Flagpole wrote:
If I HAD to pick either or, I would choose winning in 2020
If I HAD to either or, I would choose to pursue justice and be willing to lose, standing by my principles.
Flagpole wrote:
If I HAD to pick either or, I would choose winning in 2020
If I HAD to either or, I would choose to pursue justice and be willing to lose, standing by my principles.
Conundrum wrote:
agip wrote:
Rs understand image - they are really good at it.
Look at the leaders of the elected Rs - they all are decent looking people and they can dress.
The Ds....have Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, Schumer...Pelosi takes ok care of herself but clearly has had some unwise plastic surgery. The rest are not impressive physical specimens and they don't dress well.
The Rs...McCarthy, Paul Ryan, Mitch, meadows, jordan, meadows, gaetz...they are good at image.
Stone is a great dresser.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/fashion/roger-stone-courtroom-style.htmlStone is a horrible dresser. Mostly he dresses ridiculously. Even in this attempt to look normal he fails. He chose a suit that doesn't fit him (way too big) and an outdated style with Mafia pinstripes.
A notoriously hideous dresser, like you say suits are way to big. His suits are almost as bad as his hair plugs.
https://images.app.goo.gl/ohEwC4v9Xt9HfRWD6I believe the hair plugs double as tinder in his firestarter kit, if civil war begins before trump can break him out of prison.
X-Runner wrote:
It looks like they pretty much got it all in time.
The U.S. Government had little time to spend the Ukraine money before the end of the fiscal year. You thought they could spend it after that, but that is not the case. Also, note in the article that the Pentagon stated that "a majority of the $250 million would be committed." A commitment is not the same a spending the money unless the Congressional appropriation specially allows for that.
The article also states: "The U.S. government has also sought more time from Congress to allocate the remaining funds."
Lastly: The Trump administration is making the claims about the allocation being spent. That is not a source know for truthfulness. It appears more that the Trump administration is trying to claim the money was spent, while only allocating it, and asking for Congress to extend the spend-the-money drop-dead date (Sept 30). That all looks like the Trump administration attempting late in the game to pushback on the bribery attempt by Trump. But, it is far too late for the Trump administration to claim the required spending of the appropriated funds was not effected by Trump's actions.
Trump is probably funneling those campaign funds to a slush fund to use when he is out of office.
Flagpole wrote:
Racket wrote:
I don't think anyone disagrees that it's the morally right thing to do. Trump abused and tried to take advantage of the system in this very obvious quid-pro-quo. Should he be held accountable? In a perfect world, yes, but the implications of the 2020 election must be taken into consideration and it's a difficult line to walk. Yes, you don't want to set a precedent for future presidents to think they can get away with anything, but if the cost of taking a moral stand here means a more difficult road for the Democrats in 2020 then I'd certainly want Democrat leadership to take that into consideration.
I'd rather win in 2020 personally
If I HAD to pick either or, I would choose winning in 2020 also, but we COULD have both, and while there are arguments to be made that it is bad for Democrats to pursue this impeachment (arguments the other way too), IF they are to honor their oath of office, they HAVE to do this. Just no choice.
They could have gone after him on several issues, but this was such a slap to the face of the constitution that it couldn't be ignored. This is saying a lot, but I don't think it was ever going to get any less difficult than this. Trump is still very much a wild card for 2020 but no denying if you look at Congress and the Senate that the wind is still favoring Dems.
Hypothetical for 2020 and I know these are not mutually exclusive: what is better for Dems? Dems controlling House and Senate w/ trump re elected or Dems controlling Congress and WH with Rs retaining Senate majority?
Another thought about the newly-revealed Sondland phone call.
There has been widespread reporting that the Russians were probably listening. Tiny has been warned over and over about using an unsecured line but in this case, he did it anyway.
If the Russians were listening, our own intelligence agencies probably have a recording. We always need to know what the Russians know. There is also the possibility that Sondland recorded the call.
And if there is a recording, it's Watergate all over again.
X-Runner wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
If I HAD to pick either or, I would choose winning in 2020
If I HAD to either or, I would choose to pursue justice and be willing to lose, standing by my principles.
AH...YES, ME TOO! I meant in my response that if I had to choose an OUTCOME, I would rather have him voted out in 2020 than he be impeached. Pursuing impeachment HAS to happen.
As far as what is right and just, pursuing justice (in this case impeachment) is a given...a necessity. I'm glad you responded, because you are 100% right...as am I, but I see now how I could have been misunderstood. I was not as clear as I could have been, and for that I apologize unreservedly.
Flagpole wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
I would have agreed that it might be more damaging for Dems before this clear cut case, but certainly not now. Lets assume trump's base is going to vote for him anyway. Key here is that this helps to bring more disgruntled Dems on board. It's been important to show that the party is united in tending to the biggest priority for Dem voters. It's death by a thousand cuts in this game, the constant bombardment of negative trump press does make enough of a difference in the end. I really don't think this hurts Dems. Yeah Rs are going to claim victory when they acquit him, that's a given. To the left all that means is yep the GOP let him get away with it. It fires people up.
Yep. That's how I see it too. Still a long way away from a Senate vote, but they may let him get away with it. I don't care too much about this firing up Democrat voters. It's a nice plus, but I'm really only about the rule of law and what is ethical and right, and in this case, to be true to their oath of office, Trump's actions forced their hands here. They HAVE to not only have this hearing, but they have to and will impeach him. Rigged said they would be too afraid to do so. He's wrong. The House WILL impeach him FOR sure.
