SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Another defied subpoena?
"Where is their duty to this institution? Where is their duty to the Constitution? Where is there[sic?] respect for the rule of law?" - said the whiny Adam Schiff
Oh, this is funny, more gifts for the king:
The House plans to take its first formal vote Thursday on the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, Democratic leaders said Monday, ushering in a new phase as they prepare to go public with their investigation into his dealings with Ukraine.
Democrats described the vote, in which they plan to "affirm" the inquiry, as a necessary next step to be able to push it forward, rather than a response to sustained criticism from Republicans and the White House, who have accused them of throwing out past impeachment precedents and denying the president due process rights.
Waiting for the other shoe, with the dreadful thought that she is the only one that would match. *sigh* We don't need a another Trump/Clinton presidency. Please! "Is there anybody else?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 28 2019, @11:10PM (47 children)
Where is my Tulsi/Oprah ticket?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @12:37AM (45 children)
Notice how his journals have increased about on pace with Trump's downfall?
I wonder if the trolls would still rather "win" if it means dismantling the rule of law and entering a new period of fascism.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday October 29 2019, @12:44AM
That question has been answered with a resounding "Yes" a long time ago.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @12:57AM (3 children)
I wasn't aware that we even had a rule of law, given the sheer amount of constitutional violations committed by our government.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday October 29 2019, @05:17PM (1 child)
I wasn't aware that we even had a Constitution, given the sheer amount of violations committed by our government.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 30 2019, @02:44AM
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 29 2019, @09:31PM
U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8 is FAKE CONSTITUTION! [pittsburghcurrent.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @01:19AM (38 children)
I wonder if the trolls would still rather "win" if it means dismantling the rule of law and entering a new period of fascism.
Yeah right... Tell it to the DNC! Trump is president because of them. They couldn't even put up somebody to beat him! Doesn't look like they really tried, being joined at the hips and all
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @01:45AM (37 children)
You're not wrong, but you're focusing on literally the lesser of two evils. The GOP protects blatant criminals, pedophiles, and sexual molesters. So you're whataboutism means jack shit. The ONLY silver lining here is that Trump has made the corruption so exceedingly blatant that it miggt shock the average janejoe into getting outraged the next time corporate hacks get cushy government jobs to promote their industry.
Also, if you didn't catch on yet, HRC would have won without the corruption leveled against her. Comey the hack, who got "fired" as part of the pageantry, the social media campaigns (thanks fuckerberg, die in your own li-ion fire), to the literal voting machine hacking. Woops, it is so standard now I almost forgot the standard gerrymandering fuckery to disenfranchise voters.
You may think this is a partisan attack, and on one hand you're correct, but on the other you'll find a group of liberals trying to HELP their conservative compatriots. We don't want you to keep suffering, we want your efforts to be rewarded and to make sure health problems don't leave you homeless.
It is hard to maintain compassion when you literally attack us, but we are trying. Please don't drive this division so far that you snap people's basic decency. Trump is the pinnacle of corruption, Hillary was the status quo of it, and yet you did not see that. Try out humility, we are stronger together because no one knows it all but qe have to listen to each other.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @04:01AM
They serve the same devil. The machine is singular. Your *lesser of two evils* is bullshit, aside from the people that fall for it.
Playing *lesser of two evils* gave us Trump. Good show!
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @07:14AM (8 children)
Whataboutism?
Because they're both shitty?
Let's not pretend the democratic party was trying hard to kick out Ted Kennedy the incompetent killer, shall we?
As far as democrats being the stalwart supporters of people's rights, they had that glow for a few years after LBJ, and in the wake of Nixon. Tipper Gore led the charge in giving that shit up in the '80s. Nobody who's paid attention since then believes it.
As for HRC, you're conveniently ignoring that she was a charisma negative zone who didn't even bother to campaign much in the exact area that tipped to throw her out.
And please, spare us all the hand-wringing about your conservative compatriots. That's not caring; that's looking for an excuse to shove your preferred policies down their unwilling throats. Whatever you're selling, they're not buying. Build a bridge and get over it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @04:23PM (7 children)
Universal healthcare is a better system for US citizens hands down, and ut saves money. If you're against that then you're an idiot or a greedy asshole. It is common sense and already tested in multiple 1st world western nations.
