I guess your expectation got in the way of your perception - lol!


Serious accusation there, where's the proof? ...Or should I just treat your opinion as gospel. ;)

Let me ask you a question Bernie... which side is asking to consider evidence and which side is refusing to consider evidence? Can you at least figure that one out?


I see, so when someone you want to protect is being charged, you dismiss the evidence then call the charge unsubstantiated. LOL!

I seriously doubt anyone can be stupid enough to fall for this. This is whole thing has turned into a test of how far people will go to deny the obvious.


Try writing sentences that don't reek of BS. ;)

Yeah... I'm currently between projects, so I have a little more free time but somehow my "honey do" list got a lot bigger. LOL

Well, they certainly turned it into a Dog and Pony show. As far as I am concerned, Trump isn't even the main issue here - it's Congress that's effectively being tested. The evidence against Trump is so overwhelming it's not even a debate anymore so the focus is shifting to the senators themselves.

Many of them are continuing to insist there is no proof of wrongdoing but their ONLY argument is... "because I say so". It's what you call flat-out denial, which is why they don't want to argue or debate the evidence.

In fairness to true conservatives (as opposed to the rabid right) it seems there ARE Republicans in Congress with an interest in doing what's right but they are being heavily warned not to vote against Trump. Word got out from the Trump entourage that if senators “vote against the president,” their “head will be on a pike.”

So the question is... will Congress fail to rein in a corrupt president and what kind of precedent will that create for us in the future?

I think conservatives need to seriously think about this because demographic trends indicate the liberals will continue to have a natural edge on democracy for years to come and a precedent that says it's OK for a ruling party to keep a president in office by dismissing all the evidence against him could well bite them in the ass if when that president and ruling party turns out to be Democrat.

If there is one thing the Right needs as they slip into minority status it's a reverence for the Constitution that protects people from abusive majorities.

Yeah... I already explained the process to you and you refuse to listen. So if you want to continue criticizing people who are following a process you don't care to understand. Knock yourself out. Politicians LOVE folks like you.

If I remember right, one of the reasons Reagan provided for the change was to reduce the number of holidays on the calendar by replacing two days dedicated to specific presidents with one day for all of them. It fit right into Reagan's whole "get back to work" motif, which I admit was one reason I voted for him.


King's push for non-violence was truly remarkable, but I think we also have to give some credit to men like JFK and LBJ for being receptive to non-violent approaches. People are willing to suspend violence when they see other approaches being taken seriously. MLK was essentially telling black folks that white folks in power are willing to listen and some of them were... JFK initiated the Civil Rights Act then got assassinated before he could sign it into law. LBJ picked up where JFK left off and signed the bill into law in 1964.

Fact checkers are calling that a false statement, with the one noted exception being the dissertation for his Ph.D. in theology from Boston University. Decades after his assassination, the school realized that in that specific paper he borrowed heavily from other sources, verbatim without the appropriate acknowledgements. There are no indications that any of his other stuff was plagiarized, but there were plenty of efforts by haters to convince people otherwise, which isn't surprising seeing how he was hated enough to be killed.


The answer is Ronald Reagan. He decided to replace Washington's Birthday and Lincoln's Birthday with President's Day. MLK, not being a president wasn't affected.

I remember this well because I voted for Reagan. It was my first vote as a citizen and President's Day was established right about the time I started to develop remorse (mostly because of his cabinet). I remember thinking how conceited it was for a president to replace two holidays celebrating Lincoln and Washington with one day to celebrate presidents in general, including himself. (I was 19 or 20 at the time and not as jaded as I am now - lol) I never thought I would say this but I would be ecstatic to see Reagan back in the Oval Office today.

Well, after all that posing it better be good.


Yeah, one thing at a time there cowboy. The First Amendment starts off with... "Congress shall make no law respecting..." and then it lists off a few specific freedoms, free speech being among them. So, it's an overriding law that says Congress can't pass a law that interferes with free speech. Nation Magazine isn't Congress, nor are they trying to legally silence Trump.

Look, I'm sorry you're offended by the views expressed in that article, but just because people say things you don't like doesn't mean they're breaking the First Amendment. That law is there to protect us from being silenced by a government not from being offended by each other.


You might want to actually read that article. They bring up cases where conservative students are also attacking the free speech of liberal students. Let me just jump ahead here and say that while these students are interfering with each other's free speech they are not actually violating the First Amendment. In fact that would be impossible because the law only applies to Congress, not students.

That being said, and given the bipartisan account of that ABA article - I would say you have a whole lot of nothing here.


Well, just make sure you know what you're talking about next time so I don't wind up schooling you again.

...Because, the hearing and the trial are functionally different! The hearing only needs enough evidence to prosecute, the trial is where the conviction happens and for that they need to look at ALL the evidence not just enough to prosecute.


No one is asking the Senate to do the House job! Look I already explained this - I'm not going to explain it again. You obviously have no interest in learning how the process works. Your statements make that very clear.


Polly wanna cracker?


Oh, now it's illegal. Too bad you can't actually explain that. It amazes me that every last remaining Trump supporter is so eager to accuse the Democrats of breaking the law and yet not one of them can actually explain what that means.


Well, we know he's going to be acquitted but that doesn't mean he will get another four years. He actually has to be re-elected for that and I think the odds are against it. But even if he is... I think they should continue to impeach him. Given the evidence so far revealed they should continue to impeach until the Senate finally agrees to do it's damned job and weigh the evidence!


