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

[josh]

Trump back up to 49%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

Kid still 100% deluded about Rassmussen polls.

[kiidcarter8]

It's NOT about the guns

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/uk/manchester-incident-intl-gbr/index.html

5 injured.  No one died.  Compare/contrast scenario where he had an AR-15.   

Your link seems to make the point gun control advocates keep making.  Thanks.

Its not just about a body count.  No doubt that even without the AR's the deranged element will continue to do major harm to innocents, if not properly checked.  The nature and extent of the CHECKING on these subjects needs to be addressed.  And yes, unfortunately PRIVACY is an issue here - and that part of it - the protections - may need amending.

[NeedsAdjustments]

We can make human beings not ever want to do harm to one another, or we can make it substantially harder for them to kill tens of people when that urge comes over them.

One of these things is within our power.  The other is not.

[NeedsAdjustments]

And yes, unfortunately PRIVACY is an issue here - and that part of it - the protections - may need amending.

So you would sacrifice one constitutional guarantee to support another (questionable) one.

Makes sense.  Particularly when it is in the service of making it easier to kill people.

[NeedsAdjustments]

House is at this moment interviewing the Ukraine Envoy who was sacked because she refused to play along with Trump's scheme there.

The EU Ambassador who did play along with that scheme is set to testify next week despite the State Dept. trying to keep him from doing so.

And more details out today about the Pentagon's finding that withholding the aid to Ukraine was illegal.

So question to those here who have argued that only a quid pro quo arrangement would be inappropriate (wrong, but lets go with it)  in the increasingly likely event that quid pro quo is found, that we have testimony that Trump withheld military aid that was voted on and approved by Congress in order to get them to release a statement written by Rudy Guilliani that they are starting an investigation into the Bidens, where would you stand on impeachment?

[josh]

House is at this moment interviewing the Ukraine Envoy who was sacked because she refused to play along with Trump's scheme there.

The EU Ambassador who did play along with that scheme is set to testify next week despite the State Dept. trying to keep him from doing so.

And more details out today about the Pentagon's finding that withholding the aid to Ukraine was illegal.

So question to those here who have argued that only a quid pro quo arrangement would be inappropriate (wrong, but lets go with it)  in the increasingly likely event that quid pro quo is found, that we have testimony that Trump withheld military aid that was voted on and approved by Congress in order to get them to release a statement written by Rudy Guilliani that they are starting an investigation into the Bidens, where would you stand on impeachment?

As if you really wonder.

[Hairy Lime]

House is at this moment interviewing the Ukraine Envoy who was sacked because she refused to play along with Trump's scheme there.

The EU Ambassador who did play along with that scheme is set to testify next week despite the State Dept. trying to keep him from doing so.

And more details out today about the Pentagon's finding that withholding the aid to Ukraine was illegal.

So question to those here who have argued that only a quid pro quo arrangement would be inappropriate (wrong, but lets go with it)  in the increasingly likely event that quid pro quo is found, that we have testimony that Trump withheld military aid that was voted on and approved by Congress in order to get them to release a statement written by Rudy Guilliani that they are starting an investigation into the Bidens, where would you stand on impeachment?

As if you really wonder.

Republicans after the Muller Report: It is wrong to impeach Trump for the obstruction of justice because he did not collaborate with a foreign government to have them interfere with our elections. That would have been bad!

Republicans today. You know what? Scratch that. We're good. Ride or die, bitches.

[josh]

"Is it wrong for a president of the United States to ask a foreign government to interfere in our election process?"

"We're going to investigate what happend in a bi-partisan way."

"You didn't answer the question."

"Yes, I did."

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/10/10/cory-gardner-trump-ukraine-questions-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/politics/trump-mazars-appeal-decision/index.html

In a 2-1 ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a lower court ruling saying the firm must turn over eight years of accounting records.

The opinion is a strong signal that the White House's letter earlier this week refusing to cooperate with the impeachment probe without a full House vote authorizing it would not hold up in court.