Higher taxes on the super rich / corporations and audit them so they pay what they owe. From the party of fiscal and personal responsibility this seems like a no-brainer, yet conservatives keep supporting greedy sociopatha who are corrupt to the core.
Pollution. Whether you think climate change is real or not doesn't matter. Burning oil and gas pollutes our very homes and poisons our air, yet conservatives mock environmentalism. Energy independence would increase national security instead of being Saudi Arabia's personal police force.
If you can't muster up the corage to educate yourself even when people spoon feed facts to you then there is no bridge to build. Liberals have been trying the bridge building tactic for a long time and you just whine like spoiled children.
As for your dismissal of my caring, you're so very wrong. I'm around conservatives quite often, like most humand they are generally good people who work their butts off like the rest of us, not everyone is driven by the level of hatred you've been brainwashed with. Gotta say though, the divisive tactics and propaganda have you conservatives literally murdering any out-groups which makes it harder and harder to maintain compassion. Then we have your type of projection, blaming everyone else for not building your bridge for you even though that is exactly what is happening. Just amazing levels of unawareness.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday October 29 2019, @05:30PM
APPLAUSE!
Welll said.
"Burning oil and gas pollutes our very homes and poisons our air" Just like the British found with burning coal.
"Energy independence would increase national security instead of being Saudi Arabia's personal police force." I'm hoping Canada (Alberta) will see this with using oil monies to research alternative energies: use money you have now to make money in the future. Duh!
"If you can't muster up the corage to educate yourself even when people spoon feed facts to you then there is no bridge to build. " READ THIS ALBERTA...ONTARIO....
Oil is with us now, but is NOT the future: use money made now to use for the future. Is this rocket science?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @11:28PM (3 children)
Universal healthcare has major unanswered questions, and a track record of causing serious problems. If you don't want to outlaw private health, and simply offer a sort of public option, then an honest accounting should include implied subsidies, or ideally prevent them by requiring level pricing to all comers on the part of providers, along with a sunshine law requirement allowing audits by the public. Otherwise we can have stupid situations like then one we have now where Medicaid is subsidised by other patients. Calling universal health care "common sense" is a serious problem when it makes procedures open to political preferences. I'm not really wild about the idea of abortions being up to the whim of the US government, for example.
So, best case, let's call the jury still out on that one.
Higher taxes are great and fuzzy and warm and cuddly and stuff, but as it turns out once you include all the factors, the US's taxes are already quite progressive (granted some states are stupid, but we're talking federal, here) so raising taxes will just drive people out. On the state level we've already seen that with California, and there's more in the offing. All the people standing and cheering about California's budget surplus are either ignorant of, or deliberately ignoring their unfunded obligations and their vulnerability to business cycles - driving rich people and businesses out will really hurt them badly once the wheel turns. Or are you one of those infinite growth guys?
Pollution is bad. Conservatives mocking environmentalists are often the same ones who cheerfully pay for hunting licences, support farmers and national parks and all the rest of it - the fact that they disagree with the analyses, methods and rhetoric of environmentalists doesn't make them tree killing monsters.
I'm actually not really a conservative, but I seem to have a much more realistic view of their situation than you do, and also a lot more concern for the idea of democracy. Remember that the democratic principle includes allowing the people to make decisions with which you disagree, and they may do so for reasons that you completely deplore, or ignore.
Your prior post about wanting to help them against their will: "We don't want you to keep suffering, we want your efforts to be rewarded and to make sure health problems don't leave you homeless." has the problem that there are many unexamined assumptions in there on how it will be done and the policy implications. If they reject the policies that it will take to get there on questions of, for example, the limits of the proper role of government, then trying to force it on them is rather like trying to ban bicycles because bicyclists sometimes get killed by cars. It's for the bicyclists' own good - but they would rather be able to ride on roads anyway. Ideally without the collisions, but they ride right now, while well aware of the situation.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @03:15AM (2 children)
And yet every other first world country has one form or another of a universal healthcare system, and their systems blow ours out of the water, both in terms of the quality of care that the average person receives and the amount of money that those countries spend per person on healthcare.
What does have unanswered questions is our current system. For example, why is it that in the richest country on the planet, tens of thousands of people die every year due to preventable medical issues? For example, why is it that in the richest country on the planet, medical bankruptcy - a concept practically unheard of in other first world countries - is one of the leading causes of bankruptcy? For example, why does the richest country on the planet pay significantly more for healthcare per person, and doesn't even cover everyone? For example, why is it that the richest country on the planet somehow cannot implement a system which every other first world country has already implemented and found major success with?
The answer is that our for-profit price-gouging healthcare system is an unmitigated disaster, and is being propped up by the very insurance industry and corporations that profit massively from it. If you're afraid of death panels, you should be terrified of the US's current healthcare system, which has killed so many.
It already is, as demonstrated by the fact that there are so many wretched forced-birthers both trying to ban it and place ludicrous restrictions on abortion providers and people seeking abortions.
Not having a single-payer healthcare system does not stop the government from being authoritarian. All that does is allow innocent people to die and be preyed upon by a for-profit price-gouging abomination.
They're quite progressive until you actually look at the effective (as opposed to nominal) tax rates that the rich are paying. After Trump's tax cuts, the mega-rich are now paying a lower effective tax rate that many ordinary people. Is that "progressive" to you? Is it "progressive" when Amazon pays nothing in federal taxes? Historical data suggests that a 70% nominal tax rate on the mega-rich is about the sweet spot in terms of the amount of money the government can collect.
And, despite worries about the rich running away to other countries, there's no evidence that that happens in any significant fashion. Given how much purchasing power the US has, they would be foolish to turn their backs on the US market even if their taxes were raised significantly. Moving out of the US entirely is different from moving from one US state to another; they can't be compared. So, it's just another right-wing lie, like trickle-down economics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @05:44AM (1 child)
You're cherry-picking tax data. Amazon isn't paying 0 tax. It's not paying a whole bunch in income tax ...
But it's paying an absolute fuckton in various sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, ex/import fees and duties. Or did you think those glass balls in Seattle somehow were tax free zones? And all those warehouses? And data centres? Did you think that somehow magically their high paid staff didn't generate massive tax burdens the way that they do for everyone else? Did you think Washington's sales tax somehow stopped at Amazon's door? You remember the fight that Amazon fought (and lost) about online sales tax, right?
You don't look ... ok, well, economists don't look at tax as just one fine slice, or you'd find that Amazon pays much less per net value in vehicle tabs than a private individual - but nobody cares because that's not the whole story. When you look at where taxes come from, and how they're calculated, pinning things on income tax is all good for pearl-clutching, but simply ridiculous in terms of actual measured taxation.
Part of the reason that the US is moving away from that sort of taxation in many cases is because it ends up disproportionately burdening companies that are well based in the USA, while giving international giants massive opportunities for tax shifting.
But you know what? I already know you're going to discount this. So fuck it. Believe what you want. I'm not marking your term papers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @09:49AM
You're cherry-picking other types of taxes, and also missing the larger picture. Any system which allows corporations to pay so little in taxes when they have so much is fundamentally broken. Income taxes absolutely matter.
It's not ridiculous to hold the belief that they should be paying significantly more in income tax, given their profits.
No, we're moving away from that sort of taxation because we have a system of legalized bribery, and mega-corporations just happen to have a massive amount of money to throw at the 'problem' of taxation. You're effectively saying that we should just surrender to these international giants, rather than making our tax codes more rigorous and forcing them to pay up if they want to have access to the massive US market. This race to the bottom leads nowhere good, as we're seeing now.