Again, with the baseless accusations. There is ZERO evidence to suggest the Democrats "rigged" the election. Yes, the Democrats lost the electoral vote in 2016 because they were so sure Hillary would win that half their base didn't even vote. It didn't help that they underestimated the hatred that was festering on the right during the previous eight years of having to accept a black family in the Oval Office, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest they "rigged" the election.


Mueller's investigation into Russian interference had nothing to do with Trump. Trump only got involved when he started to obstruct the investigation. And the phone call to the Ukraine WAS the bribery. You're trying to make... "he drove the car" into... "he turned the wheel, THEN he stepped on the gas, THEN he upshifted". lol

Also Trump's career, going back at least 40 years, is a testimony to his brutish character.

So, there's that history to draw upon, right? You can find all that in the conservative press back in the 80's. Look up "National Review"+"NYC"+"eminent domain"+"Donald J. Trump". Thing is... it's consistent. So, why would those people who have come to know him as being consistently brutish expect anything other than a parade of accusations from here to the moon?

I think he's f%*king insane.

...and I think people in Washington are taking advantage.


yeeah - I don't remember anything like that - LOL. But I do remember Schiff talking about the scrap of evidence they had from the whistleblower and speculating on how the rest of the conversation might have gone. So he really didn't have a problem with the transcript or with his speculation being off.

I mean it *did* pale in comparison to the utter shock of realizing that Trump really didn't think he was incriminating himself with that transcript. It's like he and Giuliani are taking hits from the same ballon.


whatever you say cap'n.


lol - no, it's... I want Trump kicked out and you in turn want Trump kept in... no matter what.

;)

Of course you are, it's what you want to believe.


You mean questioning the integrity of a corrupt and incompetent president? Sorry, but some people need to be the adults in the room.


Maybe you should consider that this "hatred for Trump" is a projection of your own hatred for liberals in general. Look up "psychological projection".



Well, I don't know what "Country" you're talking about but here in America, Obama consistently got higher approval ratings than Trump ever has, so I'm guessing your conclusion is as faulty as your details are ridiculous.


I'm not sure what you think America has become, but just because something changes under a president doesn't means it's BECAUSE of the president. The economy was booming under Clinton too but it's not because of anything he did.


OK... I'm sitting back... I'm relaxed and I'm watching Trump. But... I'm not seeing him keeping any promises. Do I need to relax more? Maybe if I relax enough to fall asleep I can dream about Trump keeping promises. Would that count?

Look, if you can come up with some actual evidence that Trump has accomplished something that Greta Thunburg couldn't do, I'll take you seriously.

I have yet to see Trump do anything challenging. I don't count the endless repeal of Obama's executive orders because all he literally has to do for that is sign a paper... I mean, who can't sign their own name? And no, it doesn't make any difference if he signs it really big. The only major legislation he is known for is the 2017 Tax Reform, which he didn't even design... Paul Ryan and those guys did. All Dumbass Donny did was... sign his name... really big.


You mean this one..?
He is such a bad president that an impeachment would actually save him from an even worse fate. ???
Feel free to explain yourself - otherwise, I'll just assume that you call any perspective that offends you, "BS".

I bet you can't find ANYONE on the left that actually opposes the 1st Amendment and I'm betting that what feeds that fantasy of yours (aside from identity politics) is that free speech sometimes crosses lines of decency; even sanity and people react accordingly. This is why most Americans with any sense of civility struggle with the 1st Amendment and it happens all the time on BOTH SIDES! It's also pretty common for someone on one side to isolate the incidents on the other side and take them out of context to create a false impression that suits their narrative. Anyone who thinks ANY American (Republican, Democrat or otherwise) is attacking the First Amendment, needs to reconsider their source.

The liberal opposition to the 2nd Amendment is also way overblown. It's not quite like the First Amendment because there ARE those on the left who think the Second Amendment is antiquated, but they are a tiny majority of the left. Most gun control advocates support the right to bear arms but are simply asking for some regulation and in THAT respect it IS like the First Amendment, because we find ourselves asking the same question... "To what extent?"

I think it's criminal how our government treats it's vets.

Why? Because I work for a living so that makes me selfish? I pay for your benefits so that makes me selfish?


Who says I'm taking anything for granted? I already expressed gratitude for the teachers, lawyers and activists that have preserved my liberties. I'm certainly not taking them OR my liberties for granted.


I don't take care of my family in exchange for entitlements mike, I do it out of love. The fact that you would even ask that question leaves me with the impression that you are a far more self-serving person than I am.


Well, I'm sorry not everyone in America agrees with you but that's what happens in a free society where people are allowed to think for themselves. Do you not even believe in the freedoms you claim to be responsible for?

Says who?



I think you might be a little confused my friend. (Easy to do - impeachments don't happen often).

The House and the Senate don't just have their own separate trials with their own separate exhibits. The Constitution is very clear about this. There is only one trial and it happens in the Senate but only if the House decides to prosecute... so the House has a hearing to consider the evidence and decide if there is a case for impeachment.

...and they did, so NOW, it's the constitutional duty for the Senate to try the case, which means ALL the evidence needs to be considered again, this time by the Senate so THEY can make the final judgement.

Also, investigations are ongoing, so new evidence is being revealed. So if there is new evidence it SHOULD be considered in the trial. ALL the evidence should be considered - if not, the Senate is negligent. Period. It doesn't matter if it was already considered in the hearing by the House... The House isn't making the final judgement - Senate is... so they need to consider all the evidence.

Period. ;)

Roy... I WANT witnesses to be allowed. Did you not understand my post?