The court specifically weighed in on this idea, writing it has "no authority" to require the House to take a full vote in support of a subpoena to investigate the President, citing the Constitution.

"The courts lack the power to invalidate a duly authorized congressional subpoena merely because it might have been 'better [if]...the full House' had specifically authorized or issued it," the court wrote. "Unless and until Congress adopts a rule that offends the Constitution, the courts get no vote in how each chamber chooses to run its internal affairs."

Congress has the right to issue these subpoenas and to enforce them. The President does not have the right to refuse to heed them just because he wishes the process to be different.

[josh]

Rep McCarthy is donating the money he got through those Giuliani associates.

H.R. McMaster says it's wrong to request foreign interference in our elections.

Mike McKinley, senior aide to Pompeo, is leaving because of Pompeo's failure to support the diplomatic staff in Ukraine. This is a career diplomat, not a politician.

Winning.

[oilcan]

Yep, it's coming apart at the seams.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/opinion/sunday/wealth-income-tax-rate.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

America’s soaring inequality has a new engine: its regressive tax system. Over the past half century, even as their wealth rose to previously unseen heights, the richest Americans watched their tax rates collapse. Over the same period, as wages stagnated for the working classes, work conditions deteriorated and debts ballooned, their tax rates increased.

Stop to think this over for a minute: For the first time in the past hundred years, the working class — the 50 percent of Americans with the lowest incomes — today pays higher tax rates than billionaires.

The full extent of this situation is not visible in official statistics, which is perhaps why it has not received more attention so far. Government agencies like the Congressional Budget Office publish information about the distribution of federal taxes, but they disregard state and local taxes, which account for a third of all taxes paid by Americans and are in general highly regressive. The official statistics keepers do not provide specific information on the ultra-wealthy, who although few in number earn a large fraction of national income and therefore account for a large share of potential tax revenue. And until now there were no estimates of the total tax burden that factored in the effect of President Trump’s tax reform enacted at the end of 2017, which was particularly generous for the ultra-wealthy....

[kiidcarter8]

No quid pro quo

NEEDS upset - makes attempt to justify his feelings

[josh]

No quid pro quo

NEEDS upset - makes attempt to justify his feelings

"No quid pro quo"

Sen. Ron Johnson said that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, had described to him a quid pro quo involving a commitment by Kyiv to probe matters related to U.S. elections and the status of nearly $400 million in U.S. aid to Ukraine that the president had ordered to be held up in July.

and

In one exchange dated Sept. 9, in a text Taylor sent to Sondland, the career diplomat says: "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

Sondland then called Trump and wrote back that there was no quid pro quo, but also that they should stop texting.

You? You just accept that therefore there was no quid pro quo. So what if the money was held up before the  infamous phone call whose transcript was hidden away:

Trump: We've done a lot for you. You have not done a lot for us.
Zelensky: That's true.
Trump: I would like to you do a favor for us.

Everybody but you knows that Trump (a) illegally held up the money, and (b) was saying that doing this favor is how Ukraine can get the money back.

But what you keep ignoring is that the asking for that favor (and from China, too) was illegal, all by itself.

[bodiddley]

Pretty clear that $400M in aid and a visit to the WH was conditioned upon investigating Hunter Biden.
Was it explicitly stated by the President himself?
Probably not on record, but clearly that's what was going on and that's what many inside the diplomatic corps understood and were worried about.

[Hairy Lime]

No quid pro quo

NEEDS upset - makes attempt to justify his feelings

A quid pro quo is not required. Soliciting foreign assistance in a Federal election campaign is itself illegal whether you are giving something in exchange or not.

That being said the quid pro quo need not be specifically stated, and usually isn't unless someone is even dumber and more inept than even I think Trump is. There is plenty of evidence to prove the quid pro quo to an unbiased person. That is, you won't think so but my life long Republican mother does.