Impeachment

I think the worry is that if you move forward on petty stuff that his base, the rubes who go to these god awful “rallies”, won’t give two poops.

This stuff is more substantial than watergate.

 

Rubes? Wow man, liberal tolerance right there.

More substantial than Watergate? Jesus Christ, you are losing it. It doesn't even amount to "stuff" to begin with.

 

Watergate was almost nothing. The cover up got Nixon. Just like a kid. If he would have fessed up immediately it would have been nothing.

The removal of an ambassador that was unwilling to play ball, the shadow foreign policy headed by Rudy and Fraud Guarantee, the chasing of funky conspiracy theories, kowtowing to Russian interests, using taxpayer funded assistance as a lever to dig up dirt on a political rival. It’s a real page turner. It should play good on TV. Too bad I have a job and run a business on the side.

 

The removal of an ambassador who disagreed with his boss's foreign policy and didn't follow it...

FIFY

 

You guys don’t go to rallies. You’re ok with the racism and the nationalism as long as it comes with what is promised - smaller government, tax breaks, etc. and as long as he’s owning the libs.

 

Boss’ foreign police. FIFY. it was actually Rudy’s handiwork.

They messed up when they didn’t replace her with a lackey. Kind of shocking.

 

I'll second that.

Now we are all okay with purported racism. It's always okay to throw out racism if you're a liberal.

 

I'm looking for the possessive of 'boss'

my FIFY may have been, much like yours, incorrect. I’m an Okie, forgive me.

 

The whole GOP is turning their head to some bad things for this guy. I’m not calling anyone racist. I have some dear friends, family and co-workers who are in your shoes. They’re not racist but they are looking past it.

 

Barry, you sound like Larry Flynt complaining about nudity in an art exhibit. Your party supports affirmative action. That is actual, state-sponsored racial discrimination. That means that it rings hollow when you complain about some ugly words that you think are racist (usually after they're put into a false context). It also doesn't help that you all lie about stuff he says to create racial issues that aren't present and tolerate far more overt racism among your own. How often do Democrats question or presume the ethnicity of people who disagree with them? How often do they generalize about "white people" or "white men?" All the friggin' time. Racial politics, racial fear, and racial generalizations coupled with a smug self-righteousness have been part of your rap for 150 years. The only thing you change is what groups you choose to antagonize, and you do that based on political convenience, not morality (because there is no morality to doing that).

And should we get into the Jew-bashing that you guys have tolerated since you started smooching with Louis Farrakahn (who called Adolf Hitler a "very great man")? Do you honestly think that Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib wouldn't expel and if necessary kill Jews in Israel if they could? Of course they would. The difference between them and that "very great man" (according to Farrakahn) is that they and their ilk (in the Middle East and in the West) are dumb, undisciplined, and incompetent, and he and his ilk were not.

That doesn't mean there's nothing to complain about. Trump says ugly things. He has said at least one racist thing (the Judge Curiel comment), but you guys just don't have the credibility to complain about it and sure as hell don't have the credibility to get moral and self-righteous about it. You have more than a plank in your eye. You have a whole damn log cabin in your eye. Take it out, and then you can complain. I do complain about it and have argued over it many times here, but I have credibility. I oppose racial discrimination - always, not just when I like the outcome of it. I don't judge people based on their race and don't generalize on it. I basically adopt a "content of their character" attitude. I don't like Jew bashers, whether it's David Duke or Richard Spencer or Louis Farrakahn. I don't think Hitler was a "great man" and wouldn't cozy up to someone who thought he was. That's what real credibility on race looks like.

 

That's a broad statement. Smaller government to me looks like this:

1) A strict close interpretation of the Constitution including separation of church and state and no gun seizures (talking to you Beto).
2) No vote buying schemes (reparations, benefits for illegals, forgiving student loan debt etc).
3) A real policy that addresses the deficit and national debt.
4) Strong enforcement in the financial, workplace and environment (not a wealth transfer scheme to unaccountable UN bureaucrats and 3rd world developing countries) arena. Enforcement; not manipulation.
5) MINIMAL competition in the economy from the government.
6) MINIMAL judgment calls by people like Warren who is a menace to society.
7) Strong military; not for imperialistic designs but because the only reality I'm willing to concede beyond guarding our borders is that the US world hegemony is the only true light there is because without us, the world would be dominated by Russia and China. I believe Europe is impotent and there is nobody else after that.

None of that is racism. Racism is the tool you are using to open the tap of wealth transfer via legislation.

 

So as a Democrat, nobody has credibility to speak about race? Must every Democrat simultaneously bear the cross Louis Farrakhan and Andrew Johnson forever? I guess that would be convenient as Republican, who in one breath decry the Democratic Party"s historic legacy in slavery and Jim Crow, but in the next describe ''very fine
People'' among the openly white supremacists protesting removal of Confederate statues. You can do that with an audience full of Trump lovers, but to middle America it sounds like ********.

