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

[Dill]

(10-10-2019, 01:59 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'd rather say I disagree with the premise here. Or say with the applicability of the example you gave.
"The Dems" did not cry for impeachment constantly.

What??  Sean, Tucker, Laura and Mark--not to mention Trump himself--have been telling us otherwise for the last year.  Maybe you are getting your information from the wrong source!
 

(10-10-2019, 01:59 PM)hollodero Wrote: Survive, sure. But I do think Trump does irreparable damage to the US. Globally by tearing up deals and betraying allies that effectively defeated ISIS for him (which he bragged about), making it all that more difficult to forge alliances in the future. Who would possibly ever trust something the US says ever again - especially when the electorate deems what Trump does just fine and reelects him? I sure would not, and I was a big fan, even after Bush. But heck, it is not unthinkable anymore that Trump's deeds will indeed lead to the destruction of NATO and to strengthened authoritarian nations all over the world. Which comes with a toll, a political one, a humanitarian one, an economic one, pick your poison.

I first read this yesterday.  Then I woke up this morning and nothing major had changed in my life. I'm betting this is true for a large number of Trump supporters/defenders as well, who are today learning that Obama is responsible for linking the US to the Kurds and to identify them with the PKK--a TERROROST group.  

Sure, a number of our former allies, the Kurds, woke up to find their lives had changed greatly this morning. But when I cut my finger, do you bleed? 

Can't dispute that Trump has broken things which cannot be fixed. And the current pressure on him increases the likelihood he will break more. Mostly things Obama made. But imagining future problems requires some understanding of past problems, how the US economy is embedded in a world economy with attendant legal norms and responsibilities created in part to insure that 60 million people would not have to die again for ignoring the problem of proliferating authoritarian regimes.  Until that historical framework is acquired, talk of "strengthened authoritarian nations all over the world" has few implications, short or long term, for "America first."

Thus Trump is the symptom. The real problem is the high degree of toleration for his behavior on the part of, not a majority, but enough Americans. That inability to see all that much wrong with a P-grabber in charge of the nation, breaking diplomatic accomplishments decades in the making and creating shadow diplomats to insure his re-election foreign help. What is its cause?  Why are Hillary and AOC still "the real threat"? 
What has destroyed the "normal" which prevailed among voters of both political parties until the late 90s? That ability of Americans to recognize crime and just bad behavior when they saw it? And to say "no!"?  Has modern communications technology enhanced magical thinking and so concentrated it in political groups, at once impermeable to logic and evidence but easily hijacked by opportunistic outsiders? "Better Russian than a liberal?"   

This expanded commentary on your views is meant to agree with and applaud them.  But not the following.

(10-10-2019, 01:59 PM)hollodero Wrote: I really do wonder how you as a Californian resident can be fine with you getting two senators and the Dakotas getting four, but that's another point. But that is so blatantly unfair to me, as is the whole EC; but granted, although my tiny country is federalistic as well I am used to having my vote counted for the party or person I voted for, no matter where I lived. And I cannot shake the feeling that the century-old US approach is undemocratic, as it weighs votes differently. That is discrimination based on residence. But ok, I get it :) that's just me.

Two senators per state = EQUALITY OF STATES in a federal system with a bicameral legislature.  This makes sense in a REAL federal system where states have their own courts and control over their schools and especially over corporate law.

Are you referring to the European Council?  That's unfair if every EU member has one representative? More fair if representation there is proportional--nine Germans to one Austrian? I know some Germans who might agree. But color me puzzled. (unless I have misunderstood you.)