ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Snowflake-In-Chief Not Person Of The Year, Sorry

[ Posted Friday, December 13th, 2019 – 18:17 UTC ]

And so we come to the close of the most momentous week in Washington of the year. In one week's time, we've seen articles of impeachment move to the floor of the House of Representatives, an agreement between House Democrats and the White House to move forward on the U.S./Mexico/Canada Agreement, a truce declared in the budget battles (that had threatened to shut down the government once again), Democrats agreeing to the creation of the "Space Force" in exchange for paid family leave for federal workers, a tentative trade cease-fire declared with China, the Senate unanimously backing up the overwhelming vote in the House to declare the Armenian genocide for what it was, the release of an inspector general's report that totally debunked most of the conspiracy theories about the initiation of the counterintelligence operation at the edges of the 2016 Trump campaign, President Trump being forced to pay a $2 million fine for misuse of his own charitable foundation, and the House passing a landmark bill to fight the greed of drug companies by finally using the federal government's buying power to force lower prices on prescription medication. Again: all of these rather large things happened in a single week.

That's pretty productive, you've got to admit. Although the impeachment battle was the one issue which sucked up all the media oxygen, there were plenty of other things going on in Washington that didn't get anywhere near enough attention. Like Donald Trump having an epic hissy fit over not being named Time magazine's "person of the year." But we're getting ahead of ourselves....

At the start of the week, an inspector general report was released to the public which showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that Donald Trump is nothing short of paranoid. All his many claims of political bias in the Russia investigation were thoroughly debunked, which his own F.B.I. director then openly admitted. But seeing his conspiracy theories flushed down the tubes wasn't acceptable to Trump, so he sent his toady attorney general out to claim (once again) that up was down and black was white. Trump then immediately began claiming the exact opposite of what the I.G. report actually said, which isn't really that big a surprise.

Nothing showed the stark difference in how Democrats and Republicans are approaching impeachment so much as Representative Matt Gaetz, who complained during an impeachment committee meeting about Hunter Biden's past sins:

I don't want to make light of anybody's substance abuse issues. But it's a little hard to believe that Burisma hired Hunter Biden to resolve their international disputes when he could not resolve his own dispute with Hertz rental car leaving cocaine and a crack pipe in the car.

Unfortunately for Gaetz, his own house is built of the thinnest and most fragile glass imaginable, as Democrat Hank Johnson immediately pointed out:

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) then spoke up to oppose Gaetz's amendment, but not before taking a pointed swipe at his colleague's own run-in with the law. Gaetz was arrested in 2008 on suspicion of D.U.I., declining a breathalyzer test and a field sobriety test, according to the Tampa Bay Times. The charges against Gaetz were later dropped, and he was never convicted.

"I would say that the pot calling the kettle black is not something that we should do," Johnson said, prompting laughter to break out in the hearing room.

"I don't know what members, if any, have had any problems with substance abuse, been busted in D.U.I., I don't know," he continued, shooting a glance in Gaetz's direction. "But if I did, I wouldn't raise it against anyone on this committee. I don't think it's proper."

Cameras showed Gaetz watching Johnson, expressionless, and looking down as the Georgia lawmaker concluded his scolding. Johnson then continued with a criticism of Gaetz's amendment, asking Gaetz whether it's "ever OK for a president of the United States of America to invite foreign interference in an upcoming presidential election campaign."

The lawmakers stared at each other, silently, from across the dais for 17 seconds before Johnson moved on with his argument.

The best summary statement, though, came from the committee's chair, Jerry Nadler:

The evidence shows that Donald J. Trump, the president of the United States, has put himself before his country. He has violated his most basic responsibilities to the people. He has broken his oath. I will honor mine. If you would honor yours, then I urge you to your duty.

All along this impeachment has resembled Kabuki theater, which is kind of strange. There have been no surprises in how the process has played out at all -- House Democrats were going to impeach Trump, Republicans were going to stick their heads in the sand, and then the Senate is going to quickly vote and Trump will remain in office. Every single part of this passion play has happened exactly as everyone expected it would. While we're in the midst of an event that has only happened two previous times (three, if you count what happened to Richard Nixon) in American history, it is seen by the public at large as nothing more than a preordained process where everyone knows full well how it's going to end. In this regard, Nancy Pelosi was probably right to get through the process as fast as was humanly possible, because dragging it out wasn't going to change much of anything of the overall storyline. But more on that particular issue in a moment.

What else has been happening in the world of politics? Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg got in a tussle over transparency, which led to both candidates acquiescing to the demands of the other. Warren admitted she had made almost $2 million from corporate work before she got into politics, while Buttigieg is now allowing the press into his high-dollar fundraisers and will be publishing the names of his biggest bundlers (those who raise over $250,000 for his campaign). Warren has been hitting both Buttigieg and Joe Biden over accepting large donations, painting the two of them as not being sufficiently ready to take on Wall Street.

Biden's campaign sent up a rather strange trial balloon by talking to the press about the possibility of Biden announcing that he'd only be a one-term president and wouldn't even run for re-election in 2024. This was almost universally seen as a bad political move, so it's doubtful we'll ever hear the subject raised by the Biden camp again.

The December Democratic presidential debate is less than a week away, but as of this writing, it's doubtful that any candidates will even appear on the stage. This was a fast-moving story today, so further developments are sure to happen quickly.

Initially, this debate was scheduled to happen at UCLA, until it was discovered that AFSCME Local 3299 was in contract talks with the University of California. Because of the labor dispute, the event was moved to Loyola Marymount University instead.

Today, Elizabeth Warren tweeted out that she would not be crossing a picket line at Loyola Marymount, even if it meant skipping the debate, because Unite Here Local 11 -- representing 150 cashiers, cooks, dishwashers, and servers -- is picketing the university in the midst of their own stalled push for a collective bargaining agreement.

All the other Democratic candidates who have qualified for this debate -- Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer, Amy Klobuchar, and Pete Buttigieg -- quickly followed Warren's lead and announced that they too would refuse to cross a picket line. Stay tuned, because with none of the candidates willing to appear at this venue, there will likely be another change coming soon from the Democratic National Committee. Isn't there a community center somewhere in Southern California that uses Union labor and is big enough to hold a Democratic debate? We all may be about to find out the answer to that question.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

As occasionally happens, we've got a rather unusual pair of awards this week, so we encourage everyone to read both of these segments before reacting.

Our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. As we already noted, this has been a rather momentous week, chock full of jarring disconnects such as Pelosi gravely announcing the two articles of impeachment against the president and then a mere hour later proudly announcing that she had brokered a deal with the White House on the U.S.M.C.A. trade agreement.

Pelosi managed an almost-impossible feat by striking a trade agreement that was heartily endorsed by one of the most influential Labor leaders in the country, the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., Richard Trumka. This is a huge win, because it gives an enormous amount of political cover for Democratic politicians to support the new deal. Democrats have been politically burned in the past for their support of free trade (see: NAFTA backlash), so many of them are more than a little bit wary about supporting another one. But with Trumka on board they can accurately state that they are standing together with Labor in supporting it. Again, this gives an enormous amount of political cover that will prove to be crucial in explaining their support to their own constituents.

When Trump initially unveiled his proposed deal earlier this year, House Democrats reacted negatively:

Senior members criticized the trade deal as "incomplete," "flawed and dangerous" and "likely a dead-end in a Democratic House of Representatives." It quickly became clear that further negotiations would be needed to garner support from House Democrats.

Those negotiations dragged on all year long, despite the White House constantly pushing to hold votes to approve what they'd already agreed to with Mexico and Canada. Democrats made four big demands, and eventually they got almost everything they asked for. As Pelosi put it this week: "You know what I've said: These have been the fights. And we stayed on this, and we ate their lunch."

The House now seems poised to pass the new version of the U.S.M.C.A. before the holidays, and it is looking like Canada and Mexico will agree to the new deal as well. In fact, Trump may have some trouble over in the Senate, because Republicans there are not exactly happy with how liberal the deal turned out to be.

But the trade deal wasn't the only milestone for Pelosi this week. She also scored a big win on impeachment, allowing the moderate House members who were worried about their chances for re-election to have a very focused set of impeachment articles. Other Democrats had been arguing to throw everything but the kitchen sink in these articles, starting with those ten instances of obstruction of justice that the Mueller Report detailed. Pelosi has always been reluctant to even jump into the impeachment fray, which is likely why she went lean in the end. Everybody already knows the Senate is not going to remove Trump from office, so Pelosi did what she could to limit any possible political fallout in her own chamber.

Pelosi also scored a victory on paid family leave for federal workers, which has long been an important issue for progressives. This is a monumental shift in federal policy that will affect millions of workers, and all Pelosi had to give up to get it was to allow Trump to have his "Space Force" to brag about. This has always been a rather childish obsession with Trump, and allowing him to have it isn't really that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, so Pelosi traded it for a much more important policy shift for federal workers.

Progressives did score a win with Pelosi this week as well, as they got her to move with some last-minute demands to improve the prescription drug pricing bill before it got voted on. Moderates were pushing for rather timid and incremental steps, but the progressives accurately pointed out that Mitch McConnell wasn't ever going to allow a vote on any bill the House passed, so why not make it much stronger so that it would be more effective as a political messaging opportunity in the upcoming congressional elections? Attacking the high price of prescription drugs was a huge issue in the 2016 midterms, so this bill would be a marker of what Democrats could actually achieve if they take back the Senate and the White House in 2020. As Pelosi said on the House floor before the vote: "We're finally giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower drug prices." This is a very big deal, because again this has been an important Democratic agenda goal for the past two decades.

Here's a good rundown of what made it into the final bill:

The bill amounts to a blueprint for the sweeping action that Democrats could take with unified control of Washington in 2021, lawmakers said in the run-up to the vote. It would mandate that the government negotiate the price of at least 25 Medicare Part D drugs annually, ultimately requiring federal officials to hammer out the cost of at least 50 medicines a year. Commercial insurers could also take advantage of the deals.

A separate set of provisions would limit drug manufacturers' ability to annually hike prices in Medicare, forcing them to rebate the portion of the increase that is above the rate of inflation. The bill envisions eventually expanding that requirement to the private sector under language that progressives led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal secured in negotiations with Pelosi just 48 hours ahead of the vote.

The legislation would also place a first-ever cap on out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

Democrats directed the bulk of the bill's projected savings toward an ambitious expansion of Medicare benefits that would extend dental, vision and hearing coverage to seniors. Additional investments are earmarked for federal research agencies like the National Institutes of Health, and efforts to slow the opioid epidemic.

The Congressional Budget Office predicted that the legislation overall would lower federal spending by $456 billion over a decade, with the expansion of Medicare benefits costing the government roughly $358 billion over a decade.

Taken together, what Pelosi achieved this week was the culmination of a lot of hard work done over the entire year. The looming holiday break has always been a big motivator for Congress to actually get things done rather than endlessly waffle, and this year has proven this to be true in a big way.

So for getting so much done this week, which included victories for both the moderate and progressive wings of her caucus, the obvious choice for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week was none other than Nancy Pelosi.

[Congratulate Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on her official contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

As we previously said, please keep reading before deciding on your reaction to this week's awards.

This week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award, in a surprise split decision, also goes to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

You can't get as much done as Pelosi managed this week without disappointing some Democrats, plain and simple. And because there was so much accomplished, there was a lot of disappointment to go around. Let's take these in the same order as above.

The new U.S.M.C.A. trade agreement, many Democrats are already arguing, is nothing more than a giant Christmas present to Donald Trump's re-election campaign. Pelosi even addressed this when announcing the new deal: "There are a few who have said: 'Why? You shouldn't do this. This gives him a win.' No. We are so far away from the proposal that he put forth that this is a triumph for American workers."