 

The form of LEFT-WING racial discussion today is as follows:

1) Hate-mongering: the white privilege campaign is not about coming together and embracing diversity. It is a militant attack, singling out a particular race (Unless they speak in the same language as the Left-wing elite) just like the Jews were singled out in the 1930's.
2) Aggressive forms of wealth redistribution and vote buying in the form of reparations which has now evolved from a far-fetched idea to normalization in the hands of Warren, AOC, Booker, Kamala et al.
3) Attempts to intimidate those who merely wish to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION concerning our immigration laws by calling them racists. Remember, Obama deported over 3 million people and there was not one peep from the Left about racism. Have you ever been to Laredo or anywhere on the border and actually talked to the local Latino's? You might be shocked at how much they support strong immigration enforcement. Do you know anyone who owns a ranch in South Texas? Guess what? I DO. And I know them well; for years and years. I was just down there this past weekend. Ask them about how nervous they are about illegals crossing their land. This is reality.

There is no doubt we can and must fix the rogue police officers who are trigger-happy. But that is MUCH EASIER SAID THAN DONE when lives are at stake. You tell me if you would be protective of your life first or not. You can say that will be mitigated by training but it's not that simple.

And there is no doubt that Trump should only discuss immigration enforcement in terms of upholding the Constitution. He does not have to justify vigorous enforcement. He only has to say he is doing his job. The aggressive rhetoric should end.

To me, the race discussion is not a discussion; it is a political weapon.

 

Croc
This Lie of yours, " but see ''very fine People'' in the openly white supremacists protesting removal of Confederate statues." has been debunked on here many times. He NEVER said that or implied it. I wonder if you know that but insist on repeating the sick lie.

 

I would hope at this point ALL OF US HERE can agree on one thing; the politicians are a joke. On both sides. To argue that their pronouncements about race have credibility is amazing to me.

 

If they openly espouse racist policies and are ok with overtly racist rhetoric, then no, they don't. Obviously, it's a free country, so they can say what they want, but it's a little like Jim Bakker getting self-righteous about marital fidelity.

You're dancing around the issue. Their utter lack of credibility isn't because of Jim Crow or Andrew Johnson or even Woodrow Wilson. It's because of policies and rhetoric that come from you all TODAY, not 100 years ago. Before you get self-righteous, you need to clean up your own backyard.

Damn, I hate when the woke crackpots force me to defend Trump. It's one of my least favorite things.

You're making my point, Crock.h You have to use pretty blatant deception to push that narrative. If you paid attention to his statement, you know he didn't say what you claim he said. Put down the Charles Blow article and read what was actually said in context.

 

Both sides...lol.

Initially, they said that Trump's team was weak because the serious people who were good at government had come out strongly against Trump in support of various GOP candidates. So, he had the B team to start with. Then he churns through this B team to the point that he's only got the D team left. Sad people like Stephen Miller. Good read on Miller. Stephen Miller’s Affinity for White Nationalism Revealed in Leaked Emails

 

So you believe, with all your heart, what Sanders, Warren, AOC, Kamala, Booker et all say? If so, then maybe you should put me on ignore or block because there is nothing left to talk about. Just go vote. You have a year to register. But instead, maybe you should wait until next October so you can cry about suppression.

 

Your predictions about the future to date have hit at near 0% -- this one will not be any different

 

Honestly, the concept of reparations is nutty and I don't support it. Like Repubican centrists, the Democrats not exciting to the extremist get no traction. No doubt there was a scattering of very fine people who venerate the warrior spirit of the Confederate leaders along with the neo Nazis and Klansmen in Charlottesville, but there were lots of white supremacists there too, and Trump was Damn careful not to offend them.

 

Reparations aren't the only racist policy. Affirmative action is racist policy.

Really? "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists. They should be condemned totally."

I've never told anyone I didn't want to offend that they were to be condemned totally.

 

I'm just not getting my head around the whole white supremacists thing. It has been completely stretched beyond all recognition. It has now been applied to ALL REPUBLICANS. It's the same with gun ownership. Hunters are being mocked as fetishists at a minimum and potential terrorists at the worst. The range or circle around suspects now includes those who traditionally have been honest, law-abiding citizens (99% of them) has ensnared the VAST majority.

That is why all of this is political to me and not sincere.

 

lol

 

When you work for the US Govt, you are told not just avoid conflicts of interest but also to avoid any perception of conflicts of interest. Among the disclosures you must submit, are any potential conflicts created by your immediate family

Here is George Kent:

"In February 2015, I raised my concern that Hunter Biden’s status as a board member could create the perception of a conflict of interest.” ​

Schiff would not let the Republicans call Hunter Biden as a witness. I think the Senate should call Hunter now before their own committee and get that testimony out. The American public has a right to know what they were doing, including an accounting of where all that money went.

 

Joe: you find that link where Schiff kept committee members out of the meetings?

 

He kept anyone out of those proceedings he did not want in there
Again, this is a factual matter, and the facts are not in dispute (except with you, of course)

 

In case anyone is watching the hearings(?)
-- Attys are not allowed to lead there own witnesses like this guy is doing (lol)
-- In addition, as a general rule, hearsay testimony is not admissible and it seems like almost everything is hearsay, but I admit I havent seen it all, had to go help my neighbor recapture her loose dog

Here is a list of the exceptions to the general rule on the inadmissibility of hearsay Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay