ChrisWeigant.com

Two Amusing/Horrifying Suggestions To Update The Debate Format

[ Posted Wednesday, January 15th, 2020 – 17:44 UTC ]

While reading everyone else's take on last night's debate, I came across an interesting idea. Actually, two of them, but they're closely related, both being suggestions for how the debate format might be changed from what we saw last night to improve it for everyone. The first suggestion was an incremental one: since there are now fewer candidates, give each of them longer answer segments -- anywhere from two to five minutes. That makes a lot of sense now that there are only six of them on stage. But the reaction that really spurred my thinking came from Larry Sabato, who wrote in Politico the following suggestion:

Now that the D.N.C. has managed to reduce the field dramatically, can we please do away with this awful format? Instead, have the candidates sit at a roundtable with a moderator whose sole job is to introduce topics and equalize time. Let the candidates take it from there.

This goes further than the other suggestion, and it also makes a lot of sense. We're down to the frontrunners (or "near-frontrunners"), so let them speak! Get rid of the formalized podium setting and have them all sit around a table with just one moderator, who would prompt discussion and occasionally keep the peace. That would indeed allow for more substantive discussion of both the issues and the candidates' differences.

This got me thinking creatively about other ways to improve the debates, and I came up with two of my own suggestions, which can either be read as tongue-in-cheek or perfectly serious, depending on whether you choose to be amused or horrified by these ideas. Ready? Here's the first one:

 

Cable news screamfest segment

I can feel some readers recoiling in horror already, I have to admit, when writing that phrase. Why on Earth would I want to showcase the Democratic candidates in what is possibly the worst "journalistic" format ever invented by mankind, after all? Those split-screen matchups of one extremist versus another add little if anything to anyone's understanding of the issues in favor of just letting the fur fly in a bid for ratings (since program managers, cable news hosts, and importantly the viewers themselves all love conflict) -- so why would I want to see such a thing with the serious and sober candidates for the highest office in the land?

Well, the answer is pretty simple and obvious: Donald Trump.

Watch any of the 2016 Republican debates again. See how Trump "debates." That is what faces all of these Democratic hopefuls if they win the nomination. Many Democrats (myself included) want the absolute best fighter to face him, if and when general election debates actually happen (I could easily see Trump refusing to participate in any, personally). So why not practice doing so rather than practice behaving correctly and politely allowing others to finish their sentences? That's going to do no one any good when facing Trump.

Pit one Democratic candidate against another in a split screen, and tell them they will each be allowed one answer but then afterwards whoever talks loudest gets to speak the most. We've already had a few of these episodes already in the debates, mostly with minor wannabe candidates challenging the frontrunners. So why not encourage it? Rotate the matchups throughout the night -- first a Bernie Sanders versus Elizabeth Warren match to see which progressive is best, then a Joe Biden versus Pete Buttigieg for the moderates, then add others to the mix and do all the head-to-heads possible. With only five candidates this would mean ten possible matchups, and with six it'd be fifteen. There's enough time to fit all of these in during the course of a debate. The moderators already try to set up such confrontations, so just formalize it a bit and explain that they'll both be seen in a split-screen for the next few minutes and that there won't be any rules barring interruptions -- then sit back and see what happens.

If you think this is a terrible idea, then you're really going to hate my next one:

 

Let Stephen Colbert, as "Donald Trump," ask one question to each candidate, in character

Colbert's got a pretty hilarious fake-Trump impersonation, which he mostly uses to read Trump's tweets. But he's also got the Trump act down so well he can also show us what Trump is most likely actually thinking on any given subject. So have one segment of one of the debates dedicated to Colbert ripping into each Democratic candidate -- as "Donald Trump" -- berating and belittling them in the crudest ways possible. "Trump" would use nasty nicknames and attempt to ridicule their entire candidacy, from their agenda items right down to the way they look, talk, and dress. "Trump," of course, would not be bound by facts; "Trump" could toss out any conspiracy theory or made-up garbage he wants.

No doubt Colbert would agree to this idea, because you just know he'd have all kinds of fun with it.

Admittedly, this sounds like a really stupid idea -- much stupider than that "cable news segment" idea. This brings the sanctity of the race for president down to the level of gutter comedy. It cheapens the entire process and all the candidates. It is laughable to even conceive that this would be a good idea.

Ah, but there's that key word -- "laughable." Even those of you recoiling in horror right now have to admit that it would indeed be hilarious. Crucially, people would watch it. It would be the most-viewed clip of the entire primary campaign, hands down (probably by a factor of 100 or better). It would likely become downright historic, like Richard Nixon's "Sock it to me?" from Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In. What other clip from any Democratic debate could aspire to such heights?

Laughter aside, though, I am being more than a little serious here. Please remember, whichever candidate wins will have to debate Trump. And Trump doesn't "debate" so much as he "bullies people like a hulking fifth-grader." That is what is ahead, like it or not. That is not going to change. Before, Trump was just a guy playing the whole thing for laughs and having fun. Now, he's going to be the sitting president of the United States -- one who has built a rage against elitist media types for his entire presidency. Do you really think he's going to listen to "your time is up" or "please don't interrupt" from anyone trying to moderate such a debate? I don't. I think he's going to take cheap shot after cheap shot, while ignoring any actual questions or issues willy-nilly. He's going to taunt. He's going to insult. He's going to be outrageous right to the face of his Democratic opponent. You just know he's going to do so. His supporters are looking forward to it with glee, while his opponents are dreading it, but they both agree it is downright inevitable. And they're right. So what better way to prepare for this onslaught than turning Colbert loose on them?

Give Colbert, as "Trump," three full minutes with each candidate. Allow "Trump" to both ask the question (in as nasty a way as can be conceived) and then shout down their attempt at answering. Think of Trump's infamous: "No puppet! No puppet! -- You're the puppet!" from his debate with Hillary Clinton. Subject each Democratic candidate to that for three minutes, as envisioned by Colbert.

