic candidate would be more likely to win against Pence vs. Trump?

The other side of the question is, though...is it simply the right thing to do?

Or, as someone (so many articles, lately...forget which one) suggested, a straight indictment on some of the grounds that are already brewing, which could put the situation into clearer light.

If (big if, I know) any one or two of the legion of reprehensible behaviors available were brought to trial, and a courts convicted him, the Senate has less deniability: he's already been determined guilty.

There's an effort to re-define the terms of impeachment, I read, also, which could make a few of the requirements clearer. That could also help.

I suspect the Washingtons, Jefferson, Hamilton, and all three Adamses are doing revolutions in their graves.

Jackson's ghost, on the other hand, is probably dancing on his.

M.
 

Quote from: Thursday's_Child on September 22, 2019, 08:52:08 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 22, 2019, 08:44:07 AM
Why didn't you before this? And what has actually changed?

I've generally favored impeachment since before the inauguration.  However, it is necessary to balance the obvious gains from impeaching Dump with the serious negatives that will accrue with a Prez. Pence.

Technically, it should not matter who the replacement might be.  If the evidence is there then impeachment must be carried out by the Congress.  Now, getting them to vote that way is another matter.

Quote from: mamselle on September 22, 2019, 01:22:03 PM
The other side of the question is, though...is it simply the right thing to do?

This reminds me a lot of the Kavanaugh vote. 6 Democratic senators were up for re-election in very close races. 5 voted against confirming Kavanaugh, because "it was the right thing." Those 5 all lost and polls suggest this vote really hurt them -- which makes all the difference in a tight race. (The 6th Democrat voted to confirm, got attacked by the base on Twitter, and was nonetheless re-elected. Because Twitter users aren't a huge voting block.)

Now, there are 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats in the Senate (counting the 2 independents). In an alternative world without this symbolic vote, it might be 48 Republicans and 52 Democrats.

So if you're wondering why President Trump can get his judges confirmed and why Senate committees are stonewalling investigations and why important regulatory committees are all staffed by majority Republicans that are defeating Democrats in party-line votes... perhaps it was morally the right thing to do, but it's now causing a lot of lasting damage and harm.

For a related example, look at the very progressive Justice Democrats and their endorsements (Ilhan Omar and AOC, for example). Yes, they won a few races... by beating other Democrats. They didn't flip a single district in an election in which Democrats made very large gains. Because while those policies might mobilize voters in Brooklyn, they're going to get you crushed in Pennsylvania. And when votes for key committees are 100% along party lines, it really doesn't matter what the policy positions of someone with a D next their name is. They'll all vote to confirm exactly the same people, because that's what it means to caucus with a party in a chamber of 435 members.

Quote
If (big if, I know) any one or two of the legion of reprehensible behaviors available were brought to trial, and a courts convicted him, the Senate has less deniability: he's already been determined guilty.

Investigations and criminal trials take way more time. First, it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even rule before the next election for whether you can file criminal charges against a sitting president. And if that were to happen, this is the kind of trial that would easily take many years. So sure, you might get a conviction sometime toward the end of his second term and then you could try this impeachment strategy (assuming Democrats still hold the house)... that's going to hurt Trump when running for his third term. That's just not a winning strategy.

The cynic in me that believes D's and R's are about as different as Coke vs Pepsi.

Also suspect that enough R's have enough dirt on enough D's that one impeachment hearing on Trump might drag a few complicit D's into the trial.

Quote from: ciao_yall on September 22, 2019, 07:42:35 PM
The cynic in me that believes D's and R's are about as different as Coke vs Pepsi.

Is there corruption on both sides? Of course. Some of it is outright comical: a freezer full of cash, "charitable contributions" to the non-profit of a senator's wife (or perhaps Lockheed Martin really cares about an orchestra in rural Pennsylvania), the Philadelphia major who extorted campaign contributions in exchange for business licenses and approval...

The notion that any group is full of moral and ethical people would be naive to the absurd. Especially once you condition on those who (1) seek out office, and (2) actually managed to get elected. Remember the Democrat who's campaign imitated tactics by Russian trolls to "test if they worked?" As a scientist, I'm all in favor of running A/B testing and trying strategies... but if you're a candidate in a close election, that's a pretty weak defense on which to try and take a moral high ground.

And many policies that do dominate the news really don't differ all that much across parties. Yes, there were kids in cages under the Obama administration, too, and few people cared. Sexual abuse of women at the border was and continues to be common and it's going to be common 10 years from now. Much like abuse of prisoners and other vulnerable groups.

But all of that doesn't invalidate that the two parties do actually pursue different policies and have different priorities. When you treat a vote as a personal endorsement of a candidate's moral character, you're going to get disillusioned pretty quickly. If you treat it as advancing policy preferences that most closely align with your own, you might actually see some of those things done. And Republicans just seem to be somewhat better at the latter.

Quote from: pigou on September 22, 2019, 08:01:01 PM

But all of that doesn't invalidate that the two parties do actually pursue different policies and have different priorities. When you treat a vote as a personal endorsement of a candidate's moral character, you're going to get disillusioned pretty quickly. If you treat it as advancing policy preferences that most closely align with your own, you might actually see some of those things done. And Republicans just seem to be somewhat better at the latter.

My view, from north of the border, is that the Democrats (and the media) seem to be so absorbed with the idea of judicial measures to get rid of Trump that they have almost completely lost sight of beating him at the polls by having better policies. Early on in his presidency, it was amazing to see how easily he could be baited, by questioning the size of his crowds, for instance. However, over the last year or so things have flipped, and now it's the Democrats getting baited by him. He just has to say something outrageous ("Build the wall!"), and they respond with something equally outrageous ("No more deportations!") that is simply the antithesis of what he said. The problem is, voters realized long ago that he doesn't mean half of what he says, so his outrageous statements are largely ignored, BUT his opponents are entirely sincere and so they are serious about their crazy ideas. Voters then are likely to choose someone who makes crazy statements that he doesn't really mean instead of a zealot who makes crazy statements but actually intends to follow through.

Honestly, if the Democrats would focus on rational, workable solutions to problems I think they'd be much farther ahead than just singularly focusing on bad they think Trump is.

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 23, 2019, 06:34:24 AM
Honestly, if the Democrats would focus on rational, workable solutions to problems I think they'd be much farther ahead than just singularly focusing on bad they think Trump is.

Keep in mind that it's the primaries and the people on the debate stage managed to poll above 2% in 4 polls... it's not that hard for someone with fringe views to qualify. Once this increases to 10%, it'll be Biden, Warren, and Sanders. Similarly, AOC and other "Justice Democrats" make up 7 seats out of 235 held by Democrats. The entire organization raised about $1.5m, which is about what the Obama campaign raised in a day. They have a lot of impact on Twitter, but that's not a coalition that drives policy.

I've moved to favor impeachment. This current business with Biden, arms deals and Ukraine has changed my opinion.

I realize the Senate will not remove Orange Julius Caesar from office, but at some point, it just becomes the moral thing to do.  It will be enough to tie congress in knots until after the election, which should keep him from doing too much more damage. 

I'm at the point where, even though there is a real risk that a bungled impeachment process will tip the election to Trump, at some point congress has just got to stand up and say, "if this is not wrong enough to be deemed a high crime and/or misdemeanor" than what is?  Let him get away with using state assets to bribe foreign powers and gawd only knows what the next president (D or R) will think they are legally entitled to get away with.

Sorry, but the only reason anyone has to impeach him is because you hate him so much.  The economy is doing BEAUTIFULLY, things are going great, we're still at peace - Yeah, he wasn't lying when he said we'd be winning.

This Biden and Ukraine stuff is a distraction.  Show me how it harms me and why I should favor impeachment.

Quote from: Descartes on September 24, 2019, 09:11:00 AM
Show me how it harms me

Once upon a time there was this fellow named Martin Niemöller.....

Quote from: miss jane marple on September 24, 2019, 09:23:56 AM

Quote from: Descartes on September 24, 2019, 09:11:00 AM
Show me how it harms me

Once upon a time there was this fellow named Martin Niemöller.....

Indeed!  And by the time you realize how it harms you, Descartes, it will be too late.  Now is the time.

Quote from: Thursday's_Child on September 22, 2019, 08:52:08 AM

I've generally favored impeachment since before the inauguration.  However, it is necessary to balance the obvious gains from impeaching Dump with the serious negatives that will accrue with a Prez. Pence.

Pence sucks, but I'm pretty sure he can't win a national election. If Trump's not on the ticket, I don't think his base is likely to turn out for Pence. From what I've seen, Pence isn't a great campaigner. Hell, he wasn't even especially popular in Indiana.

Or, at least, I think he's a much weaker national-level candidate than Trump is. Almost certainly much more competent overall, and probably worse along several dimensions as a result, but not much of a campaigner.

Quote from: pigou on September 22, 2019, 07:20:36 PM

This reminds me a lot of the Kavanaugh vote. 6 Democratic senators were up for re-election in very close races. 5 voted against confirming Kavanaugh, because "it was the right thing." Those 5 all lost and polls suggest this vote really hurt them -- which makes all the difference in a tight race. (The 6th Democrat voted to confirm, got attacked by the base on Twitter, and was nonetheless re-elected. Because Twitter users aren't a huge voting block.)

Now, there are 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats in the Senate (counting the 2 independents). In an alternative world without this symbolic vote, it might be 48 Republicans and 52 Democrats.

I don't think this is the right calculation, for a few reasons. For one thing, I think that principled political stands are important, especially as symbolic gestures, even when they're losing propositions. They're important for future accountability, for moral reasons, and as a rallying cry for those who are on-side. They're part of how you differentiate yourself from the opposition, and that matters to longer-term political engagement, as well as to your ability to effect change. Just look at Sanders 2016. That was a losing campaign, and it was pretty much lost from the get-go. But because he stuck in the race, he completely changed the political conversation. He moved that dial more, with one losing campaign, than I've seen it move in my entire life. (Obama talked the talk, but failed to move the dial at all--not least because his follow-through wasn't good, and he stopped organizing once he got into office.)

Second, the result of that loss is, I think, much worse than you've made out. While those 5 Democrats got turfed, the long-term effect of appointing Kavanaugh will be court-packing. And while it seems to me that the SCOTUS could stand to be a bit bigger (and, obviously, better balanced), packing will not stop with a Democratic administration. Any Democratic packing will be replied to with Republican packing, which will necessitate more packing, ad infinitum. The SCOTUS will find itself at the heart of a much bigger political and existential crisis in the not-too-distant future. Similarly, I think that the long-term institutional damage for not impeaching a president who's committed a number of crimes while in office is pretty serious. Again, forget the Justice Department memo--it's a memo, not settled law, and it's bad for your political institutions. It needs to be tested. If you lose the battle, fine, you lost it, but you at least blaze a clear trail for the future. If you just suck it up and accept it--just like you suck up and accept presidential crimes--then you set a precedent that's very difficult to unset. It was the same deal with Garland, and it's the same deal with Kavanaugh.

Third, I don't think we should care about individual political careers, or even really about having our "own" side in power--at least, not to exclusion of having our politicians serve us, and enact our will. If doing what the people want goes against that politician's electoral interests, by golly, they ought to be doing it anyway. They're instruments of the people, nothing more.

Finally, I don't see the point in having 52 Democrats, as things stand. The House of Representatives currently has 235 Democrats to 198 Republicans, and what has it accomplished? It's funded Trump's border agencies. What else? It pretty much has no noteworthy legislative accomplishments. Democrats have shown themselves to be cowards, poor strategists, and incompetent bargainers. A few more senators won't fix that. What you need, instead, is a wave of new legislators who are willing to take principled stands and immediate action at the expense of the next election. (I mean, this isn't really all that different from what the Republicans did during the Obama years.) As things stand, Democrats will be running for re-election with nothing to show for their previous electoral success. That's not great electoral optics. It's much easier to run on actual accomplishments, especially over the long term.

If Democrats really want to stick it to Republicans, I think they should impeach Trump and forget about losing in the Senate altogether. Drag the proceedings on until the election is over, if you need to. But do it, and show voters you've done something. Similarly, they should be proposing all kinds of bold new bills, and not worry about having them passing in the Senate or being signed into law. Hammer the Republicans over and over, forcing them to vote against popular policies. Keep them on their toes, so that they spend their election cycle wrongfooted and responding, rather than attacking. And, at the same time, you'd be showing Democrats and new voters that you're actually good for something, that you could get something done if only voters would give you more Senators and Congresspeople.

Again, that's not a novel strategy. It's basically what the Republicans have done for the last eleven years. And it clearly works.

Keep in mind that some of those Dem senators were in anywhere from moderately to extremely unfavorable demographic situations. Sure, they were when the got elected originally too, but its difficult to get lightning to strike twice in the same spot.  Also, a lot of the Dems in that situation were coming up at the same time. 2020 is expected to be more favorable to the Democrats. I doubt it would be enough to make removal from office a possibility after impeachment, but I agree that we have to try anyway.

I believe the original title of this thread on the old forum was "when will there be impeachment?". It was a long time coming, but finally, have an answer to that question:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/democrats-impeachment-trump.html?action=click&module=Alert&pgtype=Homepage

Quote from: Descartes on September 24, 2019, 09:11:00 AM
This Biden and Ukraine stuff is a distraction.  Show me how it harms me and why I should favor impeachment.

It depends on how much of it is hype and how much of it is substantiated. With the breaking news that Pelosi will not oppose beginning impeachment processes, it may well turn out to be largely substantiated. Withholding funds approved by Congress and of strategic importance to the US global interest to coerce someone in helping a re-election campaign is not a minor infraction. This also isn't on the level of a technicality or of coordination with Russian trolls.

It remains to be seen how damning the evidence is. But I'm going to go with "Pelosi knows more than the public" when it comes to this whistleblower complaint. Congress does actually have a lot more access to information than any of us -- and if Pelosi has shown one thing, is that she's not pulling the trigger on impeachment just to appease a fringe group of the base. That gives her support meaning and credibility.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 24, 2019, 10:17:27 AM
Just look at Sanders 2016. That was a losing campaign, and it was pretty much lost from the get-go. But because he stuck in the race, he completely changed the political conversation. He moved that dial more, with one losing campaign, than I've seen it move in my entire life. (Obama talked the talk, but failed to move the dial at all--not least because his follow-through wasn't good, and he stopped organizing once he got into office.)

He might have shifted the Overton window, but he hasn't shifted policy. The most likely scenario today is Biden being the next president with Democrats controlling the House and Republicans controlling the Senate. That's not a strong position for policies like a $15/hr min wage or abolishing private insurance. The majority of the candidates running for the Democratic primaries may be sharing his policy views, but that doesn't mean the nominee ultimately will.

Quote
Second, the result of that loss is, I think, much worse than you've made out. While those 5 Democrats got turfed, the long-term effect of appointing Kavanaugh will be court-packing.

The key part here is that the 6 Democratic senators could not have prevented the confirmation. But if the 3 of the 5 Democrats who voted against it and ended up losing their seat had not lost their election, they could have prevented dozens (hundreds?) of confirmations of federal judges. It was a symbolic vote that probably lead to material costs.

QuoteThe SCOTUS will find itself at the heart of a much bigger political and existential crisis in the not-too-distant future.

Personally, I doubt it: the politicization of SCOTUS is way over-reported, given the realities of the decisions. Most decisions are either unanimous or have a single dissent on a technicality. And rulings like Citizen United are absurdly misreported by the media: nothing in that ruling said Congress couldn't pass campaign finance regulation that remedied the problems raised in the ruling. It's a political decision not to do so. You can't look at SCOTUS to fix problems in Congress -- that's not their job.

In many ways, some of the hallmark rulings of the Court are clearly over-reaching on the merits. Take the ruling that the federal government could prohibit restaurants to discriminate on the basis of race. The outcome, obviously, very much desirable. But the reasoning... the argument was that a restaurant discriminating against African Americans would purchase fewer products (like meat), and this drop in demand would affect interstate prices of ingredients used by restaurants... and that's why it fell under the interstate commerce clause. There's just no way to look at this decision through any lens other than that there was a desired outcome that had to be justified. Either that, or our decision to post on this forum also falls under the interstate commerce clause, because it's time we could use productively, which would (if nothing else) shift labor costs.

Quote
Finally, I don't see the point in having 52 Democrats, as things stand. The House of Representatives currently has 235 Democrats to 198 Republicans, and what has it accomplished? It's funded Trump's border agencies. What else? It pretty much has no noteworthy legislative accomplishments.

*Because* there's no majority in the senate. 52 Democrats means regulatory committees have majorities of Democrats on them. This would have protected net neutrality, among other things. There's a million little things that happen in the underbelly of government (aka the "deep state") that would be materially more progressive if Democrats, and not Republicans, had the majority on committees.

Funding border protection is also perfectly sensible. Yes, the whole "build a wall" drive is nonsense... but of course you want to have border protection in place. Trump is exaggerating drug and human trafficking, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist... and, importantly, it doesn't mean that it's not responsive to border checkpoints.

Quote
If Democrats really want to stick it to Republicans, I think they should impeach Trump and forget about losing in the Senate altogether. Drag the proceedings on until the election is over, if you need to. But do it, and show voters you've done something. Similarly, they should be proposing all kinds of bold new bills, and not worry about having them passing in the Senate or being signed into law. Hammer the Republicans over and over, forcing them to vote against popular policies. Keep them on their toes, so that they spend their election cycle wrongfooted and responding, rather than attacking. And, at the same time, you'd be showing Democrats and new voters that you're actually good for something, that you could get something done if only voters would give you more Senators and Congresspeople.

Again, that's not a novel strategy. It's basically what the Republicans have done for the last eleven years. And it clearly works.

Some of the students I work with also have positions in the military. One of them put it fairly succinctly to me once: if you're not willing to compromise, you better be willing to kill every last person from the other side. Because no matter how overwhelming your power, they'll find ways to sabotage you on the last mile -- the one point where they have some local knowledge that you're missing.

I think that's exactly right in politics, too. When ACA passed, Republican governors prevented Medicaid expansion in some states... we now know this lead to over 10,000 preventable deaths. I don't know what the Obama administration could have done differently to loop them in, but clearly one side cares less about those lives than the other.

Quote from: Ruralguy on September 24, 2019, 11:51:35 AM
Keep in mind that some of those Dem senators were in anywhere from moderately to extremely unfavorable demographic situations. Sure, they were when the got elected originally too, but its difficult to get lightning to strike twice in the same spot.

Sure, but when 5 out of 5 don't get re-elected and the one who voted to confirm does, and when polls suggest this was an issue voters cared about (and they favored a vote to confirm), it's not a huge stretch.

It is happening.  I am sad.  My 3rd impeachment.  And will be the ugliest.

Quote from: nebo113 on September 24, 2019, 04:06:46 PM
It is happening.  I am sad.  My 3rd impeachment.  And will be the ugliest.

Sad?? SAD?? Today was an amazing day for all--Boris Johnson got spanked and Trump got spanked. Last week Netanyahu got spanked.  We're coming for you Bolsonaro, Erdogan, Putin ....!

It's heartening to think that the UK and US systems can at least begin to address imbalances through these means, but I do understand why someone might feel sad.

It's an indication of a deeper kind of failure that such things get to such a point at all.

Our lives are built largely on trust, and it's hard to have to recognize how fragile that thread really is.

So, it might be fitting to modify your rapture just a bit (pax, G&S).

M.

Quote from: Descartes on September 24, 2019, 09:11:00 AM
Sorry, but the only reason anyone has to impeach him is because you hate him so much. 

I'd say there are numerous reasons to impeach him that have nothing to do with hate. Many of my reasons relate to financial corruption by him, his family members, and his appointees, perhaps including Elaine Chao.

Quote
The economy is doing BEAUTIFULLY, things are going great, we're still at peace - Yeah, he wasn't lying when he said we'd be winning.

Not really (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/20/trump-v-obama-economy-charts/). Business investment is negative, federal debt has increased, economic growth is still below 3 percent, manufacturing is headed for a contraction, and income inequality is still at record highs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Shares_of_Income_2016_CBO.png). And in case you haven't noticed, we're still fighting wars in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc.

Quote
This Biden and Ukraine stuff is a distraction.  Show me how it harms me and why I should favor impeachment.

This "stuff" is driven by Russia's foreign policy interests, which Trump seems eager to facilitate to the detriment of U.S. interests. Maybe by your definition having a President serving a foreign power doesn't harm you personally, and therefore you don't care, but I prefer a President who bases his actions on what's best for the U.S., because of stuff like the Constitution.

The UK situation is looking serious for Johnson.

He stands to be the shortest-tenured PM ever if he resigns as he is being pressured to do.

It's really not nice to make the Queen look bad.....

M.

FWIW, it sounds to me like the Hunter Biden thing is potentially a perfectly legitimate instance of corruption. I hope nobody loses sight of that amidst the excitement about this other bit of corruption.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 24, 2019, 09:19:55 PM
FWIW, it sounds to me like the Hunter Biden thing is potentially a perfectly legitimate instance of corruption. I hope nobody loses sight of that amidst the excitement about this other bit of corruption.

Maybe that would mean that Biden would also be out of the election.

It isn't clear that the impeachment investigation is in the best interests of the Dems winning the Presidency. I know many who argue that the only consideration in anything at the national political level should be to get Agent Orange out of office. I don't agree. For one thing, impeachment is obviously merited at this stage. For another, the Dems need to work at a much more systematic plan, winning back the Senate and Governors, and providing a model of politicians people can respect.

It is true the economy is doing well by standard measures. I keep on seeing headlines in the financial pages about the coming recession though.

Quote from: Descartes on September 24, 2019, 09:11:00 AM

This Biden and Ukraine stuff is a distraction.  Show me how it harms me and why I should favor impeachment.

Really?  The president requesting that a foreign country investigate their political rival to help his election bid dosn't bother you?  It harms you because it is yet another step away from democracy and toward dictatorship with rigged elections.  If this were an isolated incident perhaps it would not be impeachment worthy, but when it is one of many examples in a pattern of similar behavior it seems like the straw that broke the donkey's back.

I don't see the senate following through with it, but I see how democrats don't have much choice at this point. 

Quote from: downer on September 25, 2019, 05:59:38 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 24, 2019, 09:19:55 PM
FWIW, it sounds to me like the Hunter Biden thing is potentially a perfectly legitimate instance of corruption. I hope nobody loses sight of that amidst the excitement about this other bit of corruption.

It is true the economy is doing well by standard measures. I keep on seeing headlines in the financial pages about the coming recession though.

Yes the trajectory of the economy from the Obama administration has thus far continued, but once Trump's policies have had time to kick in and his tax stimulus fades we will see how it does.  The weird part is that Trump was handed a great economy and is running huge deficits, but who has benefited the most?  What policies has he introduced that help out the average person using these resources?     

Dread thought:

in a Len Deighton novel, the whistleblower would be a Trump plant, intended to set off impeachment proceedings so Trump could play the martyr, just in time for the next elections....

May it never be...

M.

The initiatives coming out of the WH seem to be ones scripted by leaders of large corporations. Other stuff happens, but those personal advisors couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery. So Len Deighton plots are unlikely.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 24, 2019, 09:19:55 PM
FWIW, it sounds to me like the Hunter Biden thing is potentially a perfectly legitimate instance of corruption. I hope nobody loses sight of that amidst the excitement about this other bit of corruption.

Looks like I'm mostly wrong, and should know better than to trust the story as it's given!

Here's the original Biden/Hunter story (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html) by James Risen in the NYT--from 2015.