Once again, trickle-down economics is a lie and has been widely debunked. But, I already know you're going to discount this, so fuck it. There, now I've preemptively defeated you by predicting that you will disagree!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @02:52AM
Exactly, and that's why we need Bernie, not corrupt corporatists like Biden who oppose universal healthcare and are in the pockets of insurance companies. There's not a single other candidate who is fighting as hard as Bernie is to get rid of the rapacious, price-gouging insurance companies who run private death panels and have sentenced so many ordinary people to death.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 30 2019, @12:06PM
The US has universal health care - just not of the sort you want. When is it going to save them money?
The problem with this assertion is that the US already has two such programs for veterans and the poor. They're terrible. You need to fix the institutional problems, not just superficial stuff like who's paying for the health care. And if you fix the institutional problems, then you just might not need to drop market-based approaches which are known to work.
A moderate progressive tax without loopholes works for me. But punitive taxes will backfire. They employ people. Tax them more, they employ less.
Pollution is not on/off. When you talk of pollution without talking about the degree of pollution, then you're ignoring the most important thing about pollution, namely that we've vastly reduced pollution throughout the developed world, including the US. To continue to push pollution down more means considerable cost. We need to have better reasons than it merely exists to do so.
And the US already has energy independence, in part due to that oil and gas.
Like now?
Not looking it to me.
I suggest you muster some courage and drop that nonsense from your belief system. Who is the "you conservative" here?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Gaaark on Tuesday October 29 2019, @05:21PM (24 children)
"HRC would have won without the corruption leveled against her."
Make that "Bernie would have won without the corruption leveled against him by Debbie Schwatershername Schmidt."
HRC had no chance of winning, she just had the power to steal money and support from the guy who WOULD have won.
HRC GAVE the Presidency to Trump. She is corrupt and people knew it.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 29 2019, @05:51PM (23 children)
It's always interesting how easily all that "innocent until proven guilty" stuff goes right out the window!
Wasserman Schultz, Democrats did not tilt 2016 primary in Clinton’s favor, judicial panel rules [sun-sentinel.com]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday October 29 2019, @06:32PM (22 children)
"But the appeals court rejected the lawsuit on a variety of grounds, including plaintiffs not having standing or not meeting legal tests to back up the claims."
Just because Bernies team didn't have all the information doesn't mean they weren't right.
Bernie was leading the race: Debbie took money and support from Bernie and Hillary won. Follow the trail.
Hillary is corrupt and would do anything to win: which is why she lost.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @08:04PM (14 children)
Evidence motherfucker. Do you have any?
Let's see some documents. Let's see *any* evidence that isn't some conspiracy nutter waving his tiny dick around on youtube.
What's that? It doesn't exist? Because tens of thousands of poll workers in a couple thousand election districts were all in on the fix, but not one single person has come forward because "reasons" right?
Please.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday October 29 2019, @08:23PM (1 child)
"nutter waving his tiny dick around on youtube" So that's how you spend your time! Huh.
Hillary screwed Bernie loooong before it hit the: couple thousand election districts.
Please... stop with the tiny dick waving. It doesn't do anything for you.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @10:41PM
To be fair it was the establishment that tanked Bernie Sanders. HRC was just the current face. Like how Trump is the current face of GOP corruption.
They're trying real hard to discredit Sanders again, they don't want someone who aill look out for us little people. Warren would make a great VP but right now she comes off as another Obama. Lots of talk, too much compromise, and another 4-8 years of meager improvements while entrenching corporate power.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 29 2019, @08:48PM (11 children)
Evidence motherfucker. Do you have any?
It was in the DNC emails that for some strange reason the FBI never got to see. I little bit leaked out, giving good reason for deeper investigations, but the DNC sad, "No thanks". Why no warrants for the servers? Give us evidence that the primary ballots were counted honestly!
Whatever, the opaque DNC/GOP political machine is what gave us Trump. It has nothing to do with "Russia" and "Ukraine". They're just bullshit distractions from self inflicted wounds.
Clinging to the DNC will just give us four more years. It is nothing but the same quid pro quo. The people that deserve more attention are being slandered/libeled into oblivion.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @08:50PM (5 children)
Which emails? Where are they? Let's see links. Evidence, motherfucker. Do you have any?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 29 2019, @09:19PM (4 children)
Knock yourself out! [wikileaks.org] Definitely merits a real investigation that never happened. Now it's your turn. Show us an accurate count of the votes.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @09:29PM (3 children)
I did. I still don't see any election fraud or "stealing money from Sanders." So your "evidence" is just more bullshit. Why am I not surprised.
