Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2019 02:17 am

Bernie Sanders
@SenSanders
· 19h
I was right about Vietnam.

I was right about Iraq.

I will do everything in my power to prevent a war with Iran.

I apologize to no one
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2019 07:03 am
Lets Do This! #BernieGonnaWin! Retweeted

Josh Miller-Lewis
@jmillerlewis
·
16h
"Over my dead body are you going to displace 336 working families," then-Mayor @BernieSanders told a developer who was trying to turn affordable housing in Burlington into luxury condos.

Bernie Sanders is and always has been a fighter for working families.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2019 07:47 am
I am changing my mind about Pelosi, not because of the Leftist wing of the democrat party and all their reasons of big money or whatever, nor because (Lord forbid) she has been insulting Trump. But simply because she is making the wrong decision on impeachment of Trump. He needs to go regardless of elections for the sake of the country.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2019 09:13 am
@revelette1,
I’m not sure what I would do were I in her position.

On the impeachment side:
Although it is quite unlikely the impeachment would result in removal, sitting a president in this seat drastically deflates whatever gravitas he may possess with a wide swath of voters: especially considering what an idiot he would be under questioning.

Some fact may be uncovered that may actually lead to substantive crimes or misdemeanors that may lead to removal.

The balance of power shifts - this might set Trump back on his heels and cause his behavior to improve.

Against impeachment:

This continuing attempt by an already hated news corps and unresponsive establishment Democrat party to overturn an election might just result in the biggest voter turn out in modern history, giving Trump a nutty mandate. I don’t even want to think about what he might do with that.

This fledgling investigation into the impetus of the Mueller investigation will uncover a concerted effort by the Obama White House, the Clinton campaign, and factions of the CIA & FBI to find/create damning information to keep Trump out of office. No matter what you think of Trump, this will bring in fresh voters who DGAF about Trump’s faults or failures—everything these people believed about a Deep State, a cabal of insiders who run this country, will be proven to them. It will be Civil War, as if it doesn’t seem like that already.

This, coupled with a free-range impeachment, televised 24/7 will bring Trump a powerful electoral harvest.

Meanwhile, who the **** is handling and reporting the business of the American people these days? All the news has been Mueller and investigations and Trump all day every day for years. Normal people are sick to death of it.

I can’t stand Pelosi, but in this case, the best path forward for the anti-Trump crowd is not an easy choice.

0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2019 11:26 am

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
@AOC
·
11m
Can ⁦@politico explain to us how photoshopping money trees next to the only Jewish candidate for president and talking about how “cheap” and rich he is *isn’t* antisemitic?

Or are they just letting this happen because he’s a progressive politician they don’t like?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2019 11:50 am
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:

I am changing my mind about Pelosi, not because of the Leftist wing of the democrat party and all their reasons of big money or whatever, nor because (Lord forbid) she has been insulting Trump. But simply because she is making the wrong decision on impeachment of Trump. He needs to go regardless of elections for the sake of the country.

Do you actually believe that the majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives wants to see an impeachment? The loonie left is certainly for it, but a relatively silent majority of Democrats know that they will be in real jeopardy in the next election if it occurs. I suspect Pelosi understands the prevailing ( but perhaps unstated) beliefs of her caucus very well. Moreover I sometimes suspect Trump is goading her to proceed.

More than that, there is a near zero chance that the Senate will vote to impeach, even in the unlikely event the House votes to proceed.

It increasingly appears that the psychological state of contemporary "progressives" is a conviction that the truth is whatever they really wish to believe, without regard to rather obvious facts.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2019 11:58 am
@georgeob1,
That last statement is clearly true of the GOP and Trump too, you knw.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2019 08:22 pm
@revelette1,
Listen, as I am getting tired of pointing out, impeach just means to indict; to convinct you need two thirds of a quorum of the Senate. You ainta gonna get that, so you would just hand the fat boy moral victory. Forget about impeachment, and keep your eyes on the prize--the 2020 election.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2019 08:38 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Listen, as I am getting tired of pointing out, impeach just means to indict;

Yeah, no one thought of that until you did. Glad you are on top of things.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2019 10:10 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Listen, as I am getting tired of pointing out, impeach just means to indict; to convinct you need two thirds of a quorum of the Senate. You ainta gonna get that, so you would just hand the fat boy moral victory. Forget about impeachment, and keep your eyes on the prize--the 2020 election.


Maybe If they did publicly televised impeachment hearings people would get to see the scope and depth of the corruption. Public means constituents.

Maybe public outrage and conscience would be stirred like when the civil rights atrocities were televised.

Comparing this impeachment and it’s potential effects to Clinton’s doesn’t necessarily logically follow. This piece of **** is a real criminal.
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2019 10:18 pm
@snood,
Okay. Understood that Trump is a scuzzy and scummy criminal (apologies to the words scuzzy and scummy). There's just not enough to fully engulf him in the hold of impeachment. Not nearly enough Republicans are willing to go there. Add to that, his followers across the land, who even with all they've seen and heard thus far, refuse to view him as a bad guy.