Also, contrary to what the idiot Rigged said, NO, the burden of proof isn't being put on Trump. Pelosi is giving him clear instructions here...if you have exculpatory evidence, let's see it. If you are being investigated for murder, it behooves you to provide an air tight alibi. That doesn't mean the burden of proof is put on you to show you are innocent. Right now, all the evidence shows he did it. The call says so, Mulvaney says so, Giuliani says so, and then Trump broke the law on camera. If he has something that shows he's innocent, now's the time to provide it. Maybe he has an evil twin?
Yeah, that initial vote to make the impeachment inquiry official is basically going to be the same vote on the actual impeachment, will maybe fluctuate by one or two people on either side - straight party line. It's a dead given that Rs will not vote to convict. There would have to be a huge shift in public sentiment for GOP to start to do a 180, and that just isn't likely. What I will be looking for is some cracks in the support, so if 5 or 6 Rs don't vote to acquit him that will be a pretty significant victory for Dems going into 2020.
The only thing that could shift my thinking on conviction is if somehow trump or one of his dedicated minions like Barr or Mulvaney testified. They would destroy his defense in the first 5 minutes of their testimonies. I had a sliver of hope for Bolton, but clearly all he wants to do is fly around the country getting paid to give his testimony in the form of speeches. Book deal $$$.
Sore loser ‘pub governor finally concedes in Kentucky!
It’s not true that 9,000 voters were too stupid to realize that writing in “Moscow Mitch” would split the vote, ha ha.
Trollminator wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
If I HAD to pick either or, I would choose winning in 2020 also, but we COULD have both, and while there are arguments to be made that it is bad for Democrats to pursue this impeachment (arguments the other way too), IF they are to honor their oath of office, they HAVE to do this. Just no choice.
They could have gone after him on several issues, but this was such a slap to the face of the constitution that it couldn't be ignored. This is saying a lot, but I don't think it was ever going to get any less difficult than this. Trump is still very much a wild card for 2020 but no denying if you look at Congress and the Senate that the wind is still favoring Dems.
Hypothetical for 2020 and I know these are not mutually exclusive: what is better for Dems? Dems controlling House and Senate w/ trump re elected or Dems controlling Congress and WH with Rs retaining Senate majority?
I agree that the House HAD to go forward with impeachment. Just to way around it unless we were to embrace utter chaos.
With a normal President, even a normal BAD President, the former might be preferable, especially when beginning a second term, BUT with Trump, he's just such poison he needs to be gone. The President is still the face of our government and its people, and we can't have that for another 4 years.
Fat hurts wrote:
The Number "Why" wrote:
Why would anyone think that the "Rev." Franklin Graham's opinion is relevant to anything?
Millions of evangelicals look up to him because they loved his father. That's why his words are very relevant.
Again, why would anyone think that the "Rev." Franklin Graham's opinion is relevant to anything?
I'm starting to think that "impeachment and removal" will be better for the country than removal at the ballot box in 2020.
I'm afraid of violence after he loses. I don't expect Tiny to concede defeat and his minions are likely to riot.
It's a lot harder to claim voter fraud when there are only 100 voters.
Sheesh! wrote:
High Inside Fastball wrote:
It is "High, inside fastball."
NEVER say "High and inside."
Sheesh!
You are WRONG. Did you just get out of your high school English class? I'll take CBS Sports and the Smithsonian Institution over you "grammer sckool" learning. You must be going to Trump High.
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/the-pitchers-who-still-throw-high-and-inside/https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/high-and-inside-morality-and-revenge-in-baseball-63592176/
You are obviously someone who has never played a real sport in your life.
It's "high, inside fastball." Anyone who does not know this has never played baseball. In your case, it is obvious you never play ANY real sport.
The Number Why wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Millions of evangelicals look up to him because they loved his father. That's why his words are very relevant.
Again, why would anyone think that the "Rev." Franklin Graham's opinion is relevant to anything?
They think he is close to God and speaks with heavenly authority.
X-Runner wrote:
Racket wrote:
Yes, you don't want to set a precedent for future presidents to think they can get away with anything, but if the cost of taking a moral stand here means a more difficult road for the Democrats in 2020 then I'd certainly want Democrat leadership to take that into consideration.
I'd rather win in 2020 personally
I certainly don't think they are mutually exclusive.
In fact, Republicans argue that the Democrats are only doing this to help themselves in the next election.
The hearings are being presented.
The people in Congress will vote. First the House to impeach. Then likely less than half of the senate will vote to acquit, which is enough.
Then next year, the public will get to vote on what they think of the votes of those in Congress.
Talk about one issue voters.
When picking their senator and their representative, many will vote solely on how their incumbent voted.
People who vote Trump out will be voting their Republican acquitters out, too.
Conversely, if people buy the witch hunt story, Trump will win and Republicans will hold the Senate and win back the House.
They don't have to be mutually exclusive and it's not immediately obvious that the occurrence of one event actually reduces the likelihood of the other. I'm only suggesting the Democrat leadership not jump to a hasty decision and consider the potential affects on the 2020 race, because if the hypothesis is correct and impeachment does reduce the chances of Dems winning in 2020 then I would seriously consider not moving forward with impeachment.
It's a thought experiment and it's politics. The "morally correct" choice is not always a given.
Fat hurts wrote:
The Number Why wrote:
Again, why would anyone think that the "Rev." Franklin Graham's opinion is relevant to anything?
They think he is close to God and speaks with heavenly authority.
OK, so the answer is that many people are unbelievably stupid. You are probably right.
I would actually rather see him impeached, convicted and removed than being voted out.
I think he'll be voted out regardless.
But being removed would be historical and embarrassing - to be the first president ever to be removed from office by Congress.
And that's why the Constitution put that in there.
To have a remedy for corruption in between elections.
Especially when the corruption involves tampering with the elections.
What if the Russians figure out how to change the results in the swing states?
The senate did not take up the House bills for election protection.