10-10-2019, 12:45 PM
(10-10-2019, 12:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.
You're not fully grasping the point I'm making. The constant cries for impeachment have created a chorus that prevent an actual legitimate claim from actually being heard and discerned from the others. Not only that, but it paints the current effort with the exact same brush used on all the other efforts, some for laughable reasons. If I call the police every day and say there's an intruder in my house and every day they show up and there isn't one do you think they're going to treat the next call I make as seriously as the first, even if this time there actually is an intruder? I get that the evidence is stronger in this case, but that doesn't matter to most people because they've been beat over the head with impeachment talk the past three years. To them this is merely the latest call of an intruder in my house.
Quote: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.
I've said this from the beginning. Based on past actions, whether they be by a minority of the Democratic party of not, you're going to need a real smoking gun to make impeachment stick on Trump now. Whether this issue is it or not remains to be seen.
Quote:I disagree with that. Not factually, but effectively.
True, which I why I voted for Ross Perot in the first national election in which I could vote, I wanted a viable third party. I still do.
Quote: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 :)
I have more faith in our institutions than that. The US can easily survive a eight year Trump presidency. W. Bush caused infinitely more damage than Trump has to date and now many view him as a lovable goof. I look around this country and I do not like the trend towards shifting away from hard won basic principles of our country such as freedom of speech. I view this trend, and it currently emanates from the left, as far more dangerous long term to the United States than a second Trump term. Honestly, if Trump got one more SCOTUS nominee then I'd be satisfied because I think we're going to need a conservative leaning SCOTUS to stave off the worst excesses of the far left that are coming down the pipe.
Quote: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.
True, but that's the system as it's been for a very long time. I still support the EC as I very much prefer the individual states having their say in who is elected POTUS. One need only look at the disdain people like AOC have for "flyover country" to see why this is a good thing.
