Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump

[hollodero]

(10-10-2019, 09:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're point is true but I don't think that's the point Leonard was making.  His point was that the move was purely political and to be quite honest the vast majority of the impeachment talk prior to this latest round was purely political.  The Dems have been like the boy who cried wolf.  There may very well be a wolf present this time, but you'd have to forgive people for thinking there might not be.

Far be it from me to "not forgive" anyone, but I challenge that opinion. First, I wonder who you call "the Dems". Second, I wonder how one could blame them for being "political", the whole impeachment process is political in any case, always. Getting more important, why is there such a different measure stick for Dems? Because you do know who actually cries wolf over nothing all the time... it's Trump and the GOP, not the Dems. They (not just Trump) cry wolf over FISA abuse, over Strzok and secret societys, over fake news and media bias, emails and DNC servers, over every little piece of nothing...
...while trying to impeach Trump over his squad comments (I guess Al Green tried that) might be over the top, but there are at least real facts to back up that opinion. Which to me is not "crying wolf", just maybe confusing a big scary dog with one.

But finally, putting the petty comparison aside and making the real point. What is it one should tell the grandchildren in a few years when they ask why Trump, now on his own record abusing his power to extort another nation against the defined national interest and get a political rival smeared, did not get impeached? - "You know child, there was a woman called Maxine Waters, and she cried impeachment too early. Also, there was a man named Al Green who did not have a solid case and cried for impeachment too early as well. You see, that's why we could never ever impeach Trump ever again no matter what. Because of Maxine Waters. You understand that, right?"

Will he (or she... of course!) though? What will history say.

(10-10-2019, 09:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the rub with that though.  People can't say Trump talks out of his ass all of the time and then use the words coming out of that orifice as solid proof of anything.  Has everything Trump said been entirely true?

That is fair, close to nothing he says is true. And in many many cases ignorance and mere idiocy are indeed his best defenses. Which is incredibly sad, but,as I said, fair.
That (well, that and the fact that your policies forbid indicting a president and your AG blocks any real investigation into this matter) is why Congress needs to talk to witnesses, see documents and all that stuff. I honestly wonder how completely blocking them from any of that (I guess you call that "stonewalling"?) is not an impeachable offense taken for itself. It seems to go straight against the constitution.

(10-10-2019, 09:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, we have more than two options.

I disagree with that. Not factually, but effectively.

(10-10-2019, 09:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Voting for someone you dislike does not have to be one of them.  Honestly the only Dems I could realistically vote for would be Buttiegieg, who has no shot, and to a lesser extent Biden, who IMO also has no shot.  There is zero chance I could vote for Sanders or Warren so I'd be going third party again.  Not that it matters as many residents of CA vote for anything with a D next to their name.

I understand that for sure, I didn't want to sound too strict on that one. I get it how someone not quite liberal would not stomach Sanders or Warren policies, that even I think go too far at times and are too big of a shift for the country. But if it were Biden or Klobuchar or Pete...? Well, then I'd make the case that even for non-liberals, national interest (meaning not having Trump being president any longer) is the biggest factor in the voting decision. Has to be. There might be other factors that in its sum superseed it (like fear of gun confiscation, which I sincerely get as a valid point), but this imho has to be the biggest one :)

But since you're in California, it sadly really does not matter a bit what you do. This election's up for a handful of other voters in other places to decide, those in Ohio for example. Which I consider to be quite undemocratic, but that's a whole other can of worms to open.