For now, especially with the 2020 election at stake, it's not the way to go. It'd backfire, big time.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2019 11:59 pm
It is wishful thinking to believe that formal impeachment hearings will somehow shift current public opinion against Trump to the extent that it will either a) Induce Republicans in either the House or the Senate to turn against the president, or b) Damage public opinion of Trump to such an extent that a Democrat will cakewalk into the White House in 2020.

There is nothing about the Impeachment process that provides the House with additional authority to compel testimony by anyone, and if the White House is now resisting House efforts, in their various committee investigations, to compel the testimony of current and former employees of the Executive branch, as well as the surrender of the President's financial records and tax returns, there is no reason that it will not be at least as resistant to such efforts in an impeachment hearing...especially if the attempt is made to compel Trump to testify.

I'm sure there is no shortage of so-called legal experts who insist that the White House's current resistance will be ultimately blown up by the judiciary, but, at worst, there is an equal number opining that it will not. As such legal conflicts are hardly everyday affairs, it's simply not possible for anyone to predict with even rough certainty what the outcome will be other than it will take a long time to become known.

One thing we can be confident of is that an attempt by Congress to compel the President to testify will not be seen by the courts as on par with similar efforts directed at employees of the Executive Branch, and any legal expert who insists that he or she is certain of what the outcome might be in that regard is grandstanding for an audience.

I doubt very many Americans have read the Mueller Report beyond very brief excerpts quoted for them by their favorite news reporters and pundits. The members of Congress clamoring for the additional 2% (approx) that was redacted and who keep the impeachment pot stirred haven't even read the report, and if they are comfortable with relying on their favorite "experts" to read it and tell them all the juicy bits, why would we expect the average citizen to dig in deeper?

More Americans have watched some or all of the current political theater posing as House Committee hearings than have read the Mueller Report, but they have hardly been Must-See-TV for the majority; particularly since they are, primarily, conducted during the daytime hours. Evening news programs certainly are more than happy to provide their viewers with snippets of the more dramatic exchanges and I suppose it's conceivable that cable news channels like CNN and FOX might rebroadcast the proceedings in their entirety during primetime, but it's unlikely. As it is, these 24-hour news channels rarely broadcast the entirety of any of these hearings while they are live, choosing instead to jump in and out depending upon whether or not they believe an interesting exchange might occur. They prefer, instead, to discuss what is going on as it is going on with their All-Star Panels of experts, strategists, and pundits. They don't do this because the anchors are bored by the hearings but because they know (or at least believe based, presumably, on polling) that their viewers find them tedious.

Americans are not going to learn anything factually new from the testimony before Congress of Don McGahn, Robert Mueller or others. White House employees who spent hours being grilled by Mueller and his team weren't able to keep smoking guns hidden from them that the crafty Jerry Nadler and his troupe of clowns will force them to reveal, but the Dems might be able to engineer some theatrical moments that present the known facts is a way that will pique the interest the American people tuning in to News Highlights on TV, and assist them in spinning their yarn about criminal activity. That is what they are hoping for and it's a real stretch even if they manage to compel these folks to testify.

If there is any strategic political value in launching the impeachment proceeding, it won't be realized during the run-up to the votes.

I hope the Dems do go for impeachment. There is no question but that they have the votes necessary to impeach, but it is equally certain that there are not enough votes in the Senate to convict. Pelosi knows this and so if she does unleash the hounds it won't be to force Trump from office. I don't know how it will benefit her or her party unless it is to appease the firebrands and give her relief, and so as much as I hope I'm wrong, I don't think there's any real chance that she'll allow it in the end.

Right now I think she is simply trying to keep from falling off the tightrope by giving the firebrands as much red meat as possible...short of impeachment. I also think she has a bit of a Hail Mary strategy going on as well, hoping that Trump really is as mentally unstable as she has been insinuating and that with her rhetoric about cover-ups and instability she might just bait him into his own personal Captain Queeg & the strawberries moment which is stunningly outrageous even by Trumpian standards. More wishful thinking, but more by Trump-Haters than Pelosi. She might think it can't hurt to try, but I doubt she believes it might actually work.

If they impeach, the new members who gave her the Speakership are in big trouble...especially the ones in Trump districts who were elected in part by insisting they were anti-Pelosi and would not vote for her to return to the leadership of the party (but then did). If they are in trouble, so is her majority. There will be a Democrat representing the districts of AOC, Tlaib and Omar for years to come. Those seats will not be in jeopardy simply because the Dems didn't try and impeach Trump. They could be in peril for the incumbent hellraisers, but I doubt Pelosi would mourn their departure from the House, and they would prefer to be re-elected into GOP held House than be out of jobs in a House held by their party.

I don't think that it's a foregone conclusion that history will repeat itself and an impeachment of the president will result in the demise of the party that launched it. These are not the 90's and anything is possible, but smart money is on it being too big a risk...which is why I hope they go for it.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2019 12:05 am
@Sturgis,
You would need 67 votes to convect. That means you would need to turn 20 republicans. It would a huge waste of time that could be better spent electing a democratic president and senate. Trump and the senate want impeachment so he continue to whine about them picking on him.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2019 03:46 am
I don't understand the rush to impeachment. At all. "Oh, let's all fall on our sword and do the "moral" thing." It's ridiculous — the most important goal for moderates and progressives in the Democratic Party is to secure enough political power to overturn as many of Trump's policies as is possible. This is characteristically achieved by winning elections in a convincing manner. Exposing Trump as a conman is important but it doesn't need to fuel a failed attempt at removing him from office (as no one believes the Senate would vote to convict) which will only feed his martyr complex.

From the internecine squabbling we see on this site it doesn't look like the fractious Dems have much chance of winning the presidency in '20, so I think they'd do better to concentrate on getting a more constructive message out to the voters while the investigations continue. In the unlikely event that a "smoking gun" is discovered the political calculus may change but for now, I don't think pursuing the partisan impeachment process will help the party, the country, or democracy itself.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2019 05:53 am
Politico is waging a nasty anti-Semitic attack on Bernie. They’re paying for it, though...
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2019 06:28 am
@Lash,
I didn't see anything "anti-semitic" about it, although I know it's being interpreted that way. I thought Sanders came off looking pretty good in the story, as someone who hasn't been corrupted by membership in the millionaire club. It's not a crime to amass wealth legally. The article in the Kos was embarrassing, taking offense at just about everything and trying to make it into an "antisemitic trope".
AOC wrote:
Can ⁦@politico⁩ explain to us how photoshopping money trees next to the only Jewish candidate for president and talking about how “cheap” and rich he is *isn’t* antisemitic?

Well, yeah. He's a basically frugal guy and has managed to maintain a socialist perspective as he and his wife have accumulated wealth, mostly through real estate, the value of which normally increases over time. I'm sorry, but I don't equate a picture of a money tree or a dollar sign as a symbol of Judaism, nor do I equate frugality with stinginess. Why would it be "anti-semitic" to place a money tree in back of a picture of Sheldon Adelson or some other rotten millionaire who happens to have Jewish heritage but perfectly okay to do it in back of Donald Trump? And what would be the purpose of jew-baiting Sanders? For one thing, he's not a practicing Jew. He's critical of Israel and its policies. And many of his left-wing supporters have historic ties to the progressive and humanist values that once characterized the Jewish left so it's not as if they're suddenly going to say, "Ah ha — Bernie is a Jew", and change their vote.

I expect to get lashed for commenting on Kruse's article. But, to quote someone we all know,
Quote:
I’m not defending him. I’m arguing for equanimity. I’m arguing for facts. I’m arguing for logic.

A candidate's wealth — how he amassed it and how he uses it — is a legitimate topic. Mr. Sanders comes off clean on both counts, even though he seems a mite touchy about it at times. Oh crap — I hope that's not another "anti-semitic trope".


maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2019 06:56 am
@hightor,
Running for President has definitely allowed him to amass a nice chunk of change for retirement, if nothing else.

Good for him.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2019 07:01 am
@Lash,
Quote:
stingy
adjective
1. reluctant to give or spend; not generous; niggardly; penurious: He's a stingy old miser.
2. scanty or meager: a stingy little income.

Quote:
frugal
adjective
1. economical in use or expenditure; prudently saving or sparing; not wasteful: What your office needs is a frugal manager who can save you money without resorting to painful cutbacks.
2. entailing little expense; requiring few resources; meager; scanty: a frugal meal.


Frugality is a virtue. I find it admirable — it's the opposite of Trump's ostentation and excess.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2019 07:07 am
@hightor,
I agree with “how he came off looking” to normal people who aren’t prone to hate Jews.

I will tell you, though, that if you are making the argument that there don’t exist dog whistles that are used, many times effectively, that do compel some people to shoot up synagogues and assassination Jewish public figures, then I will remind you on any and every occasion you try to say someone else’s words caused any racist or sexist behavior.

Blacks are still murdered for being black. Hispanics are murdered for being Hispanic. Jews are still murdered for being Jews.

Politico worked hard to include as many anti-Semitic tropes as possible in their scuzzy cascade of amended articles. They had one photo-shopped picture of two palatial estates on each of his shoulders and him holding one. That drew widespread criticism, so they photoshopped him beside a money tree with a palatial estate in the background and the text was littered with rich, miserly Jewish tropes.

It is an attack against a Jew, appealing to anti-Semitism. Any truthful person would acknowledge that.

Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2019 07:08 am
@maporsche,
He wrote a best-seller and his wife inherited her dead parents’ modest lake house.

If I need to add this here, all congressional representatives maintain a home in their district and in DC at minimum.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/13/2019 at 04:32:41