Pelosi is making the case that passing U.S.M.C.A. is actually good politics for House Democrats, because it undermines the Republican argument (which they've been leaning on rather hard during the impeachment hearings) that "all Democrats want to do is impeach Trump, when they should be doing the people's business they were sent here to do." They desperately want to paint Pelosi's Democratic House as vengeful and otherwise incompetent. Trump himself has tried to paint them as "do-nothing Democrats." Passing the trade deal completely cuts this argument off at the knees.

But by doing so, it hands Trump only his second major legislative victory (the other being the wildly unpopular Paul Ryan tax cuts). The list of what Trump's been able to get Congress to do now has two items rather than just one, in other words, and you can bet your bottom dollar he'll be bragging about it no end on the campaign trail.

People making the argument that Democrats should have refused to deal with Trump at all, though, are making a case that the American people really aren't behind, because it is arguing for continued partisan gridlock on everything for the next year. That's not a message that plays well for people running for House seats, to put it bluntly.

So far, the Democrats running for president have mostly criticized the new trade deal Pelosi struck. They have the luxury of doing so, since they are engaged in convincing Democratic primary voters that they're the best ones to fight Trump. This will only get more apparent as the trade deal works its way through the Senate next year. But they're certainly not the only Democrats warning that trade deals usually don't work out anywhere near as well for American workers as initially advertised. So seeing Trump get a big political win and seeing another trade deal passed is not exactly reason for all Democrats to be celebrating right now.

On impeachment, Pelosi disappointed many Democrats by limiting the articles of impeachment to the bare bones of the Ukraine scandal. Since the Senate was unlikely to vote Trump out of office, why shouldn't Democrats have gone whole hog and included every possible instance of presidential abuse of power possible? There is certainly no shortage of such possibilities, after all. In addition to the obstruction of justice charges laid out by Robert Mueller, there are numerous other ways Trump has either bent or outright broken constitutional norms. Since Democrats only had one bite at the impeachment apple, why not provide a record for history of everything Trump has so far gotten away with?

This wasn't even the only way Pelosi disappointed many Democrats on impeachment. The speed with which the House has moved has meant refusing to delay for the federal courts to weigh in on any of it. The most obvious example of this was refusing to push harder to get John Bolton to testify before the House. Bolton is unique in this process because not only was he a Trump insider who was in the room when many of these decisions were discussed, but he's also seriously annoyed at Trump for being fired. There are others who were also in the room, but they are all still Trump sycophants and likely wouldn't give any negative testimony at all. There are others annoyed at Trump, but without the inside knowledge that Bolton has. Bolton even teased what he could testify to through his lawyer in the middle of the process, but Democrats never called his bluff. It now seems that whatever story Bolton has to tell will have to wait until his book comes out -- which will be far too late to have any actual effect on the process.

Pelosi's streamlined impeachment will be second-guessed for decades, that much appears certain. She made her decision pretty early on and has stuck to it, but the entire process has left many Democrats seriously disappointed. And that's putting it mildly.

Pelosi is also already getting some heat for the prescription drug bill the House just passed. She was forced to modify it to soothe progressives at the last minute, but the progressives do have a very valid point. The bill is modest and incremental (covering only 25-50 drugs rather than all drugs) rather than bold and as transformative as possible. Since Mitch McConnell was never going to allow a vote on the bill anyway, why not shoot for the moon?

What Pelosi got passed was a big deal, as it is the first time such a bill (allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices) made it this far. But it could have been a much bigger deal, obviously. Because of this, many progressives are likely to remain disappointed at what might have been.

So as has happened a few times in the past, we are going to give both our weekly awards to the same person this week. Nancy Pelosi chalked up an impressive amount of action this past week -- even her detractors would have to admit that. But in doing so she also disappointed many Democrats, mostly for not going far enough. Because of this, we find that Nancy Pelosi also has to be seen as our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on her official contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 554 (12/13/19)

We've got an eclectic mixed bag of talking points this week. So much was going on that it was hard to even decide what was most suited to comment on, in fact. And then we just threw in two at the end to get under Donald Trump's incredibly thin skin, just because he's been such a snowflake this week. So there's that to look forward to....

And speaking of things to look forward to, this column will not appear for the next two Fridays, because we've got our annual year-end "McLaughlin Awards" to hand out. So Friday Talking Points will see everyone again in the new year. If you'd like to nominate someone or some event for one of the many categories, we threw the nominations open this week, so please share your ideas!

 

1
   Calling a genocide a genocide, finally

This has been a very long fight, even if few people have even been aware of it. Congress has resisted taking this step for a long time, because they've always been afraid of annoying Turkey. But calling what happened 100 years ago by its proper name is indeed meaningful, and the recent frostiness between America and Turkey has now allowed Congress to do what it really should have years ago: call the Turks murdering Armenians a genocide, because that is exactly what it was. Senator Robert Menendez spoke eloquently on the Senate floor in support of the measure, which wound up passing the Senate unanimously:

America's non-response to the Turkish horrors established patterns that would be repeated... We know all too well the horrors that would be repeated later in the 20th century with the Holocaust and other genocides around the world. Here in the Senate today, we break those patterns. We join the House who voted to do so... 405 to 11. Today the Senate shows the same resolve.

 

2
   It's not us, it's the Senate...

Do-nothing Mitch!

"You know, both Trump and his Republican enablers have been trying to make a really stupid point -- stupid because it is so far from reality. Trump calls us the 'do-nothing Democrats' and Republicans weep and wail about how the House can't get anything done because of impeachment. This was proven absolutely ridiculous this week. The House struck an agreement to move forward on the North American trade deal -- by getting many important protections for workers added -- as well as passing a landmark bill to fight high prescription drug prices and negotiating a paid family leave program for federal workers. Do nothing? Hardly. In fact, there is indeed one house of Congress where absolutely nothing gets done, but it is on the other side of the Capitol. Do-Nothing Mitch McConnell presides over the legislative graveyard that is the United States Senate. In fact, the House has gotten more things done this week than the Senate has managed to do all year long."

 

3
   Do-Nothing Mitch (part 2)

Hammer hard on the drug bill, because it is a real winner for Democrats with the voters.

"Do-Nothing Mitch McConnell is refusing to even hold a vote on the prescription drug bill the House just passed, which isn't too surprising since he's refused to hold votes on hundreds of bills we've sent over to him. That is not an exaggeration -- look it up. Hundreds of bills have passed the House that could make Americans' lives easier, and Mitch refuses to even consider one of them. Right now he's refusing to allow the federal government to force the big drug corporations to lower their prices on life-saving medications like insulin. Republicans seem to want people to pay hundreds of dollars for an insulin dose that used to cost them a tiny fraction of that obscene price. Republicans, led by Do-Nothing Mitch, are just fine with the drug companies raking in billions from sick people trying to afford their medicine, while Democrats think this is just flat-out wrong. We want to fight high drug prices, but Republicans refuse to even consider it. I just have one thing to say to Do-Nothing Mitch: the voters are paying attention on this one. Good luck defending doing nothing on high drug prices next November, Mitch."

 

4
   Use the political cover given

This one is short and sweet, because the concept is so simple.

"When considering whether to vote on the new U.S./Mexico/Canada Agreement, I will be listening to what Labor leaders have to say. And right now, I have to admit that if it's good enough for the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s Richard Trumka, then it's probably going to be good enough for me to vote on."

 

5
   All down the ballot

This is already making Republicans nervous, for good reason.

"In 2010, Democrats lost over 700 state-level legislative races in the midst of the Tea Party election. As a direct result, Republicans went on a gerrymandering binge that we've paid the price for ever since. In 2020, things are going to be different, though. We've learned this lesson well -- state-level races are important when redistricting looms. Over the past three years, Democrats have won back 435 legislative seats at the state level, and flipped control of legislative chambers from New York to Colorado, from Maine to Washington. This year, we flipped the entire legislature in Virginia. And we're not done yet -- next year, we're going to target even more state-level seats so we don't get gerrymandered out of the House of Representatives for the next 10 years. And Republicans are already running scared. They even admitted in the Wall Street Journal that, quote, as few as 42 state legislative races could determine as much as a 136-seat swing in the House over the next decade, unquote. Which is exactly what we'd like to see happen, of course."

 

6
   Crocodile tears exposed

It must be tough to fight all that cyberbullying online, eh Melania?

"Last week we got a whole lot of fake outrage because Barron Trump's name came up -- in a totally benign way -- during the impeachment hearings. Republicans ginned up their phony outrage and declared minors off-limits from what they called 'attacks,' even though it wasn't anywhere near a personal attack on Barron Trump. This week, though, they are strangely silent when President Trump got in a huge snit over not being named 'person of the year' by Time magazine. The 16-year-old Greta Thunberg won instead, and Trump snidely commented on Twitter: 'So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!' This is downright laughable for any number of reasons, starting with Trump counseling anyone on the planet on 'anger management ' problems. Talk about the pot and the kettle! It's also notable since here Trump is attacking a 16-year-old a week after his wife indignantly tweeted about 'very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.' Again, have you even met your husband, Melania? Thunberg immediately showed how much classier she is than any of the Trump family by changing her Twitter profile to read: 'A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend.' But what I'm waiting for is an equal amount of outrage from all those Republicans who jumped on the 'don't attack minors' bandwagon last week. Although I'm not exactly holding my breath, if you know what I mean."

 

7
   Snowflake-In-Chief

That wasn't even the worst part of the whole episode, though.

"It must be incredibly tough work to feed Donald Trump's gargantuan ego, as was proven once again this week. After Trump threw a temper tantrum over not being named 'person of the year,' someone tried to make him feel better by editing a photo of Trump's face onto the body of Greta Thunberg, from the Time cover photo. How thin-skinned can you get? To say nothing of downright creepy -- once you've seen that photo, it's impossible to un-see it. I mean, seriously. I don't even want to hear the word 'snowflake' from any conservative ever again after seeing that absurdly doctored photo, because it is pretty obvious that Donald Trump is nothing short of our nation's Snowflake-In-Chief."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

104 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Snowflake-In-Chief Not Person Of The Year, Sorry”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    The best summary statement, though, came from the committee's chair, Jerry Nadler:

    The evidence shows that Donald J. Trump, the president of the United States, has put himself before his country. He has violated his most basic responsibilities to the people. He has broken his oath. I will honor mine. If you would honor yours, then I urge you to your duty.

    Of course there are no facts to prove ANY of what Nadler claims..

    But I also have a Nadler quote..

    "There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. And will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people"
    -Jerry Nadler

    I guess, for Nadler, (and most everyone here) it ALL depends on who is being impeached.

    A POTUS with a -D after his name or a POTUS with a -R after his name..

    :^/

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    And so we come to the close of the most momentous week in Washington of the year. In one week's time, we've seen articles of impeachment move to the floor of the House of Representatives,

    How do you feel about those 2 Articles??

    I mean, from all the hoity toity talk about "quid pro quo" and "bribery" and "extortion, Democrats only come out with TWO Impeachment Articles...

    NEITHER of which has any basis in State or Federal law???

    It's the Russia Collusion delusion all over again..

    Pretending there is a crime and then coming up with ZERO FACTS to support the pretend crime..

    Is this impeachment everything you hoped it would be???

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just because the process for impeachment falls along strictly party lines, more or less, resulting in acquittal in the Senate, doesn't mean that the president doesn't deserve to be impeached

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Just because the process for impeachment falls along strictly party lines, more or less, resulting in acquittal in the Senate, doesn't mean that the president didn't commit an impeachable offence against the constitution.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How do you define a "high crime" as stated in the constitution, Michale?

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's also notable since here Trump is attacking a 16-year-old a week after his wife indignantly tweeted about 'very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.' Again, have you even met your husband, Melania?

    Apples and alligators..

    Thornberg willingly put herself into the political scene and was not dragged into it, as Barron Trump was..

    You yourself has stated that POTUS children should NOT be dragged into a political brawl..

    Apparently, that only applies to POTUS children NOT named Trump..

    There really should be a playbill put out so one can keep track of all the honorable pearls of wisdom and righteous positions of integrity that DOESN'T apply to people named Trump.

    Would make things easier.

    As for Thornburg and her getting the Nobel??

    That was even MORE stupid than Odumbo getting the Nobel...

    Which simply proves that the Nobel isn't worth shit these days...

    It's purely Politically Correct bullshit..

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Just because the process for impeachment falls along strictly party lines, more or less, resulting in acquittal in the Senate, doesn't mean that the president doesn't deserve to be impeached

    That's not what was said weeks ago when this started.. It was virtually universally agreed (by those who made their positions clear) that an impeachment must be bi-partisan to be legitimate.. And, of course, there are all the Biden/Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler quotes as well saying the same thing..

    And, ironically, to date, the ONLY bi-partisan positions are from those who oppose impeachment..

    Just because the process for impeachment falls along strictly party lines, more or less, resulting in acquittal in the Senate, doesn't mean that the president didn't commit an impeachable offence against the constitution.

    Really??

    I have to say you are wrong.

    INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW..

    The bedrock of US Jurisprudence..

    When President Trump is acquitted in the Senate, it will be a factual statement that President Trump is **INNOCENT** of all charges...

    How do you define a "high crime" as stated in the constitution, Michale?

    I don't.. It's not my place..

    But what I can tell you for an ABSOLUTE FACT that there is no such crime as ABUSE OF POWER or OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS in ANY State or Federal Criminal code..

    Democrats are choosing hazy, nebulous "crimes" because all the evidence they have is also hazy and nebulous..

    The first tip off as to how bad a shape the Democrats are in is that they had to FOCUS GROUP the charges??

    "Forget what the FACTS say, let's just FOCUS GROUP a charge!!! So much easier!!!"

    The BEST thing to happen to Democrats is if they lose the vote in the House..

    Because if this makes it to the Senate??? It's going to a MASSACRE of Democrats..

    "From what I've read, if this makes it to court, he's going to need a priest more than a lawyer"
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You might want to re-read my comment #4 without reading stuff into it that isn't actually there.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think Congress should add to the criminal code making it illegal for a president to solicit, bribe, extort or otherwise attempt to coerce a foreign entity, government or individual into providing assistance in any way shape or form in order to influence the outcome of any political office, local, state or national.

  10. [10] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    there are no facts to prove ANY of what Nadler claims,

    The facts are ample. You just refuse to admit them.

  11. [11] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Liz -

    That would be redundant. It's already against the law to solicit, bribe, extort, or otherwise attempt to coerce a foreign entity to provide assistance in any way, shape or form to your election.

    But of course, Republicants don't recognize any laws or norms until the balance of power shifts, or at least until Moscow Mitch is out of the picture.

  12. [12] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Which simply proves that the Nobel isn't worth shit these days..

    And if Trump gets a Nobel, he'll turn it down. Not.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Damn!

  14. [14] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Chris, this is one of the best FTPs I can remember! Succinct yet sufficiently snarky, highlighting important concepts for Democratic candidates to keep in mind.

    As to Pelosi disappointing some Democrats: "the perfect is the enemy of the good". If this week accomplished nothing else, it puts the lie to Trump's continuing attacks of 'do-nothing' Democrats. Never mind that FOX News will parrot his campaign slogans, anyone who hasn't drunk the koolaid will notice.

    When the 2020 campaign season kicks into high gear, every Democratic candidate must hammer their Republican adversary with every 'no' vote (or non-vote in the case of the Senate). Believe it or not, many Americans don't realize that the Senate is controlled by the Republicans and Democrats must educate (or remind) the voter at every opportunity.

  15. [15] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Re: 'Calling a genocide a genocide'
    One has to wonder if this momentous (and long-overdue) action by the U S legislature would have happened if Trump hadn't rolled over like a puppy in the infamous phone call with Erdogan. Talk about an unintended consequence!

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just because the process for impeachment falls along strictly party lines, more or less, resulting in acquittal in the Senate, doesn't mean that the president didn't commit an impeachable offence against the constitution.

    You said just the opposite when this impeachment saga started..

    I think Congress should add to the criminal code making it illegal for a president to solicit, bribe, extort or otherwise attempt to coerce a foreign entity, government or individual into providing assistance in any way shape or form in order to influence the outcome of any political office, local, state or national.

    Fair enough.

    But as things stand NOW, there is no such "crime" as ABUSE OF POWER or OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS..

    Like Democrats' love affair with "collusion" during the Russia delusion...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    The facts are ample. You just refuse to admit them.

    Give me one of those "ample" FACTS with the sources to back them up..

    I'll wait..

    And if Trump gets a Nobel, he'll turn it down. Not.

    Irrelevant and mind-reading..

    That's all ya'all ever have...

  18. [18] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Re: 'Democrats agreeing to the creation of the "Space Force" in exchange for paid family leave for federal workers'.
    I don't think most people understand how subversive this 'compromise' is. For the first time, workers throughout the nation will have paid family leave. This will become a rallying cry for state employees and in the private sector.
    In exchange, the Dems have provided one year of funding for the much-ridiculed 'Space Force' - a transparent vanity project, which the next President or Democratically-controlled Congress will gleefully consign to the scrapheap of history.

  19. [19] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Re: 'Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer, Amy Klobuchar, and Pete Buttigieg'. In what universe does Tom Steyer register above the threshold in at least polls, but Castro doesn't? Does the DNC need to reexamine which polls it depends on, ensuring that they are including all Dem voters, not just middle-class white voters?

  20. [20] 
    John M wrote:

    [17] Michale

    "ive me one of those "ample" FACTS with the sources to back them up..

    I'll wait.."

    Why bother??? Since you have your head so far up your ass regarding reality all the time anyway. What really Michale would be the point??? You are such a slave to the ideology of Trump cult worship, FACTS mean nothing to you.

    "And if Trump gets a Nobel, he'll turn it down. Not.

    Irrelevant and mind-reading.."

    NOT irrelevant at all. You know very damn well that if Trump did win a Nobel, you would turn 180 degrees on a dime so fast that you would give yourself whiplash. You're not fooling anyone Michale.

  21. [21] 
    John M wrote:

    Rep. Barney Frank came up with a brilliant campaign slogan.

    "You don't have to live in Kentucky to vote against Mitch McConnell."

    Meaning, of course, that if Democrats take over control of the Senate, Mitch ceases to be majority leader of the Senate regardless what happens in his own race in Kentucky.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why bother??? Since you have your head so far up your ass regarding reality all the time anyway. What really Michale would be the point??? You are such a slave to the ideology of Trump cult worship, FACTS mean nothing to you.

    TRANSLATION: There are no FACTS to support ya'all's claims. Just nothing but hearsay..

    Matter of fact, the **ONLY** people who actually have FIRST HAND eyewitness accounts of the phone call have stated unequivocally that President Trump specifically ruled out 'quid pro quo'...

    But hay.. I am a fair guy.. If Democrats have the FACTS for quid pro quo or bribery or whatever, why weren't those charges included in the Articles of Impeachment??

    I'll tell you why.. Because Democrats don't have the facts to back up the charges..

    NOT irrelevant at all. You know very damn well that if Trump did win a Nobel, you would turn 180 degrees on a dime so fast that you would give yourself whiplash. You're not fooling anyone Michale.

    Irrelevant and mind-reading..

    Meaning, of course, that if Democrats take over control of the Senate,

    You just HAVE to know how much you are dreaming, right??

    The Dems have as much chance of taking the Senate as Warren has of winning the White House...

    And you saw what happened in the UK over the weekend, right??

    But hay, since yer here..

    Is the impeachment going exactly as you hoped it would??

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    In exchange, the Dems have provided one year of funding for the much-ridiculed 'Space Force' - a transparent vanity project, which the next President or Democratically-controlled Congress will gleefully consign to the scrapheap of history.

    Yea.. Cuz going into space is such a useless, ridiculous and "vain" endeavor, right??

    Funny how you Dems were all for going into space when it was a Democrat POTUS pushing it, eh??

    Thereby proving without a doubt that the only thing at play here is the -D vs -R dynamic..

    It's really sad here to see commenters sneering at space endeavors..

    What's next?? Snide comments on how crappy Star Trek is??

    Once again, the differences between the old reality based Weigantia and this new HHPTDS infused Weigantia are plain to see...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    You are such a slave to the ideology of Trump cult worship, FACTS mean nothing to you.

    Lemme know when you have any actual facts and we can test your theory... :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like President Trump has had a pretty good week..

    An agreement on a new U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal.
    A new budget including more than $1.3 billion for a border wall and blocks a government shutdown.

    House approval of the U.S. Space Force, a brand-new branch of the military.

    Government family leave that will be a model for a proposal for the public.

    Tentative agreement on trade with China.

    Approval of Trump's 50th federal appeals judge.

    Confirmation of a new Food and Drug Administration chief.

    The signing of a pro-Israel anti-Semitism executive order.

    The chances of President Trump's re-election continue to grow and grow... :D

    Plus there is a new Wall Street record. Didn't ya'all claim that Wall Street would explode if Trump was elected??

    Well, in a way, ya'all are right.. Wall Street HAS exploded... :D Just not in the way ya'all predicted..

    So, while Democrats are crying in their coffee that they can't get a single fact to support a single real impeachment charge, President Trump is racking up some real and tangible wins...

    Whatcha'all think?? Maybe it's time to simply concede 2020 to President Trump and plan for 2024??

    Because, let's face reality, people...

    President Trump is steam-rolling all over Democrats...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking semantically, President Trump has NOT been impeached until such time as the full House votes to approve the Articles Of Impeachment..

    Is that factually accurate???

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Just because the process for impeachment falls along strictly party lines, more or less, resulting in acquittal in the Senate, doesn't mean that the president didn't commit an impeachable offence against the constitution.

    That's now what Joe Biden said...

    "In the case of an impeachment, fair means bipartisan. Once the election is held, our leaders hold office until the next election. It is simply antithetical to our constitutional democracy to use impeachment to overturn an election on partisan grounds. It violates the independence of the presidency and it usurps the people’s voice."

    It is beyond question.. Beyond doubt that this is a Partisan impeachment.. Period. Full stop..

    And THAT is harmful to our country in so many ways, not the least of which giving Putin and the Russians cause for great joy and glee...

    Put plainly, Democrats are doing Putin's bidding...

    It's really THAT simple...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's now what Joe Biden said...

    Grrr.. PROOFREAD, Michale!! PROOFREAD!!!

    That's not what Joe Biden said...

    "In the case of an impeachment, fair means bipartisan. Once the election is held, our leaders hold office until the next election. It is simply antithetical to our constitutional democracy to use impeachment to overturn an election on partisan grounds. It violates the independence of the presidency and it usurps the people’s voice."

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Et Tu, U.K.?

    Labour’s wipeout in yesterday’s British election highlights the transnational defection of the white working class and deepens the global crisis of the social democratic left.
    https://prospect.org/world/et-tu-uk-labour-victory-british-election/

    I am surprised there was no mention of the UK elections in this FTP

    Surely this bedrock example of the world wide Leftist/Socialist on the run and being decimated has some bearing over US Politics..

    Fact is, Leftist/Socialist US Dem candidates are running scared and Left-moderate US Dem candidates are singing to the high heavens..

    I know, I know.. The general consensus around here is to simply ignore bad news and hope it goes away..

    Howz that werkin' out for ya'all??? :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno... It's really quite easy to guess the Democrats' plan on this whole impeachment debacle..

    They simply followed the Russia Collusion delusion playbook..

    Find a "crime".. Get some obscure meaningless sod to make the claim.. Then use all their investigative powers the House Dems have to dig into every aspect of Trump's existence and hope they hit pay dirt..

    "There has GOT to be something there because it's well.. yunno... Trump!!!"
    -House Democrats

    As I said.. Easy to figure out...

    What's hard to figure is why, since the Russia Collusion delusion playbook failed so utterly and completely, why would House Democrats think it would work THIS time around???

    "Learning the controls 's easy.. It's reading Klingon.. Now THAT is hard."
    -Captain Scott, STAR TREK IV

    Once again, if there is a flaw in the logic....

    "I am all ears"
    -H Ross Perot

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Oh boy. The Dems have figured out how they can take advantage of gerrymandering.

    This is so much better than actually solving the problem of gerrymandering.

    Of course the Dems want to flip 136 seats in the House over the next decade. This will provide the illusion of change by giving the big money Democrats control instead of the big money Republicans.

    Big money will still be in control.

    The problem with gerrymandering is more than just Democrats losing to Republicans or the other way around.

    The problem with gerrymandering is that it is set up to limit competition to the big money Democrats and Republicans.

    Gerrymandering works because citizens are led to believe they only have the two big money choices.

    Flipping 136 seats from one big money party to another big money party only helps one of those big money parties. It does nothing to help the nation or our political process.

    Flipping 136 seats from big money legislators to small donor legislators would actually help the nation and our political process.

    Stop being a cheerleader for evil and inform citizens how they can achieve a worthwhile goal that could provide real change by writing about One Demand.

    Forget all the bullshit rationalization and Get Real.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Impeachment can be legitimate **if and only if** it emanates from a ***BIPARTISAN CONVICTION*** that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction."
    -Joe Biden

    (emphasis mine)

    There you have it people... This impeachment is NOT legitimate by ANY stretch of the definition.

    If ya'all don't want to take Joe Biden's word for it..

    “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country.”

    How about Nancy Pelosi's words????

    No matter how ya'all want to spin it, by the Democrats' own words...

    This impeachment is not legitimate...

    Again... Flaw...?? Logic...?? All Ears...??? Ross Perot....

  33. [33] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    A 16 yr-old semi-retarded kid is "The person who has most influenced, for good or evil, the course of world events in the past 12 months"???

    No wonder Time Magazine has lost all relevance in the news business. Henry Luce must be rolling in his grave.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    A 16 yr-old semi-retarded kid is "The person who has most influenced, for good or evil, the course of world events in the past 12 months"???

    No wonder Time Magazine has lost all relevance in the news business. Henry Luce must be rolling in his grave.

    Give her credit...

    At such a young age, she knew which buttons to push that would bring the sheeple flocking to her door to listen to her bullshit..

    That's no small accomplishment...

    We're seeing a female Jim Jones rising up...

    The kool-aid cometh....

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    UN climate talks unravelling, face failure
    https://news.yahoo.com/un-climate-talks-unraveling-face-failure-110423955.html

    SHOCKING!!

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this... :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the spirit of the holiday season...

    Allow me to throw ya'all some hope...

    Is a trap being set for Trump in the Senate trial?

    Can 20 U.S. Senators withstand the potentially irresistible temptation to reverse the results of the 2016 election and remove a president a number of them openly or privately dislike?

    Since Donald Trump announced his intention to run for the White House on June 16, 2015, many of the entrenched elites across the various power centers of Washington and beyond have spent much of their waking hours trying to stop or unseat him.

    The political charade of an impeachment “investigation” is but the latest example. But that impeachment charade could harbor the greatest threat to Trump’s presidency.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/474242-is-a-trap-being-set-for-trump-in-the-senate-trial

    Something for ya'all to dream about and warm the cockles of yer hearts.

    Don't say I never do anything for ya'all.... :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well I have to say that you people are simply useless during my convalescence... :(

    I wish President Trump would do some stupid gaffe that would bring ya'all to your keyboards gloating how it's the end of Trump...

    With things going so awesome for President Trump and this country, ya'all are simply no fun at all..

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for the Democrat Party....

    Anti-impeachment Democrat Jeff Van Drew meets with Trump to discuss party switch
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jeff-van-drew-donald-trump-party-switch

    The hits just keep on coming...

    I am SURE that, since ya'all made such a fuss and spectacle when that Amash guy left the GOP, ya'all will be fair and balanced about this Party switch??

    I mean, ya'all are about fair and balance right??? :D

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    That would be redundant.

    Not redundant enough, apparently. Ahem.

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    That's now what Joe Biden said...

    Apples and oranges, you know. Am I not making myself clear?

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apples and oranges, you know. Am I not making myself clear?

    No. You really are not making yourself clear..

    BIDEN made himself clear when he said a partisan impeachment is an illegitimate impeachment...

    Why do all of Democrat's claims and integrity go out the window when it's Trump??

    Do the ends justify the means??

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    BIDEN made himself clear when he said a partisan impeachment is an illegitimate impeachment...

    And, I'm agreeing with YOU … and Biden.

    But, that still doesn't make the president pure as the driven snow!!!! It simply means that the president got away with impeachable behavior - not once but twice, maybe even three times, IN MY OPINION since this is an OPINION BLOG, ISN'T IT!!? - because this impeachment is going nowhere because it's practically purely partisan, FOR GOD'S SAKE!!! and, therefore, for good or evil, ILLIGITIMATE.

    Sigh. Am I making myself clear. now?

    The framers of the US constitution came up with a pretty good idea of including an impeachment clause to protect against corruptible power.

    But, they probably never imagined that one entire party could and would throw a spanner in the works. Because, well, THEY WERE TOO YOUNG! Let that be some sort of lesson for Democratic primary voters, never mind the caucusers ...

  43. [43] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    C.R. Stucki, please learn a little more about autism before you next refer to someone as 'semi-retarded.' It is possible to be highly intelligent and autistic. There are degrees of autism as well, and her fluency in speech suggests she is less affected than many.

  44. [44] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale

    "The Dems have as much chance of taking the Senate as Warren has of winning the White House..."

    How many quatloos do you want to wager on that? I will be you:

    1) The Democrats will take over the Senate in 2020, if not at least make it a 50 / 50 split and...

    2) If Warren is the Democratic nominee, she will win the presidency over Donald Trump

    "And you saw what happened in the UK over the weekend, right??"

    Yes, and it was a totally foregone and not unexpected result, since the Labour candidate Corbyn was flawed and damaged goods. With someone better, Labour might have fought the Tories to a draw. Only the huge size of Boris Johnson's win was surprising, not the fact that he won.

    "Is the impeachment going exactly as you hoped it would??"

    Let me put it another way... it is going exactly as expected. All the Democrats will vote for impeachment, none of the Republicans will. However, Trump will still be held accountable symbolically for his misdeeds, since it will become a permanent stain on his record, going down in history as only the 3rd president to ever be impeached.

    As for the Senate, obviously there are not going to be enough votes there to remove Trump from office, however, there still might be enough Republican defections to get a bare majority of 50 to 53 votes for impeachment.

  45. [45] 
    John M wrote:

    Bet you, NOT be you, LOL

    Michale

    "Well I have to say that you people are simply useless during my convalescence... :("

    All other things aside, I do wish you a speedy recovery. I myself had a heart attack and angioplasty surgery and stent placement about 5 years ago.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    And, I'm agreeing with YOU … and Biden.

    That's great.. It's always nice to have common ground.. :D

    But, that still doesn't make the president pure as the driven snow!!!!

    And no one claiming it does, least of all me..

    President Trump is an arrogant narcissistic asshole..

    Obama ALSO was arrogant and narcissistic and could be an asshole at times..

    It's the nature of the beast..

    But my point is, those qualities are NOT impeachable..

    It simply means that the president got away with impeachable behavior

    Here's where we part ways.. NONE of President Trump's conduct was impeachable..

    President Trump hasn't done anything that Obama, or Bush or Clinton hadn't done before him..

    because this impeachment is going nowhere because it's practically purely partisan, FOR GOD'S SAKE!!! and, therefore, for good or evil, ILLIGITIMATE.

    Sigh. Am I making myself clear. now?

    Yes you are. We are in complete agreement. This impeachment is not legitimate...

    Which is why it never should have been started..

    Pelosi herself said that she won't authorize impeachment unless it was bi-partisan..

    Why did she change her mind??

    The framers of the US constitution came up with a pretty good idea of including an impeachment clause to protect against corruptible power.

    Exactly... The framers understood that Party zealotry might get in the way so they made it so an impeachment CAN'T WORK strictly along Party Lines..

    Democrats are ignoring that wisdom and trying it anyways..

    The fact that most everyone here is going along with it simply indicates the depth of hatred for President Trump..

    But, they probably never imagined that one entire party could and would throw a spanner in the works.

    I disagree.. I am all but certain that the Founding Fathers KNEW that a Party would coalesce around it's leader and fight for him..

    Which is exactly why the made it so that only a BI-PARTISAN impeachment would be workable..

    A Partisan impeachment simply cannot stand.. It WON'T stand.. It won't be ALLOWED to stand..

    And the Party who TRIES a solely Partisan impeachment will pay the price at the ballot box..

    It really is THAT simple..

    Because, well, THEY WERE TOO YOUNG! Let that be some sort of lesson for Democratic primary voters, never mind the caucusers ...

    The lesson that needs to be learned is to put COUNTRY before Party...

    Pelosi herself said:

    “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country.”

    So, what changed her mind???

    It surely wasn't that milquetoast Trump/Zelensky phone call. A phone call that BOTH sides of the call (Trump/Zelensky) said there was no undue pressure, no quid pro quo and nothing untoward..

    So, what caused Pelosi to do a complete 180??

    My *guess* is she saw the election dynamics and the lot of Democrats candidates, one of which will face President Trump in Nov of 2020 and panicked..

    But for whatever reason, Pelosi in Sep 2019 totally and utterly ignored the wisdom of Pelosi Mar 2019...

  47. [47] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Mezzomama

    I'm fairly well up on the autism thing. I have at least one autistic grandkid. The Google def. of 'retarded' is "less advanced in mental, physical or social development".

    My experience and observation is that the "social" part of it is normally the hallmark of the disability.

    It was not my intent to impute mental retardation to the Thunberg girl.

    You are simply jumping to the erroneous conclusion that because the "retarded" terminology has acquired a pejoritive connotation among teenagers, that the term should be proscribed from normal discourse. I disagree.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mezzomamma,

    I don't see where CRS mentioned anything about autism.. If he had *I* would have spoken out as I have a grandson who is autistic..

    While the terminology is crude, this Thornberg girl IS either a complete moron for actually believing in this global warming con..

    Or she has media savvy beyond her years as a Left Wingery operative who knows how to say the right things, push the right buttons and have the Global Warming sheeple eating out of her hand...

    The FACT that she was given TIME's PERSON OF THE YEAR over the Hong Kong protesters??

    Proves it's nothing but politics at play...

    Nothing more..

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    How many quatloos do you want to wager on that? I will be you:

    1) The Democrats will take over the Senate in 2020, if not at least make it a 50 / 50 split and...

    What do yo base this analysis on??

    2) If Warren is the Democratic nominee, she will win the presidency over Donald Trump

    Warren cannot win against President Trump.. Independents and NPAs will run from her in droves.. Her bans on fraking and fossil fuels alone makes her un-electable.. Her plan to eliminate all private health insurance is simply the cherry on top..

    You name the stakes and I'll accept anything you put forth..

    Yes, and it was a totally foregone and not unexpected result, since the Labour candidate Corbyn was flawed and damaged goods.

    Actually, that's not factually accurate... The world media breathlessly went on and on about how close and election this was going to be...

    Only the huge size of Boris Johnson's win was surprising, not the fact that he won.

    OK, this I can agree with.. So, BoJo's utter TROUNCING of the liberals in the UK has no bearing on election dynamics here?? Is that what you are saying??

    Let me put it another way... it is going exactly as expected.

    I don't believe you.. :D If ya'all had expected the impeachment to go this way, ya'all would NEVER have supported it..

    All the Democrats will vote for impeachment, none of the Republicans will.

    Yep.. And according to Biden and Pelosi and Nadler and Schiff... That makes this impeachment NOT legitimate...

    However, Trump will still be held accountable symbolically for his misdeeds, since it will become a permanent stain on his record, going down in history as only the 3rd president to ever be impeached.

    Censure would have done just that as well without ripping the country apart...

    Democrats rolled the dice and lost.. They thought for SURE they could get a GOP'er (likely SEVERAL GOP'ers) to their side...

    And I am also constrained to point out that, until the House actually passes the Articles of Impeachment, President Trump has NOT been impeached...

    And, I have to say in all honestly.. The BEST thing to happen to Democrats is that the AOI fails..

    Because if this moves to the Senate??? Democrats are going to need a priest..

    As for the Senate, obviously there are not going to be enough votes there to remove Trump from office, however, there still might be enough Republican defections to get a bare majority of 50 to 53 votes for impeachment.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    There will be no GOP defections in the Senate anymore than there will be GOP defections in the House.

    No, this is DEMOCRATS baby all the way to the wire..

    And, history will not look kindly on Democrats putting the entire country thru this whole divisive mess, SOLELY based on Party agenda...

    Look what happened to the GOP after Clinton?? And THEY had TRUE bi-partisan support in the form of 30 House Democrats voting with the GOP against Clinton...

    And the GOP was shellacked in subsequent elections..

    How do you think it's going to look for Dems when it's a straight down the Party line impeachment..

    It's got to be called what it is.. A coup...

    Pure and simple...

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    All other things aside, I do wish you a speedy recovery. I myself had a heart attack and angioplasty surgery and stent placement about 5 years ago.

    Yea, it sucks how mortality creeps up on us all....

    Thanx John M...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg has apologized for saying that politicians should be put “against the wall” after critics took it to mean that she was advocating violence.
    https://news.yahoo.com/video/greta-thunberg-apologizes-221606065.html

    Thernberg is learning the Left Wingery lessons well... :eyeroll:

    If ya can't convince people with your words, let the executions begin!!

  52. [52] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    C.R. Stucki, 'retarded' is generally regarded as pejorative and is not used by those who work with people with handicaps. It's not just teenagers who use it pejoratively.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    However, Trump will still be held accountable symbolically for his misdeeds, since it will become a permanent stain on his record, going down in history as only the 3rd president to ever be impeached.

    No, that is not what's going to happen.

    Trump will use this impeachment to do victory lap after victory lap.. Trump will crow from the highest heavens that he has been vindicated and exonerated TWICE...

    We both know this is factually accurate..

    What Democrats will have done is give President Trump a YYUUUGGGEEEE win that he will ride all the way to the election..

    Once again Democrats have forgotten the age old adage..

    "If you are going to try and kill the king... You better KILL the king."

    Another old adage would seem to apply here..

    "Beware the Ides of March"

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    We both know this is factually accurate..

    predictions aren't facts, but i agree that is likely exactly what he'll do. the question is whether or not the voting public will buy it.

    the answer to that question is probably not, and he'll likely win re-election in spite of it, not because of it.

    JL

  55. [55] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    you're also going to have to start including the year any time you quote anyone, because you tend to intentionally take things so completely out of their historical context as to render them meaningless.

  56. [56] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Mezzo

    Sorry I suppose for any perceived insensitivity.

    'Retarded' initially came into use as an euphemism for 'handicapped', however, once it achieved universal acceptance, , it became de-facto pejorative in the course of the natural progression of all euphemisms. Think 'queer' as an euphemism for 'homosexual', followed by 'gay' as an euphemism for 'queer', inevitably to be followd by who knows, perhaps'dilly'.

    The entire process of course, representing PC run amok!

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    This impeachment is not legitimate...Which is why it never should have been started..

    Sure, it should have been started, given the NOT perfect transcript of the call between the US president (most powerful man in the world) and the newly elected Ukrainian president (not in the same universe, power politics speaking, and highly dependent on the US president for help in turning back Russian aggression in his country) who was indeed pressured to do Trump a personal political favour even if he denied in public that this pressure had been exerted.

    Asking a foreign government for help in finding dirt on your political rivals and using the power of the highest political office in the land to ensure that the foreign government provide that help by withholding military aid and public support for that government in its hot war against the Russians is a high crime that no president before Trump had done.

    Pelosi herself said that she won't authorize impeachment unless it was bi-partisan..Why did she change her mind??

    Have you considered that the president forced her hand by acting in such behavior as described above? At the very least, she had to begin a congressional investigation.

    Exactly... The framers understood that Party zealotry might get in the way so they made it so an impeachment CAN'T WORK strictly along Party Lines..Democrats are ignoring that wisdom and trying it anyways..

    Given the circumstances of the president's consistent behavior since taking office, you can't possibly blame the Democrats for trying!

    I disagree.. I am all but certain that the Founding Fathers KNEW that a Party would coalesce around it's leader and fight for him..

    Of course, that is not what I meant about one party throwing a spanner in the works as was done here. I'm pretty sure that Madison never imagined one party wholly acting in the way this Republican party has by completely ignoring any wrongdoing by this president.

    It really is THAT simple..

    Nothing about this affair is simple, not least the explanation for the behavior of one party in its virtual entirety to put blinders on when it comes to the wrongdoing of the president.

    I'm done with you on this issue because you are acting with extreme intellectual dishonesty.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    predictions aren't facts,

    Sure they are..

    I predict that, today, the sun will set in the west. I also predict that, tomorrow, then sun will rise in the east..

    Some predictions CAN be considered facts dependent on what they are based on..

    President Trump's victory laps when he has perceived he has won is an example of such predictions = facts..

    but i agree that is likely exactly what he'll do. the question is whether or not the voting public will buy it.

    Considering the voting public bought it after the Russia Collusion delusion victory laps, it's a good bet that history will repeat itself..

    The question is, why would Democrats risk it??

    Answer: Because Democrats thought they would be greeted as liberators...

    Agreed??

    the answer to that question is probably not, and he'll likely win re-election in spite of it, not because of it.

    Disagree. President Trump's numbers rose considerably after his Russia Collusion Delusion victory laps..

    This time we're talking about the nuclear response of politics.. Impeachment..

    And President Trump will sail thru that.. His numbers will definitely rise a lot more..

    About the only thing that Democrats could do that would give President Trump's re-election campaign a BIGGER shot in the arm is an ACTUAL failed assassination attempt instead of just the political/legal version of same they are trying now..

    you're also going to have to start including the year any time you quote anyone, because you tend to intentionally take things so completely out of their historical context as to render them meaningless.

    For example??

    Nadler's and Biden's quotes were 1998.... Pelosi's & Schiff's quotes were 2019...

    The fact that ALL quotes say basically the EXACT same thing would seem to indicate that age of the quote is not relevant to the validity of the sentiment expressed.

    Ample FACTS, in the form of quotes, exist to establish the logical conclusion that, in the minds of Democrats, a partisan impeachment is not a legitimate impeachment.. And that has been the Democrat Party position for over 20 years...

    If you have facts/quotes to offer that disputes this??

    Perot...All Ears....

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Think 'queer' as an euphemism for 'homosexual', followed by 'gay' as an euphemism for 'queer', inevitably to be followd by who knows, perhaps'dilly'.

    Sorry.. That's taken.. :D

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mGNhvkVT8Q

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now.. I saved the best for last..

    Liz... Liz.... My old friend Liz... :D

    Sure, it should have been started, given the NOT perfect transcript of the call between the US president (most powerful man in the world) and the newly elected Ukrainian president (not in the same universe, power politics speaking, and highly dependent on the US president for help in turning back Russian aggression in his country) who was indeed pressured to do Trump a personal political favour even if he denied in public that this pressure had been exerted.

    Sure the phone call was not perfect.. I doubt there exists in all the annals of President phone calls one that IS perfect...

    But once again. Not having a "perfect" phone call is not an impeachable offense..

    But there was no pressure. President Zelensky has stated as such on NUMEROUS occasions that he felt no pressure for anything..

    If you have any FACTS that show President Zelensky is lying, by all means.. Let's hear them..

    But it is a non-factual claim to say that President Zelensky was "pressured" by President Trump. There exists NO FACTS to support the claim.

    Asking a foreign government for help in finding dirt on your political rivals and using the power of the highest political office in the land to ensure that the foreign government provide that help by withholding military aid and public support for that government in its hot war against the Russians is a high crime that no president before Trump had done.

    Factually not accurate.. First of all, the "favor" President Trump asked for was for assistance in routing out the corruption of the 2016 presidential election is nothing untoward..

    I am also constrained to point out that the US setting conditions on countries receiving US aid has been a time-honored tradition since there there WAS a US...

    Finally, there could have been absolutely NO PRESSURE based on the delay of the aid because, at the time of the call, the Ukrainians were not even aware the aid was being delayed..

    So, let's consider the facts... President Trump & President Zelensky talked about future military aid, not the current aid package still in the pipeline. Trump asked if Zelensky could look into the the corruption of the 2016 election from the Ukrainian side of things and, while Zelensky was at it, look into the Hunter Biden corruption...

    Zelensky said, "sure, no problemo" or words to that effect...

    And that was the phone call..

    While the manners and dialogs certainly were not Emily Post, there was nothing untoward or impeachable there..

    Have you considered that the president forced her hand by acting in such behavior as described above? At the very least, she had to begin a congressional investigation.

    Yes, I considered that.. And discarded it.

    Because, if you line up both the Ukraine Call and Russia Collusion side by side, Russia Collusion (had it been factually accurate) was much much MUCH worse than the Ukraine phone call..

    By comparison, the Ukraine phone call was a minor statistical blip..

    Put another way. When it comes to seriousness, Russia Collusion was high treason..

    The Ukraine Phone call was an overdue library book...

    So, given this. The ONLY logical conclusion that fits the facts is that Pelosi was given data and stats that show how the 2020 election is slipping away from the Democrats so she needed something... ANYTHING... to distract the American people.. So she choose this innocuous Ukraine phone call "whistle blower" complaint..

    Another possibility is that the forces of the Far Left Dems who wanted impeachment had something on Pelosi that was serious enough to force Pelosi to their will..

    No other reasons make any sense for Pelosi to violate her "compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan" pledge..

    Let's face the facts.. The Ukraine call is neither compelling, overwhelming and it sure as hell ain't bipartisan...

    I would love to find out exactly why Pelosi did this 180... But it's likely that it was 2020 election data that forced her to abandon her pledge..

    Given the circumstances of the president's consistent behavior since taking office, you can't possibly blame the Democrats for trying!

    Yes, I can.. And I do..

    If Democrats had honestly given President Trump a chance then I could see your point..

    But Democrats have been talking impeachment since EVEN BEFORE President Trump took office!!!

    Get that!?? Democrats wanted to impeach President Trump even BEFORE he was President Trump!!

    So, yea I can blame Democrats... This impeachment has been the Democrat plan since Nov 10th, 2016..

    Given this fact, it's quite easy to blame Democrats..

    I'm pretty sure that Madison never imagined one party wholly acting in the way this Republican party has by completely ignoring any wrongdoing by this president.

    Again with respect I disagree...

    Madison probably imagined this EXACT scenario where an entire party would rally for/against an unpopular elected POTUS..

    Which is exactly why they made the bar so high in the Senate..

    I am sure that, if Madison et al had envisioned the type of hate that President Trump instilled in people, they would have made an equally high bar for the House..

    Apparently, while prescient, the founding fathers were not perfect..

    Nothing about this affair is simple, not least the explanation for the behavior of one party in its virtual entirety to put blinders on when it comes to the wrongdoing of the president.

    That's because you refuse to see the facts and the reality from the other side..

    "No, you were right and I was wrong so.... what?? We're no longer family??"
    -Jeanne Miller, STARGATE ATLANTIS

    That's my special gift.. My superpower, if you will.

    I CAN see and acknowledge both sides of an argument..

    President Trump is boorish and crass and vulgar and narcissistic and an arrogant prick..

    I see that.. Ya'all are completely factually accurate with those claims..

    But where ya'all are wrong is equating those qualities with being impeachable...

    President Trump can be a royal ass.. More often than not..

    But THAT is not impeachable..

    Ya'all make the mistake that your opinions of President Trump constitute and justify impeachment...

    And I simply point out ya'all are wrong...

  61. [61] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    “Impeachment must be bipartisan to be legitimate”

    Justin Amash is not a Democrat, he is an Independent. He’s voted in favor of the articles of impeachment. Therefore, it is not solely the Democrats that are in favor of impeachment.

    Based on the criteria that you keep harping on... that means that impeachment is legitimate!

  62. [62] 
    John M wrote:

    [53] Michale wrote:

    "However, Trump will still be held accountable symbolically for his misdeeds, since it will become a permanent stain on his record, going down in history as only the 3rd president to ever be impeached.

    No, that is not what's going to happen."

    Sorry, but it HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.

    "Trump will use this impeachment to do victory lap after victory lap.. Trump will crow from the highest heavens that he has been vindicated and exonerated TWICE..."

    This is what REALLY BUGS everybody about you Michale. You twist reality to where it is NOT EVEN REMOTELY ACCURATE.

    Mueller STATED that he could NOT find enough evidence TO exonerate the president.

    A LACK of evidence for a finding of ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, is NOT HE SAME as a finding of INNOCENCE.

    You CANNOT keep CONFLATING the TWO as EQUIVALENT without losing YOUR CREDIBILITY Michale.

    I am trying to do you a favor here Michale if you would ONLY LISTEN and be more JUDICIOUS in your CHOICE OF WORDS.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Justin Amash is not a Democrat, he is an Independent. He’s voted in favor of the articles of impeachment. Therefore, it is not solely the Democrats that are in favor of impeachment.

    It's called **BI** Partisan... Not ***TRI** Partisan..

    It is Democrats and those who caucus as Democrats who are in favor of impeachment.

    During the Clinton impeachment, GOP had 30 House Democrats on their side.

    And THAT wasn't even considered a bi-partisan impeachment...

    Your hair splitting is an epic fail..

    Based on the criteria that you keep harping on... that means that impeachment is legitimate!

    Only in your la-la land...

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, but it HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.

    Nope.. Until the Full House votes in the affirmative on the Articles Of Impeachment, President Trump has not been impeached..

    And, as I said, the BEST thing that could happen to Dems is that the AOI fails in the House.

    Cuz, when this gets to the Senate, it's ALL President Trump's show.... ALL...

    This is what REALLY BUGS everybody about you Michale. You twist reality to where it is NOT EVEN REMOTELY ACCURATE.

    No.. What really BUGS everybody about me is that I am ALWAYS accurate.. And, what bugs ya'all MORE about me is that I always concede when I am not accurate before ya'all get a chance to jump 10-8 in my shit..

    The recent Horowitz report is a perfect example of this. :D

    Mueller STATED that he could NOT find enough evidence TO exonerate the president.

    Not factually accurate. Mueller completely exonerated President Trump on Russia Collusion, which is what we were discussing..

    Mueller claimed he could not make a determination on the Obstruction so he left the exoneration of Obstruction to the AG and the AG exonerated President Trump on that.

    So, either by self or by proxy, Mueller totally exonerated and vindicated on Russia Collusion and Obstruction in the Russia Collusion..

    You have some wiggle room on those points, I will grant you. TOE-MAY-TOE TOE-MAA-TOE etc etc...

    But you will have NO WIGGLE ROOM WHATSOEVER when the Senate completely and utterly exonerates and vindicates President Trump on the current nebulous, hazy and ambiguous Articles of Impeachment..

    Assuming the AOI makes it thru the house...

    I give it a 60-40 shot that the AOI will pass the House...

    Then it becomes President Trump's show..

    And lord have mercy on ya'all's souls if that comes to pass...

    I am trying to do you a favor here Michale if you would ONLY LISTEN and be more JUDICIOUS in your CHOICE OF WORDS.

    In other words, if I used wishy-washy hazy ambiguous words you would prefer?? :D

    Usually I choose my words very precisely to convey the exact meaning I intend to convey..

    "I distinctly remember saying, 'Stop the bus.' Not 'shoot the bus.' '*Stop* the bus.' I'm very particular with my words. 'Stop.' 'Shoot.' 'Stop.' 'Shoot.' Do those words sound the same?"
    -Pagan Min, FAR CRY 4

    Since the point of that particular discussion was victory laps, it doesn't really matter if you think Mueller exonerated Trump or not.. It only matters that TRUMP thought it was exoneration and THAT prompted the "victory lap", which was the point of mine and JL's discussion..

    Many of you people tend to nitpick at my comments and find a lame or typo in a tertiary or supplementary part of my comment and claim that said lame/typo disqualifies my entire comment..

    Personally, I take that as a compliment as it's a concession of the validity of my main point..

    But I do admit that sometimes, it gets tedious and tiresome to have to keep repeating the same valid points until there is nothing left to nit pick...

    C'est le' vie

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh...

    "Dilly dilly"

    :D

  66. [66] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Sure they are..

    I predict that, today, the sun will set in the west. I also predict that, tomorrow, then sun will rise in the east..

    and a meteor could strike the earth tonight and send up a cloud of dust preventing sunrise. some predictions are more likely to be accurate than others, but irrespective of the probability of their occurrence they're still not facts until after they have happened.

    i could go find that middle school youtube video if you like.

    JL

  67. [67] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    During the Clinton impeachment, GOP had 30 House Democrats on their side.

    And THAT wasn't even considered a bi-partisan impeachment...

    Your hair splitting is an epic fail..

    Nope, you just proved my point! You called it the “Clinton impeachment”, which means it wasn’t an illegitimate impeachment...he was acquitted and wasn’t removed from office...but Clinton was impeached. Trump will be as well.

    What you refer to as my “hair splitting” is actually just me pointing out the flaws in your “logic”. You being wrong is all on you!

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And President Trump will sail thru that.. His numbers will definitely rise a lot more..

    i sincerely doubt it. my quatloos say that you'll be voting for biden, and helping to make donald the only president in history to be elected twice without winning the popular vote.

    shoot, i should have included THAT in my year-end nominations column. anyhow, you heard it here first.

    JL

  69. [69] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22 ,

    Technically the meteor would have to strike the earth with such force as to stop it from rotating on its’ axis to prevent a sunrise from occurring. The cloud of dust would simply block the sunrise from being witnessed, but it would still occur. Granted, we’d all be dead if this happened, but I am pretty sure this is the only way to prevent a sunrise from occurring.

  70. [70] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Perot...All Ears....

    it was more a general statement, most evident in your slightly demented citation of MLK2 to support the pretense that the people defending the public against racism are themselves the real racists. regarding impeachment, if you're going to quote biden and nadler, why not find something less than twenty years old? they've both been in public the whole time. since pelosi's quote is more recent, i'll address that one.

    "unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path.”

    the fact that she went down the path of impeachment in spite of her ample reservations means (in my opinion) that she felt the evidence was SO compelling and overwhelming, the bipartisan part didn't matter enough to prevent going forward.

    I want you, I need you
    But-there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you
    Now don't be sad
    'Cause two out of three ain't bad
    ~meat loaf

    JL

  71. [71] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    a sunrise is a human construct. i would argue that if we were all dead, the earth rotating on its axis wouldn't be a sunrise anymore.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    and a meteor could strike the earth tonight and send up a cloud of dust preventing sunrise.

    And even such as you describe would NOT prevent sunrise.. At best (worst??) it would prevent earthlings from SEEING the sunrise.. But it would not prevent the actual sunrise..

    However, addressing the intent of your comment, yes.. something can happen that could prevent said prediction from coming thru...

    But then we move into the area of statistical probabilities and from there, the sky's the limit..

    Suffice it to say I think we can agree that, if President Trump perceives that he was won, there will be victory laps.. Numerous victory laps..

    And President Trump will sail thru that.. His numbers will definitely rise a lot more..

    i sincerely doubt it.

    Really?? In the Senate Trial where President Trump is in complete control, you don't think he will just sail thru??

    What do you base that on??

    make donald the only president in history to be elected twice without winning the popular vote.

    It's possible.. But in our system of elections winning the vanity vote is utterly irrelevant to actually winning the election..

    However, this time around, with the disgust at Democrats for this failed faux impeachment coup, I think a tens of millions of Independents & NPAs are going to be turned to the Trump camp and millions of disgruntled & demoralized Trump haters are simple going to stay home..

    So, President Trump winning the popular vote this time around, while still meaningless, is a distinct possibility..

    it was more a general statement, most evident in your slightly demented citation of MLK2 to support the pretense that the people

    You'll have to provide the quote so I can understand the context in which it was made..

    I am fairly certain it was more along the lines of "Those who try to make an incident of racism where no such racism exists... THOSE people are the true racists."

    IE the Michael Brown and the Trayvon Martin shooting..

    But if you provide the quote and context, I can be more clarifying..

    the fact that she went down the path of impeachment in spite of her ample reservations means (in my opinion) that she felt the evidence was SO compelling and overwhelming, the bipartisan part didn't matter enough to prevent going forward.

    And yet, the bi-partisan part was given equal billing to the compelling and over-whelming..

    When you consider the context of Biden's and Nadler's 1998 comments and Pelosi's & Schiff's 2019 comments, the one common thread IS "Bi Partisan"..

    Ergo, it's logical to conclude that bi-partisan above all else is the most important factor..

    Which is also supported by the fact that the founding fathers made a bipartisan impeachment the ONLY impeachment that could actually survive...

    I would also submit (as I pointed out above) that a simple diplomatic phone such as one that ALL President's have had with foreign leaders ("Do this or you won't get that") hardly stacks up in the "compelling" nor "overwhelming" department when compared to Russia Collusion serious wise..

    If Democrats weren't willing to push impeachment over High Treason (Russia Collusion) it seems to me to be ridiculous that they would push impeachment over a run o the mill diplomatic phone call which was, by comparison to Russia Collusion, the equivalence of an overdue library book..

    Finally, it's telling that Democrats didn't include ANY of that in their 2 Articles Of Impeachment.

    Like "Collusion", Democrats chose to "crimes" that are not even on the State or Federal books AS crimes..

    The Dems charges are as nebulous and hazy and the evidence that the "supports" those charges..

    So, I have to ask..

    Is THIS the impeachment you wanted?? Or do you concede that Democrats blew ANOTHER opportunity to take down President Trump..

    Would you agree that the Democrats' time would have been better spent actually legislating to give them something to point to in 2020 as a reason to to keep Democrats in power??

    a sunrise is a human construct. i would argue that if we were all dead, the earth rotating on its axis wouldn't be a sunrise anymore.

    Again, I disagree. A sunrise is no more a human construct than gravity is..

    "If I drop a hammer on a high-gravity planet, I don't need to see if fall to know that it has fallen."
    -Commander Spock, STAR TREK, Court-Martial

    I could have gone with a bear defecating in the woods or a tree falling in a forest that no one sees, but when in doubt, always go with the Trek analogy.. :D

    Speaking of a bear defecating in the woods..

    "A bear and a rabbit are taking a shit in the woods. The bear asks the rabbit, 'Do you have problems with shit sticking to your fur??'. The rabbit replies, 'No, why?'... So, the bear wiped his ass with the rabbit."
    -Eddie Murphy, DELIRIOUS

    :D

    But back to the point...

    A sunrise is a sunrise, even if there is nothing alive to even know what a sunrise is...

    Now we're moving into the realm of quantum theory, a la Schrodinger's Cat. And while we could have some fun with that, your intellect likely far out strips mine in that regard.. Everything I know of quantum physics I learned from Star Trek, Stargate SG1 and BTTF...

    "You mean everything in Back To The Future was bullshit!!??"
    -Scott Lang, AVENGERS-ENDGAME

    As an aside, (assuming you have seen ENDGAME. Read no further if you haven't) the explanation that says you can't go back in time to the past to change your present seems to be completely bullshit.. If someone went back in time to killed little baby Hitler in his crib, it is certain that the traveler's present will be irrevocably altered.. Or would it simply create an alternate time line. If so which, timeline would the traveler return to???

    "This is why Temporal Mechanics gives me nosebleeds"
    -Geordi LaForge, STAR TREK TNG

    You want to have a REAL Mind-Frak, read Stephen King's 11/22/1963.. Mind-blowing..

  73. [73] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Or to put it another way, C.R. Stucki, there is no term so innocuous, technical or connotation free that the mean-minded cannot turn it into an insult.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope, you just proved my point! You called it the “Clinton impeachment”, which means it wasn’t an illegitimate impeachment...

    Actually it was because the House approved the Articles Of Impeachment.

    So it WAS a real impeachment..

    And, since the GOP did, in fact, swing over a few Democrat votes against Clinton (I quoted 20 above because I read it someplace.. But wiki only has it at 5, so we'll go with that number) so technically, it was bi-partisan impeachment. But I readily concede it was bi-partisan in name only..

    But your tap-dance that 2 Independents voting in favor of impeachment makes this a bi-partisan impeachment is pure moose poop...

    If Democrats can't swing a SINGLE GOP vote to the AYE column to impeach, then this will be the glaring'est partisan impeachment in the history of the Republic.

    And, based on the quotes from Democrats over the last 20+ years.. A partisan impeachment is not a legitimate impeachment..

    What you refer to as my “hair splitting” is actually just me pointing out the flaws in your “logic”. You being wrong is all on you!

    It's your opinion I am wrong.. As I pointed out 2 independents who caucus with Democrats voting in favor of impeachment simply does not make a bi-partisan impeachment. It's tap-dancing at it's lamest..

    Liz and I have made an agreement that Dems pulling 20 House GOP'ers to vote AYE to impeachment would constitute a "bi-partisan" (and therefor) a legitimate impeachment..

    I will allow that, if Democrats can pull even ONE GOP'er to vote AYE on impeachment in the House, you will have a (VERY SOMEWHAT) logical argument to make vis a vis "bi partisan" impeachment...

    But, based on the writing on the wall, this is going to be a completely partisan impeachment with absolutely NO GOP support..

    As I said, I give it a 60-40 that the AOI will pass the House.. I don't believe that the GOP can peel off 16-20 Dem votes... Even though, the AOI failing in the House would be the Democrats' best case scenario..

    I'll take it one step further and predict that, of the 30+ Dems who face re-election in Trump areas, 25+ will lose their jobs in Nov of 2020...

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    MM,

    Or to put it another way, C.R. Stucki, there is no term so innocuous, technical or connotation free that the mean-minded cannot turn it into an insult.

    "trhe mokuhlek nam-tor rai thrap wilat rim nam-tor taken"
    -Sarek Of Vulan

    Roughly translated.

    "There can be no offense where none is taken"

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    want you, I need you
    But-there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you
    Now don't be sad
    'Cause two out of three ain't bad
    ~meat loaf

    That brings back some very fond memories of New Jersey circa 1976 for me..

    Thank you..

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    "And now.. On with the countdown"
    -Kasey Kassem

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    IT’S ONLY DEMOCRACY IF THEY WIN
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/12/its-only-democracy-if-they-win.php

    It's really a shame when people simply can't accept that they lost.... :(

  79. [79] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I predict the earth will never be hit by a meteor (at least in our lifetimes).
    (Hint: it's an asteroid in space, a meteor in the atmosphere and a meteorite once it hits the earth.)

    A bipartisan impeachment is not legitimate.

    Nothing bipartisan is legitimate because the two party system is just a show put on for the rubes. If you buy into one party or the other then you are one of the rubes.

    Bipartisan and buy-partisan are synonyms.

    This concludes our reality minute for today. Now back to your regularly scheduled pot calling the kettle black rubefest.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    I predict the earth will never be hit by a meteor (at least in our lifetimes).

    Kill joy.... :D

  81. [81] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Reality minute reprise:

    If you buy into the two party deception you don't get "Two Out Three Ain't Bad"- you get "Paradise by the Dashboard Light". :D

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    you get "Paradise by the Dashboard Light". :D

    And the DOWN side to that would be... what exactly?? :D

  83. [83] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "So now I'm praying for the end of time
    to hurry up and arrive.
    'Cause if I've got spend another minute with you
    I don't think that I can really survive.
    I'll never break my promise or forget my vow
    But God only knows what I could go right now
    I'm praying for the end of time
    so I can end my time with you."
    -Meatloaf
    Paradise by the Dashboard Light

  84. [84] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    oops. what I could DO right now.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    "So now I'm praying for the end of time
    to hurry up and arrive.
    'Cause if I've got spend another minute with you
    I don't think that I can really survive.
    I'll never break my promise or forget my vow
    But God only knows what I could go right now
    I'm praying for the end of time
    so I can end my time with you."
    -Meatloaf
    Paradise by the Dashboard Light

    Ahhhhh Sophomore High School.. :D

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    And from the only acceptable form of news here in Weigantia..

    RCP

    Damn the Impeachment Torpedoes; Full Speed Ahead

    I started to write a column months ago about how President Trump could easily win reelection, but then the Democrats’ impeachment distraction intervened, and I set it aside.

    Today, after watching the partisan impeachment railroad run out of steam, and simultaneously seeing many Democratic presidential candidates doing the same, I am more confident than ever about Donald J. Trump securing a historic second term.

    Let’s start with the polls. I’ll admit even I was surprised when a recent round of surveys showed the president firmly ahead of each and every one of his Democratic opponents in the swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

    Did someone paint the blue wall red?

    Maybe it was Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff, who hijacked Congress and tried to use it as a political weapon to short-circuit the electoral process. To paraphrase von Clausewitz, “Impeachment is the continuation of electoral strategy by other means.”

    Though the people of the great state of California may be happy to see President Trump impeached for coloring outside the lines, the people of the Midwest, South and Mountain West who voted for him to be the Great Disruptor no doubt see things very differently. After watching Congress do nothing for two years except try to unseat the people’s president on a host of trumped-up charges, it is very likely that there will be hell to pay in 2020. That means not just a Trump victory, but also a larger Republican majority in the Senate and very likely a House of Representatives that will flip from the Democrats to the Republicans.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/16/damn_the_impeachment_torpedoes_full_speed_ahead_141959.html

    Democrats have accomplished a feat I had not thought possible...

    They have INCREASED the chances of a President Trump re-election...

    Democrats have seemed to have done ALL the wrong things..

    See what happens when one governs, blinded by hate and bigotry??

    Democrats needed to take a step back a long time ago and do an honest and complete self-assessment... Had they done so, they might actually have a chance in 2020... But it's likely too late now..

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Recently Retired USAF General Makes Eyebrow Raising Claims About Advanced Space Technology

    Retired Lt. Gen. Steven L. Kwast says fantastic technology exists that could transport a human anywhere on earth within an hour.

    Recently retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Steven L. Kwast gave a lecture last month that seems to further signal that the next major battlefield will be outer space. While military leadership rattling the space sabers is nothing new, Kwast’s lecture included comments that heavily hint at the possibility that the United States military and its industry partners may have already developed next-generation technologies that have the potential to drastically change the aerospace field, and human civilization, forever. Is this mere posturing or could we actually be on the verge of making science fiction a reality?
    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31445/recently-retired-usaf-general-makes-eyebrow-raising-claims-about-advanced-space-technology

    Ridicule a US Space Force at ya'all's own peril..

    It's sad day in Weigantia when denizens of Weigantia hate President Trump more than they like their Sci Fi....

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    "It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses. I wonder if the House managers aren’t a little more interested in political theater than in actually getting to the bottom of the facts."
    -Chuck Schumer, Jan 1999.

    “I propose, pursuant to our rules, that the Chief Justice on behalf of the Senate issue subpoenas for testimony by the following witnesses with direct knowledge of Administration decisions regarding the delay in security assistance funds to the government of Ukraine and the requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of Ukraine: Robert Blair, Senior Advisor to the Acting White House Chief of Staff; Mick Mulvaney, Acting White House Chief of Staff; John Bolton, former National Security Advisor; and Michael Duffey, Associate Director for National Security, Office of Management and Budget.”
    -Chuck Schumer, Dec 2019

    What a difference the -D/-R makes, eh???

    Sorry, Chuckie... House Dems wouldn't let GOP'ers call witnesses they wanted..

    You think President Trump is gonna help ya at all??

    Keep dreamin'....

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    What goes around comes around...

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tessa Majors’ family, Bill de Blasio, condemn police official’s claim she was looking for marijuana in park
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/tessa-majors-barnard-police-marijuana-murder

    Facts are facts..

    If DeBlowHole hadn't handcuffed the NYPD and actually allowed cops to enforce the law, Majors might still be alive today...

    It's heinous crimes like this that Broken Windows Policing is specifically designed to prevent..

    I feel for Tessa Majors family.. But they need to blame the politicians, not lash out against the cops for speaking the facts...

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am on the record (as I am wont to do) as saying it's 60-40 that the House will pass the Articles Of Impeachment..

    Even though it's likely the WORST possible thing the Dems could do, there is a 60% chance they will actually do it...

    Anyone wanna go on the record with their bet??

    Vote is Weds.....

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    The best part of PARADISE BY THE DASHBOARD LIGHTS, in my not so humble opinion, was the baseball announcer chock full of double entendre... :D

    Okay, here we go, we got a real pressure cooker going here

    Two down, nobody on, no score, bottom of the ninth

    There's the windup, and there it is

    A line shot up the middle, look at him go

    This boy can really fly

    He's rounding first and really turning it on now
    He's not letting up at all

    He's gonna try for second, the ball is bobbled out in center

    And here comes the throw, and what a throw

    He's gonna slide in head first

    Here he comes, he's out

    No, wait, safe-safe at second base

    This kid really makes things happen out there

    Batter steps up to the plate, here's the pitch-he's going

    And what a jump he's got, he's trying for third
    Here's the throw, it's in the dirt-safe at third

    Holy cow, stolen base, he's taking a pretty big lead out there

    Almost daring him to try and pick him off

    The pitcher glances over, winds up, and it's bunted

    Bunted down the third base line, the suicide squeeze is on

    Here he comes, squeeze play, it's gonna be close, here's the throw, here's the play at the

    Holy cow, I think he's gonna make it

    Always brings a smile when I hear the song.. :D

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again.. From the only acceptable site...

    Trump Impeachment and Removal From Office: Support/Oppose
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html

    Support for this faux impeachment coup is losing...

    This is over-all.. The numbers amongst Independents & NPAs are much much worse for Democrats..

    Democrats rolled the dice and came up snake-eyes...

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK let's lighten the mood..

    Funny story from the Open Heart Intensive Care unit in St Augustine, FL.....

    Along about the 2nd or 3rd day after they cracked open my chest, the nurses gave me a heart shaped pillow with a black antenna sticking out of it. They said I should use that if I had the urge to cough (for the record, coughing after open heart surgery is EXTREMELY painful)..

    So I figured it was some kind of electronic device that monitored what my heart was doing when I coughed..

    The next day, I had to cough so I grabbed the pillow and squeezed it tight. Coughed once or twice. Hurt like hell. Thought to myself, "Damn thing better have recorded that properly" thinking the nurses would up the pain medication to compensate.. As I was pulling the pillow away from my chest, the antenna snagged on something and was pulled it out of the pillow..

    Hit the call button and confessed to the nurse I broke the pillow sensor by pulling the antenna out..

    She giggled and explained that it's just a pillow to help with coughing and the "antenna" was nothing but a black thin-line marker so friends and family can sign the pillow..

    We all had a good laugh about that for the next couple days.. :D

    True story...

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all gotta give President Trump credit.

    Previous GOP President's would cower and wilt at the onslaught...

    President Trump gives as good as he gets, oft times gives BETTER then he gets..

    Democrats and their media lapdogs simply don't know how to handle prey that fights back so ferociously..

  96. [96] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Along about the 2nd or 3rd day after they cracked open my chest, the nurses gave me a heart shaped pillow with a black antenna sticking out of it. They said I should use that if I had the urge to cough (for the record, coughing after open heart surgery is EXTREMELY painful)..

    For once, I know that what you are saying is definitely the truth. Years ago, I got a hairline fracture on my sternum (xiphoid process) playing rugby. It hurt to move; it hurt to breathe...and, yes, coughing was a nightmare! But there was one thing far worse that coughing... SNEEZING!!!

    The first time I sneezed after the injury my roommate found me facedown halfway up the staircase that led to my room. I can control how hard I cough, usually, but sneezing.... even when I hold them in they are powerful! I hope you do not suffer from allergies like I do!

    In my almost 50 years, I have broken, torn, and dislocated just about every body part you can injure. When it comes to which injury hurt the most, for me, the worst pain came from the smallest two bones getting fractured...the xiphoid process in my chest and my coccyx (tailbone) in my rump! A broken tailbone is painful when you are perfectly still and only hurts more when you move. There was no position I could get my body in that didn’t have me in tears that first week after I cracked it.

    That said, I’d take breaking my sternum and tailbone together over having kidney stones again!

    So Michale, If you have seasonal allergies, you definitely need to ask your doctor about taking antihistamines with your pain meds, as there are some that you don’t want to take together! I hope you have a sneeze-free recovery!

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    For once, I know that what you are saying is definitely the truth. Years ago, I got a hairline fracture on my sternum (xiphoid process) playing rugby. It hurt to move; it hurt to breathe...and, yes, coughing was a nightmare! But there was one thing far worse that coughing... SNEEZING!!!

    Oh gods, yes!! I think I have sneezed only 2 since T-giving and it was brutal...

    That said, I’d take breaking my sternum and tailbone together over having kidney stones again!

    My daughter suffers from kidney stones all the time.. Seeing the pain she suffers is just rips me apart.. So far, I have been lucky. Never had one.. knock on wood..

    So Michale, If you have seasonal allergies, you definitely need to ask your doctor about taking antihistamines with your pain meds, as there are some that you don’t want to take together! I hope you have a sneeze-free recovery!

    Also fortunately, I don't suffer from allergies.. But thanx for the sneeze free wishes... I am sure in time I'll be able to sneeze without feeling like I am passing a lung thru my nose... :D

  98. [98] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I would also submit (as I pointed out above) that a simple diplomatic phone such as one that ALL President's have had with foreign leaders ("Do this or you won't get that") hardly stacks up in the "compelling" nor "overwhelming" department when compared to Russia Collusion serious wise..

    You are correct with your comment that ALL Presidents put stipulations on foreign aid being given, but those stipulations are all done on behalf of national security. Trump’s call was very different because the stipulations he placed on the foreign aid only benefitted Trump, personally, and did nothing to help our national security!

    Not only that, but it seems like most people fail to recognize that Trump, our President, was asking a foreign government to go after an American citizen who has committed no crime! That is just WRONG! If this is acceptable, what prevents Trump from asking foreign governments from going after other U.S. citizens that he has a problem with. Maybe someone who voted for Democrats, or someone who tweeted something he doesn’t like... that’ll make you think twice about vacationing abroad!

    Trump didn’t have Barr investigate Biden for corruption, but he wants a foreign government to do that??!! Why did Trump wait until it was clear Biden was going to run in 2020 before he wanted Ukraine to look into him? It isn’t like the story of Biden telling the Ukraine to dump their corrupt prosecutor if they wanted aid money was not public knowledge back in 2016.

    Also, Ambassador Sondland DID testify that he, personally, told the Ukrainians that the aid they were seeking was not coming until Trump heard them say that they announced Biden was being investigated for corruption and they looked into the CrowdStrike fantasy bullshit days before the phone call took place!

    And it makes no sense for Trump to order his staff to ignore Congressional subpoenas to prevent them from testifying about something that was perfectly legitimate and that possibly could have prevented him from being impeached! He doesn’t want to have that asterisk by his name in the history books because it will mean that he will forever be known as the president who was only elected thanks to foreign help.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are correct with your comment that ALL Presidents put stipulations on foreign aid being given, but those stipulations are all done on behalf of national security.

    Obama's convo with Putin thru Menedev comes to mind.

    That was purely for Obama's benefit... Obama stated so himself "I need space to win my election"

    So, I submit to you that attaching personal desires to foreign aid is not exclusive to Trump..

    Not only that, but it seems like most people fail to recognize that Trump, our President, was asking a foreign government to go after an American citizen who has committed no crime! That is just WRONG!

    No it's not wrong, not illegal.. As President, Trump has the authority to ask ANYONE to investigate ANY American...

    Trump didn’t have Barr investigate Biden for corruption, but he wants a foreign government to do that??!!

    Because the alleged corruption didn't occur where Barr had jurisdiction. It occurred where President Zelensky had jurisdiction so, logically, President Trump asked President Zelensky to look into it..

    Nothing untoward whatsoever..

    Also, Ambassador Sondland DID testify that he, personally, told the Ukrainians that the aid they were seeking was not coming until Trump heard them say that they announced Biden was being investigated for corruption and they looked into the CrowdStrike fantasy bullshit days before the phone call took place!

    Sondland testified that THAT was *HIS* opinion.. NONE of it was verifiable by ANYTHING President Trump specifically said. Sondland testified to that as well..

    Sondland was relaying his opinion, not any directive from President Trump. Sondland also testified that President Trump specifically STATED that he (Trump) did not want any quid pro quo..

    Regardless of all these facts, the simple fact is NONE of what you have posted in included in the Articles Of Impeachment..

    There are only 2 charges.

    1. Abuse of Power

    2. Obstruction of Congress

    NEITHER of those charges are on ANY state or federal law books..

    It's "collusion" all over again..

    This impeachment, like "collusion" before it, is the BJ Hunnicutt of partisanship..

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    2. Obstruction of Congress

    This charge is especially laughable because Democrats are claiming that President Trump's exercise of Executive Privilege is "Obstruction Of Congress"...

    To illustrate how ridiculous it is, allow me to turn it around.

    Republicans impeach Obama because Obama exercised Executive Privilege over Fast & Furious docs..

    Pretty frakin' ridiculous, eh?? :D

  101. [101] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    7

    INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW..

    The bedrock of US Jurisprudence..

    When President Trump is acquitted in the Senate, it will be a factual statement that President Trump is **INNOCENT** of all charges...

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. "Acquitted" and "innocent of all charges" are two wholly different things. One can commit multiple crimes and be found "not guilty" at trial in the same manner one can be found "guilty" of crime(s) one did not commit. "Not guilty" and "innocent" are two different things.

    I've said it before, and it bears repeating: You really should stop explaining legal terms because you suck at it and have no idea what you're talking about.

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike

    But what I can tell you for an ABSOLUTE FACT that there is no such crime as ABUSE OF POWER or OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS in ANY State or Federal Criminal code..

    Wrong! and Wrong!

    First off: One does not have to commit a crime in order to be impeached so your whining is nothing but GOP Party buffoonery... whining that crimes haven't been committed when crimes aren't necessary and making ignorant semantical arguments.

    Contempt of Congress is a federal crime. The President of the United States has ordered multiple employees on multiple occasions to violate federal statute at 2 U.S.C. Section 192:

    Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than [$100,000] nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months. ~ 2 U.S.C. Section 192.

    POTUS has directed his subordinates on multiple occasions to commit criminal acts as defined in federal law; how does such behavior not constitute multiple high crimes and/or misdemeanors? Call it Obstruction of Congress or Contempt of Congress or whatever you will, POTUS has ordered it. Comparing Trump's across-the-board refusal to comply with any subpoena of Congress to Obama and Fast and Furious is just more partisan lying spewed back by the ignorant minions on cue. Comparing Trump's refusal to comply with document production/subpoenas and Trump's ordering the same of others... comparing that to the Obama administration's compliance that produced thousands of pages of documents is pure Party buffoonery and -- need I say it? -- outright lying.

    Anyone claiming there is no such crime as abuse of power in any State or Federal Criminal code is again arguing semantics... akin to a claim that there is no crime for "killing someone" when it's referred to as "murder," "manslaughter," etc.... mere semantics... nothing more.

    It's called "malfeasance in office" and/or "official misconduct" and various assorted other names in the statutes of numerous and multiple states and also in federal law. Anyone telling you otherwise is either a partisan liar or useful idiot spewing back misinformation.

  103. [103] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    100

    This charge is especially laughable because Democrats are claiming that President Trump's exercise of Executive Privilege is "Obstruction Of Congress"...

    It's laughable that you cannot seem to grasp the concept that there is no such thing as a blanket "executive privilege" nor executive privilege that applies to former employees like Bolton and McGhan wherein a President refuses to produce any and all documents or allow any and all subordinates or former subordinates to testify or produce documents. The Obama administration complied with subpoenas by submitting thousands of pages of documents, and the right-wing bullshitters are lying to their minions by claiming Obama produced none.

    https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/trump-wrong-about-obama-documents/

    To illustrate how ridiculous it is, allow me to turn it around.

    Republicans impeach Obama because Obama exercised Executive Privilege over Fast & Furious docs..

    It's false equivalency and a ridiculous comparison and standard GOP Party buffoonery since Obama produced thousands of pages of documents and allowed his administration to testify. He only took issue to certain documents and still produced thousands of pages.

    Anyone comparing Trump's obstruction of Congress with Obama wherein Trump refuses to comply in any way and has also ordered his subordinates and former employees to comply with Congress is comparing apples and oranges and lying in the process... hoping the uninformed minions will be too stupid to know the facts.

    Pretty frakin' ridiculous, eh?? :D

    That you spew the GOP Party bullshit on cue like a useful idiot? It's always ridiculous how you toe the Party line and make the false comparisons and buy into the Trump lies, but here we are. :)

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    91

    I am on the record (as I am wont to do) as saying it's 60-40 that the House will pass the Articles Of Impeachment..

    Wrong. Trump is going to be impeached because he's on video admitting that he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and for encouraging China to investigate them too. He's therefore confessed to his crimes. This isn't rocket science. Trump will be impeached.

    I think the right wingnut talking heads do a great disservice to their viewers/listeners by continuing to claim that Trump's impeachment is falling apart. It isn't. Trump is going to be impeached... 100%.

    Even though it's likely the WORST possible thing the Dems could do, there is a 60% chance they will actually do it...

    Utter nonsense. Trump will definitely be impeached.

    Anyone wanna go on the record with their bet??

    Vote is Weds.....

    ON THE RECORD: Trump will be impeached.

    As I've said before, although I was accused by other posters of promising Trump would be impeached, I did not think he would be because I did not think Nancy Pelosi wanted to do it; then Trump left her no choice.

    Trump will be impeached. Anyone telling you otherwise is hoping for a different outcome when Trump is definitely going to be impeached. It's not too late to stop falling for the GOP bullshit. Trump will be impeached. :)

Comments for this article are closed.