How would they react? Would they attempt to laugh it off, would they get angry, would they come up with putdowns of their own? There are any number of ways the candidates could play it, when you think about it. Colbert's smart enough to stay in character and react to just about anything they throw back at him. Of course, even pushing the boundaries, Colbert won't be nearly as vicious and mean-spirited as Trump is going to undoubtedly be, so it won't be a fair test -- everyone will know that this is really more comedy than a serious audition for the eventual general election debate. But even so, it would be one heck of a lot closer than anything we've yet seen on a Democratic debate stage. And no matter how funny or cringeworthy it turns out to be for each candidate, it will indeed be read as an audition. Which candidate stands up to Colbert's "Trump" the best might just be the one who can face the real thing and not be cowed by Trump's inevitable bullying.

And you know what? That is far more important to tens of millions of Democratic voters than all the hair-splitting spats we've seen on stage so far. Who cares if Amy Klobuchar bests Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg over some minor difference between their candidacies? What the voters overwhelmingly want to see -- what they all tell any reporter smart enough to ask -- is that they have one overriding goal which trumps all else: beating Donald J. Trump. Democratic voters really aren't all that interested in the finer points which divide their candidates. They're willing and eager to get behind any of them who become the party's nominee. Even Michael Bloomberg is now committing to continuing his anti-Trump campaign with hundreds of millions of dollars even if he loses the nomination. Democrats are united behind one simple idea: Trump must be beat.

So why not test the candidates on the overriding issue that Democratic voters care about most? Why not make it as real-life as can be? Why not put on television the exact same thing any of them will go through, and do it before they actually have to debate Trump? No matter who the nominee turns out to be, he or she will spend countless hours before the first Trump debate huddling with their advisors and playacting how the debate will go. The nominee will have someone stand in for Trump and practice -- over and over again -- what they'll do in front of the cameras. This is standard and normal. It would happen no matter who the Republican nominee would be, in fact, and has happened every single time for every single debate since they started televising them (or, more accurately, since Nixon lost to J.F.K. in the first one). They're all going to do debate prep with a fake Trump. So why not see how they handle it now, when we have a chance to select one candidate's strategy for taking on Trump over all the others?

Would Bernie Sanders outdo Trump in New York City outer-borough trash talk? Would Joe Biden equal Trump's anger with some righteous anger of his own? Could Pete Buttigieg avoid looking like a deer in the headlights? Would Elizabeth Warren smack Trump around in the best schoolteacher/librarian fashion imaginable?

These sound like frivolous questions, but they really aren't. For anyone who tries to argue that this would cheapen and demean what is supposed to be a serious process, my answer is that Trump himself is absolutely guaranteed to cheapen the general election debate process into as demeaning a night of television as he can manage. That is not some wild-eyed prediction, that is precisely what is going to happen.

And, once again, people would watch it. I'd bet a whole lot of Quatloos that it would become the highest-rated debate of the entire cycle. People would watch for the entertainment value alone, admittedly, but then that is Trump's entire persona. He's not going to treat debating a Democrat as a sober-minded discussion of the differences between the parties' platforms, he is going to play it for pure unadulterated entertainment value, plain and simple. So why not have a trial run for the Democrats, before we all have to vote for one of them? As an added bonus, it would probably really get under Trump's skin. Just imagine the tweets that would fly during that debate!

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

97 Comments on “Two Amusing/Horrifying Suggestions To Update The Debate Format”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The last Canadian prime ministerial debate I saw had 6 candidates and very competent moderators who managed to control the event so that it actually felt like a real debate.

    But, I like the roundtable idea very much. I think you would have to go to public television news to find the right moderator, though.

  2. [2] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I don't think that any of the other non-Bernie/non-Elizabeth candidates would agree to this brutal, Trial by Colbert format.

    But what a great idea! I'm worried that Democrats won't practice with hard enough/extreme enough Trump surrogates to adequately handle the bombast and some truly crazy sh*t that will come out of his mouth.

    And, yes, I see Trump boycotting all debates. Why show up when they can't help but could surely hurt his chances?

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You make a salient point with both of your ideas, Chris. And, they surely would be lots of fun. Something needs to be done about the fake debates we've seen so far.

    But, I guess the question here is what's the best strategy for the Democratic nominee in a campaign and debate with the likes of president Trump.

    It shouldn't be too hard to figure out as Trump will indubitably make known his campaign and debate line of attack whenever he opens his mouth or taps out a tweet. And, Trump isn't going to change the way he is or what he says.

    I'll be surprised if he agrees to a presidential debate, especially if Biden is his challenger. Maybe only if it's Biden. Because, remember, Trump can dish it out but he doesn't usually take it very well.

    Here is a question for everyone:

    How should the Democratic presidential nominee respond to Trump in a debate when the president boasts about the great economy he has single-handedly brought into being?

  4. [4] 
    andygaus wrote:

    Trump is too much of a coward to answer any serious questions, and his latest post-Suleimani appearance, where he was constantly sniffing and unaware that he was mispronouncing words--"accomplaments" and "tolerided"--suggest that he might not be in top debating form at this point. Debates are a tradition, like producing your tax returns and putting your business affairs in a blind trust. What reason is there to think that Trump will honor this particular tradition? Very likely there will be no presidential debates. Trump will just give a series of rallies, where his incoherence will not matter to his supporters--or be reported on by the cowardly press. If the Democratic nominee needs to be prepared, very likely what they need to be prepared for is not how to confront Trump with maximum force, but how to deal with a situation where they never get to confront Trump face to face at all.

  5. [5] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [3]

    Elizabeth

    (1) remind everyone that Trump inherited this economy from Obama! You know, the guy cleaned up after the last Republican disaster.

    (2) point out just how badly Trump's trade wars (with rivals and allies both) have hurt American Farmers.

    (3) make it clear who really pays for tariffs.

    (4) if manufacturing output and job numbers are still down, say so.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    That's right. The nominee will just have to put bullet points like that into a snappy, fact-based retort that will play again and again in the minds of all voters and make them really think about which party is best for the economy.

    I would add to your point 4 that Democrats have to be honest about their own policy prescriptions over the years and mistakes that were made. Just be truthful about the real economy today, the good and the bad. Don't treat the soaring stock markets as something that middle-class Americans aren't heavily involved in because many do have investments there, especially in terms of retirement savings.

    The Democrats need to repeat over and over a short history lesson of what the impacts on the economy have been under Republican versus Democratic administrations.

    And, to your point 1, a good ending might involve asking Americans to ponder what might have happened if Trump had inherited an economy that was circling the drain, at home and abroad! Heck, he would never have been taken seriously or elected under those dire economic circumstances. Period!

    What we saw in the debate the other night from Steyer and Biden on the economy needs to be seen often and multiplied by a few orders of magnitude!

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, and I know Biden will start off the retort to Trump's boasting about the economy with a big and sincere, "That's a bunch of malarkey!" followed by a short but sharp Biden smile … :)

  8. [8] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I agree with Andygaus - 2020 Trump is not 2015 Trump. Go to YouTube to compare and contrast. Trump looks much older, can barely assemble sentences and gets lost in paragraphs. He seems to get lost getting off AF One. It may be exhaustion, medications, neurological decline or just plain worry.

    Debate may not be Trump's friend. I could see him declining to participate in unpredictable head to head and just going rally to rally ...waving and smiling while his crowds swoon over anything he blurts. It's all about getting video that can edited into effective advertising. I suspect that state of the art computer shops could do this all synthetically, but I don't think any of the politcal conultants want to be first ones to try it.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hope you guys aren't looking at doctored YouTube videos, as it were ...

  10. [10] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Anyone could be taught how to deal with Trump in a debate setting, it really isn’t that difficult! Yes, he ran all over the Republican field of candidates during the debates in 2015-6, but that was because they were all playing by the same rule book except for Trump. Hillary tried to keep it as civil as possible during the debates, and while he didn’t run over her like he did the Republicans, she still failed to put him in his place.

    The way to beat Trump is to push back against anything he says or does forcefully and confidently.

    Trump has a hard time sitting still, like when someone else is being given the floor to speak — and it especially tough for him to be still when that person is saying something critical of Trump. If Trump starts to walk around, as he did with Hillary, then the candidate should sincerely ask the moderator if someone on the President’s side wants to have him checked out by medical personnel, because he’s acting like a stroke victim.

    The Democrat’s candidate should immediate attack Trump’s responses to questions that are rambling word salads, asking for Trump to explain what it was that he was trying to say.

    They should be prepared to quote Trump’s tweets that contradict his words. Toss his words back in face — make him defend his own words.

    Challenge Trump — say that it is unlikely Trump could answer basic civics questions correctly, and then ask if to answer it if they are wrong! Point out that he refuses to say anything critical of Putin. Say that it seems obvious that he’d be willing to make a clear statement warning Putin NOT to interfere or risk facing our country’s wrath if he wasn’t compromised by the Russians... then let Trump decide how he looks to the world.

    I do not think Trump can risk debating any of the candidates... which is a large part of why the Republicans chose not to hold their own primary this year, despite having Republicans willing to challenge him. Trump is NOT good in a conflict situation. It’s why he cannot fire any employees face to face; he has to have someone else do it or he does it safely, by tweet!

    Trump is a bully and a coward. Treat him like one.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    The way to beat Trump is to push back against anything he says or does forcefully and confidently.

    I agree wholeheartedly with that but would add, and respectfully.

    Being respectful isn't being weak, it's showing strength.

  12. [12] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    Sorry, but I think this idea is terrible! We should not promote this behavior or we risk it becoming more acceptable. How do you turn it off once you open the valve once you normalize it?

    As I posted above, I think anyone can be trained to take down Trump in a debate. Hire insult comics to help coach the candidate. Get Russell Simmons to round up a bunch of the Def Comedy Jam comics to run them through the wringer to toughen them up.

    But we have to resist getting in the mud to wrestle the pig into submission, we should stand above them... It’s easier to spear them and you never have to get dirty in the process.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Trump is a bully and a coward. Treat him like one.

    I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think your 12 answered my 13. :)

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But we have to resist getting in the mud to wrestle the pig into submission, we should stand above them... It’s easier to spear them and you never have to get dirty in the process.

    Indeed.

  16. [16] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Being respectful isn't being weak, it's showing strength.

    I agree. But not everyone deserves our respect. It’s hard to be respectful as you are calling a person out for their constant dishonesty and nastiness. I am not saying that you should not try to remain civil, but to put someone like Trump in his place, you cannot be respectful in your delivery of it — because Trump does NOT RESPECT that form of communication! You have to speak his language for him to understand you.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, I think you can be very respectful (not respecting, mind you) while putting trump in his place AND do it with a Biden smile.

    You see, I've been following Biden's political career since before the first time he ran for president and I've seen him do just that, time and again. Granted, he hasn't run into anyone quite like Trump but, as you say, a bully and coward is easily handled by a respectful pro.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You have to speak his language for him to understand you.

    Bite your tongue! God forbid Democrats start speaking his language.

    Who cares if Trump doesn't understand - he is not who you are trying to persuade.

  19. [19] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Switching to a seated round table procedure sounds like a good idea. It might reduce interruptions to some extent, because the candidates would be looking at each other. Not entirely, of course, I've sat on too many committee meetings to expect that, and of course these are all people used to taking the lead in group discussions. Longer times, fairly stringently enforced by turning off mics, sounds like a good idea as well.

    I agree that the eventual candidate needs some kind of preparation for facing someone who doesn't actually debate, just blusters and bullies, but don't like the idea of serving up such bad behaviour as entertainment.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Russ,

    {from previous commentary}

    >>>Yer source is WaPoop..

    >>>'nuff said..

    Actually my source was the 35 documents the House Intelligence Committee released, I just linked the article to give context to my comment.

    Then link to the actual documents and quote the part that supports yer claim..

    THEN you will have facts..

    With WaPoop as your source, all you have is propaganda and bullshit...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Would Bernie Sanders outdo Trump in New York City outer-borough trash talk? Would Joe Biden equal Trump's anger with some righteous anger of his own? Could Pete Buttigieg avoid looking like a deer in the headlights? Would Elizabeth Warren smack Trump around in the best schoolteacher/librarian fashion imaginable?

    Probably not..

    Think about it.. *EVERYTIME* someone, whether it be GOP or Dem, tried to out-Trump Trump, they got their asses handed to them..

    It's a bona-fide established fact that NO ONE can beat Trump by BEING Trump..

    Everyone who tried??? Gets tossed on the dust-bin of history..

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    And, yes, I see Trump boycotting all debates. Why show up when they can't help but could surely hurt his chances?

    Oh com'on... Trump avoid an opportunity to preen for the cameras???

    Trump realizing that he might actually lose in a debate???

    Shirley, you jest....

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    AG,

    Trump is too much of a coward to answer any serious questions,

    Facts to support?? None?? Hokay.. :D

    What reason is there to think that Trump will honor this particular tradition?

    Funny how Democrats are all in on "tradition".. But ONLY the tradition that serves their agenda..

    It's like when Democrats become Constitutionalists... But ONLY when it serves their agenda..

    Another word for it is HYPOCRISY...

    Not that the GOP is much better.. But at least the GOP is honest about it..

    Very likely there will be no presidential debates.

    I am going to hold you to that prediction.. :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    (1) remind everyone that Trump inherited this economy from Obama! You know, the guy cleaned up after the last Republican disaster.

    Obama?? Oh yea.. he's the moron who said that things weren't going to get any better. The dickweed who said that 2.0 GDP was the "new normal".. The total idiot who said that jobs were not coming back.

    THAT's the guy you want to give credit to???

    Shirley, you jest...

    point out just how badly Trump's trade wars (with rivals and allies both) have hurt American Farmers.

    You mean the American farmers that are going to see a YYUUUUGGGEEEEEE windfall from the current USA/China trade deal???

    THOSE American farmers???

    (3) make it clear who really pays for tariffs.

    No Pain, No Gain... Know Pain, Know Gain....

    (4) if manufacturing output and job numbers are still down, say so.

    And yet.. They're still up.. :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I would add to your point 4 that Democrats have to be honest about their own policy prescriptions over the years and mistakes that were made.

    Yea.. Lemme know how THAT works out, eh? :D

    Democrats and honesty are two mutually exclusive terms that should NEVER be in the same sentence...

    Unless the sentence is to explain that they should never be in the same sentence...

    Oh, and I know Biden will start off the retort to Trump's boasting about the economy with a big and sincere, "That's a bunch of malarkey!" followed by a short but sharp Biden smile … :)

    And there goes "honesty" down the drain...

    Democrats need to come to grips with the FACT and the REALITY that the economy is doing really REALLY well and it's largely due to President Trump's actions..

    Because if they try to feed the line of BS to the American people that the economy is very very dismal and bad, they are going to be laughed at all the way to the voting booths where people vote Trump..

    It would be like a sunny day at the beach where their is a Democrat on a podium screaming at the beach goers telling them it's all rainy and dismal and cloudy...

    People will just shake their heads and laugh at the deluded moron..

    Democrats need to get off their HATE TRUMP kick and acknowledge the good that President Trump has done..

    ONE BILLION quatloos says that is never gonna happen...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I agree with Andygaus - 2020 Trump is not 2015 Trump. Go to YouTube to compare and contrast. Trump looks much older, can barely assemble sentences and gets lost in paragraphs. He seems to get lost getting off AF One. It may be exhaustion, medications, neurological decline or just plain worry.

    Facts to support???

    None?? OK, I get it..

    Sounds like more wishful thinking than anything else, Stig..

    Look at YouTube rallies of President Trump 2016 and President Trump 2019/2020...

    The *ONLY* difference is that in the latter, the size and excitement of the crowds is 10x higher...

    Once again.. You got hate hyperbole..

    I got facts... :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Russ,

    Trump is NOT good in a conflict situation.

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    "Are ye daft, man!!?"
    -Scotty

    President Trump ***LIVES*** for the conflict situation!!!

    President Trump goes OUT OF HIS WAY to **CREATE** conflict situations..

    You really REALLY need to quit living in your delusion bubble and join reality...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Momma,

    I agree that the eventual candidate needs some kind of preparation for facing someone who doesn't actually debate, just blusters and bullies, but don't like the idea of serving up such bad behaviour as entertainment.

    I think yer missing CWs point..

    The point is not to best Trump..

    The point is to reach as MANY Americans as possible...

    And CW's ideas would do exactly that..

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, the Warren-Sanders rift is NOT just a media construct...

    Warren-Sanders rift has progressives nervous about fallout

    DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — For nearly a year, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders pushed strongly progressive ideas into the Democratic primary spotlight, feeding off each other to build support for proposals long dismissed as radically leftist: “Medicare for All,” tuition-free college and a “Green New Deal” to combat climate change.

    Now the race’s most progressive candidates are fighting over the politics of gender, and regardless of who prevails, the party’s most liberal wing is nervous the ensuing fallout could torpedo its once-ascendant ideals. That’s something many see as the worst possible outcome at the worst possible time, with the lead-off Iowa caucuses barely two weeks away.
    https://apnews.com/c2bdb63b80b33b5dcd676cd6889e49f2

    The 2020 election is going to be a cake-walk for President Trump's re-election.. :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea.. DEFINITELY the Warren-Sanders brawl is **NOT** a media construct..

    Audio released of testy post-debate exchange between Warren, Sanders: 'I think you called me a liar on national TV'

    Audio of the tense-looking post-debate exchange between Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was released Wednesday night, revealing both of them accusing the other of "lying" on national television.

    CNN, which hosted the debate, reported that the "backup" audio archive of its debate coverage had captured the moment the progressive candidates approached each other after the debate.

    "I think you called me a liar on national TV," Warren said to Sanders as he reached out his hand for a handshake, which she did not reciprocate.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cnn-debate-audio-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren

    Once again, I must suggest with the UTMOST respect.

    Ya'all need to get with REALITY...

    Democrat Party civil war is in play... Rather than ignore the problem ya'all should acknowledge the problem and take steps to minimize or eliminate the problem..

    That's what President Trump would do.. :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having said the afore, I have to admit that it's refreshing to hear some HONESTY from Democrats..

    Sanders and Warren calling each other liars..

    THAT is about as honest as it gets... :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    I think we can agree that their are no mis-speaks or mis-understandings at work here...

    Either Warren or Sanders is lying... Flat out, blatantly and obviously lying..

    Personally, I think it's Bernie..

    While he may actually BELIEVE that a woman can win in 2020, I can definitely see him SAYING the opposite to try and dissuade Warren from running...

    But let's call a spade a spade...

    There is no "paraphrasing" at work here...

    One of them is lying...

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You called me a liar on national television!!"
    -Warren

    "Of course I did it on national television.. The tom toms and the smoke signals were in use..."
    -Bernie

    Ba da da... :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    So much for the "solemn" and "somber" impeachment..

    :eyeroll:

    Pelosi hands out souvenir pens, Dems slammed for gloating as House delivers Trump impeachment articles

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi drew criticism Wednesday for handing out commemorative pens -- with her name on them -- after signing a resolution to transmit two articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate for trial.

    To critics, the tone of the event seemed celebratory -- a far cry from December, when Pelosi wore black and insisted on the House floor it was a “solemn” day before the Democrat-controlled body voted to impeach the president on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress allegations. Later, she even cut short two rounds of cheers from Democrats when the articles were adopted.

    “Nancy Pelosi’s souvenir pens served up on silver platters to sign the sham articles of impeachment,” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham tweeted in response. “She was so somber as she gave them away to people like prizes.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-impeachment-pens-trump-solemn-somber

    Definitely a faux impeachment coup...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    “You know what you hand out pens for? Accomplishments. Like, say, signing a historic trade deal with China.

    So it's fitting that Democrats are handing out pens for their sole accomplishment: impeachment. Democrats have done NOTHING for the American people.”
    -RNC spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington

    Yup....

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Embarrassing spectacle - Pelosi using sterling silver platters and handing out ceremonial pens to everyone in sight, made it ridiculously theatrical and so tacky and clownish. What goofballs.”
    -MARK SIMONE

    Clownish is dead on ballz accurate...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Somber" and "Solemn" Democrats celebrating their faux impeachment coup..

    https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2020/01/1862/1048/pelosi-pens-3.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

    #sad #pathetic

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Either Warren or Sanders is lying... Flat out, blatantly and obviously lying..

    Personally, I think it's Bernie..

    On the other hand, Warren has been known to tell a fib or two if it suited her agenda...

    Her Lie-awatha phase proved that beyond any doubt..

    So it IS possible Warren is lying..

    But I still don't think so...

    She HAD to realize with Bernie's long running stance of feminism that is well-documented, that a claim such as this would be met with incredulity..

    I doubt Warren has the testicular fortitude to make up a lie like this and make it stick...

    So, I still think Bernie is lying..

    Don't ya'all have a problem with liars???

    Ahhh That's right.. ONLY the liars that have an -R after their name..

    My bust....

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m [prior column],

    yes, i have been known to write poetry and song from time to time. it's not my profession, but has been part of my identity since i was a teen. i've even posted a few here on over the years, if you'll recall.

    JL

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrat Party civil war is in play...

    I mean, you got Progressives fight liberals and moderates.. You have Bernie Progressives fighting Warren Progressives...

    "So we can fight, and fight, and keep coming back for more like some bloody coliseum? What's next, the roar of crowds?"
    -Captain James T Kirk, STAR TREK, The Day Of The Dove

    I predict a huge run on popcorn... :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    yes, i have been known to write poetry and song from time to time. it's not my profession, but has been part of my identity since i was a teen. i've even posted a few here on over the years, if you'll recall.

    Would you be willing to entertain a job from me... I have until April... Payment made in any form you desire.. :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    I’ll try sheep the next time we have a full moon,

    "Eeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww"
    -Ernst P Worrel

    :D

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I think "cheapening" the debates is a great idea.

    But not CW's version.

    The best way to cheapen the debates while actually making them more serious and important would be for the DNC to only allow small donor candidates in the debates.

    The reason this is the best way is because the debates need to reach more than just Democratic voters because it will take more than just Democratic voters to win in November so it needs to be about more than just what is important to Democratic voters.

    And since over 80% of citizens (including a majority of Republicans) want the big money out of politics this would be finally have the Democrats offering what citizens really want and really need instead of just offering the same big money candidates as the Republicans.

    Any reporter smart enough to understand this would then ask citizens what is more important to you- getting rid of Trump or getting rid of big money in our political process which is what gave us Trump in the first place and will lead to another Trump that is even worse if citizens keep repeating the mistake of replacing big money candidates from one party with big money candidates from the other party.

    If you're going to consider crazy ideas, it should at least be a crazy idea that could actually be productive and beneficial that as they say in the movies:

    "That idea is just crazy enough to work!"
    -generic movie quote

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW

    {From yesterday's commentary}

    I know the difference between a grand jury/trial and impeachment, if that's what yer asking.. :D

    For, if this was a grand jury/trial, Warren, Sanders, Klobacher and Bennet would have to recuse themselves..

    Is THAT what ya want?? :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    The best way to cheapen the debates while actually making them more serious and important would be for the DNC to only allow small donor candidates in the debates.

    "I see what you did there..."

    :D

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    With all the sheep talk maybe that's what Democratic voters really want so the Dems should invite Gene Wilder (if he's still alive) to be in the debates. (see "Everything you always wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask") :D

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (45)-
    Thanks.

    Let's hope CW sees what I did in that part and especially the part about "Any reporter smart enough to recognize this..." and is smart enough to finally catch on and catch up instead of continuing to be fooled by the dog, pony and possibly sheep show that he has been buying into or shamelessly promoting even though he knows it's bullshit.

    Of course, he could be smart enough to recognize it but he is just too chicken to do anything about it.

    (I just had to get one more barnyard reference in.:D)

  48. [48] 
    TheStig wrote:

    EM-9

    Assuming "you guys" refers to comments 4 and 8.

    Watching video's on YouTube can be a lot like buying sunglasses, leather goods or electronics from street vendors as opposed to merchandise from established brick & mortar retailers. High quality video editing software is relatively cheap and easy to use. When high fidelity fakes penetrate a market, you have to rely heavily on reputation, provenance and an eye for detail...unless you just don't care about quality.

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/how-much-of-the-internet-is-fake.html

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    When high fidelity fakes penetrate a market, you have to rely heavily on reputation, provenance and an eye for detail...unless you just don't care about quality.

    Aww, com'on Stig!!

    As long as it bashes President Trump ya don't really care about anything else... :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bloomberg viewed as having best chance to beat Trump in betting market analysis
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/478494-bloomberg-viewed-as-having-best-chance-to-beat-trump-in-betting-market

    Wouldn't THAT be the shits, eh??

    Democrats nominate an old white guy billionaire! :D

    I have to agree with the markets.. Bloomberg is possibly the Democrat Party's only hope..

    But at what cost???

    "Did you do it?"
    "Yes"
    "What did it cost you?"
    "Everything.."

    -AVENGERS ENDGAME

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You may have missed my point, TS. Which is that it's never wise to underestimate Trump. That's what happened last time around, you know.

    And, assuming can be a very dangerous thing. :)

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    With all the sheep talk maybe that's what Democratic voters really want so the Dems should invite Gene Wilder (if he's still alive) to be in the debates.

    He is not..

    Died in 2016 at the age of 83...

    RIP Willy Wonka

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    You may have missed my point, TS. Which is that it's never wise to underestimate Trump. That's what happened last time around, you know.

    That's what *I* keep telling them!!! :D

    And, assuming can be a very dangerous thing. :)

    Yep.. When you make an assumption you are making an ASS out of U... And Umption..

  54. [54] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It's impossible to underestimate Trump. That is not what happened last time.

    What happened last time is the Democrats overestimated the effectiveness of the continuing bullshit line of no matter how bad we are the other side is worse pitch.

    That just doesn't work anymore on anyone but the believers of the lie.

    Pardon the language Liz, but wake the fuck up!

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to agree with the markets.. Bloomberg is possibly the Democrat Party's only hope..

    But at what cost???

    To paraphrase Matthew 16:26

    What good does it due to win the Presidency but lose your soul...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's impossible to underestimate Trump. That is not what happened last time.

    Have ta disagree with ya...

    Starting with Hillary's bone headed decision to ignore Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, 95% of all wins that President Trump has enjoyed has been because his enemies had underestimated him...

    The other 5% has been actual talent and merit..

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea.. Sanctuary Cities.. Protect illegal immigrant criminals..

    WHAT COULD GO WRONG... :eyeroll:

    NYC’s sanctuary policy blasted after illegal immigrant sprung to allegedly rape, kill 92-year-old
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc-sanctuary-city-policy-under-fire

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    New York City’s sanctuary city policy is again under fire after an illegal immigrant, who was released from NYPD custody in November despite a plea from federal immigration officials to hold him, is alleged to have gone on to sexually assault and murder a 92-year-old woman.

    “There has been a complete breakdown of law & order in New York City,” Acting Department of Homeland Security Chad Wolf tweeted Wednesday. “NYC proudly passed sanctuary city laws & bragged about it for months. But now they, & more importantly, the citizens of NYC are facing the deadly consequences of the sanctuary policies.”

    Democrats have a LOT of American blood on their hands..

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    ICE announced this week that they had issued a federal immigration detainer on Khan in November when he was previously arrested on assault and weapons charges. The NYPD ignored the detainer and Khan was released.

    Thomas Decker, field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), said in a statement that the sanctuary policy was "dangerously flawed” and accused New York politicians of caring more about criminal illegal immigrants than their own people.

    “New York City’s sanctuary policies continue to threaten the safety of all residents of the five boroughs, as they repeatedly protect criminal aliens who show little regard for the laws of this nation,” he said. “In New York City alone, hundreds of arrestees are released each month with pending charges and/or convictions to return back into the communities where they committed their crimes, instead of being transferred into the custody of ICE.”

    A LOT of blood...

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, the politicians at the NYPD tried to lie and claim that ICE never sent a detainer..

    https://twitter.com/ICEgov/status/1217482932463468546

    As usual, Democrat politicians lie..

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hypocrisy. De Blasio runs & hides behind police b/c he cannot defend his anti-law enforcement policies. Tell me Mr. Mayor: What are you going to tell her family? ‘I could have prevented your loved one’s rape & murder but I decided to provide sanctuary to criminal aliens instead.’
    -Heather Swift, DHS

    What IS DeBlowHole going to tell this woman's family???

    "Sorry that your 92-yr old mother, grandmother and great-grandmother was raped and murdered.. But it's more important that we protect illegal immigrant criminals so we don't have time or inclination to worry about innocent New Yorkers...."
    -DeBlasio

    Asshole...

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I will not excuse your language, Don. Take it somewhere else.

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, that goes for you, too, Michale. :(

  64. [64] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    "have ta disagree with ya"

    There's something you have in common with the Democrats. You both have to believe that in order to rationalize your beliefs which is easier than accepting reality. :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny in a sad and pathetic way..

    Democrats' mantra for President Trump's faux impeachment coup is "NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW"

    Well, apparently, according to Democrats, Reeaz Khan is above the law.. :eyeroll:

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's something you have in common with the Democrats.

    Hay now!!! Let's not be sayin' shit we can't take back!!!

    :D

  67. [67] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again".

    Now that you have got your offended sensabilities out of the way, perhaps you could now continue a discussion on the other points of my comment that are relevant to the ongoing discussion in this thread.

    Why do you only comment on naughty words and ignore the opportunity for discussion you claim to want?

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, that goes for you, too, Michale. :(

    I am sure the Fuentes family would completely agree with my language....

    Democrat Party policies just caused another innocent person's life...

    My language is the LEAST of all the issues here...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    GOA claims President Trump violated the law..

    “Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.”

    President Trump DID faithfully execute the law..

    He just adjusted the timetable... Perfectly within his purview of the President Of The United States..

    Much like Odumbo used his "discretion" to give illegal immigrant criminals a free pass...

    Another big nothing-burger... {{YYYYYYAAAAAAWWWWWNNNNNN}}

  70. [70] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    For example, consider the possibility that the big money interests were just using Trump in 2016.

    Perhaps they recognized that there were enough people fed up with the bullsh... (oops bull-caca, See "High Anxiety") from both parties and figured that Bernie might be able to tap into that (he clearly was) and figured they needed another false alternative to draw enough of the populist energy to the Republican side and away from Bernie.

    This would allow Hillary to win the Democratic nomination so the general election would have the establishment candidate on the Democratic side and the populist candidate on the Republican side with the populist candidate being someone that would give the big money interests much of what they want if the establishment candidate did not win.

    It's impossible to know whether a contest in the 2016 general election between Bernie and Trump would have resulted in either one winning as some Hillary voters may have stayed home, some voters that voted for Trump or that voted but left the presidential column blank may have voted for Bernie if he were the other choice and some that voted for Hillary may have voted for Trump if Bernie were the other choice.

    But it is entirely possible that the big money interests made sure we wouldn't find out.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Several witnesses who testified before House impeachment investigators said President Donald Trump ordered the hold on the critical military assistance.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/16/white-house-violated-the-law-by-freezing-ukraine-aid-gao-says-099682

    Actually, that is not factually accurate..

    Several witnesses said that they heard somebody who said that they heard somebody who said that they heard President Trump order the hold..

    Hearsay twice removed... :eyeroll:

  72. [72] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    WARNING! LIZ DON'T READ THIS!

    I just saw another one of those commercials with the Motaur (half man, half motorcycle) and thought I would not want be a Motaur.

    As a Motaur is only human from the waist up, the only way a Motaur can have sex is by taking in the tailpipe. :D

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Taking it in the tailpipe.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting...

    According to Schiff-head "New evidence will likely be revealed" at the Senate Trial.

    All that does is PROVE that House Democrats did a shitty job...

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hopefully, the Senate will do better. :)

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hopefully, the Senate will do better. :)

    That's not the Senate's job..

    They House makes the case. The Senate rules based on the House evidence..

    Since "Abuse Of Power" nor "Obstruction Of Congress" is any kind of crime, the Senate's job is easy..

    This will be over in 2 weeks from Monday tops...

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, honestly...

    How long would you expect a trial to last where the charges are HAVING AN OVERDUE LIBRARY BOOK and WEARING PLAIDS WITH STRIPS...???

  78. [78] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Been reading this today after finding it online. It really is fascinating to see all of the evidence against Trump laid out in one place.

    https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/the_trump-ukraine_impeachment_inquiry_report.pdf

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Been reading this today after finding it online. It really is fascinating to see all of the evidence against Trump laid out in one place.

    So, quote the sections that have actual CRIMES...

    Keeping in mind that the document you are marveling at was created by DEMOCRATS and therefore is likely indistinguishable from propaganda...

    We'll wait.. :D

  80. [80] 
    TheStig wrote:

    EM-51

    I agree it is very unwise to underestimate Trump. Equally unwise to overestimate him.

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don[73],

    Always hit 'preview' before 'submit' - it's all we've got until there is a time-sensitive edit function around here. :)

  82. [82] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I mean, honestly...

    How long would you expect a trial to last where the charges are HAVING AN OVERDUE LIBRARY BOOK and WEARING PLAIDS WITH STRIPS...???

    There wouldn’t be a trial at all if those were what Trump was accused of doing! Sadly, Trump attempted to force a foreign government (and a nation Putin/Russia are currently in a war with) to announce that they were investigating a potential political rival of Trumps in our 2020 election or risk having Congressionally approved foreign/military aid withheld from them.

    There wouldn’t be a trial if Trump hadn’t completely ignored the authority granted solely to the House to determine what constitutes “impeachable offenses” or to conduct inquiries into the President’s actions. The Constitution doesn’t give the President the authority to instruct all federal agencies and employees to refuse to comply with any and all requests for information related to their investigation of the president’s conduct.
    Trump is the only president to ever refuse to cooperate with Congressional impeachment inquiries.

    Trump doesn’t believe he should have to follow the rules outlined in the Constitution as to how the President must conduct himself. Trump wants to be a King and considers himself above the law. THAT is why he is being impeached!

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stig,

    Equally unwise to overestimate him.

    Yea.. Like ANY Trump hater could be accused of THAT...

    :eyeroll:

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    Perhaps, it is more precise to say that it is unwise to underestimate the inclination of enough American voters in enough districts to vote for Trump in 2020, again AND for the first time.

    In other words, Democrats should take nothing or no one for granted.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    There wouldn’t be a trial at all if those were what Trump was accused of doing!

    And yet, that is EXACTLY what the Articles of Impeachment are..

    NON-CRIMES...

    You can pontificate all you like Russ..

    But at the end of the day, all you have is Dumbocrats who have tried to impeach a freely, fairly, legally, democratically and CONSTITUTIONALLY elected President of the United States for the legal equivalent of having an overdue library book and wearing plaids with stripes..

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are indisputable."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps, it is more precise to say that it is unwise to underestimate the inclination of enough American voters in enough districts to vote for Trump in 2020, again AND for the first time.

    In other words, Democrats should take nothing or no one for granted.

    EXACTLY!!

    But, of course, it will fall on deaf ears..

    Everyone else refuses to have respect for the opponent that President Trump represents..

    That is why they fail.. EVERY time..

    This impeachment is no different..

    President Trump will emerge stronger... Just like he did after their Russia Collusion delusion...

    These Democrats and Trump/America haters NEVER learn..

  87. [87] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So, quote the sections that have actual CRIMES...

    Trump committed numerous criminal acts that are described in detail throughout the report, including but not limited to bribery, extortion, violation of the Logan Act, and treason. Trump made it next to impossible to meet the standards to justify a guilty verdict in a criminal trial with his refusal to turn over the evidence and allowing key witnesses to testify. Therefore, the House chose not to specifically name federal criminal violations as individual articles of impeachment. This prevents Trump from arguing double jeopardy if/when he is indicted for the criminal offenses that are described in the AOI.

    By preventing Congress from having the evidence needed to secure a conviction on those charges, Trump cannot argue that Congress should have convicted him of these crimes when it impeached him! And it is this refusal to provide the evidence needed to convict him of more criminal actions that proves he is guilty of Obstruction of Congress. He screws himself no matter what he does! Trump would actually be better off by allowing the House to have the evidence to convict him of extortion and bribery... it might be the only way to keep him from going to prison.

  88. [88] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    But at the end of the day, all you have is Dumbocrats who have tried to impeach a freely, fairly, legally, democratically and CONSTITUTIONALLY elected President of the United States for the legal equivalent of having an overdue library book and wearing plaids with stripes..

    But at the end of the day, all you have is Trump who has tried to prevent freely, fairly, legally, democratically and CONSTITUTIONALLY elected Members of the United States House of Representatives from conducting investigations into the President’s misconduct under the authority granted to them by our Constitution. Trump doesn’t have the authority to interfere in the House’s inquiry of him simply because he claims the charges against him are not valid.

    I agree that this trial should not go very long. Trump has admitted to all of the charges being made against him, his only defense is that what he admits to doing wasn’t as bad as it is... which is not a viable defense.

    Why is Trump obstructing Congress from investigating events that you claim are the legal equivalent of having an overdue library book and wearing plaids with stripes?

    Or are you saying Trump can ignore the Constitution’s instructions as long as it prevents him from being held accountable for his actions?

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Trump committed numerous criminal acts that are described in detail throughout the report, including but not limited to bribery, extortion, violation of the Logan Act, and treason.

    And yet he wasn't CHARGED with a single one of those alleged crimes he committed..

    So, OBVIOUSLY, the FACTS don't support those charges.

    What part of that is unclear to you??

    But at the end of the day, all you have is Trump who has tried to prevent freely, fairly, legally, democratically and CONSTITUTIONALLY elected Members of the United States House of Representatives from conducting investigations into the President’s misconduct under the authority granted to them by our Constitution.

    Absolutely.. President Trump **DID NOT** assist the witch hunters in gathering the wood they needed to burn him at the stake..

    NO SHIT, Sherlock...

    I agree that this trial should not go very long. Trump has admitted to all of the charges being made against him, his only defense is that what he admits to doing wasn’t as bad as it is... which is not a viable defense.

    Wait.. You **HONESTLY** believe that President Trump is going to be found guilty and removed from office??

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump has admitted to all of the charges being made against him, his only defense is that what he admits to doing wasn’t as bad as it is...

    President Trump has not admitted he abused the power of his office..

    He *HAS* admitted that he has obstructed Congress because Congress was going places that were detrimental to this country.

    The Green New Deal is one example..

    Face reality, Russ.. Yer gonna lose.. President Trump is going to sail thru this impeachment and come out the other side on top of the heap... VINDICATED and EXONERATED...

    Democrats are bringing about the VERY EVENTS they strived to stop...

    THAT is going to be the result here..

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    But at the end of the day, all you have is Trump who has tried to prevent freely, fairly, legally, democratically and CONSTITUTIONALLY elected Members of the United States House of Representatives from conducting investigations into the President’s misconduct under the authority granted to them by our Constitution.

    Which is **EXACTLY** what Odumbo did when he was being investigated for the Fast/Furious scandal.

    Funny.. You didn't have a PROBLEM with that then..

    Why?? Because Odumbo has a -D after his name and he got a pass from you...

    Which proves this is NOTHING about the Constitutional duties and EVERYTHING about your Trump hate and bigotry...

  92. [92] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Which is **EXACTLY** what Odumbo did when he was being investigated for the Fast/Furious scandal.

    Good to know that your definition of **EXACTLY** is “completely different from”. Trump has refused to cooperate completely with investigations. Obama cooperated with investigators — he released countless documents and allowed witnesses to testify.

    Side note: Trump is impeached. Obama was never impeached. He would have been, had he done EXACTLY what Trump has done...and it would have been justified if Obama had!

  93. [93] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    He *HAS* admitted that he has obstructed Congress because Congress was going places that were detrimental to this country.

    The Green New Deal is one example..

    Comments like this simply prove that you have no idea what you are talking about! Trump does not have the authority to obstruct Congress — plain and simple! Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

    Hint: The Green New Deal is not law. It was a proposal and guide for future legislative goals. But nice attempt at changing the subject...with everything Trump is guilty of, I can understand why you feel the need to distract from the truth!

  94. [94] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And yet he wasn't CHARGED with a single one of those alleged crimes he committed..

    So, OBVIOUSLY, the FACTS don't support those charges.

    What part of that is unclear to you??

    The FACTS do support those charges.

    Trump was not charged for any of those crimes because the DOJ refuses to indict a sitting president while they are in office.

    What part of THAT is unclear to YOU???

  95. [95] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    At the beginning of a currently 94-post thread, almost 20 posts of interesting, informed, and respectful responses to Chris' essay. What a pleasure to read and reflect on.

    I go for the roundtable format. I'm intrigued but not convinced by the cruelty theater proposal featuring fake-Trump tormenting the current candidates. Yes, good ratings. No, the audience is not going to change its mind about which candidate to support, because Warren is better than Buttigieg at firing back ignorance, insults, and garbage at the president. I don't believe Biden is right that nothing is wrong that the eviction of Trump can't fix, but I do think that the Democrats, if they're going to preserve civil comity and governance in our democracy, can not simply imitate Trump in order to beat him.

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Better late than never, I guess.

    But, I don't have time to keep going back to old threads, you know.

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't believe Biden is right that nothing is wrong that the eviction of Trump can't fix,

    Of course, Biden believes no such thing.

Comments for this article are closed.