Oh, and here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries [wikipedia.org]
You're welcome.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 29 2019, @09:56PM (2 children)
Who counted the ballots?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @11:40PM (1 child)
Election officials in the more than 3,000 counties across the United states.
As such, there are easily more than 10,000 individuals (possibly much more) counting ballots.
Please provide even one scrap of evidence that there was some sort of conspiracy of many thousands of people.
There's no way that such a widespread conspiracy could remain secret. As usual, you're talking out of your ass Fusty.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 29 2019, @11:56PM
Evidence would have been revealed with a proper investigation. The lesson of Watergate is *Burn the tapes*
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 29 2019, @09:10PM (4 children)
Clinton email probe finds no deliberate mishandling of classified information [reuters.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 29 2019, @09:16PM (3 children)
Wrong emails, but nice try... Look again, and you will see I said DNC emails.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 29 2019, @09:23PM (2 children)
Ok, ya got me, wrong email!
I forgot you guys had moved on to: "DNC emails that were leaked publicly to damage the Dems and that we have based all of our Bernie conspiracies on are actually hidden in Ukraine somewhere and have never been seen."
Boy, someone should hack the DNC and publicly release all their emails on a website like WikiLeaks!
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 29 2019, @09:53PM
All? I wish! Why do you hate transparency?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @02:45AM
JOHN PILGER: Did This Happen in the Home of the Magna Carta? [consortiumnews.com]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 29 2019, @09:08PM (6 children)
So not only is she NOT innocent until proven guilty an ACTUAL ACQUITTAL doesn't count either.
Keep it classy losers!
Guess what, that whole email thing turned out to be a load of bullshit too! [reuters.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 29 2019, @09:22PM (2 children)
Keep it classy losers!
Yes, please do! [wikileaks.org]
Try to keep up...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 29 2019, @09:28PM (1 child)
Psst....I think you're suppose to be pretending these don't exist now since they're hidden on a secret server in Ukraine!
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 29 2019, @09:59PM
Ukraine? That gossipy shit is your gag, not mine.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @03:13AM (2 children)
I'm not USian, so it's not my fight, but I would prefer a different standard of evidence between criminal charges and disqualification from office. Something like the civil case 'balance of probabilities' should be more than enough to get a politician kicked out.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 30 2019, @05:47AM (1 child)
No, then it's too easy. Once he's voted in we need real evidence. Using hearsay, legal or not, is totally bogus. This is why there is a fight at all. With evidence, there wouldn't be one.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @08:10AM
Hearsay won't win you a civil case. I mean things that aren't quite enough for a criminal conviction, like Hillary mis-handling classified information*. Just because they decided they couldn't prove it to a criminal standard, you get deadmonkey et al claiming she did nothing wrong. Getting out of it on a technicality is not what you want in a politician.
* Anyone who sat through getting a security clearance knows she was in the wrong. Most of them would have been disgusted at the double standard, and there is a good chance there were enough of them to cost her the election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @02:34AM (1 child)
She might well have won if she campaigned harder in states like Michigan, and at least pretended to be a populist who cared about ordinary people. Instead, she let Trump get away with his fake populism act. But, there's no way to know how much any one factor affected the number of votes each candidate received. You don't know that either.
If you're truly on the left, don't over-defend corporatist Democrats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @08:12AM
She might have won if she wasn't known to be corrupt murderous bitch. More campaigning might have made her results worse. Might-haves cut both ways.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @11:39PM
Downfall That's funny!
Your democrats are propping him up!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday October 29 2019, @05:16PM
They've been scissoring for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Interesting) by RamiK on Monday October 28 2019, @11:42PM (53 children)
I mean, if they kicked Andrew Jackson out for rude speech and misappropriating funds, I think President pussy grabber that's been signing emergency orders to get his wall built has run his course.
Then there's the 80 something lies to congress his team accumulated per Muller. Even if Trump didn't order those lies, having so many of his staffers lie to congress against his will is a display of such sheer incompetence they might as well dispense with ceremony and just sign his impeachment order literally stating he's either a liar or a fool and be done with it.
In the end, they're the representatives and he's their executive. If he can't or won't do his job and represent their laws, they should be allowed to kick his ass out of office without too much fanfare.
compiling...
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 29 2019, @01:14AM
they should be allowed to kick his ass out of office without too much fanfare
And they call me a dreamer...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 29 2019, @02:02AM (50 children)
It's all masturbation theater anyway. Even if they continue to hold the hearings and decide to impeach, the Senate can just say "sorry, you violated House rules to get that impeachment started, so we're not accepting it as legitimate" and not even have to use the Republican majority in the Senate to slap it down in an immediate party line vote.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday October 29 2019, @12:19PM (13 children)
You're assuming Senate will have Trump's back. The Republican party might find it highly advantageous to do away with Trump right now: The Democratic candidates are either old, corporatists or controversial in some other major way to the point they can't even gather their own people's support. If Trump got out of the run today, the Republicans could nominate some young fella that hasn't had their linen washed in public yet and get a pretty decent chance at winning.
For instance, if they run a woman or a minority against Joe Biden, they'd be guaranteed to win effortlessly since the Democrats effectively done their campaigning for them this last couple of years.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 29 2019, @06:29PM (12 children)
Yep, I'm assuming that. If they're dumb enough to throw away a bird in the hand for two in the bush though, I'll have plenty of fun laughing at them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday October 29 2019, @10:39PM (11 children)
Well, there's "electoral ramifications" to consider: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-challenges-might-keep-these-republican-senators-from-voting-to-remove-trump/ [fivethirtyeight.com]
So, at the very least it's a little ammo for the reelection campaigns.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 30 2019, @12:44AM (10 children)
Reelection isn't much of a worry for him, even if he's impeached. Unless he's also convicted in the Senate and thrown out of office, he's got it in the bag short of wiping his ass with a puppy and flushing it on national TV.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @02:25AM
Look at the astrological charts in 1929, 1870, 1780 and today. They are near identical.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday October 30 2019, @10:05AM (8 children)
I'm talking about ramifications for the senators' reelections. By forcing them to side with Trump despite his lack of popularity... Skim through the article I've linked. It's naming the 3 or 4 senators that are hanging by a thread and might be affected by this.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 30 2019, @10:33AM (7 children)
His lack of popularity is a myth. The House is trying like hell to impeach him and the Dems have been doing their dead level best since he was elected to stick anything they possibly can on him and he still has 46% approval as of yesterday.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @03:46PM (6 children)
Ah, bird brain showing his real feelings about trump again. Funny how hard you try to look like a rational person trash talking trump because all the cool kids think he is an idiot, but deep down you just want a tossed mushroom salad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @04:58PM (1 child)
you just want a tossed mushroom salad
For president, yes, that would be an improvement, in congress, even better!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 30 2019, @05:50PM
Yes, yes it would.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday October 31 2019, @03:18PM (3 children)
I haven't seen too many reliable sources disproving Trump's popularity with the lower classes. If it wasn't the case, I doubt the Democratic party would have been spun into a civil war over its failure to put up an agenda to aid the working poor at the expense of tax cut for the rich.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 01 2019, @02:06PM (2 children)
They're not especially happy that he's quite popular with black folks for a Republican either.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday November 01 2019, @02:45PM (1 child)
I'll have to see the poll question. Cause if it's saying something like, "Would you prefer Trump over other Republican candidates?" I bet just about anyone would say yes at least on the "devil you know" ticket.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 01 2019, @03:01PM
Ordinary old approval ratings have him as one of the most popular Republicans with black folks in a good while.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 29 2019, @04:38PM (35 children)
Yes, the Republicans can demonstrate to the public their complete disdain for the rule of law by voting to acquit despite the overwhelming evidence.
Doesn't make trying to hold him accountable a bad thing, though.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 29 2019, @06:33PM (16 children)
It does if they have to violate House rules, which they are absolutely doing, to get it done. I mean, if they're not going to do things properly, why not save lots of time and headaches and just send the impeachment without even voting?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @08:06PM (15 children)
Which *specific* house rule are they violating? Please provide the text of such a rule or a link.
Thanks!
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 29 2019, @09:02PM (8 children)
He's full of shit. The House get's to WRITE the rules.
FTFConstitution:
(Score: 0, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 30 2019, @12:52AM (7 children)
Yes, they did write the rules. And Schiff broke them by refusing to allow non-committee members access to the records and depositions and such. According to the rules the House wrote, that ain't allowed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 30 2019, @03:00PM (6 children)
There's Lies, Damn Lies and Lies so egregious even Fox "News" is forced to correct.
As frustrating as it is, Schiff is following the rules - Oct. 24, 2019 - 3:27 - Democrats' initial level of impeachment inquiry can be done in secret thanks to House rules passed by a Republican majority in 2015, Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano explains. [foxnews.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 30 2019, @05:52PM (5 children)
Text or GTFO. I only watch videos with pussy in them. Cat or vagina, either works.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 30 2019, @05:59PM (4 children)
Here ya go!
"As frustrating as it is, Schiff is following the rules" - Judge Andrew Napolitano, Oct 24 2019
Better?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 30 2019, @08:09PM (3 children)
Not especially but at least it was funny.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @08:48PM
Bird brain remains stupid rather than change his view of the world to match reality.
Whst an interesting expose these last few years have been into the broken minds of my fellow countrymen. Sure is a good thing the progressive liberals have worked so tirelessly to ensure your freedom to keep announcing your stupidity! You're welcome!
(Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 31 2019, @10:53PM (1 child)
At this moment in time, please, step back and observe something: you have been corrected on a matter of fact. You cannot, at this point, retain any credibility while continuing to hold your old position. And notice your defensive reaction: flippant, irrelevant non-sequitur. This is why no one takes you seriously.
You need to start allowing reality in. Your "asocial" schtick has metastasized to the point that it's corrupting your epistemic apparatus.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 01 2019, @02:09PM
In fact I have not been corrected. He linked a bit of media that I'm less likely to force myself to view than a PowerPoint presentation that was nothing but a paid pundit's opinion. Try again.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 30 2019, @12:56AM (5 children)
See below. Here's the link [govinfo.gov]. Page 549.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @01:47AM (4 children)
You left out Part (B). Here's the whole deal (with relevant portions bolded):
Why did you leave those parts out? I'm guessing because it gives the lie to your claim.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 30 2019, @02:21AM
Because part B deals with records regarding member conduct only. Part C would only be relevant if A) the committee had a rule covering what they were dealing with (and since it's the intelligence committee and they've never before handled impeachment nor filed standards of availability for such it would have to fall under whatever the default availability rules are for the committee) or B) They had taken a vote to make them unavailable for some period. Have you heard of such a vote? I haven't. So far as I've been able to find, they're just telling anyone who asks what's going on to fuck off.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 30 2019, @03:15PM (2 children)
Republicans: Waaahh! Democrats are using unfair committee rules.
Democrats: But you wrote those rules yourselves in 2015.
Republicans: Exactly! WAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 30 2019, @05:14PM (1 child)
Rules designed to minimize exposure of embarrassing and/or incriminating evidence. Doesn't matter who wrote them, they are a totally bogus attempt to obscure the process. The are bipartisan rules designed to protect themselves and each other. We do indeed have to pry it open and expose the cockroaches.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @03:10PM
Not so much.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/politics/impeachment-vote.html [nytimes.com]
Democracy at work:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?465765-1/us-house-vote-impeachment-inquiry-resolution&live [c-span.org]
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4826536/house-reading-clerk-susan-cole-reads-impeachment-inquiry-resolution [c-span.org]
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-28.htm [govinfo.gov]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 29 2019, @08:57PM (17 children)
You got him on obstruction. You got real evidence of anything else? So far you still have produced nothing but partisan gossip by partisan career bureaucrats whose jobs are more secure under different "leadership". The senate will want to see receipts, pix, and tapes, if they want to convict...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 29 2019, @09:05PM (16 children)
He has ADMITTED to soliciting a thing of value from a foreign nation in relation to an election. That is a crime.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 29 2019, @09:50PM (15 children)
I hear false "confessions" on the news all the time. You still gotta prove that it happened the way he said.
