Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[LarryBnDC]

So why aren’t we having impeachment hearings?

And then this is where REDSTATEWARD brings us full circle, proving Krugman's point yet again; impeachment is the Democrats problem because it doesn't even enter his mind that Republicans might be concerned about Trump's corruption.

They got their tax cuts (and a Supreme Court that will prove corrupt in its own way by looking for a way to accept the Admin's piss-poor argument on the census citizenship question.)

Republicans support the President's position on many issues.  It isn't all about conduct...

Then what's the problem with ousting the guy with corrupt and horrible conduct and replace with someone who's similar/same on issues?  If you're only sticking with him on issues, then why not a personnel chamge?  Same issue positions, better person?

 Ecause there is no one better... and they know it. That alone is a sad commentary on the GOP.

[luee]

Check back, something about a report from the Washington times I used and comments about Nancee the ultimate elite. Next thing you know I was locked out, temporarily it seems. A message about not being allowed to use site. I had been posting since the NY Times days. Back just in time to express an opinion on the Democratic in fighting for nomination. Slow hands Joe seems to be on the outs with the metoo crowd. Seth Moulton and Cory Booker are my favorites now. Have to see how it goes after research. No to socialist Bernie, the big red train has passed you by.

[NeedsAdjustments]

So why aren’t we having impeachment hearings?

And then this is where REDSTATEWARD brings us full circle, proving Krugman's point yet again; impeachment is the Democrats problem because it doesn't even enter his mind that Republicans might be concerned about Trump's corruption.

They got their tax cuts (and a Supreme Court that will prove corrupt in its own way by looking for a way to accept the Admin's piss-poor argument on the census citizenship question.)

Republicans support the President's position on many issues.  It isn't all about conduct.

Democrats can try to oust a solid leader from his position.  It's their lawful right.  And a steep uphill climb, of course.

Yeah, says right in the Constitution: "If his allies in Congress agree with the President on many issues, there is no requirement that the Executive carry out its duties lawfully."

Will have to remember that one.

[NeedsAdjustments]

When the least culpatory explanation, expressed by his own Chief of Staff, for why the "President" won't do his Constitutional duty and defend the United States from attack is still corrupt AF:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/russia-2020-election-trump.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

There are, of course, other possible (likely) reasons.

[barton]

(reply to Red's last post - quote function is glitching FSR)

Politics, obviously.  Dems want to win in 2020 and push a positive agenda of progressive policy-crafting.  They are anxious that an impeachment trial (which would only result in censure, due to the Senate) would shift focus off that.  I would have agreed, before seeing the M report...and this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/russia-2020-election-trump.html

45 is essentially blocking cyberdefense of our democratic process.  That is blatant grounds for ejection from office.

You and Oily posted the same link this a.m.  That's frightening.  I mean what's reported, not that you both posted it.

It may be politically expedient, per Pelosi, not to go right for impeachment, but I'm not sure the Democratic party can really claim to any integrity if it doesn't pretty soon.  Part of the basis of representative democracy is that we elect people who are expected to know more than we do (or most of us, anyway) about how to secure the common good and protect democracy and the constitution.

[barton]

Check back, something about a report from the Washington times I used and comments about Nancee the ultimate elite. Next thing you know I was locked out, temporarily it seems. A message about not being allowed to use site. I had been posting since the NY Times days. Back just in time to express an opinion on the Democratic in fighting for nomination. Slow hands Joe seems to be on the outs with the metoo crowd. Seth Moulton and Cory Booker are my favorites now. Have to see how it goes after research. No to socialist Bernie, the big red train has passed you by.

Just so ya know - several people around then couldn't log on because Josh blocked a big range of spam IP addresses.  It had nothing to do with you, and he fixed the IP problem.  You weren't banned. 

I like Booker, too.  His focus on affordable housing is commendable, and it's something the federal government can actually help with if some fresh creative minds are put to work on it.  Joe is too old - I see that slow fade starting in his eyes that usually says, realistically, time to take strolls and sit on the deck and watch the sun set and bounce grandchildren on your knee.  Female teenage grandchildren especially.  Sorry, my hands typed that, mischevous little sausages that they are.  Seriously, I like you, Joe.  Enjoy your retirement.

 

[facilitatorn]

When the least culpatory explanation, expressed by his own Chief of Staff, for why the "President" won't do his Constitutional duty and defend the United States from attack is still corrupt AF:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/russia-2020-election-trump.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

There are, of course, other possible (likely) reasons.

Like the GOP is a gaggle of bought stooges where even pissant devotees like Red get compromised?

That sounds right but it’s likely not the only reason. Having studied American racism since the bad old days, Russia sells itself as the great white hope.

http://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/23/jared-kushner-fbi-butina-1288769

[oilcan]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/24/workers-are-creating-massive-wealth-why-are-corporations-hoarding-it-all

Why I like Cory Booker.  Booker is the Democratic Party that cares about the American working class. 


Yes, pistol-packin Butina's game is one of many that Russians are running on us.  And Kushner is a lying sack of shit - wish I had a more delicate analysis of him, but that's what it boils down to.  He will always put his putrid little clan before country, always.

[NeedsAdjustments]

It may be politically expedient, per Pelosi, not to go right for impeachment, but I'm not sure the Democratic party can really claim to any integrity if it doesn't pretty soon.  Part of the basis of representative democracy is that we elect people who are expected to know more than we do (or most of us, anyway) about how to secure the common good and protect democracy and the constitution.

Democrats were elected overwhelmingly in 2018 in large part due to a promise of oversight over an Executive Branch that is out of control.  They have largely failed to do this, for various reasons, and I suspect will pay an electoral price in 2020 if they don't figure this out.

Pelosi says they are in a "fact finding" stage.  I do think Democratic Leadership is playing down calls for an impeachment inquiry in an effort to not hamstring other lines of inquiry, while quietly laying the groundwork.  Thinking was that if they went straight for the brass ring, the WH would cut off all access into emoluments, security clearances, inaugural donations, etc etc etc.

But, predictably, the Trump Admin is doing that anyway, with Trump's declaration that "We're fighting all of the subpoenas" a flat statement that he does not recognize Congress' Constitutional mandate to conduct oversight.

To be clear, this is a Constitutional crisis.  One that ultimately will make real moves toward impeachment more likely.  And then Trump thinks SCOTUS will protect him...lol.

[NeedsAdjustments]

He will always put his putrid little clan before country, always.

Like Father-in-law like Son-in-law.

[josh]

I was apparently temporarily banished to exile island for expressing the truth about liberal elite hypocrites and defending the "deplorable" blue collar ones. The lord of The  Elba can be both petty and yet in the long run open minded and forgiving.

As has already been pointed out, you (personally) were not banned.

There was, very briefly, a block on a range of IP addresses and yours may have been among them - I have not looked. I undid the block and everybody who was blocked could get back in.

If you ever have trouble getting in again, drop me a note at [email protected] and I should get it (eventually).

[josh]

Impeachment has been the democrats’ obsession since November of 2016.

When a president is corrupt, racist, a threat to the Constitution, and dangerously immature and stupid, then impeachment is not an obsession but a constitutional duty.

 

Oh.
So what is holding back Impeachment?

The corruption of the rest of the GOP making impeachment look like a single party issue when it should not be.

But you knew that, already.

Lie, deny, and obfuscate.

[facilitatorn]

http://www.salon.com/2019/04/24/trumps-shameless-obstruction-of-justice-shows-no-signs-of-stopping/

Giving the Russian mole farm in the White House a decent interval to rack up more charges in public now that obstruction is very much the issue while collecting more and more damning info on the criminal organization pretending to be a real estate business is will greatly help the impeachment effort.

The longer and more salacious the list of charges the better. In the meantime Americans can head into the summer thinking about rising gas prices, farm failures, accelerating retail closures, and crumbling infrastructure thanks to stupid policies devised and executed by the lamest hacks ever to subvert our government.

Trump will be much easier to impeach with support in the low thirties where he’s heading rather that the high thirties of support he has now.

[josh]

So why aren’t we having impeachment hearings?

And then this is where REDSTATEWARD brings us full circle, proving Krugman's point yet again; impeachment is the Democrats problem because it doesn't even enter his mind that Republicans might be concerned about Trump's corruption.

They got their tax cuts (and a Supreme Court that will prove corrupt in its own way by looking for a way to accept the Admin's piss-poor argument on the census citizenship question.)

Republicans support the President's position on many issues.  It isn't all about conduct.

Democrats can try to oust a solid leader from his position.  It's their lawful right.  And a steep uphill climb, of course.

"Conduct."

You mean, "Just because he's corrupt is no reason to remove him." Or as Giuliani put it, "there's nothing wrong with getting information from Russia."

Amoral hypocrite.

[kiidcarter8]

(reply to Red's last post - quote function is glitching FSR)

Politics, obviously.  Dems want to win in 2020 and push a positive agenda of progressive policy-crafting.  They are anxious that an impeachment trial (which would only result in censure, due to the Senate) would shift focus off that.  I would have agreed, before seeing the M report...and this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/russia-2020-election-trump.html

45 is essentially blocking cyberdefense of our democratic process.  That is blatant grounds for ejection from office.

Good piece - thanks