Here's a follow-up (https://theintercept.com/2019/05/10/rumors-joe-biden-scandal-ukraine-absolute-nonsense-reformer-says/) by Robert Mackey debunking the conspiracy theory in The Intercept back in May 2019.

And an update from James Risen (https://theintercept.com/2019/09/25/i-wrote-about-the-bidens-and-ukraine-years-ago-then-the-right-wing-spin-machine-turned-the-story-upside-down/) in The Intercept today.

Also interesting to see how a story which I thought came out of nowhere did nothing of the sort. And how we've actually known about the new impeachable offense for about four months now. And how much of an orange own-goal it is (like all the others, to be sure).

My local congressman has followed the Lindsay Graham script and said that the released document summarizing the phone conversation shows absolutely no wrongdoing.

Of course, there's no question that that is a bare faced lie. Presumably that will not bother the most hardcore supporters of Agent Orange. As he pointed out, he could kill someone out in the open and they would still follow him.

But I do wonder how it will play with the regular Republicans who voted for these politicians. I know I could not vote for a Democrat who was so willing to blithely ignore a president openly trading aid for a foreign country for political favors.

Quote from: downer on September 25, 2019, 09:56:18 AM
My local congressman has followed the Lindsay Graham script and said that the released document summarizing the phone conversation shows absolutely no wrongdoing.

That's straight from the White House's talking points sent to republican allies and accidentally leaked to democrats

https://theweek.com/speedreads/867641/white-house-accidentally-emailed-ukraine-talking-points-nancy-pelosi

Ahahahahahaha

They're already falling apart under the pressure. This is *not* what any of them want.

Also: Barr is directly implicated, and will have to recuse himself, even if he never followed through.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 25, 2019, 05:47:59 PM
Ahahahahahaha

They're already falling apart under the pressure. This is *not* what any of them want.

Also: Barr is directly implicated, and will have to recuse himself, even if he never followed through.

Barr will NOT recuse himself; remember Jeff Sessions.  And Roy Cohn is 45's mentor and role model......Cohn never fell apart .....

The Hearing Is VERY Interesting...

M.

Quote from: mamselle on September 26, 2019, 09:03:40 AM
The Hearing Is VERY Interesting...

M.

The letter sent by Michael Atkinson to Congress (detailing the whistleblower's complaint) is even better. For example, from the appendix:

"According to multiple White House officials I spoke with, the transcript of the President's call with President Zelenskyy was placed into a computer system managed directly by the National Security Council (NSC) Directorate for Intelligence Programs. This is a standalone computer system reserved for codeword-level intelligence information, such as covert action. According to information I received from White House officials, some officials voiced concerns internally that this would be an abuse of the system and was not consistent with the responsibilities of the Directorate for Intelligence Programs. According to White House officials I spoke with, this was 'not the first time' under this Administration that a Presidential transcript was placed into this codeword-level system solely for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive—rather than national security sensitive—information."

Also (earlier in the complaint):

"The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call. They told me that there was already a 'discussion ongoing' with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials' retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain."


A reporter needs to ask Mitch McConnell if he will recuse himself from Senatorial impeachment proceedings given that his wife is the Secretary of Transportation.

Rob Kall reveals the true motive:
https://www.opednews.com/articles/Impeachment-Chess-Part-2--by-Rob-Kall-Impeachment-190925-100.html

"The idea should be to keep the impeachment going as long as possible, with new testimonies and new releases of disclosures of alleged corruption and treason on a regular basis.

"Looking at impeachment as a process for removing the president is the wrong way of thinking about it. Looking at it as a key that gives access to investigative tools is the smarter, more strategic, way of looking at it.

"Ideally, it will get so bad for Trump that the Republicans will end up putting up someone else to run in the general election.

"But keeping him under investigation, at least through the November election, will increasingly erode the support of both Trump and the Republican party brand, making a Democratic takeover of the Senate and the White House, and an increased control of the House even more likely."

But do the Republicans want someone other than Trump to run in the next election?  The devotion many of his followers have for Trump seems far in excess of any kind of loyalty for people like Bush (either Bush), or any common-or-garden standard-issue Republican politician.  I would think they would want to hang on to that zeal, not infuriate those voters by ousting Trump.

Quote from: Hegemony on September 26, 2019, 05:59:45 PM
But do the Republicans want someone other than Trump to run in the next election?  The devotion many of his followers have for Trump seems far in excess of any kind of loyalty for people like Bush (either Bush), or any common-or-garden standard-issue Republican politician.  I would think they would want to hang on to that zeal, not infuriate those voters by ousting Trump.

Trump currently has about a 40% approval rating (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/) and incumbent presidents tend to have an advantage.  I don't see a strong Republican anyone waiting in the wings just ready to run and blow Trump out of the water.  I can think of a couple I'd love to see run, but I don't think 2020 is their year for a variety of reasons specific to the candidates themselves.

Trump has a 91% approval rating among Republicans, https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx, they love this guy.

Quote from: irhack on September 27, 2019, 05:25:05 AM
Trump has a 91% approval rating among Republicans, https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx, they love this guy.

If someone actually wanted to try to change minds, then they'd be running someone who has similar goals, less baggage, and better plans instead of continuing to beat the drum for Trump's a bad guy.  In many quarters, the basic assumption is that high-level politicians and wealthy folks are corrupt, underhanded assholes who do whatever they can to get ahead.  Pointing out specific instances of wrongdoing is much like pointing out that water is wet.  Yep, someone with power pulls strings and tends to have sexual practices strongly dependent on what they can get away with.  How is that surprising to someone who made it past kindergarten?

I think of Marion Berry who got re-elected after serving time in prison.  I think of the parade of former Illinois governors who went to prison.  The Roosevelt quote holds true in many quarters:

[Roosevelt's] Secretary of State, Sumner Welles, once said "Somoza's a bastard!" And Roosevelt replied, "Yes, but he's our bastard."  (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Franklin_D._Roosevelt)

Wanting a different world is distinct from being realistic about what is available to one in the current world.  Having a bastard on one's side is often a smart strategy for those who don't have power and have no way to get power.  Dogooders are often viewed with suspicion because they aren't ruthless enough to do what needs to be done to make a big change when resources are limited and situations are complex.  Anyone with enough free time can go meet the masses, eat regional food, and feel the people's pain.  A bastard will say, "Make it so because I have power", and have a good shot at getting something done.

I'm becoming very concerned for the whistleblower's safety.

Things like Geraldo Rivera's live TV echo of DT's threats, that he'd like to do this person harm, are irresponsible in several ways; worst of all that, like the four knights who killed Thomas a Becket, someone will believe they are doing "the right thing" by discovering, outing, and silencing someone whose only crime, like that of most prophets, is to speak the truth about the present.

And the discovery of further "hidden" transcripts is likewise of concern.

This is more than an 18 min.gap.

Echoing the Friday haiku, "How did we, indeed, get here?"

M.

Quote from: mamselle on September 28, 2019, 12:56:42 AM
Things like Geraldo Rivera's live TV echo of DT's threats, that he'd like to do this person harm, are irresponsible in several ways; worst of all that, like the four knights who killed Thomas a Becket, someone will believe they are doing "the right thing" by discovering, outing, and silencing someone whose only crime, like that of most prophets, is to speak the truth about the present.

From the national security/intelligence side, we have written guidance and entire structures devoted to having truths and ensuring that need-to-know exists because knowledge is power.  Everyone knowing everything sounds great until someone uses that information against the US in ways that harm us.

I will state no opinion about the current situation with the Ukraine. 

I will state that if leaders cannot have conversations that remain protected by privilege, then getting things done is very difficult when all and sundry make a hue and cry regarding their feelings over getting something done for the good of the group because no shared vision exists for the good of the group.  I remember several instances with faculty members who were angry that closed-door discussions happened before a plan was brought forth to discuss.  I remember asking: do you want the snapshots at 0730, 0845, 0915, 1027, 1135, 1355, 1520, 1730, 1945 or do you want to have something coherent to discuss at faculty senate on Thursday with people present who can answer the likely questions being raised before a final decision is made?

High-levels of government are always involved in negotiating with each other regarding resources, shared interests, and getting the best deal for themselves.  Ideally, the best deals will focus on the needs of the people being represented.  Sometimes, those needs of those being represented involve specific individuals, which may or may not be the same decisions that someone else might make regarding the needs of those being represented.

All governments do things that are somewhat unsavory to the general public.  Nice people usually don't like to find out all the details related to military operations because humans are indeed killed.  The flip side is how many of those nice people would be brutally murdered by someone else's military were we to stand down our military.  The world is filled with not nice people; the US government cannot be fully staffed by nice people who are easily shocked by finding out the realities of what's necessary to allow a solid swatch of the nice people in the US to remain easily shocked by realities.

Joe Biden and Pres. Obama won't look any better when this is over. Elizabeth Warren has already said Hunter Biden shouldn't have been on that board, then stopped before saying anything more. The appearance of it  seems wrong.

Quote from: polly_mer on September 28, 2019, 05:13:31 AM

Quote from: mamselle on September 28, 2019, 12:56:42 AM
Things like Geraldo Rivera's live TV echo of DT's threats, that he'd like to do this person harm, are irresponsible in several ways; worst of all that, like the four knights who killed Thomas a Becket, someone will believe they are doing "the right thing" by discovering, outing, and silencing someone whose only crime, like that of most prophets, is to speak the truth about the present.

From the national security/intelligence side, we have written guidance and entire structures devoted to having truths and ensuring that need-to-know exists because knowledge is power.  Everyone knowing everything sounds great until someone uses that information against the US in ways that harm us.

I will state no opinion about the current situation with the Ukraine. 

I will state that if leaders cannot have conversations that remain protected by privilege, then getting things done is very difficult when all and sundry make a hue and cry regarding their feelings over getting something done for the good of the group because no shared vision exists for the good of the group.  I remember several instances with faculty members who were angry that closed-door discussions happened before a plan was brought forth to discuss.  I remember asking: do you want the snapshots at 0730, 0845, 0915, 1027, 1135, 1355, 1520, 1730, 1945 or do you want to have something coherent to discuss at faculty senate on Thursday with people present who can answer the likely questions being raised before a final decision is made?

High-levels of government are always involved in negotiating with each other regarding resources, shared interests, and getting the best deal for themselves.  Ideally, the best deals will focus on the needs of the people being represented.  Sometimes, those needs of those being represented involve specific individuals, which may or may not be the same decisions that someone else might make regarding the needs of those being represented.

All governments do things that are somewhat unsavory to the general public.  Nice people usually don't like to find out all the details related to military operations because humans are indeed killed.  The flip side is how many of those nice people would be brutally murdered by someone else's military were we to stand down our military.  The world is filled with not nice people; the US government cannot be fully staffed by nice people who are easily shocked by finding out the realities of what's necessary to allow a solid swatch of the nice people in the US to remain easily shocked by realities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/09/27/executive-privilege-is-vitally-important-not-expense-national-security/

Quote from: nebo113 on September 28, 2019, 06:23:39 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on September 28, 2019, 05:13:31 AM

Quote from: mamselle on September 28, 2019, 12:56:42 AM
Things like Geraldo Rivera's live TV echo of DT's threats, that he'd like to do this person harm, are irresponsible in several ways; worst of all that, like the four knights who killed Thomas a Becket, someone will believe they are doing "the right thing" by discovering, outing, and silencing someone whose only crime, like that of most prophets, is to speak the truth about the present.

From the national security/intelligence side, we have written guidance and entire structures devoted to having truths and ensuring that need-to-know exists because knowledge is power.  Everyone knowing everything sounds great until someone uses that information against the US in ways that harm us.

I will state no opinion about the current situation with the Ukraine. 

I will state that if leaders cannot have conversations that remain protected by privilege, then getting things done is very difficult when all and sundry make a hue and cry regarding their feelings over getting something done for the good of the group because no shared vision exists for the good of the group.  I remember several instances with faculty members who were angry that closed-door discussions happened before a plan was brought forth to discuss.  I remember asking: do you want the snapshots at 0730, 0845, 0915, 1027, 1135, 1355, 1520, 1730, 1945 or do you want to have something coherent to discuss at faculty senate on Thursday with people present who can answer the likely questions being raised before a final decision is made?

High-levels of government are always involved in negotiating with each other regarding resources, shared interests, and getting the best deal for themselves.  Ideally, the best deals will focus on the needs of the people being represented.  Sometimes, those needs of those being represented involve specific individuals, which may or may not be the same decisions that someone else might make regarding the needs of those being represented.

All governments do things that are somewhat unsavory to the general public.  Nice people usually don't like to find out all the details related to military operations because humans are indeed killed.  The flip side is how many of those nice people would be brutally murdered by someone else's military were we to stand down our military.  The world is filled with not nice people; the US government cannot be fully staffed by nice people who are easily shocked by finding out the realities of what's necessary to allow a solid swatch of the nice people in the US to remain easily shocked by realities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/09/27/executive-privilege-is-vitally-important-not-expense-national-security/

Precisely.  The US has a long and checkered history of cutting deals with less than savory characters.  In the diplomacy game sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  However, those compromises came with the nation's safety and interests at their core.  In this case our president was extorting our democratic ally with taxpayer money to benefit his bid for reelection.  Further the placement of the call's records in the code word server when the those calls were not top secret indicates consciousness of guilt or at the very least a grave misuse of presidential power.  Executive privilege does not apply when the person commits a crime.  Extortion benefits the person not the nation.  Executive privilege is not personal privilege.

Uh-huh. 

I continue to be bemused by educated people who should know history and be familiar with a bazillion instances from literature that reveal what humans are like and then seem shocked when it turns out that specific contemporary humans with power and influence are exactly like examples from history and literature.  If the worst thing Trump has done is upclassify documents related to wheeling and dealing (and by making it public, we better damn well hope it was upclassified far beyond the true level), then we're not getting full value from our bastard.

The question in my mind still comes down to "is our bastard mostly doing what's in my interests or is it time to back a new bastard?"  I didn't vote for Trump last time and it's likely I won't vote for him next time.  However, the argument against some of the Democratic frontrunners is they are not big enough bastards with enough connections to do shady enough dealings in my interests related to national defense and global security.  A polite way to say that to nice people is so-and-so doesn't have enough national experience.  One thing Hillary had going for her was a solid national/international record in shady dealings and a willingness to be ruthless to achieve objectives.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/hunter-bidens-legal-socially-acceptable-corruption/598804/

Regarding national security and executive privilege . . . given the information in the whistleblower's complaint (https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/09/politics/whistleblower-complaint-annotated/), at least a half dozen people had immediate knowledge of the contents and purpose of Trump's call to Zelensky. And I bet that knowledge traveled pretty rapidly to others in the White House, and maybe the attorney general, given the attempt to hide the transcript of the call on a server system that is supposed to be dedicated only to highly secret and compartmentalized intelligence information.

For Trump, "national security" equates to "L'État, c'est moi." He believes in whatever hare-brained conspiracy theories (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/us/politics/tom-bossert-trump-ukraine.html) he picks up from Fox News and close advisers like Giuliani because they accord with his narcissistic mentality. He has damaged the USA's relationships with NATO allies, harmed supply chains/export markets for goods produced in the USA, and, in the end, been a boon to Russia's interests.

On the subject of President Trump's phone calls with foreign leaders and the number of people who heard them:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/donald-trump-foreign-leader-calls-coaching/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/donald-trump-foreign-leader-calls-coaching/index.html).

Quote from: spork on October 01, 2019, 03:39:36 PM
On the subject of President Trump's phone calls with foreign leaders and the number of people who heard them:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/donald-trump-foreign-leader-calls-coaching/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/donald-trump-foreign-leader-calls-coaching/index.html).

What a surprise.

I worry that the storm-and-mirrors thumping around, seeking to craft a dramatic offense as the best (only?) defense here will cause such confusion as to make the decision points needed at key junctures fall awry.

Which is, usually, the intended result.

I also wonder if the two hurricanes named Boris and Donald will meet in the Atlantic this season--or blow each other out of the water, in the peoples' exasperation with their jejune, bullying gusty fronts.

Just wondering...

M.

Double post, later, to point out a very interesting Politico "What-if" article on the speculative possibilities that might occur with a President Pence as  a 2020 contender, considered from many angles.

A dodecahedral crystal ball, as it were.

(Sorry, can't link right now...)

M.

The House's Oversight and Reform Committee was reported to be issuing a subpoena to the White House -- a demand for documents -- at some point today. Don't know if that's going to happen. In any case, once Trump refuses to comply, it will go into the articles of impeachment.

I found G. Conway's article in the Atlantic on the constitutional inability of a narcissist to uphold constitutional law at their own expense well-written and well-thought out.

Yes, I know who he is.

I still thought it was a good analytic study.

M.

Does anyone but me wonder what's going on inside the Conway house?

Quote from: nebo113 on October 05, 2019, 05:51:00 AM
Does anyone but me wonder what's going on inside the Conway house?

Have we heard much from her lately?

Quote from: ciao_yall on October 05, 2019, 06:31:09 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on October 05, 2019, 05:51:00 AM
Does anyone but me wonder what's going on inside the Conway house?

Have we heard much from her lately?

She's probably got a team of lawyers trying to figure out if she risks being indicted and is keeping a low profile in the meantime.

Quote from: spork on September 30, 2019, 03:14:53 AM
Regarding national security and executive privilege . . . given the information in the whistleblower's complaint (https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/09/politics/whistleblower-complaint-annotated/), at least a half dozen people had immediate knowledge of the contents and purpose of Trump's call to Zelensky. And I bet that knowledge traveled pretty rapidly to others in the White House, and maybe the attorney general, given the attempt to hide the transcript of the call on a server system that is supposed to be dedicated only to highly secret and compartmentalized intelligence information.

Half a dozen people is still pretty close hold as classified briefings go.  Classified auditoriums can seat hundreds of people who have need-to-know for a given situation.

In my experience, "highly secret and compartmentalized" has a term of art meaning that is nothing like the impression one gets from watching spy movies.

A brief history of Trump's mishandling of classified information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_of_classified_information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_of_classified_information).


By the way, my earlier comment about Kellyanne Conway was sarcastic. Her status seems to be that of a media mouthpiece, whose only job is to troll people on various cable TV networks. She doesn't seem to have any role in White House policy or procedures.

Igor Fruman, one of the two men arrested at Dulles Airport attempting to flee the country, with Donald Trump:

https://www.forumdaily.com/en/russkoyazychnyj-biznesmen-prinyal-uchastie-vo-vstreche-trampa-s-potencialnymi-donorami-ego-kampanii-2020-goda/ (https://www.forumdaily.com/en/russkoyazychnyj-biznesmen-prinyal-uchastie-vo-vstreche-trampa-s-potencialnymi-donorami-ego-kampanii-2020-goda/).

(Note on the webpage: automatically translated from Russian)

Quote from: spork on October 11, 2019, 02:54:07 AM
Igor Fruman, one of the two men arrested at Dulles Airport attempting to flee the country, with Donald Trump:

https://www.forumdaily.com/en/russkoyazychnyj-biznesmen-prinyal-uchastie-vo-vstreche-trampa-s-potencialnymi-donorami-ego-kampanii-2020-goda/ (https://www.forumdaily.com/en/russkoyazychnyj-biznesmen-prinyal-uchastie-vo-vstreche-trampa-s-potencialnymi-donorami-ego-kampanii-2020-goda/).

(Note on the webpage: automatically translated from Russian)

And Rudy was apparently set to fly to Vienna the next day, after lunching with his two fixers at 45's Tower the day before the two cheapskate brainiacs fled on a one way ticket.

Quote from: spork on October 05, 2019, 08:45:55 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on October 05, 2019, 06:31:09 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on October 05, 2019, 05:51:00 AM
Does anyone but me wonder what's going on inside the Conway house?

Have we heard much from her lately?

She's probably got a team of lawyers trying to figure out if she risks being indicted and is keeping a low profile in the meantime.

Maybe she and DeVos can go for a two-fer with the attorneys...

   https://www.newsweek.com/betsy-devos-could-face-jail-after-judge-rules-violated-2018-order-1463764

M.

You know, I wonder whether some of the people in the current administration realize that they are honest-to-god subject to the same laws that everyone else is.

Trump clearly has not taken it in that soliciting tit-for-tat favors from foreign entities, with the purpose of influencing elections, is illegal — as witnessed by him asserting in public that he did so.  It's as if Nixon bragged, "Not only did we break in, but we broke in really skillfully and stole so much stuff!"  I think Trump doesn't realize that if he thinks a thing isn't or shouldn't be illegal, he could be prosecuted for it nevertheless.  I gather that he has done so many illegal things with impunity that he doesn't bother considering whether something is illegal.  I am reminded of Leona Helmsley saying that "Only the little people pay taxes."

Quote from: Hegemony on October 11, 2019, 05:38:21 PM
Trump clearly has not taken it in that soliciting tit-for-tat favors from foreign entities, with the purpose of influencing elections, is illegal — as witnessed by him asserting in public that he did so.  It's as if Nixon bragged, "Not only did we break in, but we broke in really skillfully and stole so much stuff!"  I think Trump doesn't realize that if he thinks a thing isn't or shouldn't be illegal, he could be prosecuted for it nevertheless.  I gather that he has done so many illegal things with impunity that he doesn't bother considering whether something is illegal.  I am reminded of Leona Helmsley saying that "Only the little people pay taxes."

That's because Nixon didn't have a senate with a majority which benefits from his illegal activity, and have absolutely no shame. A senate which will never allow even a vote on impeachment. If Nixon had McConnell and his cabal as a majority in the senate, he would have bragged, knowing that the senate would not do anything to him.

Quote from: mouseman on October 11, 2019, 08:27:18 PM

Quote from: Hegemony on October 11, 2019, 05:38:21 PM
Trump clearly has not taken it in that soliciting tit-for-tat favors from foreign entities, with the purpose of influencing elections, is illegal — as witnessed by him asserting in public that he did so.  It's as if Nixon bragged, "Not only did we break in, but we broke in really skillfully and stole so much stuff!"  I think Trump doesn't realize that if he thinks a thing isn't or shouldn't be illegal, he could be prosecuted for it nevertheless.  I gather that he has done so many illegal things with impunity that he doesn't bother considering whether something is illegal.  I am reminded of Leona Helmsley saying that "Only the little people pay taxes."

That's because Nixon didn't have a senate with a majority which benefits from his illegal activity, and have absolutely no shame. A senate which will never allow even a vote on impeachment. If Nixon had McConnell and his cabal as a majority in the senate, he would have bragged, knowing that the senate would not do anything to him.

I.e.,  Mitch McConnell, who is married to Elaine Chao: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/elaine-chao-trump-corruption-still-happening.html (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/elaine-chao-trump-corruption-still-happening.html).

Giuliani and his crew were laundering Russian (Kremlin) money into U.S. elections. They operated in the same circles that Paul Manafort and other Trump associates did. There was a statement about Nixon's staff who were involved in Watergate, I think from the book or the film All The President's Men, which I'm going to paraphrase because I don't remember it exactly: these aren't very smart people, and they got in over their heads.

What I find most troubling is that these are the people that American citizens put into positions of power. Trump was clearly an amoral, narcissistic, corrupt windbag from Day 1, yet he still won the election and he's still in office.

Trump was clearly an amoral, narcissistic, corrupt windbag from Day 1, yet he still won the election and he's still in office.


And his cult followers, many of whom are "good Christians", roar with approval when he uses language such as "kiss his ass" in front of their children.

I'm troubled about many aspects of this immorality play as it's going down; one in particular is Guliani's slippage from an OK mayor and seriously anchoring figure after 911 to the tawdry, cheap little "fixer" he's now become in my eyes.

Or maybe the tawdry fixer was always there.

I also wonder what Trump's got on him that keeps him by the puir, wee man's side....

In fact, I'm starting to suspect more deeply than ever that Trump's cohort don't only hang on around him because of what they'd lose by going against him: I'm betting he ""has something" on every one of them and would blackmail them each in an instant for defecting...and they know it.

IF he had ever turned up something on Biden, he might have just Tweet-blurted it out, of course. But he might be more subtle than he appears, and just used it on the side to get Biden to drop out of the race.

Of course, with Sanders' heart issues, and Biden's poll losses just by being drug through the mud in this unfolding psychodrama, he may also be faced by that most terrifying of prospects: a strong female like Warren on the ticket (if his presidency survives to the election) or replacement by another strong female like Pelosi if Pence goes down with the ship, too.

Hmmm...to balance the ticket, Warren would need a newer, younger guy for VP....maybe Buttigieg or O'Rourke?

(Ahh..."Running mate Bingo": Topic for a new thread? So as not to derail this one...sort of like wine pairings...)

M.

Quote from: mamselle on October 12, 2019, 06:57:52 AM
I'm troubled about many aspects of this immorality play as it's going down; one in particular is Guliani's slippage from an OK mayor and seriously anchoring figure after 911 to the tawdry, cheap little "fixer" he's now become in my eyes.

Or maybe the tawdry fixer was always there.

It was always there for someone who managed to become the NYC mayor as a result of being one of the cohort.  They all have something on each other because that's how life in that kind of circle works.

Quote from: mamselle on October 12, 2019, 06:57:52 AM
Of course, with Sanders' heart issues, and Biden's poll losses just by being drug through the mud in this unfolding psychodrama, he may also be faced by that most terrifying of prospects: a strong female like Warren on the ticket (if his presidency survives to the election) or replacement by another strong female like Pelosi if Pence goes down with the ship, too.

Trump beat a strong woman last time and Warren isn't nearly as good a candidate as Hillary was.  If Pelosi is simply put in as the replacement president, then Trump has much bigger personal problems than an election in which he isn't eligible to run.

Quote from: polly_mer on October 12, 2019, 07:18:08 AM

Quote from: mamselle on October 12, 2019, 06:57:52 AM
I'm troubled about many aspects of this immorality play as it's going down; one in particular is Guliani's slippage from an OK mayor and seriously anchoring figure after 911 to the tawdry, cheap little "fixer" he's now become in my eyes.

Or maybe the tawdry fixer was always there.

It was always there for someone who managed to become the NYC mayor as a result of being one of the cohort.  They all have something on each other because that's how life in that kind of circle works.

Quote from: mamselle on October 12, 2019, 06:57:52 AM
Of course, with Sanders' heart issues, and Biden's poll losses just by being drug through the mud in this unfolding psychodrama, he may also be faced by that most terrifying of prospects: a strong female like Warren on the ticket (if his presidency survives to the election) or replacement by another strong female like Pelosi if Pence goes down with the ship, too.

Trump beat a strong woman last time and Warren isn't nearly as good a candidate as Hillary was.  If Pelosi is simply put in as the replacement president, then Trump has much bigger personal problems than an election in which he isn't eligible to run.

I don't expect Trump to be terrified by anything. He only gains momentum the more he talks and faces an audience. But he ran as an outsider. Now he's an insider with baggage and a record to attack.

Quote from: mahagonny on October 12, 2019, 07:50:06 AM
But he ran as an outsider. Now he's an insider with baggage and a record to attack.

The whole impeachment activity serves to indicate how Trump remains an outsider.  If Trump were an insider, then he'd either be protected or quiet words with increasing penalties would be being applied.

You only have to pull a big public spectacle when someone isn't sufficiently inside to be swayed by group pressure in private.

I'd like to see Trump and Pence impeached or resign.
Then Pelosi will be president. She's not my favorite candidate,but
far superior to the 2 above and she is eminently qualified.

This occurred when Nixon was president.

OK, I do see those things.

Sigh.

Makes me also ponder (as I have a couple times lately, and I know things don't really work this way...) if real justice wouldn't be declaring the 2016 election results void and putting Hillary in place instead...

It also brought to kind one of the things mentioned when Watergate was going on. Nixon looked to be winning the election on his own (de)merits, and the break-in was totally gratuitous. Like a Oedipus, in satiating his overweening needs he brought his tragedy down on himself unnecessarily.

Here, too, the "loyal Trump fan base" is so strong the impeachment may move forward, or not; the removal is still very much in doubt.

With so much support, he apparently didn't need to go up against Biden so brutally or use unfounded claims to discredit him. But pushing as if he did may well land him in the soup (or, following Polly's observations, outside the soup pan as well as the frying pan, and into the fire.

It's all, really, very tawdry and unnecessary and sad.

M.

Quote from: polly_mer on October 12, 2019, 07:56:48 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on October 12, 2019, 07:50:06 AM
But he ran as an outsider. Now he's an insider with baggage and a record to attack.

The whole impeachment activity serves to indicate how Trump remains an outsider.  If Trump were an insider, then he'd either be protected or quiet words with increasing penalties would be being applied.

You only have to pull a big public spectacle when someone isn't sufficiently inside to be swayed by group pressure in private.

Can't wrap my brain around your second sentence. But to your first one: can you name a political who does the kinds of things Trump does who hasn't been impeached because he's an insider?

Quote from: polly_mer on October 12, 2019, 07:18:08 AM

Trump beat a strong woman last time and Warren isn't nearly as good a candidate as Hillary was.  If Pelosi is simply put in as the replacement president, then Trump has much bigger personal problems than an election in which he isn't eligible to run.

Warren is far more electable than Hillary. She is an amazing speaker, she speaks directly to the people's concerns (albeit a bit wonkily but so did Obama) and she doesn't have the baggage that Hillary did.

Quote from: mamselle on October 12, 2019, 06:57:52 AM
I'm troubled about many aspects of this immorality play as it's going down; one in particular is Guliani's slippage from an OK mayor and seriously anchoring figure after 911 to the tawdry, cheap little "fixer" he's now become in my eyes.

Or maybe the tawdry fixer was always there.

I also wonder what Trump's got on him that keeps him by the puir, wee man's side....

Trump: "Rudy who?"

Quote from: mamselle on October 12, 2019, 08:11:48 AM
if real justice wouldn't be declaring the 2016 election results void and putting Hillary in place instead...

How would that be justice?  We have a system that resulted in a clear winner according to the rules of the system.  Changing the system to a different one for future elections may be a solution to get a different answer next time, but fair play is living with the outcome of any election in which the rules were followed.  As Mr. Mer keeps pointing out, Hillary doesn't become president if Trump is impeached and then convicted.  That option is off the table in the current system. 

As someone who has never voted for a presidential candidate who won and who tends to live in low-population states, I prefer weighting results over a grand-winner-take-all system in which a significant fraction of the population will not matter at all.

,,,

Quote from: ciao_yall on October 12, 2019, 09:14:58 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on October 12, 2019, 07:18:08 AM

Trump beat a strong woman last time and Warren isn't nearly as good a candidate as Hillary was.  If Pelosi is simply put in as the replacement president, then Trump has much bigger personal problems than an election in which he isn't eligible to run.

Warren is far more electable than Hillary. She is an amazing speaker, she speaks directly to the people's concerns (albeit a bit wonkily but so did Obama) and she doesn't have the baggage that Hillary did.

That's not my take on Warren. 

Hillary was a seasoned politician on the international stage; Warren has been an academic for much of her adult life and only recently became a senator.

Hillary has a track record of being able to plan and implement those plans at the national level; Warren claims to "have a plan for that", but has done very little in her senatorial career to lend confidence to both having a good plan and having the ability to implement the plan.  I like the meme asking where those plans have been prior to starting to run for president.

I have yet to see any of my concerns addressed by Warren, but I'm seeing a lot of Bill Clinton-like "I feel your pain" assertions related to areas that are not the primary job of the president.  I disagreed with many of Hillary's stated views on what to do to address my concerns, but Hillary at least did speak to several of those concerns that are the president's responsibility.

Positive comparisons of Obama and Warren is a problem for Warren because of how poorly Obama performed as president in areas of national security and global defense.  Trump wouldn't be able to be pulling some of the shenanigans he currently is if Obama hadn't performed so poorly in some areas of international relations.

To the best of my knowledge, Warren doesn't have legal problems as baggage as Hillary did.  However, Warren has baggage and some of them are deal-breakers for those of us who can see other, better candidates still running.

From what I've seen, Warren is much more like my mother-in-law and all the church ladies ready to micromanage everyone into the dirt to ensure that her plans are followed to fix the minor problems rather than a true leader with a vision and a willingness to listen to experts to do the tasks that only the president can do.

Quote from: mahagonny on October 12, 2019, 08:45:26 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on October 12, 2019, 07:56:48 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on October 12, 2019, 07:50:06 AM
But he ran as an outsider. Now he's an insider with baggage and a record to attack.

The whole impeachment activity serves to indicate how Trump remains an outsider.  If Trump were an insider, then he'd either be protected or quiet words with increasing penalties would be being applied.

You only have to pull a big public spectacle when someone isn't sufficiently inside to be swayed by group pressure in private.

Can't wrap my brain around your second sentence. But to your first one: can you name a political who does the kinds of things Trump does who hasn't been impeached because he's an insider?

Insiders tend to be told that they will resign with the public reason as "spending more time with family" and make a solid statement of support for the group-chosen successor as the last public statement for quite a while as they drop out of sight.  Preserving the relationship with the group tends to lead to people taking the graceful option of a time-out for now.  People who have done very bad things on the national/international scale and were given the easy out generally don't make the newspapers so that we all know the full story.

In answer to your question, I will restate the second sentence as two paragraphs:

Insiders are protected with the pressure applied to the mouthy people to knock it off in public.  When the insider is desired by the Powers-that-Be, then the little guys who are talking smack in public are the ones who get the quiet word to knock it off or be fired/shunned/expelled from the group.

As an alternative, an insider gets a handler who flat out tells the insider what will be done for damage control if the insider isn't told to resign with a lot of smiles all around to sell the cover story.  A bazillion television shows and movies give examples of how this works.  My first-hand knowledge is not at the national level, but the narrative examples are pretty good about how the "we need to talk about what you're going to do" conversations go.

Threatening someone with being shunned or expelled from the power group only works if someone is insider enough to expect to receive significant value from toeing the line and has good reason to believe that they will actually be shunned/expelled in the very near future if they don't shape up.

Trump is not a political insider who is best served by knuckling under as a good solider member of the group.  Who will be shunning Trump in such a way that Trump will feel significant personal effects?  I don't know, but we could ask Bill Clinton who was impeached as president of the United States, remained in office for the remainder of his elected term, and is now still treated in the media and power circles as a player on the international stage. Impeachment as POTUS is not at all the same level of consequences as going to prison for the rest of one's natural life or the death penalty for international war crimes.

The current impeachment circus is much like threatening to write someone's name on the board for being very naughty; for some people, those consequences aren't enough of a deterrence to change behavior.  Why did so many high-ranking men for so long do so much sexual harassment?  Because the punishment generally wasn't applied.  Bill Clinton is another example of that abuse of power as well and, again, Bill's still treated as an elder statesman, not pariah to the point that people will refuse to take money from his foundation and won't sit next to him in public places.

That circles back to the Elizabeth Warren electability.  You only have to make laws against something if people will take a variety of actions, some of which are undesirable to other people.  The president can't change minds so that people don't want to take certain actions; all the president can do is hope that saying "don't do that or <consequences>" and following through with the consequences is sufficient to deter people from doing whatever.  If people are in disagreement as to what the proper actions are, then people will vote against someone who has chosen the "wrong" proper actions.  Elizabeth Warren isn't even at polling at something as a solid majority (e.g., 70%) of all the current Democrats, let alone the independents, third party supporters, and flexible Republicans. 

Trump is not a political outsider.  He's the president of the United States with the entire executive branch of our government at his back.  Whether he's listening to the career staff who have decades of experience in law, policy and procedure and whose jobs it is to advise him, well, that's a different argument.  Arrogance, ignorance, incompetence and sheer stupidity on Trump's part does not mean the system of government is against him.  It means his personal goals are in conflict with the job he was elected to do.  No deep state here just unwillingness to do his job. 

As to whether we should get rid of the electoral college, that's really a matter of thinking about how we want to be represented.  Does the current local (house of representatives), state (senate) and national (president and vice president) system provide enough representation for us or do we still need the slave holding protection of the electoral system? It's rather disturbing to watch less than 3000 voters in a contested Florida recount and 60,000 voters the 3 congressional districts use the electoral system to negate over three million votes from across the nation.  Weighted or not, the current system doesn't appear to be representing the votes cast. 

Quote from: polly_mer on October 12, 2019, 09:28:17 AM

Quote from: mamselle on October 12, 2019, 08:11:48 AM
if real justice wouldn't be declaring the 2016 election results void and putting Hillary in place instead...

How would that be justice?  We have a system that resulted in a clear winner according to the rules of the system.  Changing the system to a different one for future elections may be a solution to get a different answer next time, but fair play is living with the outcome of any election in which the rules were followed.  As Mr. Mer keeps pointing out, Hillary doesn't become president if Trump is impeached and then convicted.  That option is off the table in the current system. 

As someone who has never voted for a presidential candidate who won and who tends to live in low-population states, I prefer weighting results over a grand-winner-take-all system in which a significant fraction of the population will not matter at all.

,,,

Quote from: ciao_yall on October 12, 2019, 09:14:58 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on October 12, 2019, 07:18:08 AM

Trump beat a strong woman last time and Warren isn't nearly as good a candidate as Hillary was.  If Pelosi is simply put in as the replacement president, then Trump has much bigger personal problems than an election in which he isn't eligible to run.

Warren is far more electable than Hillary. She is an amazing speaker, she speaks directly to the people's concerns (albeit a bit wonkily but so did Obama) and she doesn't have the baggage that Hillary did.

That's not my take on Warren. 

Hillary was a seasoned politician on the international stage; Warren has been an academic for much of her adult life and only recently became a senator.

Hillary has a track record of being able to plan and implement those plans at the national level; Warren claims to "have a plan for that", but has done very little in her senatorial career to lend confidence to both having a good plan and having the ability to implement the plan.  I like the meme asking where those plans have been prior to starting to run for president.

I have yet to see any of my concerns addressed by Warren, but I'm seeing a lot of Bill Clinton-like "I feel your pain" assertions related to areas that are not the primary job of the president.  I disagreed with many of Hillary's stated views on what to do to address my concerns, but Hillary at least did speak to several of those concerns that are the president's responsibility.

Positive comparisons of Obama and Warren is a problem for Warren because of how poorly Obama performed as president in areas of national security and global defense.  Trump wouldn't be able to be pulling some of the shenanigans he currently is if Obama hadn't performed so poorly in some areas of international relations.

To the best of my knowledge, Warren doesn't have legal problems as baggage as Hillary did.  However, Warren has baggage and some of them are deal-breakers for those of us who can see other, better candidates still running.

From what I've seen, Warren is much more like my mother-in-law and all the church ladies ready to micromanage everyone into the dirt to ensure that her plans are followed to fix the minor problems rather than a true leader with a vision and a willingness to listen to experts to do the tasks that only the president can do.

Where the rules were followed sure, but where does foreign interference factor in?

Quote from: Kron3007 on October 12, 2019, 12:54:27 PM
Where the rules were followed sure, but where does foreign interference factor in?

I don't understand the question. 

Rules exist in an effort to have people take the desired action when multiple possible actions can be taken and strong personal incentive exists for taking actions that the rule-making group wants to discourage. 

People who have enough power ignore all the rules until someone with even more power enforces significant consequences.

If the question is to keep revisiting the outcome because it must have been wrong in some way, well, it's been three years and time to accept that right, wrong, or otherwise, applying lessons learned to the next election is far more important than continuing to waste energy and resources on a past one-time event.  I have heard no accusations of stuffing ballot boxes or something else where the people's voices were truly ignored.  The allegations I've seen is people may be swayed by the wrong voices; that's illegal but not the same kind of wrong in my mind.

Back to the current impeachment, having a media circus pointing fingers indicates a lack of power or a lack of will to use the power.  The impeachment process is clear (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/impeachment-process-works/story?id=51202880).  No part of that process calls for name-calling in the press or endless spectulation.  The first step is a formal investigation of possible wrongdoing.  Let's do it and then call for the vote on evidence.

All I keep thinking with the circus is what much worse things are going on outside of public view so that it's in the president's best interest to play along with the circus aspect instead of waging a counter media distraction on something else.  It looks a lot like the impeachment circus is the distraction from something else.

Quote from: polly_mer on October 12, 2019, 01:37:14 PM
All I keep thinking with the circus is what much worse things are going on outside of public view so that it's in the president's best interest to play along with the circus aspect instead of waging a counter media distraction on something else.  It looks a lot like the impeachment circus is the distraction from something else.

Which circus?  The president's daily twitter storm, helicopter pre-ride ramblings, incoherent rallies or free association remarks while hosting foreign leaders.  Or maybe it's the commentary from the press on his behavior?  Could be his supporters trying to talk around an answer, too.  I have no doubt we don't know every detail, but the circus is mostly part and parcel of an executive branch coverup.  What they are covering up is the real question. 

Here's a legal explanation of presidential impeachment in the constitution.

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

The rules for the impeachment process are the house of representative rules and even those are up for discussion.  As I understand this process, the house does an inquiry akin to a grand jury investigation which is not at all like the process for a trial.  We are still in the discovery stage.  Let the process continue.  As you say, we don't know what we don't know, yet. 

Quote from: Antiphon1 on October 12, 2019, 06:36:35 PM

Quote from: polly_mer on October 12, 2019, 01:37:14 PM
All I keep thinking with the circus is what much worse things are going on outside of public view so that it's in the president's best interest to play along with the circus aspect instead of waging a counter media distraction on something else.  It looks a lot like the impeachment circus is the distraction from something else.

Which circus?  The president's daily twitter storm, helicopter pre-ride ramblings, incoherent rallies or free association remarks while hosting foreign leaders.  Or maybe it's the commentary from the press on his behavior?  Could be his supporters trying to talk around an answer, too. 

That is exactly the circus I mean.  Why is the president screwing around with the media instead of doing any of the other more standard PR techniques to show what a great job he's doing elsewhere?

There's a benefit to the president playing with the media who are thrilled to have something to fill air time.  What's that benefit in probably an unrelated area where the media aren't even looking?

Why don't we have media digging more into whatever that thing is instead of taking the easy path to engaging with the Twitterstorm that has nothing to do with any evidence or other meat to an investigation?

RealClearPolitics indicates that Trump has a 45% approval rating and only 51% of the US population wants impeachment (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/).  That's not a "storm the castle and depose the king" level of population outrage; that's a "yep, whaddya gonna do because you can't please everyone" situation.

Let's revisit this:

Quote from: ciao_yall on October 12, 2019, 09:14:58 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on October 12, 2019, 07:18:08 AM

Trump beat a strong woman last time and Warren isn't nearly as good a candidate as Hillary was.  If Pelosi is simply put in as the replacement president, then Trump has much bigger personal problems than an election in which he isn't eligible to run.

Warren is far more electable than Hillary. She is an amazing speaker, she speaks directly to the people's concerns (albeit a bit wonkily but so did Obama) and she doesn't have the baggage that Hillary did.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/, 9 October indicates that all five of the Democratic front runners are tied with Trump in a putative head-to-head match-up within the margin of error of the polls.  That's not indicating Warren being really electable; that's indicating that Buttigieg and Harris, who are polling among the Democrats at 5%, would have an excellent shot in the main election, but Trump, even with the impeachment cloud over him, is far from out of the race.

Even the Fox News polls indicating each of three Democratic candidates winning in a head-to-head competition with Trump aren't blow outs; they are a slight edge to the Democrat over the margin of uncertainty.

Quote from: Myword on October 12, 2019, 08:10:02 AM
I'd like to see Trump and Pence impeached or resign.
Then Pelosi will be president. She's not my favorite candidate,but
far superior to the 2 above and she is eminently qualified.

This occurred when Nixon was president.

No, it didn't.  Agnew resigned and Gerald Ford's appointment to VEEP was voted on an approved by both the House and Senate.

RealClearPolitics indicates that Trump has a 45% approval rating and only 51% of the US population wants impeachment.

polly_mer:  Be a bit cautious with the RCP polling aggregrations.  They fluctuate, quickly.  What might have been 45% on the day you  checked is 43.5% 10/3 -10/10.  A small difference to be sure, but my point is that RCP polls are aggregates and are only as sound as the underlying polls.

Quote from: nebo113 on October 13, 2019, 06:24:55 AM
RealClearPolitics indicates that Trump has a 45% approval rating and only 51% of the US population wants impeachment.

polly_mer:  Be a bit cautious with the RCP polling aggregrations.  They fluctuate, quickly.  What might have been 45% on the day you  checked is 43.5% 10/3 -10/10.  A small difference to be sure, but my point is that RCP polls are aggregates and are only as sound as the underlying polls.

The point I'm making still stands: the approval rating isn't something like 5% and never has been at any sustained point per https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo; the approval rating has been and continues to be a big enough number that certain media assertions that Trump is really going down this time seem bizarrely out of touch with reality.  Anything 25% or bigger indicates pretty good support.  Any impeachment number below a sustained 75% indicates pretty good support.

In contrast, Congress' approval rating tends to hover around 20% for the past 10 years per https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx.

Ecuador's president had to move the capital due to the riots: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/world/americas/ecuador-protests-president.html
Hong Kong continues to have rioting in the streets against their government: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests/hong-kong-protesters-stage-shopping-mall-rallies-taunting-riot-police-idUSKBN1WS026

and we in the US have daily entertainment in the national media as people play gotcha/not it while clearly enjoying every minute of outrage if politics is their thing.  After all, we're not really being affected in daily life;  grocery stores are still stocked, lights still turn on, and those of us who need it have heat.  The people who don't have those things temporarily are much more outraged with PG&E or frustrated with natural disasters than following every fabulous turn in the circus of chewing over whether Trump committed a violation of the official rules.

The New York Times and Washington Post cover every little detail.  Meanwhile, out away from NYC/DC where the American people have bills to pay and worry about daily life, the impeachment anything tends not to even make the front page. The Chicago papers, LA Times, and Houston Chronicle give a very different view of what's important in the past few weeks and they aren't wrong on what their readers need. 

Watching local television (and I've been on travel recently so not just "my" local television) indicates almost no time devoted to the impeachment circus, because they have plenty of local things to talk about.

The people chewing endlessly on the national media circus are not representative of the little guys who are trying to become educated in the issues in order to vote intelligently in the next election.  "Picking on Trump" is a losing strategy when it's clearly just picking instead of going forward with a useful investigation and focusing on the hearings, not the recitation of all evils (real, imagined, or already investigated and deemed not sufficient for formal charges).  I remember the Clinton years, as do many people my age and older.  The daily circus is not the same as reporting on actual government activities that affect normal people's lives.

Even academics aren't all on the same bus per https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-americans-support-impeaching-president-trump/?ex_cid=rrpromo with about 50% supporting impeachment and about 44% not supporting.

Quote from: nebo113 on October 13, 2019, 06:24:55 AM
RealClearPolitics indicates that Trump has a 45% approval rating and only 51% of the US population wants impeachment.

polly_mer:  Be a bit cautious with the RCP polling aggregrations.  They fluctuate, quickly.  What might have been 45% on the day you  checked is 43.5% 10/3 -10/10.  A small difference to be sure, but my point is that RCP polls are aggregates and are only as sound as the underlying polls.

RCP doesn't use good statistical methodology-- they don't take into account pollster house effects (lean) or quality, which is why it bounces around so much. For better tracking see 538:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-americans-support-impeaching-president-trump/?ex_cid=rrpromo

They have long explainers about their methods and post their data, so you can go as deep as you want.

If you just want the analysis:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-latest-polling-on-impeachment-and-where-it-could-go-from-here/

Bottom line, Trump's approval has been moving in the very narrow 40-43% range it has for basically his entire presidency, while support for impeachment has increased by about 9-10 percentage points since the Ukraine scandal broke, increasing ~12 points for Ds, 10 points for Is, and 3 points for Rs. So the shift seems to not be from those who approved of Trump now disapproving of him (probably nothing will shift that ~42% base), but among those who disapproved of Trump but didn't favor impeachment now favoring impeachment. You have to figure that however in denial Trump and the inner circle of true believers are, others in the republican party establishment are very worried about that 10 point shift among independent in particular.

Quote from: Puget on October 13, 2019, 07:11:30 AM
You have to figure that however in denial Trump and the inner circle of true believers are, others in the republican party establishment are very worried about that 10 point shift among independent in particular.

And yet support for impeachment actually means nothing in the big picture.  I can both support having an investigation into the facts and end up voting for Trump.  Warren, Biden, and Sanders are most definitely in the category that I'd rather have Trump again than have one of them, especially if we don't have a good third party candidate.  However, I'm not so strongly against those three that I'd emigrate or protest in the streets.  I'd sigh heavily and do my best to influence the Congress members who can stop their stupid plans that undermine national security and global defense.

It's entirely possible that even impeachment (the official charging with wrongdoing) results in a non-guilty verdict, as it has in the two previous presidential impeachment proceedings.  Upthread someone asked about who got away with it.  The examples that spring to my mind are the public officials who didn't get away with it, were convicted, served their time, and came back like Marion Berry.

Quote from: polly_mer on October 13, 2019, 07:21:33 AM

Quote from: Puget on October 13, 2019, 07:11:30 AM
You have to figure that however in denial Trump and the inner circle of true believers are, others in the republican party establishment are very worried about that 10 point shift among independent in particular.

And yet support for impeachment actually means nothing in the big picture.  I can both support having an investigation into the facts and end up voting for Trump.  Warren, Biden, and Sanders are most definitely in the category that I'd rather have Trump again than have one of them, especially if we don't have a good third party candidate.  However, I'm not so strongly against those three that I'd emigrate or protest in the streets.  I'd sigh heavily and do my best to influence the Congress members who can stop their stupid plans that undermine national security and global defense.

It's entirely possible that even impeachment (the official charging with wrongdoing) results in a non-guilty verdict, as it has in the two previous presidential impeachment proceedings.  Upthread someone asked about who got away with it.  The examples that spring to my mind are the public officials who didn't get away with it, were convicted, served their time, and came back like Marion Berry.

Regarding things that are going on but somewhat off the radar: a certain number of voters hear the right (what's considered a scare tactic) crying 'socialism' and it's dog whistling for people who hate unions. Businessmen, college administrators pretending to be liberal, et al. 'Return to socialism' could easily be code for 'those annoying unions and talk of workers' rights.' Trump has the right approach to appeal to these folks. Profess empathy for the worker but quietly fill the National Labor Relations Boards with saboteurs.

Quote from: mahagonny on October 13, 2019, 12:08:35 PM
Regarding things that are going on but somewhat off the radar: a certain number of voters hear the right (what's considered a scare tactic) crying 'socialism' and it's dog whistling for people who hate unions. Businessmen, college administrators pretending to be liberal, et al. 'Return to socialism' could easily be code for 'those annoying unions and talk of workers' rights.' Trump has the right approach to appeal to these folks. Profess empathy for the worker but quietly fill the National Labor Relations Boards with saboteurs.

That is indeed one technique.  For the record, I will state again that I am registered Libertarian and consider terms like "liberal" and "progressive" to be much more neutral labels than automatically-positive-someone-on-the-proper-side labels.

I return again to the Elizabeth Warren question.  Today, I skimmed through about two weeks' worth of tweets for Pete, Bernie, and Elizabeth.

Pete had a variety of tweets of all kinds on various issues including a Yom Kippur message, a few personal anecdotes related to National Coming Out Day, and mention of most of the big US events including US abroad events.

Bernie had a fair number of union-activity tweets, but had other issues in as well including strong commentary related to the California situation and a couple international events.  Healthcare is clearly a big concern that's associated with looking out for the little guy and unionization isn't everything.

Elizabeth had many LGBT+ "I feel your pain" tweets along with some Trump-is-a-bad-guy assertions with a little bit about Elizabeth's current FaceBook ad experiments.

I am not in the mood to go look at any of Trump's tweets.  Previous exposure indicates a lot of emphasis on Trump himself and gentle lobs to keep the media circus going.

The Good Fight's Animated Guide To Impeachment (https://youtu.be/joX-oJCudh0)

Reminds me a bit of Schoolhouse Rock.

Quote from: polly_mer on October 13, 2019, 12:58:57 PM
For the record, I will state again that I am registered Libertarian....

...and against government regulation of higher education?

Quote from: polly_mer on October 13, 2019, 12:58:57 PM

Elizabeth had many LGBT+ "I feel your pain" tweets along with some Trump-is-a-bad-guy assertions with a little bit about Elizabeth's current FaceBook ad experiments.

I haven't seen Warren's LGBT+ messages, but my gut tells me that any candidate who thinks this is a way to win the election will not succeed.

First, Warren is now just trying to win the primary.

Plus, there's actually a chance that she believes what she says.

Quote from: mahagonny on October 13, 2019, 08:23:31 PM

Quote from: polly_mer on October 13, 2019, 12:58:57 PM
For the record, I will state again that I am registered Libertarian....

...and against government regulation of higher education?

No.  Schools, roads, hospitals, food safety, medicine effectiveness, and national defense are areas where the government should collect taxes and then spend them to make a better society for everyone.

I've lived in some poor, rural areas.  Making K-12 school attendance mandatory and then ripping people off on quality makes my blood boil.  Likewise, selling people on the idea that a college education will make their lives better and then ripping people off on all fronts (e.g., failing at liberal arts education for its own sake, failing at career preparation, failing at job training, or failing at obtaining a checkbox credential through having a below 80% six-year graduation rate for a four-year degree) angers me, especially when we could be spending that same money to provide education to those who want it.

Micromanaging is a bad idea.  Enforcing a minimum quality in services provided is a legitimate use of the people's resources.

Quote from: Ruralguy on October 13, 2019, 09:02:35 PM
First, Warren is now just trying to win the primary.

Plus, there's actually a chance that she believes what she says.

I believe Warren's sincerity.  However, I want someone running in the November election for whom I can vote with reasonable confidence that person will do a good job.  That person is not Elizabeth Warren.

I'm tired of watching people pander to a concern that's way, way down the important list of priorities for the nation to win primaries instead of someone who will be a much better president by addressing a wider array of the true concerns that are the president's job and can be addressed by good plans at the Cabinet level.

Quote from: polly_mer on October 14, 2019, 04:28:58 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on October 13, 2019, 08:23:31 PM

Quote from: polly_mer on October 13, 2019, 12:58:57 PM
For the record, I will state again that I am registered Libertarian....

...and against government regulation of higher education?

No.  Schools, roads, hospitals, food safety, medicine effectiveness, and national defense are areas where the government should collect taxes and then spend them to make a better society for everyone.

I've lived in some poor, rural areas.  Making K-12 school attendance mandatory and then ripping people off on quality makes my blood boil.  Likewise, selling people on the idea that a college education will make their lives better and then ripping people off on all fronts (e.g., failing at liberal arts education for its own sake, failing at career preparation, failing at job training, or failing at obtaining a checkbox credential through having a below 80% six-year graduation rate for a four-year degree) angers me, especially when we could be spending that same money to provide education to those who want it.

Micromanaging is a bad idea.  Enforcing a minimum quality in services provided is a legitimate use of the people's resources.

Except people are borrowing tens of thousands to pay tuition and fees for swollen college administrations, made possible/necessary by government regulation, people who spend their week mailing out forms to the government, as well as maintaining an expensive tenure system that continues despite not being the wishes of the public. Doesn't sound really libertarian.

"An expensive tenure system"?  Meaning that we really should make all professors adjuncts or "career faculty" with short-term contracts, paid much less?  I'm not sure that reducing the average tenured pay of some $70,000 at my place to the ~$35,000-$40,000 we pay "career faculty" is going to do much to raise the standards you want raised. 

The teachers at my own high school, who were paid low salaries that saved the taxpayer all that money, shows what happens when you need highly trained and student-helping faculty and do not offer them an attractive salary.  Many of them were only semi-literate.  One of them actually bought his drugs in the classroom (one of the students was selling).  I think maybe we should champion the kind of pay and conditions that attract actual high-fliers into the profession.

Not me. I don't want any standards raised. I'm another tax and spend liberal, like everyone here.

Quote from: mahagonny on October 14, 2019, 05:39:53 AM
Except people are borrowing tens of thousands to pay tuition and fees

Libertarians tend to believe that competent adults are allowed to make bad choices as long as they have enough information to make those choices.  That's the whole idea behind legalizing many drugs and then imposing quality control so that people are really getting heroin, cocaine, etc. instead of random stuff added to bulk up the profit margin by unscrupulous people not subject to any regulation.

Quotefor swollen college administrations, made possible/necessary by government regulation, people who spend their week mailing out forms to the government,

Institutions that decide to not take federal financial aid don't have to participate in the monthly reporting to the National Student Clearinghouse nor do they have to do the less-than-monthly reporting to IPEDS.  People who enroll in those institutions (generally unaccredited institutions with no external quality control) are not eligible for the government-backed loans. 

The clerks ensuring electronic data are being transferred (few paper forms are involved) generally aren't being paid the big bucks to do their job and, except at huge institutions, generally have additional useful duties related to keeping the internal processes going like being the financial aid clerks or the registrar front service desk.

Competent adults can make choices on how to spend their own money.  However, the evidence is that people are voting with their feet against the for-profit sector, especially when regulation to enforce minimum standards was applied: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2019/03/26/for-profit-college-closing-argosy-university/3271813002/

When the people's money is being spent, then asking on what it is being spent and ensuring the people are getting good value for that money is a reasonable government function.  Yes, that includes some overhead in providing the oversight.  However, except at the smallest of schools where compliance no longer scales with enrollment, complying with the funding reporting is not a primary driver of administration costs.

Eliminating the Title IX super expansion since 2011 would indeed be consistent with libertarian principles in not wasting money on non-government business.

Quote
as well as maintaining an expensive tenure system that continues despite not being the wishes of the public.

I doubt very much whether the public cares at all about the tenure system at the college level.  My impression from all the reading I do is that the public is quite angry that they pay a lot in taxes and don't get the public services (schools, roads, hospitals) for which the taxes were supposed to pay.  Fooling around with breadth requirements to make college take longer instead of having solid K-12 education so that people can then specialize in tertiary education for a shorter degree tends to be more popular in the discussions where I read.


What would be unlibertarian includes:

* mandating the types of faculty who must be employed at an institution including what types of contracts are allowed to be entered by competent adults
* mandating what classes must be offered and what the qualifications faculty must have to teach the classes
* mandating how an institution must structure itself in terms of how many employees of what type are allowed

Quote from: polly_mer on October 15, 2019, 04:47:55 AM

...needs a new thread

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/15/what_pelosi_really_wants_from_impeachment_141494.html

This makes sense to me. Of course the author doesn't want Trump to lose in 2020. It's not hard to see his hopes, reading through the lines.

Then again, if someone commits impeachable offenses, it is your job as a member of Congress to act on it, whether or not you think the impeachment vote will be for.

Apropos of none of the above, inviting the grieving parents of a kid killed in a hit-and-run accident (by a diplomat's spouse in the UK who fled the scene--and the country) to the WH with the idea of bringing out the offender from a side room--with photographers alerted to the scene as a photo-OP, may not be an impeachable offense.

But it's terribly offensive. The confusion between real-life grief and reality-show drama is pathological.

M.

This just in from the proverbial stopped clock:

McConnell noted that under Senate rules during an impeachment trial, the chamber would have to convene on most days and that "senators will not be allowed to speak, which will be good therapy for a number of them."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/466142-mcconnell-senate-will-hold-impeachment-trial?fbclid=IwAR2frvsN-xAmjkj3B0nfsA0J2O14j2l803W8UbIhQZwz2gaTq13ZMqYgdjM

Word, McConnell. Word.

"Don't be a fool! I will call you later." (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/16/us/politics/trump-letter-turkey.html)

Evidence for invoking Article 25 rather than impeachment, but in any case I'm sure Putin, Erdogan, Kim, Xi, etc. are all laughing at what a moron the President of the USA is.

And calling the Speaker a third grade politician?

But it was her fault for walking out?

The world may yet turn upside down.

M.

Quote from: mamselle on October 16, 2019, 06:02:14 PM
And calling the Speaker a third grade politician?

But it was her fault for walking out?

The world may yet turn upside down.

M.

He couldn't even get the "third-rate" insult right.

Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on October 16, 2019, 07:11:26 PM

Quote from: mamselle on October 16, 2019, 06:02:14 PM
And calling the Speaker a third grade politician?

But it was her fault for walking out?

The world may yet turn upside down.

M.

He couldn't even get the "third-rate" insult right.

"Even as he discussed the conflict, Mr. Trump effectively confirmed the presence of 50 nuclear weapons at the Incirlik air base in Turkey, violating the longstanding tradition of not publicly acknowledging where such arms are." (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/world/middleeast/trump-erdogan-turkey-syria-kurds.html)

Why does Sondlund seem to be breaking with 45*?

Quote from: nebo113 on October 17, 2019, 08:11:15 AM
Why does Sondlund seem to be breaking with 45*?

From what I've heard he was never a Trump true-believer. He just wanted to be an ambassador and feel important and used his money and Trump to get that. He got in way, way over his head, and now that the fun's over he's not going to risk his own future for Trump.

Quote from: Puget on October 17, 2019, 09:44:25 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on October 17, 2019, 08:11:15 AM
Why does Sondlund seem to be breaking with 45*?

From what I've heard he was never a Trump true-believer. He just wanted to be an ambassador and feel important and used his money and Trump to get that. He got in way, way over his head, and now that the fun's over he's not going to risk his own future for Trump.

I find the difference between the Nixon and Trump administrations to be remarkable in this regard. From the plumbers unit to CREEP staff to the AG and senior White House staff, Nixon had true believers working for him. Either they were personally loyal or they believed in the conservative Republican anti-communist cause that he nominally represented. Trump, in contrast, was from day one a magnet for fellow incompetent grifters, con artists, and posers who could feed his narcissism. Today alone we've had an admission to what's going to be in the impeachment charges from the White House chief of staff and the resignation of a Cabinet member (Perry, Secretary of Energy). The entire top layer of the executive branch is coming apart.

Edited to add: you can add emoluments to the impeachment charges, given the G7 announcement.

Quote from: spork on October 17, 2019, 04:07:48 PM
Trump, in contrast, was from day one a magnet for fellow incompetent grifters, con artists, and posers who could feed his narcissism.

Which is ironic because he obviously craves loyalty. But of course when you treat all relationships as transactional, the only relationships you're going to have are transactional (even with your own family). And when the transaction is no longer a good deal for the other party they will jump ship. A lot of people are asking themselves if they really want to go to jail for obstruction and perjury and deciding they in fact do not.

OK - honest question & I'm not sure where else to post it.  I did not grow up in the US and even after 20+ years here, there are many things I do not understand.

What the heck is up with this "executive privilege"?  From what I have seen, Presidents from both parties use it quite liberally.  Since Obama got no love in the house nor the senate, much of his legislative agenda appears to have required executive orders - meaning Trump could just undo them.  Trump on the other hand is clearly using executive privilege to hide behind.

But why have it?  It appears to give a president nearly limitless power.  If congress wants to overturn it, they need to start a decade worth of lawsuits to  do so.  I'm actually surprised that it has taken 45 presidents before we got one who is clearly prepared to abuse the hell out of the process and not much can stop him.

Somebody explain please???

Quote from: secundem_artem on October 17, 2019, 07:46:41 PM
OK - honest question & I'm not sure where else to post it.  I did not grow up in the US and even after 20+ years here, there are many things I do not understand.

What the heck is up with this "executive privilege"?  From what I have seen, Presidents from both parties use it quite liberally.  Since Obama got no love in the house nor the senate, much of his legislative agenda appears to have required executive orders - meaning Trump could just undo them.  Trump on the other hand is clearly using executive privilege to hide behind.

But why have it?  It appears to give a president nearly limitless power.  If congress wants to overturn it, they need to start a decade worth of lawsuits to  do so.  I'm actually surprised that it has taken 45 presidents before we got one who is clearly prepared to abuse the hell out of the process and not much can stop him.

Somebody explain please???

I started writing a response, and as I wrote, I realized I didn't really understand it, either.

How Democracies Die (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071L5C5HG/) basically explains that the erosion of democratic norms, whatever the actual law or constitution says, is what kills them. There are lots of things that presidents, justices, and members of Congress CAN do, but they don't because they shouldn't. Once that line gets blurred, the end is near.

You can trace this back to the bureaucratic expansion of the executive branch to cope with the demands of operating a "modern" state. For a short summary, go to the Wikipedia description of The Imperial Presidency by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

Congress has definitely ceded power to the President over the last several decades. The initiation of the Endless Terror War by W., with congressional complicity, helped accelerate the process.

For the record, I am no fan of executive orders and executive privileges, but when Congress becomes divided against itself because of political party radicalization, an executive order is sometimes the only way to implement a policy that the President desires. And then Congress is too fractured to put an end to it. We end up with policies like the Muslim ban, locking children in cages, etc.

Quote from: spork on October 18, 2019, 03:15:37 AM
For the record, I am no fan of executive orders and executive privileges, but when Congress becomes divided against itself because of political party radicalization, an executive order is sometimes the only way

get the damn work done.

For a good portion of my adult life, it's been clear that Washington is enjoying playing games to get a win for that team this week instead of focusing on the hard part of negotiating to come to agreements that help the American people in some way by doing the things that must be done at the federal level (e.g., diplomacy with other countries, not wearing the brightly colored boa to show solidarity).

For example, why does everything come to a crashing halt if we don't pass all the pieces of the federal budget instead of having a standard rollover clause and only need to tinker with the edges based on new information?  Other first-world countries run that way.

Speaking of negotiating...

I woke up thinking, "Fisher's dictum" that suggests "negotiating will proceed once you know the thing that the other party really wants" (very rough summary of "Getting to Yes,," I know) may be operant here.

An opener like,

"If, in fact, being President has cost you billions of dollars, sir, perhaps you'd like to divest yourself of that unprofitable burden on your income?"

"Well, yes, sir, Mr. Pence could probably step in for you and take over. He seems willing to do that...very good of him, really, sir, to want to help you out."

"And then, yes, sir, you could step away from all this and get back to you balance sheets...at least for a little while, until that case in New York comes up...."

Fantasy in a way (what was that free software that let you animate stuff?)

But in another way, I'm still seeing someone who doesn't deal well with ego pressures and whose superego is going to become an immured prison that may well crack like the dropped shell of a spacesuit.

When I spoke of violence as a threat in this situation, above, I wasn't actually at first thinking of the potential for violence by dismayed followers.

I was more thinking that, as I said then, one needs to keep sharps and guns out of reach....because of the damage a seriously deep narcissistic wound can cause the narcissist to do to themselves.

Bringing the pressures of reality to bear on one living in their own unreal view of the world can make the more severely inflicted egoist decide to leave the source of their pain altogether.

The ranting cabinet monologue makes me think someone's becoming more deeply unhinged...I hope they have a psychiatrist on speed-dial.

M.

Quote from: mamselle on October 22, 2019, 02:52:13 AM
The ranting cabinet monologue makes me think someone's becoming more deeply unhinged...I hope they have a psychiatrist on speed-dial.

The charges of mental illness don't hold up.    The snippets in the media of rallies and such show more the disconnected, rambling grandpa who probably shouldn't live alone, but I'm not seeing deeply unhinged.

I do see very sheltered behavior common among those who have had money and/or power for long enough that they aren't used to being told that something can't/won't happen and have those assertions stick.

I see the typical "push the red button and get a rant related to someone's personal annoyance" that's not rare in any subpopulation of the US.

I foresee tantrums that are unpleasant. 

I foresee a continued "Do it my way or be fired, regardless of legal, physical, or moral reality that prevents doing it my way".

I foresee display of US military might in ways that probably aren't what diplomats or career ranking military officers would choose as part of a coherent plan to achieve some US diplomatic or humanitarian goals.

I don't see personal violence against self or nearby others.  If that were a thing, then we'd have voluminous reports of thrown objects etc. as a history.

People don't like Trump and Trump isn't a smooth orator, but he's not mentally ill or likely to be violent based on current evidence.

Quote from: polly_mer on October 22, 2019, 04:10:14 AM
People don't like Trump and Trump isn't a smooth orator, but he's not mentally ill or likely to be violent based on current evidence.

Malignant narcissism is mental illness.   

I suspect Trump has a voyeuristic attraction to violence. He talks about it and encourages it. He's probably too afraid of getting hurt to get into it himself.

Quote from: polly_mer on October 22, 2019, 04:10:14 AM

Quote from: mamselle on October 22, 2019, 02:52:13 AM
The ranting cabinet monologue makes me think someone's becoming more deeply unhinged...I hope they have a psychiatrist on speed-dial.

The charges of mental illness don't hold up.    The snippets in the media of rallies and such show more the disconnected, rambling grandpa who probably shouldn't live alone, but I'm not seeing deeply unhinged.

I do see very sheltered behavior common among those who have had money and/or power for long enough that they aren't used to being told that something can't/won't happen and have those assertions stick.

I see the typical "push the red button and get a rant related to someone's personal annoyance" that's not rare in any subpopulation of the US.

I foresee tantrums that are unpleasant. 

I foresee a continued "Do it my way or be fired, regardless of legal, physical, or moral reality that prevents doing it my way".

I foresee display of US military might in ways that probably aren't what diplomats or career ranking military officers would choose as part of a coherent plan to achieve some US diplomatic or humanitarian goals.

I don't see personal violence against self or nearby others.  If that were a thing, then we'd have voluminous reports of thrown objects etc. as a history.

People don't like Trump and Trump isn't a smooth orator, but he's not mentally ill or likely to be violent based on current evidence.

Thank you Dr Freud for your drive-by diagnosis.

I was basing my analysis on three things.

1. I've done work in effort-shape as a predictive modality for diagnostic differentials. A perceived "body split" in how bodily integration occurs or doesn't occur in motion and stasis is one of the components in this analysis. I spotted a young woman with severe, early abuse as a child based on this. I also correctly perceived a serious split in the words, gestures, and posture of a well-known church official. Being unwilling to bring it to anyone's attention, which I regret, I said nothing. Two months later, he shot himself.

I'm seeing something similar here. The split in this case seems to me to be horizontal: the front part of the body and the dorsal part are moving in disjunction, putting a drag on forward movement.

2. I lived with an abusive spouse for two years before divorcing him. He, too, was mostly a bully who attacked outwardly, not inwardly. But certain dimensions of rage and waywardness in gesture, again, became predictive. One began to be able to see when an abusive event was likely and start planning to get out of the house before it did.

The object/subject of the abuse may vary, but in the case under discussion here, the perpetrator tends to do things that redound badly to them as well as others. There is almost an ingrained ambivalence to their use of the capacity for harm.

By cutting off those you disagree with, you erode the stem of the island of support you're marooned on, too. At some point it might break away and float off...validating the megalomania, but not having many friends left to find food and help fend off dangerous animals...

3. I worked in hospitals and women's shelters, at one point, and one of the tasks was working an occasional overnight as backup to the psych nurse staying up all night with a suicidal patient. One had to keep checking for hidden knives, glass bottles, scissors, etc.; a nurse once said to me, "I've just emptied the whole silverware drawer into a trash bag and locked it in my car ... can you remind me to put it back and sort it out in the morning?"

So, I've been around people in those situations, personally, and you do get a seismic sense for when something's about to blow. The carapace that is social structure becomes too cognitively disjunctive with core ego beliefs in invulnerability, absolute rightness, and a kind of secondary divinity that to their mind deserves worship, not censure.

I'm saying this pastorally.

When someone is seething, and about to blow, it's important for everyone's sake to have precautions in place.

M.

Quote from: polly_mer on October 22, 2019, 04:10:14 AM
I don't see personal violence against self or nearby others.  If that were a thing, then we'd have voluminous reports of thrown objects etc. as a history.

I doubt this was made up: https://www.facebook.com/scottmelker/posts/10154800337414739 and it seems right in character.

Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on October 23, 2019, 09:30:49 AM

I doubt this was made up: https://www.facebook.com/scottmelker/posts/10154800337414739 and it seems right in character.

Alternately, there's his first wife's account of being raped by him after his hair plugs didn't work out. Or any of the other women who've accused him of sexual assault or rape.

Twenty-four Republicans forced entry into the hearing chambers, causing the intended deposee, Laura Cooper, to have to leave.

M.

Quote from: mamselle on October 23, 2019, 12:15:45 PM
Twenty-four Republicans forced entry into the hearing chambers, causing the intended deposee, Laura Cooper, to have to leave.

M.

Pondering this later, it seems to me that this is not only harassment of a witness, but further obstruction of justice.

I'm also wondering what happened that the security guard let them in. Were they physically overpowered? Have some official-looking paper that suggested they should? Find their palms to have been greased beforehand?

Weird and worrisome.

I've also begun re-reading Hoffer's "The True Believer."

His analysis begins with the observation that demagogues cultivate the anxiety of wanna-bes and have-nots to feel important, and play with the big fish, feeding their frustration with polarizing observations that sound prophetic and empathic.

I'm also guessing that, along with Machiavelli, this idea has been encoded and cynically fed back into the current leadership playbook as a tactical starting point.

Not new news, maybe, but re-reading it, after 50 years, it sounds disturbingly fresh...

M.

Perhaps the guard, caught off guard, so to speak, by this stunt, simply elected not to physically intervene against vaunted members of the HOR.  Hard to fault him for that CYA-motivated choice.

I wish the media would drop its constant use of "quid pro quo" -- which the vast majority of Americans don't know the meaning of -- and use a more accurate term, like "extortion."

Quote from: spork on October 24, 2019, 01:45:36 AM
I wish the media would drop its constant use of "quid pro quo" -- which the vast majority of Americans don't know the meaning of -- and use a more accurate term, like "extortion."

Was that not one of the things we picked up in general education that we thought we'd never use?  Do we need another competency to ensure we all have big enough vocabularies in our back pockets?

As I've said before, I never expected to have to know, hear, or understand the phrase, "Unindicted co-conspirator" twice in my life, either...

M.

Anyone who cares can type "quid pro quo" into Google and get the meaning. Its like automatic college!

True.

The trouble is, those who might be swayed by the import it conveys in legal terms, if they understood it, might not care, or would see it as an opaque term they wouldn't understand, instead of the rather simple crux of the matter that it represents.

So they won't look it up out of a sort of despair, I think.

Such simple matters, obfuscated, add to the irritation/tension/frustration/sense of not-belonging-to-the-educated-elite-trying-to-persecute-poor-Mr. T/alienation of those who see this as (pick your T-bone terms, I strongly object to "witchhunt," in particular, having researched the 1692 event rather closely; "lynching' as a complaint by a privileged white male is absolutely abhorrent).

But to the degree that the jury is rapidly becoming the American public at large, anything that helps them see into the other side of the polarized conflict they've already identified with, in their perception of shared victimhood, is an essential step to take towards a return to sanity.

Breached lines are so easily trampled down once the first crossing has been made.

M.

In fact, as it turned out, our main daily's lead article above the fold was on the term, its history of use, its meanings, etc.

So someone else was thinking  along those lines, too.

And...this will sound very odd,  perhaps, but I suddenly snapped awake, sat up in bed, and said to myself, " Hmmm...Greenland would make an excellent jumping-off-point, from which a place like Russia could attack a place like the U.S.

Is THAT why he wanted to buy it?

NB: I may not be a conspiracy theorist,; my subconsciouse clearly is.

M., again...

Me, three...and then I'm done...

With Barr's new probe, it's all going to go down in pettiness, obfuscation, and silliness.

The reading, thinking (or not) electorate is not going to have the patience needed for all the "he-said/she-said" stuff.

A brilliant tactic, to play to public distractibility.

So, I'm out.

France is looking better all the time....

M.

Quote from: mamselle on October 25, 2019, 03:58:49 AM
France is looking better all the time....

This would be the same France for which the US State Department has issued travel warnings due to the continuing violent protests and terrorist activities?  https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/International-Travel-Country-Information-Pages/France.html

Yeah, even in spite of those.

Maybe I'll just come back to give papers.

M.

You hear so much BS about needing to avoid "terrorism" in other countries. Yes, there are incidents. The State Dept lists 8 deaths of US citizens in France in 2018. 3 were suicides, and 5 were accidents. No terrorism. It will be about the same for this year.

I like this travel advisory from Amnesty International about visiting the US:
https://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/government-relations/advocacy/travel-advisory-united-states-of-america/

For levity's sake, since we need a bit.

A friend who works in the DC establishment likes to go around for Hallowe'en, even though he's about 8 times the age of the average kid out for candy.

This year, he went around blowing a game whistle and wearing a shirt that said, "I'm - (image of a peach) - (image of a mint leaf)."

He handed out candies to other trick-or-treaters, if they guessed the rebus.

I am assured by several friends that he is not the whistleblower....but I did wonder...he's been hard to reach lately..

M.

Quote from: mamselle on November 04, 2019, 06:27:42 AM
For levity's sake, since we need a bit.

A friend who works in the DC establishment likes to go around for Hallowe'en, even though he's about 8 times the age of the average kid out for candy.

This year, he went around blowing a game whistle and wearing a shirt that said, "I'm - (image of a peach) - (image of a mint leaf)."

He handed out candies to other trick-or-treaters, if they guessed the rebus.

I am assured by several friends that he is not the whistleblower....but I did wonder...he's been hard to reach lately..

M.

I was in Georgetown one year for Halloween.  What a hoot!!! Might be where your friend was.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)

The money quote:

QuoteIn the addendum, Mr. Sondland said he had "refreshed my recollection" after reading the testimony given by  Mr. Taylor and Timothy Morrison, the senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council.

Haha. More like his attorneys refreshed his memory of the fact that lying to congress under oath constitutes perjury and can land you in prison.

Quote from: nebo113 on November 05, 2019, 04:40:33 AM

Quote from: mamselle on November 04, 2019, 06:27:42 AM
For levity's sake, since we need a bit.

A friend who works in the DC establishment likes to go around for Hallowe'en, even though he's about 8 times the age of the average kid out for candy.

This year, he went around blowing a game whistle and wearing a shirt that said, "I'm - (image of a peach) - (image of a mint leaf)."

He handed out candies to other trick-or-treaters, if they guessed the rebus.

I am assured by several friends that he is not the whistleblower....but I did wonder...he's been hard to reach lately..

M.

I was in Georgetown one year for Halloween.  What a hoot!!! Might be where your friend was.

Oh, my....that would be telling...

M.

Here's my prognostication for impeachment...and keep in mind that I am usually very, very wrong.  Moscow Mitch is very unpopular in Ky.  45* apparently couldn't get Bevins over the line, primarily because suburban voters no longer support him.  If battleground states begin to look iffy for 45*,  Moscow Mitch may take that long walk from Capitol Hill to the White House and tell 45* to vacate.

We should be so lucky. I mean, I'm for that, but...we should be so lucky.

Quote from: nebo113 on November 06, 2019, 04:08:10 AM
Here's my prognostication for impeachment...and keep in mind that I am usually very, very wrong.  Moscow Mitch is very unpopular in Ky.  45* apparently couldn't get Bevins over the line, primarily because suburban voters no longer support him.  If battleground states begin to look iffy for 45*,  Moscow Mitch may take that long walk from Capitol Hill to the White House and tell 45* to vacate.

Won't happen as long as his wife is raking in the cash from insider deals as Secretary of Transportation.

Quote from: spork on November 06, 2019, 05:56:53 PM

Quote from: nebo113 on November 06, 2019, 04:08:10 AM
Here's my prognostication for impeachment...and keep in mind that I am usually very, very wrong.  Moscow Mitch is very unpopular in Ky.  45* apparently couldn't get Bevins over the line, primarily because suburban voters no longer support him.  If battleground states begin to look iffy for 45*,  Moscow Mitch may take that long walk from Capitol Hill to the White House and tell 45* to vacate.

Won't happen as long as his wife is raking in the cash from insider deals as Secretary of Transportation.

He'll time it carefully.... assuming her adventures come to light by yet another whistleblower.

The fact that he could get reelected but then removed from office following that could be a reason not to vote for him. Even if you didn't feel strongly that he needed to be removed. So putting off the impeachment rather than having it resolved before the voting was wise political strategy, right?

I think you have to strike while the iron is hot.

Waiting for the 2000th offense to build up, and then strike, especially if he gets re-elected is more or less *the* losing strategy for impeachment.

I think everyone realizes that removal is a long-shot, even if Trump confesses like a murderer on Perry Mason (yeah, old, old reference---I'm really not that old). But if you go with the momentum and then just hope the evidence and general frustration will lead to a critical mass of Republicans flipping...there's a shot. It means some disgusting "bedfellows, " most likely....oh well.

I think, too, that the longer people have to think about all the shenanigans going on, and get used to the ideas they embody, the more they begin to become normalized and thus less clearly at issue overall.

M. 

I was hoping it might be more like 'death by 1,000 cuts.' but I guess I'm resigned to the possibility of a second term.  People will forgive a lot of faults if they're making some money.

Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2019, 10:45:58 AM
I was hoping it might be more like 'death by 1,000 cuts.' but I guess I'm resigned to the possibility of a second term.  People will forgive a lot of faults if they're making some money.

NONONONO!!!!!!  We CANNOT be "resigned" to a second term, as the United States will not exist in any recognizable form.  FIGHT, mahagonny, FIGHT!!!

So, is Bolton going to testify? Or isn't he?

Seems like I'm seeing one set of articles saying he's refused, and another that he will.

What's going on there?

M.

Quote from: nebo113 on November 08, 2019, 04:42:14 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2019, 10:45:58 AM
I was hoping it might be more like 'death by 1,000 cuts.' but I guess I'm resigned to the possibility of a second term.  People will forgive a lot of faults if they're making some money.

NONONONO!!!!!!  We CANNOT be "resigned" to a second term, as the United States will not exist in any recognizable form.  FIGHT, mahagonny, FIGHT!!!

I will certainly vote against Trump and for the democrat. I'm pretty sure my state will go blue anyway, but for the principle I'll vote. Last time I wrote in for someone who wasn't even running and has at least one PhD. A friend told me we'll never get a PhD president. People see too much education as intimidating, non-bonding, rather than an asset for the strength of the nation. Yet they see Trump's poorly socialized behavior as a strength.

Quote from: mahagonny on November 08, 2019, 09:19:17 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on November 08, 2019, 04:42:14 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2019, 10:45:58 AM
I was hoping it might be more like 'death by 1,000 cuts.' but I guess I'm resigned to the possibility of a second term.  People will forgive a lot of faults if they're making some money.

NONONONO!!!!!!  We CANNOT be "resigned" to a second term, as the United States will not exist in any recognizable form.  FIGHT, mahagonny, FIGHT!!!

I will certainly vote against Trump and for the democrat. I'm pretty sure my state will go blue anyway, but for the principle I'll vote. Last time I wrote in for someone who wasn't even running and has at least one PhD. A friend told me we'll never get a PhD president. People see too much education as intimidating, non-bonding, rather than an asset for the strength of the nation. Yet they see Trump's poorly socialized behavior as a strength.

WOODROW WILSON

Quote from: nebo113 on November 09, 2019, 05:05:32 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on November 08, 2019, 09:19:17 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on November 08, 2019, 04:42:14 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2019, 10:45:58 AM
I was hoping it might be more like 'death by 1,000 cuts.' but I guess I'm resigned to the possibility of a second term.  People will forgive a lot of faults if they're making some money.

NONONONO!!!!!!  We CANNOT be "resigned" to a second term, as the United States will not exist in any recognizable form.  FIGHT, mahagonny, FIGHT!!!

I will certainly vote against Trump and for the democrat. I'm pretty sure my state will go blue anyway, but for the principle I'll vote. Last time I wrote in for someone who wasn't even running and has at least one PhD. A friend told me we'll never get a PhD president. People see too much education as intimidating, non-bonding, rather than an asset for the strength of the nation. Yet they see Trump's poorly socialized behavior as a strength.

WOODROW WILSON

Thanks for the correction. The error was mine not my friend's. She probably said 'with political life a PhD is not something that gets you votes.'

But Woodrow Wilson is not remembered as a strongly successful president is he? And neither is Jimmy Carter. Though not a PhD you could tell he would hold his own when talking with scholars. Carter said famously 'I promise you a government as good and decent as its people.' But he was too good.

And you would think with the recent number of PhD's in the US growing, there would have been more popular interest in a highly educated president. Or maybe you wouldn't.

Anyone following the public hearings?

I can't hang out and listen, but I'm following the articles from both sides (well, I won't open Fox on my phone for fear some kind of green slime will take it over, but otherwise, I do open "The Hill" and, occasionally, "Yahoo," which I've come to think of as "Fox diluted to 2%.")

The responses are sort-of predictable so far. The Fox-like ones are all making fun of the whole thing, the CNN/NPR side are all being fairly detailed and specific. (I acknowledge my bias here).

I will say I have been extremely impressed by the resistance of most of the major news outlets to the scoop-temptation to "out" the whistle-blower.

If we get through this alive, the journalists will have done a very careful, responsible job of coverage and education. I only wrote for one paper for about three years, once, covering art, and dance, and such, and for an online site for about a year, a few years back, so I just identify in a very distant way to the tribe of public scriveners.

But I'm proud of them. I think many are doing their level best to keep information flow open and honest and transparent.

They do justify the trust the founders put in them....which is a kind of richness I want to remember to uphold and be grateful for, overall.

M.

How can any normal human endure listening to this?

"Thank you so much for being here and for your service to our nation"

"Thank you for granting me the opportunity to speak here today" 

Can we skip the gratitude and just get it all over with?

I understand the feeling of chomping at the bit.

But isn't civility--in large things as well as small--at the heart of a lot of the issues under consideration?

I'm grateful we're observing an ordered process and not going at it with catapults, tongs and stones.

It's about maintaining human respect and acknowledging the rules that keep us sane, and I think we need every bit of that we can muster at the moment.

Cadmium rods in the reactor keep the whole thing from going up in flames; absorbing the stray nutrinos of hatred, bile, and self-serving greed in any way possible can only help in the long run.

M.

Sorry for the double...where is everyone?...but Sondland's just testified to so many points at issue that the whole defense is likely to have to be re-jiggered...if there's anything left to defend.

May get more interesting....some are suggesting that a recent MD visit by the Dutch sea captain's namesake was to provide an "out" for resignation, a sympathy ploy for rallying support, or the foundation for a guilt trip.

Or maybe it's truly a case of heartburn and acid indigestion from recent revelations, like today's.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....

M.

These are certainly interesting times, aren't they?

I appreciated Anne Lamotte's tweet, apropos of the hearings:

"God just stopped by and said no one has to get any writing done today."

Good to know she's willing to writie me an excuse....

M.

I want to know where Parnas and Fruman got the money they donated to GOP campaigns. Actually I almost certainly know -- Russia. I just want the information publicized as part of a criminal prosecution.

Looks like Parnas has connections to Devin Nunes.

Giuliani needs to be prosecuted criminally: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/27/nyregion/giuliani-ukraine-business-trump.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/27/nyregion/giuliani-ukraine-business-trump.html).

Quote from: nebo113 on November 08, 2019, 04:42:14 AM
NONONONO!!!!!!  We CANNOT be "resigned" to a second term, as the United States will not exist in any recognizable form.  FIGHT, mahagonny, FIGHT!!!

Surely you don't really believe this.

Quote from: writingprof on November 28, 2019, 06:32:43 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on November 08, 2019, 04:42:14 AM
NONONONO!!!!!!  We CANNOT be "resigned" to a second term, as the United States will not exist in any recognizable form.  FIGHT, mahagonny, FIGHT!!!

Surely you don't really believe this.

For the first time in my life I am frightened by the POTUS. Not because educated people like you might vote for him because you dislike 'big government solutions' thought up by democrats even more than you dislike his unsociable temperament and ego. But because a subset of his followers only seem to believe in him more fervently the more bilious and dishonest he gets. When I said I was resigned to him getting a second term, I might better have said I am despondent and dreading the election.

I think Mayor Pete is the guy. He could win because he's young and he speaks calmly and he's everything Trump is not. Contrast is an asset. Biden has been too roughed up by the Ukraine matters.

Quote from: writingprof on November 28, 2019, 06:32:43 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on November 08, 2019, 04:42:14 AM
NONONONO!!!!!!  We CANNOT be "resigned" to a second term, as the United States will not exist in any recognizable form.  FIGHT, mahagonny, FIGHT!!!

Surely you don't really believe this.

Surely I do.

Quote from: nebo113 on November 29, 2019, 04:28:40 AM

Quote from: writingprof on November 28, 2019, 06:32:43 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on November 08, 2019, 04:42:14 AM
NONONONO!!!!!!  We CANNOT be "resigned" to a second term, as the United States will not exist in any recognizable form.  FIGHT, mahagonny, FIGHT!!!

Surely you don't really believe this.

Surely I do.

Listen to Trump talk about the 'ruler for life' setup (China's Xi) with fascination. It's suspect that he could care about what the USA  or free republic is about. He thinks 'strength' is cool. People have seen these disturbing signs and are voting for him anyway. So they need to be fought.

Quote from: nebo113 on November 29, 2019, 04:28:40 AM

Quote from: writingprof on November 28, 2019, 06:32:43 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on November 08, 2019, 04:42:14 AM
NONONONO!!!!!!  We CANNOT be "resigned" to a second term, as the United States will not exist in any recognizable form.  FIGHT, mahagonny, FIGHT!!!

Surely you don't really believe this.

Surely I do.

All right, let's examine the premise.  If Trump is reelected, the United States will not "exist" in "any" recognizable form.  Will the political entity known as the U.S.A. cease to be?  Will its legal borders change?  Will the states also vanish?  Will the three branches of government disappear?  Will every current elected official die or be chased out of office?  Will cities be razed to the ground?  Will national parks and monuments go away?  It seems to me that all of this and more would have to happen before the United States ceased to "exist" in "any" recognizable form.

Here's what's actually going to happen.  Trump is going to be reelected.  And your life will not change in any meaningful way.

The USA as we know it seems to change with every generation if not every decade, for good or bad depending on your perspective. 

Quote from: Anselm on November 29, 2019, 09:53:21 AM
The USA as we know it seems to change with every generation if not every decade, for good or bad depending on your perspective.

...but some of the changes seem to be far reaching. Since Watergate, people have a worse opinion of the character of elected officials. Which could have paved the way for Donald Trump. I have one well educated right-wing friend who says 'Trump's just a new variety of politician who takes you for an idiot. Instead of talking to you like lawyer, he just talks.'

Quote from: writingprof on November 29, 2019, 09:10:43 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on November 29, 2019, 04:28:40 AM

Quote from: writingprof on November 28, 2019, 06:32:43 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on November 08, 2019, 04:42:14 AM
NONONONO!!!!!!  We CANNOT be "resigned" to a second term, as the United States will not exist in any recognizable form.  FIGHT, mahagonny, FIGHT!!!

Surely you don't really believe this.

Surely I do.

All right, let's examine the premise.  If Trump is reelected, the United States will not "exist" in "any" recognizable form.  Will the political entity known as the U.S.A. cease to be?  Will its legal borders change?  Will the states also vanish?  Will the three branches of government disappear?  Will every current elected official die or be chased out of office?  Will cities be razed to the ground?  Will national parks and monuments go away?  It seems to me that all of this and more would have to happen before the United States ceased to "exist" in "any" recognizable form.

Here's what's actually going to happen.  Trump is going to be reelected.  And your life will not change in any meaningful way.

Either/or fallacies.  Guess your don't teach them in your writing classes.

Quote from: nebo113 on November 29, 2019, 03:56:12 PM
Will the three branches of government disappear? 

Either/or fallacies.  Guess your don't teach them in your writing classes.

[/quote]

As far as his views are concerned Trump has no use for check and balances. Although he tries to put up with them.

Mayor Pete is unelectable.  Because he's gay.  Like it or not.  Anyone who questions this, Google the 'Bradley effect'.

Quote from: kaysixteen on November 29, 2019, 09:40:31 PM
Mayor Pete is unelectable.  Because he's gay.  Like it or not.  Anyone who questions this, Google the 'Bradley effect'.

You like him though. I know how you talk. You are gloomy. Look at the polls. He's moving up.

Quote from: kaysixteen on November 29, 2019, 09:40:31 PM
Mayor Pete is unelectable.  Because he's gay.  Like it or not.  Anyone who questions this, Google the 'Bradley effect'.

I don't think that's what's really keeping him back, especially in the primary. His total incompetence with respect to Black people and their concerns, however, is definitely keeping him back. Plus, you know, shitty policies, although I suspect people are mostly fine with those.

Except for Black people.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 29, 2019, 10:04:42 PM
His total incompetence with respect to Black people and their concerns, however, is definitely keeping him back. Plus, you know, shitty policies, although I suspect people are mostly fine with those.

Except for Black people.

Ah. That explains why cities in which black voters represent a majority are such paradises of good governance. 

First of all, I don't think the Bradley Effect has been consistently proven to be a factor, especially after Obama became president, California elected Gavin Newsom, etc. Might still exist in pockets.

Secondly, you can't apply it selectively. There are other minorities in the race, as well as women, Jews,
Elderly. Are some getting Bradley bumps and not others? I don't buy it, especially as a consistent factor nationally. Maybe for Iowa alone...maybe. Perhaps the people who say they like him and would vote for him actually will.

Quote from: writingprof on November 30, 2019, 06:00:35 AM

Ah. That explains why cities in which black voters represent a majority are such paradises of good governance.

No, it explains why he's unelectable.

Quote from: kaysixteen on November 29, 2019, 09:40:31 PM
Mayor Pete is unelectable.  Because he's gay.  Like it or not.  Anyone who questions this, Google the 'Bradley effect'.

He is a pretty non-threatening gay guy. Christian, clean-cut, not sexy nor too pretty. Married with two lovely dogs. A resume any straight guy would be proud of.

People are fickle.  Pete is new and a welcome change from the same old career politicians.  Maybe in a few weeks some other person will start trending in the polls.  I am sticking with Vermin Supreme to the very end.

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 30, 2019, 10:45:08 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on November 29, 2019, 09:40:31 PM
Mayor Pete is unelectable.  Because he's gay.  Like it or not.  Anyone who questions this, Google the 'Bradley effect'.

He is a pretty non-threatening gay guy. Christian, clean-cut, not sexy nor too pretty. Married with two lovely dogs. A resume any straight guy would be proud of.

The Christians who totally destroyed their credibility by voting for Donald Trump don't recognize Mayor Pete as a Christian.  So his religiosity will not help him in, e.g., the South.

Quote from: writingprof on November 30, 2019, 03:52:24 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 30, 2019, 10:45:08 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on November 29, 2019, 09:40:31 PM
Mayor Pete is unelectable.  Because he's gay.  Like it or not.  Anyone who questions this, Google the 'Bradley effect'.

He is a pretty non-threatening gay guy. Christian, clean-cut, not sexy nor too pretty. Married with two lovely dogs. A resume any straight guy would be proud of.

The Christians who totally destroyed their credibility by voting for Donald Trump don't recognize Mayor Pete as a Christian.  So his religiosity will not help him in, e.g., the South.

Being gay doesn't seem to be as much of a problem for Christians these days. They all know someone. Marriage is legal, like it or not. They are on to other things, like protecting the name of Thanksgiving.

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 30, 2019, 06:47:43 PM

Quote from: writingprof on November 30, 2019, 03:52:24 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 30, 2019, 10:45:08 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on November 29, 2019, 09:40:31 PM
Mayor Pete is unelectable.  Because he's gay.  Like it or not.  Anyone who questions this, Google the 'Bradley effect'.

He is a pretty non-threatening gay guy. Christian, clean-cut, not sexy nor too pretty. Married with two lovely dogs. A resume any straight guy would be proud of.

The Christians who totally destroyed their credibility by voting for Donald Trump don't recognize Mayor Pete as a Christian.  So his religiosity will not help him in, e.g., the South.

Being gay doesn't seem to be as much of a problem for Christians these days. They all know someone. Marriage is legal, like it or not. They are on to other things, like protecting the name of Thanksgiving.

Ugh. I didn't know until just now about the new fictive war on Thanksgiving. Sometimes I'm glad I no longer live in the U.S., if only because there's at least a first-level filter on the news I read about the country. (It's home, I tell people, and home is home, just like family is family. You love it even when you don't.)

You miss my point.  Millions of Americans do not think he's a Christian, neither do they recognize him as married.  Some of them would ignore their religious opinions and vote for him anyhow.  Others, the Bradley effecters, would say they would then won't anyhow.  Many won't even lie about voting for him. 

And that's not even counting the great percentage of black democrats who won't vote for him for other reasons.

Quote from: kaysixteen on November 30, 2019, 09:52:58 PM
You miss my point.  Millions of Americans do not think he's a Christian, neither do they recognize him as married.  Some of them would ignore their religious opinions and vote for him anyhow.  Others, the Bradley effecters, would say they would then won't anyhow.  Many won't even lie about voting for him. 

And that's not even counting the great percentage of black democrats who won't vote for him for other reasons.

This.  And one might add that his sexuality might itself suppress the black vote if he were the nominee.  It's racist to know that, but there it is. 

I don't think Buttigieg has much of a chance to win the nomination, but, if he does, he will have to play the race card repeatedly to overcome anti-gay sentiment in the black community, as well as some of his police-violence peccadillos.  Because he's a lightweight and a fraud--the gay Obama!--he will do so clumsily and alienate two white voters for every black voter he gains.  That would be fun.

I can't find the article I read yesterday that pointed out that simply being impeached means that he won't be eligible for a successor's pardon, as Nixon was by resigning. However, this site has an interesting instructional component as well as a basic discussion of the issues involved:

   https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/18/punishment-for-impeachment

This article summarizes the criminal side of the situation, with or without impeachment.

   https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/11/30/trump-impeachment-elie-honig-cillizza-the-point-vpx.cnn

Several British papers have also had insightful analytic articles--they understand our situation better than many of our own citizens seem to...

M.

Quote from: writingprof on December 01, 2019, 05:57:50 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on November 30, 2019, 09:52:58 PM
You miss my point.  Millions of Americans do not think he's a Christian, neither do they recognize him as married.  Some of them would ignore their religious opinions and vote for him anyhow.  Others, the Bradley effecters, would say they would then won't anyhow.  Many won't even lie about voting for him. 

And that's not even counting the great percentage of black democrats who won't vote for him for other reasons.

This.  And one might add that his sexuality might itself suppress the black vote if he were the nominee.  It's racist to know that, but there it is. 

I don't think Buttigieg has much of a chance to win the nomination, but, if he does, he will have to play the race card repeatedly to overcome anti-gay sentiment in the black community, as well as some of his police-violence peccadillos.  Because he's a lightweight and a fraud--the gay Obama!--he will do so clumsily and alienate two white voters for every black voter he gains.  That would be fun.

Not that we couldn't enjoy a nice blood-sport election together, but haven't you posted that you despise Trump? So I wonder how it would be fun to watch how no one can beat him.

Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2019, 09:56:52 AM

Quote from: writingprof on December 01, 2019, 05:57:50 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on November 30, 2019, 09:52:58 PM
You miss my point.  Millions of Americans do not think he's a Christian, neither do they recognize him as married.  Some of them would ignore their religious opinions and vote for him anyhow.  Others, the Bradley effecters, would say they would then won't anyhow.  Many won't even lie about voting for him. 

And that's not even counting the great percentage of black democrats who won't vote for him for other reasons.

This.  And one might add that his sexuality might itself suppress the black vote if he were the nominee.  It's racist to know that, but there it is. 

I don't think Buttigieg has much of a chance to win the nomination, but, if he does, he will have to play the race card repeatedly to overcome anti-gay sentiment in the black community, as well as some of his police-violence peccadillos.  Because he's a lightweight and a fraud--the gay Obama!--he will do so clumsily and alienate two white voters for every black voter he gains.  That would be fun.

Not that we couldn't enjoy a nice blood-sport election together, but haven't you posted that you despise Trump? So I wonder how it would be fun to watch how no one can beat him.

In the spirit of this thread, I suppose I should say that I plan to vote for Pence, as Trump is about to be removed from office.  However, that's obviously not the case, so I'll simply confess that I don't vote and don't much care who the president is.  I'll never support a baby-murderer, so that eliminates most Democrats, and it's difficult to see how any educated adult could support Trump.  My vague preference is to see a win by a Democrat with no actual beliefs (e.g., Biden).  I can't imagine he would get up to much mischief. 

Quote from: writingprof on December 03, 2019, 10:18:08 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2019, 09:56:52 AM

Quote from: writingprof on December 01, 2019, 05:57:50 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on November 30, 2019, 09:52:58 PM
You miss my point.  Millions of Americans do not think he's a Christian, neither do they recognize him as married.  Some of them would ignore their religious opinions and vote for him anyhow.  Others, the Bradley effecters, would say they would then won't anyhow.  Many won't even lie about voting for him. 

And that's not even counting the great percentage of black democrats who won't vote for him for other reasons.

This.  And one might add that his sexuality might itself suppress the black vote if he were the nominee.  It's racist to know that, but there it is. 

I don't think Buttigieg has much of a chance to win the nomination, but, if he does, he will have to play the race card repeatedly to overcome anti-gay sentiment in the black community, as well as some of his police-violence peccadillos.  Because he's a lightweight and a fraud--the gay Obama!--he will do so clumsily and alienate two white voters for every black voter he gains.  That would be fun.

Not that we couldn't enjoy a nice blood-sport election together, but haven't you posted that you despise Trump? So I wonder how it would be fun to watch how no one can beat him.

In the spirit of this thread, I suppose I should say that I plan to vote for Pence, as Trump is about to be removed from office.  However, that's obviously not the case, so I'll simply confess that I don't vote and don't much care who the president is.  I'll never support a baby-murderer, so that eliminates most Democrats, and it's difficult to see how any educated adult could support Trump.  My vague preference is to see a win by a Democrat with no actual beliefs (e.g., Biden).  I can't imagine he would get up to much mischief.

Maybe if we called school shootings "mass late-term abortions" that would eliminate the pro-NRA Republicans for you as well?

I wonder what the chances are that Donald Trump has never caused pregnancies that have been terminated. Given that he's already told us that his inability to restrain himself from kissing women with whom he has no relationship, as long as they don't stop him (6'3" 250 lb man) makes for good entertaining conversation.

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 03, 2019, 11:00:36 AM

Quote from: writingprof on December 03, 2019, 10:18:08 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2019, 09:56:52 AM

Quote from: writingprof on December 01, 2019, 05:57:50 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on November 30, 2019, 09:52:58 PM
You miss my point.  Millions of Americans do not think he's a Christian, neither do they recognize him as married.  Some of them would ignore their religious opinions and vote for him anyhow.  Others, the Bradley effecters, would say they would then won't anyhow.  Many won't even lie about voting for him. 

And that's not even counting the great percentage of black democrats who won't vote for him for other reasons.

This.  And one might add that his sexuality might itself suppress the black vote if he were the nominee.  It's racist to know that, but there it is. 

I don't think Buttigieg has much of a chance to win the nomination, but, if he does, he will have to play the race card repeatedly to overcome anti-gay sentiment in the black community, as well as some of his police-violence peccadillos.  Because he's a lightweight and a fraud--the gay Obama!--he will do so clumsily and alienate two white voters for every black voter he gains.  That would be fun.

Not that we couldn't enjoy a nice blood-sport election together, but haven't you posted that you despise Trump? So I wonder how it would be fun to watch how no one can beat him.

In the spirit of this thread, I suppose I should say that I plan to vote for Pence, as Trump is about to be removed from office.  However, that's obviously not the case, so I'll simply confess that I don't vote and don't much care who the president is.  I'll never support a baby-murderer, so that eliminates most Democrats, and it's difficult to see how any educated adult could support Trump.  My vague preference is to see a win by a Democrat with no actual beliefs (e.g., Biden).  I can't imagine he would get up to much mischief.

Maybe if we called school shootings "mass late-term abortions" that would eliminate the pro-NRA Republicans for you as well?

YOU WIN THE INTERNETZ!!!

Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2019, 11:21:01 AM
I wonder what the chances are that Donald Trump has never caused pregnancies that have been terminated. Given that he's already told us that his inability to restrain himself from kissing women with whom he has no relationship, as long as they don't stop him (6'3" 250 lb man) makes for good entertaining conversation.

That's worth a research grant, indeed.

Good question.

M.

Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2019, 11:21:01 AM
I wonder what the chances are that Donald Trump has never caused pregnancies that have been terminated. Given that he's already told us that his inability to restrain himself from kissing women with whom he has no relationship, as long as they don't stop him (6'3" 250 lb man) makes for good entertaining conversation.

It's so true. I was tempted to write, "Of course, Trump has no doubt paid for his share of abortions," but he's so cheap that he probably didn't actually pay for them.  He's a bad man, and no one should vote for him.

Quote from: nebo113 on December 05, 2019, 04:35:00 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 03, 2019, 11:00:36 AM
Maybe if we called school shootings "mass late-term abortions" that would eliminate the pro-NRA Republicans for you as well?

YOU WIN THE INTERNETZ!!!

Really? Ciao wins the Internet for repeating a tired and ridiculous pro-"choice" talking point? The Internet is easily won these days, it seems.

Let's take Trump out of the picture and talk about it again. If a politician (let's just say, randomly, a pro-life republican) causes an unintentional pregnancy and the woman wants to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth, what does the politician do? Does he announce the delivery date so people can get ready with cigars? Or does he say to the public 'unintended pregnancy which does not help my life particularly and hurts my career and my wife doesn't think much of it, but it's God's will, so it's the right thing for everyone.' Just wondering. Or how about 'Ben Franklin did it too."
Or does something else happen?

QuoteHe's a bad man, and no one should vote for him.

As opposed to Writingprof's approach, which is "I despise him, so I won't be voting."

Quote from: mahagonny on December 05, 2019, 05:36:11 AM
Let's take Trump out of the picture and talk about it again. If a politician (let's just say, randomly, a pro-life republican) causes an unintentional pregnancy and the woman wants to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth, what does the politician do? Does he announce the delivery date so people can get ready with cigars? Or does he say to the public 'unintended pregnancy which does not help my life particularly and hurts my career and my wife doesn't think much of it, but it's God's will, so it's the right thing for everyone.' Just wondering. Or how about 'Ben Franklin did it too."
Or does something else happen?

QuoteHe's a bad man, and no one should vote for him.

As opposed to Writingprof's approach, which is "I despise him, so I won't be voting."

I am not sure of specific examples but historically this type of scandal was covered up.   I do remember Strom Thurmond acknowledging his out of wedlock daughter late in life.

When I was in France while the whole Clinton thing was going on, I consistently got two comments, solicited in direct conversation--or not.

One was, "Why are they doing this? He's a good president!"

The other was, "Oh, goodness, don't they know about Mitterand's daughter?" (who was quietly well-schooled and worked in a curatorial office in the Louvre. No-one knew of her existence until she appeared at her father's funeral.)

M.

Quote from: mahagonny on December 05, 2019, 05:36:11 AM
Let's take Trump out of the picture and talk about it again. If a politician (let's just say, randomly, a pro-life republican) causes an unintentional pregnancy and the woman wants to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth, what does the politician do? Does he announce the delivery date so people can get ready with cigars? Or does he say to the public 'unintended pregnancy which does not help my life particularly and hurts my career and my wife doesn't think much of it, but it's God's will, so it's the right thing for everyone.' Just wondering. Or how about 'Ben Franklin did it too."
Or does something else happen?

QuoteHe's a bad man, and no one should vote for him.

As opposed to Writingprof's approach, which is "I despise him, so I won't be voting."

Are you aware that I am the author of the unattributed "bad man" quote?  So, basically, you quoted me, then said my own quote is opposed to my approach.  That's a Fora first!

Quote from: writingprof on December 05, 2019, 04:53:07 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on December 05, 2019, 05:36:11 AM
Let's take Trump out of the picture and talk about it again. If a politician (let's just say, randomly, a pro-life republican) causes an unintentional pregnancy and the woman wants to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth, what does the politician do? Does he announce the delivery date so people can get ready with cigars? Or does he say to the public 'unintended pregnancy which does not help my life particularly and hurts my career and my wife doesn't think much of it, but it's God's will, so it's the right thing for everyone.' Just wondering. Or how about 'Ben Franklin did it too."
Or does something else happen?

QuoteHe's a bad man, and no one should vote for him.

As opposed to Writingprof's approach, which is "I despise him, so I won't be voting."

Are you aware that I am the author of the unattributed "bad man" quote?  So, basically, you quoted me, then said my own quote is opposed to my approach.  That's a Fora first!

Don't you feel an obligation to participate in the process? What was all that education for?

Quote from: Anselm on December 05, 2019, 12:23:37 PM

I am not sure of specific examples but historically this type of scandal was covered up.   I do remember Strom Thurmond acknowledging his out of wedlock daughter late in life.

You read me right. I was asking because I don't know. Good example, too. Later in life, Strom Thurmond had his alliances in place and everybody knew what a badass and skilled vote counter and manipulator he was. It was an opportune time to say the thing that would ease his conscience. But I was wondering about people who campaign on a pro-life platform, then pressure the woman they have impregnated to get an abortion, to save their career.

But I was wondering about people who campaign on a pro-life platform, then pressure the woman they have impregnated to get an abortion, to save their career.

That accusation has surfaced at least once in the past decade but I don't remember his name.  I suspect that this has happened several times and then kept a secret.

Newt Girnrich?

M.

Quote from: Anselm on December 05, 2019, 05:45:43 PM
But I was wondering about people who campaign on a pro-life platform, then pressure the woman they have impregnated to get an abortion, to save their career.

That accusation has surfaced at least once in the past decade but I don't remember his name.  I suspect that this has happened several times and then kept a secret.

Or who get a pal to take the fall (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/05/theory-playboy-model-had-affair-with-trump-not-broidy.html) for them?

Maybe even their campagin manager (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/us/andrew-young-to-testify-at-john-edwards-trial-for-second-day.html)?

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 05, 2019, 09:43:31 PM

Quote from: Anselm on December 05, 2019, 05:45:43 PM
But I was wondering about people who campaign on a pro-life platform, then pressure the woman they have impregnated to get an abortion, to save their career.

That accusation has surfaced at least once in the past decade but I don't remember his name.  I suspect that this has happened several times and then kept a secret.

Or who get a pal to take the fall (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/05/theory-playboy-model-had-affair-with-trump-not-broidy.html) for them?

Maybe even their campagin manager (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/us/andrew-young-to-testify-at-john-edwards-trial-for-second-day.html)?

A.J. Delgado and Jason Miller - Miller isn't a politician but was going to be the WH Comms Director.

Thanks for the answers. John Edwards of course ran on anything but a pro life campaign, but in any case...the dishonesty is outrageous. Sorry I voted for him in 2004.
I think I know where this kind of discussion leads. The Christians on the right will say 'you don't have to worry about being a hypocrite if you have the luxury of writing your own moral code to fit the behavior you like.' Thus a pro-life candidate gets called a hypocrite when he violates his moral code, while getting no credit for accepting a more strict code.
Except just because you think morality can be looked at in more than one way or can exist without it being the unshakeable word of God (especially over one's lifetime or more) doesn't mean you think the concept of morality itself is no more serious, ponderous, difficult than deciding which entree to order from the menu.
Don't ask me! Some of you would know a lot more about this.

Quote from: Anselm on December 05, 2019, 12:23:37 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on December 05, 2019, 05:36:11 AM
Let's take Trump out of the picture and talk about it again. If a politician (let's just say, randomly, a pro-life republican) causes an unintentional pregnancy and the woman wants to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth, what does the politician do? Does he announce the delivery date so people can get ready with cigars? Or does he say to the public 'unintended pregnancy which does not help my life particularly and hurts my career and my wife doesn't think much of it, but it's God's will, so it's the right thing for everyone.' Just wondering. Or how about 'Ben Franklin did it too."
Or does something else happen?

QuoteHe's a bad man, and no one should vote for him.

As opposed to Writingprof's approach, which is "I despise him, so I won't be voting."

I am not sure of specific examples but historically this type of scandal was covered up.   I do remember Strom Thurmond acknowledging his out of wedlock daughter late in life.

I grew up in SC back in the '60s and his mixed race daughter was no big secret.  He fathered her by a servant working in the family home....think white male privilege and power used against a poor woman of color in servitude.

Quote from: mahagonny on December 05, 2019, 05:23:03 PM
Don't you feel an obligation to participate in the process? What was all that education for?

No. I float above the process in a cloud of privilege. The education was "for" getting me a university sinecure. It worked.

Also, all this talk about the abortion hypocrisy of right-wing politicians is a red herring. If a pro-gun-control official shoots someone, does that somehow negate all pro-gun-control arguments?

Impeachment polls still indicate about half and half of the US public per https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Meanwhile in the world,

France is having riots in the streets (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50682071)
Chile has had recent riots in the streets (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chile-protests-rubber-bullet-shooting-injury-human-rights-abuse-a9232421.html)
Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, and Haiti have been having riots in the streets  (https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/08/latin-americas-protests-are-likely-to-fail/) with Bolivia's president fleeing to Mexico. (https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/778632592/bolivia-must-decide-on-new-leader-after-president-flees-to-mexico-for-asylum)
Hong Kong has riots in the streets (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/why-hong-kongs-still-protesting-and-where-it-may-go/2019/12/05/8e9622aa-1724-11ea-80d6-d0ca7007273f_story.html)

Perhaps I missed where the US is having riots in the streets over our government.  What I see is a lot of CSPAN being simulcast on other networks and late-night comedians having new fodder every day.

If anyone can point me to where I've missed how life as we know it in these US is being disrupted outside of media outlets, then I'd appreciate it.

Quote from: polly_mer on December 06, 2019, 07:10:33 AM
Impeachment polls still indicate about half and half of the US public per https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Meanwhile in the world,

France is having riots in the streets (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50682071)
Chile has had recent riots in the streets (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chile-protests-rubber-bullet-shooting-injury-human-rights-abuse-a9232421.html)
Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, and Haiti have been having riots in the streets  (https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/08/latin-americas-protests-are-likely-to-fail/) with Bolivia's president fleeing to Mexico. (https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/778632592/bolivia-must-decide-on-new-leader-after-president-flees-to-mexico-for-asylum)
Hong Kong has riots in the streets (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/why-hong-kongs-still-protesting-and-where-it-may-go/2019/12/05/8e9622aa-1724-11ea-80d6-d0ca7007273f_story.html)

Perhaps I missed where the US is having riots in the streets over our government.  What I see is a lot of CSPAN being simulcast on other networks and late-night comedians having new fodder every day.

If anyone can point me to where I've missed how life as we know it in these US is being disrupted outside of media outlets, then I'd appreciate it.

So far, not as much as the POTUS would prefer. He has offered to pay the legal bills for those supporters who would be willing to beat up people who've heckled him, but they're not taking him up on it that much. I think this is a reason to be afraid.
And this:   https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45340275
By all means vote for Trump if that's your inclination. Labor advocacy will be somewhat worse off.

Quote from: writingprof on December 03, 2019, 10:18:08 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2019, 09:56:52 AM

Quote from: writingprof on December 01, 2019, 05:57:50 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on November 30, 2019, 09:52:58 PM
You miss my point.  Millions of Americans do not think he's a Christian, neither do they recognize him as married.  Some of them would ignore their religious opinions and vote for him anyhow.  Others, the Bradley effecters, would say they would then won't anyhow.  Many won't even lie about voting for him. 

And that's not even counting the great percentage of black democrats who won't vote for him for other reasons.

This.  And one might add that his sexuality might itself suppress the black vote if he were the nominee.  It's racist to know that, but there it is. 

I don't think Buttigieg has much of a chance to win the nomination, but, if he does, he will have to play the race card repeatedly to overcome anti-gay sentiment in the black community, as well as some of his police-violence peccadillos.  Because he's a lightweight and a fraud--the gay Obama!--he will do so clumsily and alienate two white voters for every black voter he gains.  That would be fun.

Not that we couldn't enjoy a nice blood-sport election together, but haven't you posted that you despise Trump? So I wonder how it would be fun to watch how no one can beat him.

In the spirit of this thread, I suppose I should say that I plan to vote for Pence, as Trump is about to be removed from office.  However, that's obviously not the case, so I'll simply confess that I don't vote and don't much care who the president is.  I'll never support a baby-murderer, so that eliminates most Democrats, and it's difficult to see how any educated adult could support Trump.  My vague preference is to see a win by a Democrat with no actual beliefs (e.g., Biden).  I can't imagine he would get up to much mischief.

Really?  Why is that?  Because he says uncouth things and gets caught on mic saying them?  If you believe in conservative values, he has been a great boon to the cause with the judges he has appointed.  Domestically, things are going very well - I understand he can't really take credit for the economy, but it was his to tank. 

Yes, personally, he's a disaster, but I care much more about what he DOES in the policy sense than what he does in his personal life or what he's caught saying.

I think you mean a great boon to social conservatives.  What happened to fiscal conservatism in the US?

Wasn't he going to end the deficits and pay down the debt in no time?

Quote from: Descartes on December 06, 2019, 07:42:15 AM

Quote from: writingprof on December 03, 2019, 10:18:08 AM

In the spirit of this thread, I suppose I should say that I plan to vote for Pence, as Trump is about to be removed from office.  However, that's obviously not the case, so I'll simply confess that I don't vote and don't much care who the president is.  I'll never support a baby-murderer, so that eliminates most Democrats, and it's difficult to see how any educated adult could support Trump.  My vague preference is to see a win by a Democrat with no actual beliefs (e.g., Biden).  I can't imagine he would get up to much mischief.

Really?  Why is that?  Because he says uncouth things and gets caught on mic saying them?  If you believe in conservative values, he has been a great boon to the cause with the judges he has appointed.  Domestically, things are going very well - I understand he can't really take credit for the economy, but it was his to tank. 

Yes, personally, he's a disaster, but I care much more about what he DOES in the policy sense than what he does in his personal life or what he's caught saying.

Do you really think he gets caught saying uncouth things on mic? I think the uncouth things are who he is and what he intends to broadcast.

There's at least one clear reason anyone, well educated to minimally educated, shouldn't vote for him. He's probably mentally unbalanced and certainly unpresentable to children. It would be thoughtless and selfish to vote for an incumbent who is bad for people who can't vote just because you're making money.

The articles of impeachment, annotated: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/10/us/politics/articles-impeachment-document-pdf.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/10/us/politics/articles-impeachment-document-pdf.html).

I thought the Senate already voted to acquit. Oops, no, they have to haul Warren et al. off the campaign trail for a while first. 

For a minute there, I was thinking..."But...but...Earl Warren's DEAD, isn't he????"

Carry on...

M.

Well, that certainly would have occasioned a delay...

I was reading (or attempting to read) something on realclearpolitics.com when this popped up. Wondering, what kind of half-wit does this stuff work on?...https://secure.caseyresearch.com/?cid=MKT400353&eid=MKT404061&assetId=AST102356&page=1

Quote from: mahagonny on December 10, 2019, 06:36:25 PM
I was reading (or attempting to read) something on realclearpolitics.com when this popped up. Wondering, what kind of half-wit does this stuff work on?...https://secure.caseyresearch.com/?cid=MKT400353&eid=MKT404061&assetId=AST102356&page=1

Most of my kinfolk.....

I am SHOCKED, just SHOCKED, that Trump has been impeached. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates/2019/12/18/237147e8-2110-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html) Everything has a feeling of inevitability, and meaninglessness. Of course he was going to be impeached; of course he'll be acquitted in the Senate; nobody on either side will have changed their mind about anything.

Quote from: pgher on December 18, 2019, 05:42:00 PM
I am SHOCKED, just SHOCKED, that Trump has been impeached. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates/2019/12/18/237147e8-2110-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html) Everything has a feeling of inevitability, and meaninglessness. Of course he was going to be impeached; of course he'll be acquitted in the Senate; nobody on either side will have changed their mind about anything.

Yep.  His approval rating has gone from 43% in the summer to 43% now, per CNN polling.  All of this new information hasn't moved the needle one bit in terms of his core support.  And when the Senate fails to convict, they'll claim that he was exonerated.

I thought it was appropriate, and spoke to her larger sense of things, that Pelosi wore a dark dress, like one in mourning.

M.

Congratulations!

That's one thing to show for a Democratic majority in the House, anyway.

Quote from: Bede the Vulnerable on December 18, 2019, 09:09:06 PM

Quote from: pgher on December 18, 2019, 05:42:00 PM
I am SHOCKED, just SHOCKED, that Trump has been impeached. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates/2019/12/18/237147e8-2110-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html) Everything has a feeling of inevitability, and meaninglessness. Of course he was going to be impeached; of course he'll be acquitted in the Senate; nobody on either side will have changed their mind about anything.

Yep.  His approval rating has gone from 43% in the summer to 43% now, per CNN polling.  All of this new information hasn't moved the needle one bit in terms of his core support.  And when the Senate fails to convict, they'll claim that he was exonerated.

In addition, the one thing missing from his narrative has been victimization (it's hard to claim to be a victim and a billionaire genius deity at the same time). Now he has the victim role as well. So whereas his base used to say, "he's the only one who tells the truth" they can now proudly say, "he's the only one who tells the truth AND he's gotten crucified for it". Literally. Crucified. Some politician has already said it. [sorry, no citation]

Quote from: miss jane marple on December 19, 2019, 09:11:07 AM

Quote from: Bede the Vulnerable on December 18, 2019, 09:09:06 PM

Quote from: pgher on December 18, 2019, 05:42:00 PM
I am SHOCKED, just SHOCKED, that Trump has been impeached. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates/2019/12/18/237147e8-2110-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html) Everything has a feeling of inevitability, and meaninglessness. Of course he was going to be impeached; of course he'll be acquitted in the Senate; nobody on either side will have changed their mind about anything.

Yep.  His approval rating has gone from 43% in the summer to 43% now, per CNN polling.  All of this new information hasn't moved the needle one bit in terms of his core support.  And when the Senate fails to convict, they'll claim that he was exonerated.

In addition, the one thing missing from his narrative has been victimization (it's hard to claim to be a victim and a billionaire genius deity at the same time). Now he has the victim role as well. So whereas his base used to say, "he's the only one who tells the truth" they can now proudly say, "he's the only one who tells the truth AND he's gotten crucified for it". Literally. Crucified. Some politician has already said it. [sorry, no citation]

My next door neighbor drove to Mobile, Alabama so that Trump could sign his Bible.

A major evangelical publication has just turned around from its previous support, and is calling for removal.

The iceberg may be cracking up.

At least it's a crevasse....

M.

Quote from: miss jane marple on December 19, 2019, 09:11:07 AM

Quote from: Bede the Vulnerable on December 18, 2019, 09:09:06 PM

Quote from: pgher on December 18, 2019, 05:42:00 PM
I am SHOCKED, just SHOCKED, that Trump has been impeached. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates/2019/12/18/237147e8-2110-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html) Everything has a feeling of inevitability, and meaninglessness. Of course he was going to be impeached; of course he'll be acquitted in the Senate; nobody on either side will have changed their mind about anything.

Yep.  His approval rating has gone from 43% in the summer to 43% now, per CNN polling.  All of this new information hasn't moved the needle one bit in terms of his core support.  And when the Senate fails to convict, they'll claim that he was exonerated.

In addition, the one thing missing from his narrative has been victimization (it's hard to claim to be a victim and a billionaire genius deity at the same time). Now he has the victim role as well. So whereas his base used to say, "he's the only one who tells the truth" they can now proudly say, "he's the only one who tells the truth AND he's gotten crucified for it". Literally. Crucified. Some politician has already said it. [sorry, no citation]

My elderly mother used the crucifixion analogy too. I was utterly horrified.

Shared psychosis of Donald Trump and people in his environment.

https://in.news.yahoo.com/im-forensic-psychiatrist-yale-took-204607013.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=fb

This trial will be a mess.

Quote from: nebo113 on January 17, 2020, 04:18:11 AM
This trial will be a mess.

Happily, very few Americans are paying attention.

Quote from: writingprof on January 17, 2020, 06:09:59 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on January 17, 2020, 04:18:11 AM
This trial will be a mess.

Happily, very few Americans are paying attention.

Really?

OK.

M.

Quote from: mamselle on January 17, 2020, 06:27:57 AM

Quote from: writingprof on January 17, 2020, 06:09:59 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on January 17, 2020, 04:18:11 AM
This trial will be a mess.

Happily, very few Americans are paying attention.

Really?

OK.

M.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but my sense is that the hearing we already sat through (or were there two?--one forgets so quickly) was the Left's chance to captivate the nation, and they mostly blew it.  Obviously Trump's not going to be removed from office, but I suspect his numbers won't even budge at this point.

How else might we settle the matter?  Track C-SPAN ratings? 

Quote from: writingprof on January 17, 2020, 08:47:17 AM

Quote from: mamselle on January 17, 2020, 06:27:57 AM

Quote from: writingprof on January 17, 2020, 06:09:59 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on January 17, 2020, 04:18:11 AM
This trial will be a mess.

Happily, very few Americans are paying attention.

Really?

OK.

M.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but my sense is that the hearing we already sat through (or were there two?--one forgets so quickly) was the Left's chance to captivate the nation, and they mostly blew it.  Obviously Trump's not going to be removed from office, but I suspect his numbers won't even budge at this point.

How else might we settle the matter?  Track C-SPAN ratings?

What could they have done differently that would have captivated you, writingprof?

So Dershowitz and Starr will be on his legal team, eh?

Quote from: mahagonny on January 17, 2020, 09:55:18 AM

Quote from: writingprof on January 17, 2020, 08:47:17 AM

Quote from: mamselle on January 17, 2020, 06:27:57 AM

Quote from: writingprof on January 17, 2020, 06:09:59 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on January 17, 2020, 04:18:11 AM
This trial will be a mess.

Happily, very few Americans are paying attention.

Really?

OK.

M.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but my sense is that the hearing we already sat through (or were there two?--one forgets so quickly) was the Left's chance to captivate the nation, and they mostly blew it.  Obviously Trump's not going to be removed from office, but I suspect his numbers won't even budge at this point.

How else might we settle the matter?  Track C-SPAN ratings?

What could they have done differently that would have captivated you, writingprof?

I assure you, I am not representative of the nation.  You may be relieved to know this. 

I guess neither Starr nor Dershowitz are sufficiently relevant any longer and are happy to rob a criminal president of his "hard earned" dollars in order to regain some sort of "reputation" by "defending" him.

Quote from: writingprof on January 17, 2020, 10:20:36 AM
Perhaps I'm wrong, but my sense is that the hearing we already sat through (or were there two?--one forgets so quickly) was the Left's chance to captivate the nation, and they mostly blew it.  Obviously Trump's not going to be removed from office, but I suspect his numbers won't even budge at this point.

How else might we settle the matter?  Track C-SPAN ratings?

What could they have done differently that would have captivated you, writingprof?
[/quote]

I assure you, I am not representative of the nation.  You may be relieved to know this.
[/quote]

What I'm getting at. There's nothing that could have been done differently that could have captivated the nation. We already knew how the House would vote, and we already know how the senate will vote, and each of us already *knows* whether or not he should be removed. Like Nancy said 'almost not worth it.' I don't anyone is representative of the nation at this time.

Quote from: Ruralguy on January 17, 2020, 10:53:32 AM
I guess neither Starr nor Dershowitz are sufficiently relevant any longer and are happy to rob a criminal president of his "hard earned" dollars in order to regain some sort of "reputation" by "defending" him.

Assuming he doesn't stiff them like he has done everyone else...

Although they might be charging by normal fee structure, my guess is they are both intelligent enough (maybe not?) to effectively consider this to be pro bono (with "bono" very loosely defined).

I have no idea what most of the nation thinks, but I'm almost positive they are not following the latest developments and I think many don't care.  I've always learned to never underestimate the collective, aggregate stupidity of the nation.  Many people seem more able to tell you the latest developments in the lives of the Kardashians than those in contemporary politics.  (c.f. Jay Leno's old "Jaywalking" segments)

How many cats that were obviously in the bag to begin with have to leave the bag, meow loudly, scratch up the corners of the living room couch, and cough up hairballs on the kitchen floor for GOP member of Congress to acknowledge that there were, in fact, cats in the bag?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html)

QuoteHow many cats that were obviously in the bag to begin with have to leave the bag, meow loudly, scratch up the corners of the living room couch, and cough up hairballs on the kitchen floor for GOP member of Congress to acknowledge that there were, in fact, cats in the bag?

At least as many as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, to at least the second power.

Not enough likely to convince even 4 Republican senators to agree to call John Bolten to testify or even be interviewed by the Senate.

I worry about the lessons that will be learned from this? Will impeachment become more likely in the future?  Will the House take the time to go to court to call reluctant or 'executively privileged' witnesses to testify? 

What a mess!  To quote Clint Eastwood's character in Heartbreak Ridge, "clusterfuck" seems to sum up the process from the very start.   

I think it's worth pointing out that the mess started when the process reached the Senate.

Pelosi and Schiff ran a tight, clean ship (interrupted once by the hordes of phone-toting children at the hearing-room door) and adhered to all the required procedures.

The circus started when they handed off the affidavit to the Senate. (And no, the delay in that was justified, given the holidays as well as the need to name managers specific to the conditions set by the Senate. It was done as soon as practicible).

I'm just hoping Romney, Collins, et al. can work towards getting witnesses included.

And in fact, whatever happens, the expected kangaroo-court exoneration won't be the end of it.

Too much else has come up that will have to be dealt with later: there are at least two revelations (whatever Bolton has to say, and the tapes now surfacing from Parnas' trial) that will require investigation and probably, separate charges--like those still working their way through the system on emoluments, tax evasion, etc.

So....the cats will not only be out of the bag, but scampering up to the top of the refrigerator and across the kitchen counter-top, leaving little calling cards to be cleaned up when they can't get back to their litter boxes in time.

And we may be finding more cats in bags in other kitchens.

The man from St. Ives has been busy....

M.

QuotePelosi and Schiff ran a tight, clean ship (interrupted once by the hordes of phone-toting children at the hearing-room door) and adhered to all the required procedures.

Unfortunately, there are parts of society that would not agree that this statement is factual. 

I spent the Christmas break with my parents and heard (but not listened much) to all of the ways that the House abused Their power. 

Quote from: clean on January 26, 2020, 04:36:45 PM

QuotePelosi and Schiff ran a tight, clean ship (interrupted once by the hordes of phone-toting children at the hearing-room door) and adhered to all the required procedures.

Unfortunately, there are parts of society that would not agree that this statement is factual. 

I spent the Christmas break with my parents and heard (but not listened much) to all of the ways that the House abused Their power.

Specifically? I am not trying the 'get clean.' I ask because I'd like to know.

Quote from: clean on January 26, 2020, 04:36:45 PM

QuotePelosi and Schiff ran a tight, clean ship (interrupted once by the hordes of phone-toting children at the hearing-room door) and adhered to all the required procedures.

Unfortunately, there are parts of society that would not agree that this statement is factual. 

I spent the Christmas break with my parents and heard (but not listened much) to all of the ways that the House abused Their power.

I'm just guessing that, like my own parents with Nixon, yours are only listening to Republican hermeneutics and not actually matching up events to interpretations.

It's a bit like playground dynamics...if enough kids say, "Yeah, that's exactly what happened," even if the description of events is skewed exactly contrary to the facts, the "first-hand" reports will carry the story forward and endow it with truth-seeming.

There are a number of narrative lines--about inflation, racial and gender-based discrimination, and what is right, or legal--that can be massaged to fit new circumstances, turn the apparent bogey-man into a hero, or vice-versa.

By getting lots of your friends on the swings and the merry-go-round to repeat those "apparent truths" you can win the day...unless other, unsuborned eye-witnesses can be found to fill in the picture.

The clue to who's telling the truth is Solomonic.

M.

Quote from: spork on January 26, 2020, 03:16:07 PM
How many cats that were obviously in the bag to begin with have to leave the bag, meow loudly, scratch up the corners of the living room couch, and cough up hairballs on the kitchen floor for GOP member of Congress to acknowledge that there were, in fact, cats in the bag?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html)

YOU WIN THE LULZ!

QuoteSpecifically? I am not trying the 'get clean.' I ask because I'd like to know.

It has been more then a month since I was there, and as I said, I heard, but didnt particularly listen.  I seem to recall something about the House inviting the Trump Defense team, and hearing that he was given only 48 hours notice, that the defense team would not be able to call witnesses etc, that it was an illusion.

The Ukraine money was withheld as a matter coersion (for lack of a better word).  The response is well known that the President was Required to withhold it IF there was corruption.  Also, the New people in office in Ukrane were too new to know if they were not also corrupt, or corrupt in some other way. 

again, there were plenty of other issues, and I didnt pay attention.  The Reader's Digest point of my very few posts here is that what some view as the unadulterated fact of the situation, others view as a part of the opposition spin machine. 

I hope that the Senate approves the calling of witnesses .   I really dont care who they call!  If they want to call Joe or Hunter Biden, Go Ahead, and then let them decide if that explains the President's actions! 

If the Senate Calls John Bolten, and if Bolten says anything harmful to the President, you can bet that it will be discounted because "Bolten is a disgruntled former employee" out to make a bundle on book sales.  And in the end will Bolten say anything that will convince even 60 Senators to remove the President from office, much less the required number?

Just as an informational discussion of the things you heard, this might help to ventilate the statements a bit more.

1. First I've heard of the 48-hour issue....I don't understand how that's an issue since there were several opportunities offered for hearings, witnesses, etc. The President's defense has consistently been playing footsies with the whole idea of presenting or being present at any of the situations in which they could have participated.

Invited, they refuse, then complain they weren't heard.

Asked for witness testimony, they block it, then complain they didn't get to state their case.

They really do want the jaws of the thing to work both ways, but that might just come back around to bite them--literally.

2. There was no corruption--except on the part of the US President.

The whole Biden thing has been roundly disproven, yet it's continually being brought out as a smokescreen for what really was corrupt about the whole issue: the quid pro quo now clearly tied to the POTUS (The New Yorker had a good article on this a couple weeks ago).

3. There is no reason to call the Bidens - see no. 2 above. They are not on trial. Even if they had done something wrong (they did not) the methods proposed were exactly the wrong way to go about righting anything untoward.

Likewise, the manic urge to out, or call out as a witness, the whistleblower.

That is absolutely forbideen and a danger to that person's life as well as their civil liberties.

It's also entirely unnecessary. Every point of their affidavit has been shown to be exactly correct.

Their testimony, in addition to being dangerous to them (given the threats Trump has voiced against them) is entirely superfluous.

M.

Now McConnell says he does not have votes to block witnesses.

What do we think is going on?

• Despite his best efforts, enough R's have a conscience.
• Enough R voters aren't "basey" enough to let him get away with getting Trump off the hook. So he is letting a few vulnerable R Senators vote accordingly to see how the process and polls play out.
• Amy McGrath is gaining on him and he is willing to throw Trump under the bus so that he can retain his seat in 2020 by willing to look like he is putting his country first.

Quote from: clean on January 27, 2020, 10:44:38 AM

QuoteSpecifically? I am not trying the 'get clean.' I ask because I'd like to know.

It has been more then a month since I was there, and as I said, I heard, but didnt particularly listen.  I seem to recall something about the House inviting the Trump Defense team, and hearing that he was given only 48 hours notice, that the defense team would not be able to call witnesses etc, that it was an illusion.

The Ukraine money was withheld as a matter coersion (for lack of a better word).  The response is well known that the President was Required to withhold it IF there was corruption.  Also, the New people in office in Ukrane were too new to know if they were not also corrupt, or corrupt in some other way. 

again, there were plenty of other issues, and I didnt pay attention.  The Reader's Digest point of my very few posts here is that what some view as the unadulterated fact of the situation, others view as a part of the opposition spin machine. 

I hope that the Senate approves the calling of witnesses .   I really dont care who they call!  If they want to call Joe or Hunter Biden, Go Ahead, and then let them decide if that explains the President's actions! 

If the Senate Calls John Bolten, and if Bolten says anything harmful to the President, you can bet that it will be discounted because "Bolten is a disgruntled former employee" out to make a bundle on book sales.  And in the end will Bolten say anything that will convince even 60 Senators to remove the President from office, much less the required number?

Thank you.

Quote from: ciao_yall on January 28, 2020, 04:16:32 PM
Now McConnell says he does not have votes to block witnesses.

What do we think is going on?

• Despite his best efforts, enough R's have a conscience.
• Enough R voters aren't "basey" enough to let him get away with getting Trump off the hook. So he is letting a few vulnerable R Senators vote accordingly to see how the process and polls play out.
• Amy McGrath is gaining on him and he is willing to throw Trump under the bus so that he can retain his seat in 2020 by willing to look like he is putting his country first.

Throwing out the impeachment after hearing witnesses looks more above-board. The endgame is still 'is this an impeachable offense?'  for which the founding fathers left a lot of wiggle room. So it's always a matter of opinion.

Quote from: mahagonny on January 28, 2020, 05:35:04 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on January 28, 2020, 04:16:32 PM
Now McConnell says he does not have votes to block witnesses.

What do we think is going on?

• Despite his best efforts, enough R's have a conscience.
• Enough R voters aren't "basey" enough to let him get away with getting Trump off the hook. So he is letting a few vulnerable R Senators vote accordingly to see how the process and polls play out.
• Amy McGrath is gaining on him and he is willing to throw Trump under the bus so that he can retain his seat in 2020 by willing to look like he is putting his country first.

Throwing out the impeachment after hearing witnesses looks more above-board. The endgame is still 'is this an impeachable offense?'  for which the founding fathers left a lot of wiggle room. So it's always a matter of opinion.

It seems obvious to me to why not have a trial with witnesses and THEN acquit...unless you think the witnesses will make the crime so obvious they have to find him guilty.  It is clear to me that Trump is also having some major symptoms of some kind of dementia like aphasia, balance issues, speaking issues, inability to retain new info, speaking repetitively, etc.

QuoteIt is clear to me that Trump is also having some major symptoms of some kind of dementia like aphasia, balance issues, speaking issues, inability to retain new info, speaking repetitively, etc.

Dont we ALL?  These look like pretty well sum up the reasons that I dont want anyone to record my lectures!!

Quote from: clean on January 29, 2020, 07:00:23 PM

QuoteIt is clear to me that Trump is also having some major symptoms of some kind of dementia like aphasia, balance issues, speaking issues, inability to retain new info, speaking repetitively, etc.

Dont we ALL?  These look like pretty well sum up the reasons that I dont want anyone to record my lectures!!

Hopefully, you do not exhibit ALL of these symptoms, especially frequently and together.

Now that it looks like there will be no further witnesses, to be followed by the inevitable votes that will defeat the articles of impeachment, we'll get to look forward to Trump unchained, with everything done by fiat, supported by the Senate. This represents a bigly step towards tyranny. If you have not done so, please go buy, and read this nice little book: On Tyranny, by Timothy Snyder. It is illuminating.

This election will be "fun", and the outcome perhaps the most important one since 1860, or 1932.

Quote from: mamselle on January 26, 2020, 04:14:54 PM
The circus started when they handed off the affidavit to the Senate. (And no, the delay in that was justified, given the holidays as well as the need to name managers specific to the conditions set by the Senate. It was done as soon as practicible).

This is propaganda. The Speaker held onto the articles in an attempt to influence the rules of the Senate trial. She admitted as much publicly, and every major newspaper reported it.

Quote from: writingprof on January 31, 2020, 11:21:22 AM

Quote from: mamselle on January 26, 2020, 04:14:54 PM
The circus started when they handed off the affidavit to the Senate. (And no, the delay in that was justified, given the holidays as well as the need to name managers specific to the conditions set by the Senate. It was done as soon as practicible).

This is propaganda. The Speaker held onto the articles in an attempt to influence the rules of the Senate trial. She admitted as much publicly, and every major newspaper reported it.

Well, if she hadn't tried to influence the rules of the Senate trial there would have been no Senate trial, just acquittal without witnesses or even a hearing because Party over Country.

Whatever you think about Trump, is that democracy?

Quote from: ciao_yall on January 31, 2020, 11:25:25 AM

Quote from: writingprof on January 31, 2020, 11:21:22 AM

Quote from: mamselle on January 26, 2020, 04:14:54 PM
The circus started when they handed off the affidavit to the Senate. (And no, the delay in that was justified, given the holidays as well as the need to name managers specific to the conditions set by the Senate. It was done as soon as practicible).

This is propaganda. The Speaker held onto the articles in an attempt to influence the rules of the Senate trial. She admitted as much publicly, and every major newspaper reported it.

Well, if she hadn't tried to influence the rules of the Senate trial there would have been no Senate trial, just acquittal without witnesses or even a hearing because Party over Country.

Whatever you think about Trump, is that democracy?

Sorry, but that's bad arguing.  Mamselle said something patently false.  I explained what the truth is.  Your assertion that the true behavior, which I characterized correctly, was necessary . . . is neither here nor there.

For what it's worth, I agree with you.  Mamselle should have made that point instead of attempting to gaslight us about something that is both factual and easily verifiable.

I don't do gaslight.

But now, unless a couple brave souls come forward who have been hiding from Diogenes' oil lamps, tonight, it's all over but the shouting.

In a couple of years, when they start hauling people off the the gas chambers because King Donald I doesn't like the color of their faces, you can remember this moment....

M.

Quote from: mamselle on January 31, 2020, 12:28:37 PM
In a couple of years, when they start hauling people off the the gas chambers because King Donald I doesn't like the color of their faces, you can remember this moment....

That is a very foolish thing to say and would be irresponsible if any human being alive was likely to believe it.  Sane voices on the left, feel free to chime in here.

Quote from: writingprof on January 31, 2020, 03:03:29 PM

Quote from: mamselle
In a couple of years, when they start hauling people off the the gas chambers because King Donald I doesn't like the color of their faces, you can remember this moment....

That is a very foolish thing to say and would be irresponsible if any human being alive was likely to believe it.  Sane voices on the left, feel free to chime in here.

It's not all that outlandish when we know that children were kidnapped at his order and their parents were told they were "going to have a bath", all because he didn't like the colour of their faces or the sound of their voices.

I mean, look. He won't become king, and he probably won't start a new Holocaust (although we should be honest about what's happening at the border with Mexico). But he will absolutely dramatically increase suffering in the country, and in the world. He already has. And as someone watching from outside the US (and with an American spouse), it sure looks to me like the US is in decline. Actually, it looks like that decline has sharply accelerated since he took office, and I would expect it to continue as long as he stays in office. Even if he's ousted, I expect the decline to continue at its accelerated pace under most of the Democratic hopefuls.

He should have been impeached on emoluments. He should have been impeached on kidnapping and caging children. He should have been impeached for his recent war crime (and his support of others). He should have been impeached for his multiple rapes and sexual assaults. He should have been impeached for his lies. He should have been impeached for undermining the 2016 election. He should have been impeached for fraud. He should have been impeached for the Ukraine thing.

Given those givens, I can only conclude that something is fundamentally broken in the US, and your total inability to deal with this monster only serves to highlight it. Barring a dramatic change of direction in the very near future, it looks to me like you guys are absolutely fucked.

Quote from: writingprof on January 31, 2020, 03:03:29 PM

Quote from: mamselle on January 31, 2020, 12:28:37 PM
In a couple of years, when they start hauling people off the the gas chambers because King Donald I doesn't like the color of their faces, you can remember this moment....

That is a very foolish thing to say and would be irresponsible if any human being alive was likely to believe it.  Sane voices on the left, feel free to chime in here.

You mean, after all DJT's gleeful talk about deporting people who have lived here, raised families, and even paid taxes for years? The same country that relocated thousands of American citizens to internment camps while the holocaust was taking place over in Germany? The same country that started the eugenics movement which was Hitler's inspiration?

Quote from: bopper on January 29, 2020, 11:09:39 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 28, 2020, 05:35:04 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on January 28, 2020, 04:16:32 PM
Now McConnell says he does not have votes to block witnesses.

What do we think is going on?

• Despite his best efforts, enough R's have a conscience.
• Enough R voters aren't "basey" enough to let him get away with getting Trump off the hook. So he is letting a few vulnerable R Senators vote accordingly to see how the process and polls play out.
• Amy McGrath is gaining on him and he is willing to throw Trump under the bus so that he can retain his seat in 2020 by willing to look like he is putting his country first.

Throwing out the impeachment after hearing witnesses looks more above-board. The endgame is still 'is this an impeachable offense?'  for which the founding fathers left a lot of wiggle room. So it's always a matter of opinion.

It seems obvious to me to why not have a trial with witnesses and THEN acquit...unless you think the witnesses will make the crime so obvious they have to find him guilty.  It is clear to me that Trump is also having some major symptoms of some kind of dementia like aphasia, balance issues, speaking issues, inability to retain new info, speaking repetitively, etc.

Or, # 4...

• McConnell wanted to put pressure on waffling R's such as Murkowski by getting R constituents to out-call the D constituents for pressure.

Yes, I'm also convinced the rulers of the Republican sandboxes "have something on" every single Senator and Representative, to keep them in line with threats of leaks, etc.

I mean, look what their leader does...

M.

Quote from: writingprof on January 31, 2020, 03:03:29 PM

Quote from: mamselle on January 31, 2020, 12:28:37 PM
In a couple of years, when they start hauling people off the the gas chambers because King Donald I doesn't like the color of their faces, you can remember this moment....

That is a very foolish thing to say and would be irresponsible if any human being alive was likely to believe it.  Sane voices on the left, feel free to chime in here.

As a sane voice on the left, I stand with Mamselle.  See Niemoller.

Quote from: writingprof on January 31, 2020, 03:03:29 PM

Quote from: mamselle on January 31, 2020, 12:28:37 PM
In a couple of years, when they start hauling people off the the gas chambers because King Donald I doesn't like the color of their faces, you can remember this moment....

That is a very foolish thing to say and would be irresponsible if any human being alive was likely to believe it.  Sane voices on the left, feel free to chime in here.

Another sane voice chiming in. The faces are just brown this time...It doesn't have to look EXACTLY the same to be horrifically wrong.

I suppose I'm more left than right; I don't necessarily identify as radical. But yeah, Mamselle's 100% right.

Quote from: writingprof on January 31, 2020, 03:03:29 PM

Quote from: mamselle on January 31, 2020, 12:28:37 PM
In a couple of years, when they start hauling people off the the gas chambers because King Donald I doesn't like the color of their faces, you can remember this moment....

That is a very foolish thing to say and would be irresponsible if any human being alive was likely to believe it.  Sane voices on the left, feel free to chime in here.

writingprof: this state representative disagrees with you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/02/02/montana-lawmaker-constitution-socialists/

Quote from: backatit on February 02, 2020, 02:04:07 PM

Quote from: writingprof on January 31, 2020, 03:03:29 PM

Quote from: mamselle on January 31, 2020, 12:28:37 PM
In a couple of years, when they start hauling people off the the gas chambers because King Donald I doesn't like the color of their faces, you can remember this moment....

That is a very foolish thing to say and would be irresponsible if any human being alive was likely to believe it.  Sane voices on the left, feel free to chime in here.

Another sane voice chiming in. The faces are just brown this time...It doesn't have to look EXACTLY the same to be horrifically wrong.

Obviously here people do believe it but not because Mamselle says it. They already believed it. I think his proposing a state run news service is pretty scary. People are already  free to refute CNN.

I really doubt that anyone has anything on Lamar Alexander, at least not that anyone would care about.  He's obviously not concerned about re-election or election to much of anything else. He'd just rather be wrong and reasonably well-liked (by Republicans anyway) than correct (and consistent! I mean he basically said "He did it! Its really bad! But I don't think he deserves to be punished....because??  There really is no because.

Anyway, R.I.P. Democracy. It was a nice run. I mean if you count the Magna Carta, its over 800 years,
almost 2500 if you count ancient Athens, and possibly more if you count some who aren't in history books (and that I don't know much about).

Quote from: Ruralguy on February 03, 2020, 12:54:07 PM
I really doubt that anyone has anything on Lamar Alexander, at least not that anyone would care about.  He's obviously not concerned about re-election or election to much of anything else. He'd just rather be wrong and reasonably well-liked (by Republicans anyway) than correct (and consistent! I mean he basically said "He did it! Its really bad! But I don't think he deserves to be punished....because??  There really is no because.

Anyway, R.I.P. Democracy. It was a nice run. I mean if you count the Magna Carta, its over 800 years,
almost 2500 if you count ancient Athens, and possibly more if you count some who aren't in history books (and that I don't know much about).

There is democracy outside the USA...

We will miss you though.

Quote from: Kron3007 on February 03, 2020, 01:02:52 PM

Quote from: Ruralguy on February 03, 2020, 12:54:07 PM
I really doubt that anyone has anything on Lamar Alexander, at least not that anyone would care about.  He's obviously not concerned about re-election or election to much of anything else. He'd just rather be wrong and reasonably well-liked (by Republicans anyway) than correct (and consistent! I mean he basically said "He did it! Its really bad! But I don't think he deserves to be punished....because??  There really is no because.

Anyway, R.I.P. Democracy. It was a nice run. I mean if you count the Magna Carta, its over 800 years,
almost 2500 if you count ancient Athens, and possibly more if you count some who aren't in history books (and that I don't know much about).

There is democracy outside the USA...

We will miss you though.

And in Maine, because of ranked-choice voting.

How many despotic rulers have there been, total? Given Trump's personality and success so far, it would be strange not to suspect we're about to get another one. He shows all the signs.

The ignominious name of "Rand Paul" is now down in history as the most despicable imaginable.

M.

You all are lying. Perhaps you are lying to yourselves, but the more likely thing is that you are lying for the thrill of it, as one does in an anonymous public forum. Nobody believes that Trump is, or will soon be, "king." No one believes that American democracy is dead. No one believes that concentration camps are soon to be built. If you do believe those things, now is the time to leave the country (or, if you are very brave, to begin setting up hiding places wherein you will shelter potential victims). Do it, cowards.

OK, yes, there is rhetorical hyperbole here, but the truth is that often dictatorships and Holocausts (not that I wish for that to ever be any more plural than it already has been!)  start with elections. Democracies erode over time. Also, sometimes some people's rights stay fine for a while, but other people's are trampled on rather quickly. Being both non-white and from another country seems to be Trump's "go to" for abridging rights. So, maybe I'm safe for a while since I don't fit into that category.
Maybe. I am sure he can think of a reason not to like me and not have me keep my rights.

As for the last statement, Writingprof, why should I be chased out of my own country because I think its being made worse by a particular leader? Maybe I think we should change leaders and maybe make it better? I have to stay if I am going to help make that happen.  I don't think you should have to leave either. But I do think some up top behavior has to change.

Quote from: writingprof on February 04, 2020, 01:34:02 PM
You all are lying. Perhaps you are lying to yourselves, but the more likely thing is that you are lying for the thrill of it, as one does in an anonymous public forum. Nobody believes that Trump is, or will soon be, "king." No one believes that American democracy is dead. No one believes that concentration camps are soon to be built. If you do believe those things, now is the time to leave the country (or, if you are very brave, to begin setting up hiding places wherein you will shelter potential victims). Do it, cowards.

Concentration camps have already been built along the Southern border.  Hitler didn't start out with death camps...

As Ruralguy stated, there is hyperbole here, which I would have expected a writingprof to understand, but this is the direction things are going.  For example, Trump was recently found guilty of defrauding a charity and has to pay millions in fines, yet this was barely a blip in the news cycle.  If any other president would have been found guilty of similar crimes, it would have been everywhere and spelled disaster.  This is just a small demonstration of how Trump has shifted what is considered bad behavior, or at least what qualifies as bad enough to matter, and has started to do things that most people would consider unethical and a violation of his position.   He lies constantly, and it is now accepted as due course for the president.  Many of his base know this and simply dont care (such as you?).  This is a classic Nazi approach to propaganda.  This dosnt mean that he is a Nazi, but he is using far too many of their tricks to miss the parallels. 

So, no he is not King but is working toward dictatorship and/or a dynasty.  This is in fairly plain view.  Democracy is not dead in the USA, but it is significantly wounded and heading in the wrong direction.

I am not American, so I cannot leave, but the shift is plain to see.

Quote from: Kron3007 on February 04, 2020, 02:30:29 PM

Quote from: writingprof on February 04, 2020, 01:34:02 PM
You all are lying. Perhaps you are lying to yourselves, but the more likely thing is that you are lying for the thrill of it, as one does in an anonymous public forum. Nobody believes that Trump is, or will soon be, "king." No one believes that American democracy is dead. No one believes that concentration camps are soon to be built. If you do believe those things, now is the time to leave the country (or, if you are very brave, to begin setting up hiding places wherein you will shelter potential victims). Do it, cowards.

Concentration camps have already been built along the Southern border.  Hitler didn't start out with death camps...

As Ruralguy stated, there is hyperbole here, which I would have expected a writingprof to understand, but this is the direction things are going.  For example, Trump was recently found guilty of defrauding a charity and has to pay millions in fines, yet this was barely a blip in the news cycle.  If any other president would have been found guilty of similar crimes, it would have been everywhere and spelled disaster.  This is just a small demonstration of how Trump has shifted what is considered bad behavior, or at least what qualifies as bad enough to matter, and has started to do things that most people would consider unethical and a violation of his position.   He lies constantly, and it is now accepted as due course for the president.  Many of his base know this and simply dont care (such as you?).  This is a classic Nazi approach to propaganda.  This dosnt mean that he is a Nazi, but he is using far too many of their tricks to miss the parallels. 

So, no he is not King but is working toward dictatorship and/or a dynasty.  This is in fairly plain view.  Democracy is not dead in the USA, but it is significantly wounded and heading in the wrong direction.

I am not American, so I cannot leave, but the shift is plain to see.

It is true that plenty of people in politics have only made just a perfunctory gesture of reaching out to all the people while their plan is more to win and marginalize the opposition. Trump has just dropped the act altogether. It doesn't surprise me to see people this scared. Writingprof or anyone on the right can argue that people's predictions are wrong or that the fear is played up to build solidarity, but the level of that fear is new, and if they don't realize it, they just don't..

Quote from: mahagonny on February 04, 2020, 03:35:22 PM

Quote from: Kron3007 on February 04, 2020, 02:30:29 PM

Quote from: writingprof on February 04, 2020, 01:34:02 PM
You all are lying. Perhaps you are lying to yourselves, but the more likely thing is that you are lying for the thrill of it, as one does in an anonymous public forum. Nobody believes that Trump is, or will soon be, "king." No one believes that American democracy is dead. No one believes that concentration camps are soon to be built. If you do believe those things, now is the time to leave the country (or, if you are very brave, to begin setting up hiding places wherein you will shelter potential victims). Do it, cowards.

Concentration camps have already been built along the Southern border.  Hitler didn't start out with death camps...

As Ruralguy stated, there is hyperbole here, which I would have expected a writingprof to understand, but this is the direction things are going.  For example, Trump was recently found guilty of defrauding a charity and has to pay millions in fines, yet this was barely a blip in the news cycle.  If any other president would have been found guilty of similar crimes, it would have been everywhere and spelled disaster.  This is just a small demonstration of how Trump has shifted what is considered bad behavior, or at least what qualifies as bad enough to matter, and has started to do things that most people would consider unethical and a violation of his position.   He lies constantly, and it is now accepted as due course for the president.  Many of his base know this and simply dont care (such as you?).  This is a classic Nazi approach to propaganda.  This dosnt mean that he is a Nazi, but he is using far too many of their tricks to miss the parallels. 

So, no he is not King but is working toward dictatorship and/or a dynasty.  This is in fairly plain view.  Democracy is not dead in the USA, but it is significantly wounded and heading in the wrong direction.

I am not American, so I cannot leave, but the shift is plain to see.

It is true that plenty of people in politics have only made just a perfunctory gesture of reaching out to all the people while their plan is more to win and marginalize the opposition. Trump has just dropped the act altogether. It doesn't surprise me to see people this scared. Writingprof or anyone on the right can argue that people's predictions are wrong or that the fear is played up to build solidarity, but the level of that fear is new, and if they don't realize it, they just don't..

One of our recent hires came here in large part because of what is going on in the states, so there are people out there making real life decisions based on this fear.  I doubt that was their only reason, but it seems to be a large part.

I know of a handful of very big shots in my field who were poached from American institutions by Canadian institutions, and for all of them, the state of politics in the USA was a major determining factor.

Edit: In the last four years, I mean.

There is one thing Writingprof may be thinking about, but not yet saying, that I would relate to. Donald Trump has several concerning
personality traits. Ego, dishonesty, megalomania, greed, antagonism. But racism is incidental to what is wrong with the guy. People on the left are undermining the chance for consensus on him, because they can't stop talking about race, race, race. That's how they're driving white voters to his side. Those white people feel accused. And I don't consider my self so insightful that I should lecture both sides. On the contrary I feel like I'm stating the obvious.

Time to stop responding to the one who calls us all liars.

Really, Mahogonny?

During all of impeachment I heard barely anything about race. Not that he doesn't deserve rebuke for his racism, but that wasn't what that particular issue was all about.

Race does get mentioned a great deal over all, but that's probably because problems exist and the President exacerbates these problems.

Nebo113 is correct. We don't need to ban rudesbies and mockingbird-killers, but we can give them the lack of attention they deserve.

As for the problem of invoking race and racism, I'm a bit torn. On the one hand, the whole "who will think of the White Men?" argument is silly and tiresome at best, and downright dangerous at worst. But I do get the problem with tone, hectoring, attacking, etc. And I don't think you want to start your discussions with extremely poor white people by leading with "privilege."

My school and those connected to it lean blue in a mostly red part of the state. I'm a big believer in fairly ordinary "red" folks and fairly ordinary "blue" folks just interacting, talking, fixing roofs, landscaping, cutting hair, selling your shoes, exhibiting art, putting on community theatre, and whatever. And just getting a sense of what everybody wants. My "red" neighbors might be pleasantly surprised to know that I don't want to take their guns--they enjoy hunting, and some of them need to kill varmints, for example. (I happen to like the word "varmint.") And I don't believe in "open borders"--I'm pretty sure I don't know anyone who does (let's at least do some vetting). And my "red" neighbors? They don't foam at the mouth and wear sheets and hoods, for the most part. Mainly they want more in their wallets, and Trump seemed to be the guy who could make that happen. And if they have fears that Trump pretty masterfully exploits, well, that's the sort of thing that ordinary people can talk about, too.

 

QuoteAnd I don't think you want to start your discussions with extremely poor white people by leading with "privilege."

Well, they've already heard about their privilege, and they know who wants to talk about it. It's probably safe to say Elizabeth Warren would get bulldozed in the general election for talking about reparations.

To be clear (and in case it needs saying): privilege is not absolute. You can be privileged in some dimensions, and not in others. Intersectionality is real, and complicated.

Gina Crosley-Corcoran's essay "Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person" is the most intelligent take I've read on the subject. It acknowledges the reality of intersectionality, but she was able to appreciate it after a great deal of reading and study (which most of her family was never able to do). So again, yes, it's real, but maybe not the subject you want to introduce to your friend who's emptying the waste from his trailer into your sewer because the sh-tter's full.

For what it's worth, I approve of the impeachment, and I approve of Romney's kinda sorta brave stand. It was the Democrats' longest reach and strongest shot at showing the nation and the world the depths of corruption and criminality exhibited by President Trump, and showing the Republicans as supporters of such corruption. The president has soiled this republic, and the foul stain of his fetid feculence may take generations to wipe clean.

Quote from: little bongo on February 06, 2020, 06:49:33 AM
Gina Crosley-Corcoran's essay "Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person" is the most intelligent take I've read on the subject. It acknowledges the reality of intersectionality, but she was able to appreciate it after a great deal of reading and study (which most of her family was never able to do). So again, yes, it's real, but maybe not the subject you want to introduce to your friend who's emptying the waste from his trailer into your sewer because the sh-tter's full.

How many people would actually deny that white privilege is real, as opposed to just not warming up to the people who want to interject it into so many conversations?

Quote from: mahagonny on February 06, 2020, 09:01:38 AM


How many people would actually deny that white privilege is real, as opposed to just not warming up to the people who want to interject it into so many conversations?

It appears you've never been tasked to teach it as part of your curriculum.

Quote from: Diogenes on February 06, 2020, 11:15:37 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on February 06, 2020, 09:01:38 AM


How many people would actually deny that white privilege is real, as opposed to just not warming up to the people who want to interject it into so many conversations?

It appears you've never been tasked to teach it as part of your curriculum.

No. In my field anyone who has brought the field forward is a hero of mine. I suppose I mostly forget to mention their race gender and a few other things about them. The atmosphere around here is too charged. I let their work convey the beauty of their minds and hearts to the students. Works pretty good.  But you see, the diversity and inclusion staff and the handful of professors who are their darlings want to have an effect on how I teach. They won't. They've infiltrated the professional development funds, but I can survive without getting support for professional funding.

Speaker Pelosi now says that the President's comments on Roger Stone are an "abuse of power."

Abuse of power, eh? That sounds impeachable. Let's get this train going again!

Sure. Only let's include everything else this time.

whereas the president was already acquitted for abusing power when he obviously did, it is the senate who need impeaching. Since he has a habit of retaliating against people for doing their job, his complaining about the court's treatment of Roger Stone could be construed as a threat. He does it to himself. What amazes me is that none of his slightly more civilized republican buddies are convincing him to put a lid on it.

Quote from: mahagonny on February 13, 2020, 10:15:11 AM
whereas the president was already acquitted for abusing power when he obviously did, it is the senate who need impeaching. Since he has a habit of retaliating against people for doing their job, his complaining about the court's treatment of Roger Stone could be construed as a threat. He does it to himself. What amazes me is that none of his slightly more civilized republican buddies are convincing him to put a lid on it.

I'm sure they would if they could.  But "convincing him" suggests his listening, reflecting, and reasoning.  That seems unlikely to happen.

Quote from: writingprof on February 13, 2020, 09:54:11 AM
Speaker Pelosi now says that the President's comments on Roger Stone are an "abuse of power."

Abuse of power, eh? That sounds impeachable. Let's get this train going again!

And Barr is getting annoyed with Trump about his tweeting behavior... let's see how long he lasts trying to defend him.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Quote from: ciao_yall on February 14, 2020, 10:26:42 AM

And Barr is getting annoyed with Trump about his tweeting behavior... let's see how long he lasts trying to defend him.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

My guess is that Barr lasts however long the administration lasts.


I don't remember how things went down any more: wasn't Barr supposed to be a temporary replacement for Jeff Sessions? If not, who was it?

It's sad, and sobering, to see I'm not alone in saying this: W. Schaub says the "new," post-impeachment Trump is the most dangerous one:

   https://www.vox.com/2020/2/14/21137873/walter-shaub-trump-new-york-quid-pro-quo-explained

He's most concerned that by increased "normalization" of outrageous incursions on the democratic process, the numbing or "whatever" response of the wider populace clears the way for more abuses.

M.

Quote from: mamselle on February 15, 2020, 11:08:01 AM
It's sad, and sobering, to see I'm not alone in saying this: W. Schaub says the "new," post-impeachment Trump is the most dangerous one:

   https://www.vox.com/2020/2/14/21137873/walter-shaub-trump-new-york-quid-pro-quo-explained

He's most concerned that by increased "normalization" of outrageous incursions on the democratic process, the numbing or "whatever" response of the wider populace clears the way for more abuses.

M.

Sounds right to me.

But don't worry! You can hold him accountable by voting him out of office! /sarcasm