This is not to say that QPQ isn't standard procedure, so if you're going to single him out, then your people have to be open to the same inquiry. Biden's rationalizations don't make his actions any less criminal. And of course, there are many others that we need to look into. The issue permeates the entire system
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2019, @10:45PM (2 children)
There is no hope for you. He confessed, his staff confessed, and you are falling for their schtick like a big old fool.
They are trying to normalize criminal behavior, and the real question is why are you trying to help them? The only people you're likely fooling at this point are the Trump supporters who desperately don't want to find out how wrong they were.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 29 2019, @11:04PM (1 child)
You can drone on and on all you want. This is business as usual, with a bit more exposure, and lots of gossip. The only abnormality today is its openness and lack of decorum. You keep voting for the same old shit and a small piece of the action for a hundred years, and it's simply inevitable. You have the obvious solution right in front you, even inside of you. If you don't take it, you have no one else to blame.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @03:51PM
No, YOU are business as usual. Your propagands techniques to split the vote and generate apathy is tired. Your constant whining with nothing of substance beyond "vote out the baddies" is lame.
Yes I know the obvious solution, voting Sanders in 2020! I take responsibility for my actions, when will you do the same?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @03:13PM (11 children)
Which actions broke which law?
For your convenience, here's some references to help:
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscode [govinfo.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @05:39PM (10 children)
Ask those questions to the democrats about Trump. They are all doing the same thing. And you still have no evidence to prove otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @07:03PM (9 children)
*I* didn't make any such claim about Trump. In fact, I make no judgement and will wait until the inquiry is complete and its findings published before making any judgement.
*Fusty*, on the other hand (is this you, posting AC Fusty?) claimed:
I merely asked what, specific law or laws have been violated that make Biden's actions "criminal."
Given that other than *claiming* (without documentation or evidence) that Biden is a "criminal," no *specific* crime has been alleged, much less substantiated. As such, it seems reasonable to ask Fusty which specific *crime* he is alleging that Biden committed.
Should Fusty do so, we can then discuss the relative merits of his accusation. Merely stating "he's a criminal" holds no semantic content unless there is context and/or documentation behind it. Not providing such context or documentation invalidates such a claim.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @07:56PM (8 children)
He is the same "criminal" as Trump, using the democrats' definition of "criminal' in the context of their inquiry. Indeed their total criminality is what makes this whole thing quite the circus. You seriously expect anybody to believe there is any real legitimacy here? Please! Pull the other one!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @08:21PM (7 children)
From you I expect nothing more than the bullshit false equivalencies you've been spewing, Fusty.
By all means, please continue. You're the poster boy for "'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
Boo yah!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @08:45PM (6 children)
You are a blithering tribal idiot. The equivalencies are not false.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @11:10PM (5 children)
You're the poster boy for "'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @11:49PM (4 children)
bla bla bla...
You are a good servant. Your work record is excellent. The state is proud of you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 03 2019, @08:08AM (3 children)
Your work record is excellent.
You're the poster boy for "'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 03 2019, @04:26PM (2 children)
Ahhh, so you're an online masturbater also. Okaaay... That's interesting. I wonder if the admins are noticing
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 03 2019, @05:15PM (1 child)
That's interesting. I wonder if the admins are noticing
You're the poster boy for "'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 03 2019, @05:43PM
Drive by mods indeed, eh Fusty?
You're the poster boy for "'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday October 29 2019, @05:21AM
Andrew Johnson's impeachment was a load of bullshit as well. They mostly wanted to impeach him over hurt feelings.
In the long run we would have been better off had they been successful and the Senate had been maintained as the most powerful body in the government, but it was still bullshit.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam