McConnell vows to acquit Trump, even though the evidence has not even been presented.

Much like people like you who ignored any evidence regarding your own party in the past.

Typical party hack/lemming.

 

1. You mean show trials like those perpetuated by Republicans against Hillary for three years regarding Benghazi? Both the investigations by Congress into Trump's behavior as President, & their subpoenas, are legitimate. The Constitution REQUIRES Congress to be a watchdog over possible excesses of the Executive branch. The House is doing its job, and the evidence is strong that something's wrong in the White House.
2. I guess in general terms, you're right. But this President serves himself first, then the wealthiest corporations & wealthiest families next. The average American to Trump, is something to use, abuse, then cast aside like garbage. Trump has never had to endure "Average" Americans in his private life. He's totally ignorant of what that is, & utterly incapable of working for something he can't even imagine. It is sad that so many average Americans feel he works for them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Trump works for himself & for his wealthy class, but never for middle America or the poor. Every decision he makes as President he makes based on how it will impact or benefit him personally. The nation takes a back seat in the process.

 

Show me where The Constitution requires the oppositon to conduct sham, fake show trials in lieu of doing their jobs.

 

Yeah and they were the best international friends money could buy.

 

We seem to have some similarities in views so I'll address point number 1 for sake of discussion.

Turkey is a NATO ally in the sense that we have a treaty to protect one another. Do I agree with that treaty? F no. The NATO mission ended when the Soviet Union was destroyed.

However, if Turkey wants to invade Syria...that's NOT our problem. In fact, if Russia or China or Brazil wants to invade Syria....not our problem. Obama got us into that craphole and we need to get ourselves out. ISIS has less fighters there than we have Klansman in the US.

Do you remember why we invaded Syria to begin with??? It wasn't ISIS...

 

1. Attacking our NATO friends while humoring or kowtowing to Putin is NOT my idea of a good foreign policy. Abandoning the Kurds after a decade of friendship is NOT my idea of a positive foreign policy. Breaking every trade agreement signed by the U.S. under former Presidents, is NOT good foreign policy. Demonstrating by your unpredictable behaviors that the word of the U.S. is not worth the paper it's written on, or the air it's spoken into, is NOT a good foreign polity. Trump got his photo op with Kim Jong-Un, but nothing was achieved by it. At the same time he pulled 2,000 troops out of Syria endangering the Kurds, he sent over 3,000 more troops to Saudi Arabia, & claimed he was ending wars in the Middle East & bringing troops home. It was deliberate fake news from the President. Just another of many lies.
2. My basic philosophy is that the freedoms we talk about in America ought to belong to every human world-wide, & my politics forms from that core thought. I believe every human has value, & that wealth is a poor standard upon which to base evaluation. I also believe there are many values more important than money or wealth. And, I believe in the complete equality of gender, under the law. I also believe love is the most powerful emotion there is, & love is a positive force in our lives regardless of how or with whom it is expressed. I also value honesty, compassion, fair play, curiosity & human rights. I'm sorry to hear you are so uncomfortable with my posts.
3. Good. That means something I said got thru to you. You can't hate something you don't care about.

 

Nobody in the administration tried to undo Obama's elections. Criticism is normal in partisan politics. Treason is not.

 

I want everybody who commits a crime to pay for it. Do you? Or were you just writing this as a confession of being yourself what you call a ... "typical party hack/lemming" (NB: I don't actually know what that means, but I assume and hope that it's not some sort of personal insult)

 

It was just your last paragraph that bounced all over the place that was a strain to follow.

Tell me what you mean by complete equality of gender? Unisex sports based on ability alone? How many women do you think would ever play any collegiate sports? They can't even beat a really weak man on a bicycle. Yet he gets to compete at their level because the world has gone crazy and man/woman is no longer defined by the gear we are born with.

Freedom is defined differently around the world and it is not our job to either impose our version or defend others when their version is threatened.

 

I think what the left struggles with is the difference between an accusation and a conviction. Anybody can be accused of anything simply because it is politically advantageous.

 

No they can't. It would be "slander" or "libel" or "malicious prosecution"... if you can't show some legitimate basis to believing the accusation had any grounds. In the case of Trump, there is not only a legitimate suspicion... not only evidence.... there is even proof!

There is, of course, a process to which even flagrant criminals like Trump are entitled to.

BTW, do you believe that the evidence should be ignored? Are you one of those that the poster I responded to mentions? If not, then what did you expect to contribute to the conversation?

 

Funny.

 

Either you didn't read my post, or you simply don't care whether Trump breaks the law. Even though I don't agree with everything it says, I do care about the U.S. Constitution, & hope those on both sides of the aisle will honor their oath & protect it. The testimonies given this past week by professional State Dept employees, has proven beyond any honest doubt that Trump broke the law & is endangering our nation's security by circumventing those professionals with his own yes men, like Giuliani & Pompeo. That, coupled with the news today that Barr's DOJ inquiry into the 2016 election has been elevated to a criminal investigation, demonstrates the very concerning truth that Trump is the first American President in history to use the government depts under his control to investigate & punish his political opponents &/or rivals. That's again, something we'd expect a national dictator to do, but not an American President. Trump supporters are too busy defending him to even look at what he's doing behind their backs, & that's dangerous for us all.

 

We have been seeing headlines of proof for 3 years and yet here we are today, Trump is still President and Democrat/Socialists are still searching and claiming to find, proof.

Out in the real world there is slander but we are talking about the Neverland of politics. Dehumanizing the opponent is the name of the game.

In 3 years even Donald Trump is bound to have gotten something right. Can you name it and find a headline and article outlining the fine job he did?

Didn't think so.

 

Oh for crying out loud. What a bunch of made-up nonsense.

 

First, I agree with you that we share some viewpoints, which is always fun. I have a slightly different take on some of your post though. I used bold fonts to focus my responses.
1. If we limit out thinking to believe NATO was only good for the one issue that was used to create it, then you're right. But NATO has proven to have value far beyond its original purpose, & I think that makes it worth hanging onto. NATO has succeeded in uniting Europe within its own borders better than anything previous to NATO ever did. NATO has prevented European wars more effectively than anything else ever did. NATO has bonded Europe & America together as friends better than anything prior ever did. I disagree that the NATO mission has ended. It has simply changed.
2. Your post here sounds like some of the placating voices of many European leaders during the 1930s as Hitler gradually invaded & annexed various portions of Europe for his Third Reich. We all know how that turned out. Yes, Syria isn't in Europe. But fascist Italy didn't invade European countries, it started its conquests in Ethiopia, Africa. Japan started theirs in Mongolia. Big events don't always begin in notable places. Ignoring aggression anywhere can lead to more sinister problems later if not addressed. Also, addressing them early can often prevent inflated dangers later.
3. No, actually, I don't. I do remember Obama taking a lot of heat for a long time from conservative Republicans, for NOT getting into Syria earlier. I agree that we should disentangle ourselves from the Middle East. I know it's a highly volatile region that's difficult to disengage from, but I feel it can be done gradually over time with safety for us & the locals. I DON'T believe Trump's sudden & unpredictable exit from Syria is the way to do it. That caused a new war & the needless deaths of a lot of innocent people. It also caused the U.S. to lose the confidence & trust of the locals. That will linger to haunt us for a very long time.

 

"Claiming"? The proof is quite public. You won't see it on Fox or wingnut media, of course. So if those are your only source.... I guess you're stuck.

 

Trump's going to break your heart again.

 

In 1998, Republicans did precisely the same thing to Bill Clinton that Democrats are doing to Trump today. No difference, except that Trump deserves it more. And, no one is trying to undo Trump's Electoral College win in the 2016 election. Democrats are trying to stop Trump from dismantling the institutions of government & endangering the country with his love affair with Putin.

 

1. With "equality of gender" I mean most fundamentally, equality under the law. But beyond that, I mean equal opportunities for both genders in their pursuit of any career goal they're interested in; equal pay for equal work; equal opportunity in education, equal rights in terms of personal respect, etc. I don't regard the term "equality" meaning "same", as in your example above, involving sports. Men & women aren't the same. I enjoy their differences. But they should enjoy equal opportunity, pay, legal rights, etc., in their daily lives.
2. I agree with you that we should not go around inflicting our views over & onto others around the world. I disagree somewhat with your very last point, in that there are friendly nations that share much in common with us & our values, that I would feel obligated to help in situations where they were threatened by an outside agency trying to impose their beliefs or lifestyles over them by force. Before Trump became President, I felt there were a handful of nations that would be willing to jump in & help us in such a crisis. Since Trump became President, I no longer have that confidence.

 

Lost in the 'it was just a blow job' line is the fact that Whitewater was an illegal land deal and all the major players except the Clintons went to jail. I always felt that Bill had the best lawyer, Hillary, of the bunch. She has handled his sex scandals throughout their entire political lives except for that one chubby little intern. He would have gotten out of that one too had he not decided to lie on the stand.

I do agree with you that the impeachment should not have happened and I always believed, still do, that it was revenge for Nixon.

 

1. I guess there are isolated examples of this form of political extremism in American history, but I think it's actually pretty rare. There are heated disagreements of course--that's to be expected. But dehumanizing the opponent or engaging in character assassination hasn't been a common theme in America. In my own lifetime, I think the bad stuff actually started in 1994, with the hostile antics of Newt Gingrich. It worsened in 2010, with the nasty Tea Party. It reached its current disgusting level with the emergence of Trump. I enjoyed the years when there was friendship coupled with political disagreement across the aisle. America was a better place then. Making America Great Again would require re-establishing that trend. It'll never happen under Trump.

 

None of the above. If Trump wasn't seeking to dehumanize his political opponents by using his Presidential powers, then why did Mulvaney say in his press conference last weekend that they did? Why did President Trump himself tell the press that he did? Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Burisma specifically--by name. That's where Hunter Biden worked for awhile. If Trump was interested in reducing corruption in Ukraine generally, why did he ask for them to investigate a company connected with his anticipated 2020 political opponent? Why not just let them investigate corruption generally & report back? It was a targeted request, & the target was Trump's political foe. Such a request by a President, involving a foreign nation, is a crime as defined in our U.S. Constitution, & grounds for impeachment, conviction & removal. I don't like Trump. I don't like him as a President or a human being. But I was prepared to survive with him until an election replaced him in 2020, but now that I know he broke a law written in the Constitution he swore to "preserve, protect & defend," I'm no longer comfortable waiting. I support his impeachment, conviction by the Senate, & removal from office--the sooner the better.

Sorry, this post was intended as a response to #240 above. I am not sure how it got mixed up.

 

Again, have you seen one mainstream report praising anything Trump has done in the last 3 years? One?

 

I don't remember much about Whitewater. At the time, I was young & it was too boring to hold my attention. I don't believe impeachments should be used often--only when some significant law has been broken, or a clear abuse of power, or foreign involvement in domestic elections, etc. I don't believe a simple difference of political philosophy should ever be grounds for impeachment, though I suspect that has been used before. I've endured several Presidents in my lifetime that I felt really uncomfortable with, but never considered impeachment for them. Trump, for me, is an exception, because the evidence I'm seeing is clear proof of abuse of power. If any President ever deserved impeachment, that President is Trump. I don't like Pence either, & I dread the time he would have in office before the next election. But Pence is a lesser threat to the nation than Trump.