4430... The House *IS* putting forth the evidence and the Senate is refusing to look at it. Do you see the fine point here?

I would like to say that maybe it's also the Trump supporters that just got sucked into all that partisan rhetoric the media keep pumping out, but that excuse is starting to get thin. I agree with you, things are getting pretty dang obvious.

With what this trial is revealing, namely the Republican refusal to allow any more information of any kind into the chamber, it's becoming quite obvious that they are attempting to proceed directly to an acquittal with minimum consideration for the charges. I believe the word for this is negligence.

EVEN - IF - IT - IS - a witch hunt - it should NOT matter! The Senate should respect the concerns of the House, proceed with a full trial and consider all the information available, if for no other reason than the fact that the House IS prosecuting, which makes it the Senate's constitutional duty to treat it seriously.

And EVEN - IF - Trump is innocent of the charges, I have the utmost confidence that he and the Republicans can assemble a defense that can invalidate any false claims against him.

So, if a president has to rely on a senate controlled by his party to block all information out of an impeachment trial - something is wrong. And 'though we can only guess at what the Republicans are covering up, or if it's more a matter of just hurrying to the acquittal, there is still that little matter of constitutional negligence that is being proven to us right before our eyes.

That being said, I am glad for the fast track... We all knew what McConnell's Senate was going to do, we just needed them to actually do it so we can charge them later. (more on that in a minute). So the way I see it, the sooner they wrap up, the sooner we can move on. Our best opportunity to kick Trump out has always been the 2020 election anyway.

Now, about that charging of McConnell's Senate. What a lot of people aren't noticing is that neglect is an impeachable offense that applies very much to McConnell and the Republicans for as I say, "not taking the impeachment seriously" AND for shirking their constitutional duty to weigh the evidence.

So, expect to hear some chatter in the coming months about impeaching and removing multiple members of Senate. It may be enough to give all of Congress to the Democrats so they can start passing laws to stump the expansion of conservative power in the courts. ;)

I work Mike. I provide for my family, I obey the laws of my community and I pay taxes, just like millions of other Americans without which the government could not afford to pay for a military, or things like VA benefits. That is my contribution. Anymore questions?

Aw, you know I was having fun at the end there... Look, I respect your right to disagree and I never suggested you weren't capable of thinking for yourself. Everyone is capable of thinking for themselves. I was only pointing out that some cultures discourage it.

LOL - Well, my point was pretty simple. Bottom line - conservatives are interfering with freedom when they tell gay people they can't get married. I don't see how personal opinions about what is "normal" makes any difference.


You too willy.

Yeah, it's a tough one, that's for sure.

Nah, I think it's just a perspective that offends you.


Well, that's good! I never suggested you needed any affirmation. I just said I can't find any reason to thank you for serving, that's all. So if you don't need affirmation then we're good, right?


Well, it's a touchy subject. I mean these kids are putting their lives on the line for something they think is worth dying for and it's not like they can change their mind. So what - I'm just going to tell them their wrong?


You're 100% correct. You're service had nothing to do with the political freedom that you think progressives are abusing. Those freedoms were already there before you came along and at no point in your lifetime have they ever been threatened by outside forces. It's a shame you think THAT's what you were being used for.

So, you retired 41 years ago... so 1979... Were you in Vietnam?


If I remember correctly, I was responding to an insult when I said it rocks to be me but it basically means I am happy with who I am and the life I made for myself, that's all.


Well, I wouldn't call that the cost of my freedom - it's more like an unknowing sacrifice to commercial empires that have nothing to do with my freedom.

Look, we're not going to agree on this one. I wasn't born yesterday... I know WTF I am talking about. It's an uneasy discussion BECAUSE of the sacrifices people make in the military. So it's almost impossible to bring up the ugly truth of the matter without some degree of insensitivity. I'm only doing this with you because I am an anonymous blip in the Internet to you so I doubt your going to lose any sleep over what I have to say.

What I CAN say is that I sympathize with those who have suffered in the line of duty and I am a strong advocate of better VA services, I also admire the courage of those who serve and though I don't buy the whole "defending my freedom" thing I do realize that this is exactly what these young men and women are thinking when they jump into harms way and for that I appreciate what they are willing to do for all of us.

So let's just leave it at that, ok?

You apparently don't understand what I am saying... I never said "Republicans are racist". I said racism is a form of exclusion which puts it on the right of the ideological spectrum. That doesn't mean that ALL people on the right are racist it just means that racists gravitate toward the right. On the left they are repelled for obvious reasons... (well, obvious to some). This doesn't mean Republicans are racist either, because like I said political parties are not tied to ideology, they are basically political platforms for hire.

It can be said that the GOP today provides more political leverage for rightward agendas which may explain the tendency to blur the politics and the ideology into one, but that can change tomorrow.

I'm not affiliated with any party because I don't do identity politics. I tend however to side more with the Democrats on most current issues. But if I were alive in 1920 I would most likely side with the Republicans because in those days they catered to people like me. Today they don't.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to understand unless they're really caught up in identity politics. Don't do it. Free yourself from the stupidity of identity politics. Define yourself by who you are not by the political party you register with. Be your own man. Do that and it will be much easier to see things objectively.

LOL - You don't remember him telling North Korea that they will be "met with fire and fury like the world has never seen"? You don't remember him telling Iran that they will suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before" ??? These are actual quotes BTW, from Trump himself not the "liberal media". And his repeated assertion that our actions will be more colossal than anything the world has ever seen is pretty serious considering what the world HAS seen.

And these are just two examples that come to mind... I know there's more (as if I need anymore to make the point). I have to get ready to go, so I don't have time to do this right now, but later, I'll find actual videos of him saying these things and share them with you, 'cause I don't know where you were when he said these things but you really missed out - these statements made headlines around the world because what "the world has never seen before", is a leader of a democratic nation making any such threats in the public forum toward anyone. Kim Jong, yeah... Bin Laden, sure... but the President of the United States?

I'm sure you can find some way to excuse him, but I can't. The world is well aware of U.S. military might so it's really not something we need to brag about and doing so shows a very impulsive and juvenile side of the guy you seem to think is qualified to command our military.

Well, you can disagree all you like but it doesn't change the truth.


That is absolutely true. I know this issue drives conservatives up the wall but racism is a form of exclusion and as such is has always been associated with the right. Your confusion comes from an inability to separate "left and right" from "Democrat and Republican". I've seen this a hundred times.

If you're up for a little reading check this out... http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/ You probably won't agree with it but at least it explains things so you know I'm not just pulling this out of my a-s. If you happen to find fault in the assessment let me know.


No it's true, but your denial is awesome! ;)

Not in Montana, not in North or South Dakota, not in Nebraska or Missouri, not in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia...

In those places conservatives are still interfering with freedom by telling the gay people they can't get married.

OK - well that sounds reasonable enough... that is if we're talking apples and apples. But Barracuda wasn't talking apples and apples. He was basically an apple talking about an orange (no pun intended). In other words... Yes, a private citizen has every right to criticize the president for his lack of military experience regardless of his own military experience or lack thereof by virtue of the fact that the president is the frickin' Commander in Chief of the entire military.

Does a patient have to go to medical school before he can criticize a doctor for not going to one? Does a homeowner need a contractor's licence before he can say anything about a contractor who doesn't?

Apples and Oranges my friend...


It's possible he just didn't think it was relevant. I mean, I obviously didn't think it was either.


If you remember Obama didn't serve either but he didn't get that same treatment and the reason why is because he wasn't running around telling everyone how we're going to blow them off the map. THAT is the reason why Trump "haters" are so critical of his military experience. It's been my observation that military commanders are much less likely to rattle their sabers than civilian politicians and there's good reason to believe that's because the military commanders are more familiar with the consequences. Trump has already proven himself to be incredibly impulsive and many of us think he also indecisive; several times now he has tweeted warnings of doom and destruction only to dial it back after his advisors finally get him to STFU and listen to them. These are NOT good traits for a commander in chief and I think it's entirely reasonable to suspect his lack of military experience may preclude him from fully appreciating the consequences of what he so often suggests.


Yes, everytime I log into OPP - ;)


No it's not, but some jobs require that you deal with it anyway and the POTUS is one of those jobs. If Trump is so frail that he needs to be defended by his fans against criticism he should't have applied for the job in the first place.


Again... every time I log in... and you know what? It's not a big deal. Trump spends his time in the lap of luxury surrounded by people who worship him, not with the common people who criticize him. So I wouldn't worry too much.

4430, why was it so important to you that Barracuda answer that question? I don't see how it has any bearing on Trump's lack of military service or any resulting criticism about it. Barracuda isn't the Commander in Chief - Trump is.

When I turned 18 I registered for the draft just in case it was reinstated and my country needed me. But like Barracuda, I had plans for my life that didn't include the service, so long as it was optional. But I also had a conviction from early on that the U.S. military is being used to suit the needs of the plutocracy, mostly Big Oil and they kill a lot of innocent people for that money. So I take tremendous pride in NOT serving.

Not so sound hateful, but I don't thank the military either. I used to fly in and out of San Diego all the time and I would often have conversations with young Marines on leave. Great kids and I admire their courage and their passion, but I never thanked them because that would be dishonest coming from me. Thank them for what? My freedom? What does that even mean?

I've lived in a number of places outside the U.S. and found that they have as much freedom out there as we do in here. I suppose one could argue that we have more freedom when it comes to buying guns, but that's about it. It doesn't seem like much because you can still own a gun in England as I did, you just can't by military grade, that's all.

And who is the military supposedly defending our freedom from? I can't think of ANY nation that wants to invade the U.S. and take away our freedoms and it's not because the U.S. military is a deterrent, it's because there's no actual reason to do it.

Seriously, there isn't much here that invaders can take that isn't already for sale. The difference is that when countries like China purchase large shares of America they get all the benefits without the liabilities of military occupation.

I'm not saying America is safe from threats, there's plenty of threat out there, but it's mostly coming from within our system which is something the military is useless against. I see conservatives impeding on freedom everytime they tell gay people they can't get married. I see liberals impeding on freedom everytime they tell gun enthusiasts they can't by an AK-47. And you know who I see defending these freedoms? Lawyers. As unpopular as they are in our pop-culture, lawyers and activists are the real champions of our freedom, not the military.

If anything, I think the military should be thanking the citizens for taking care of them. A tremendous amount of tax dollars goes to pay for everything the military does, from the munitions they use to the food they eat. The military has long been a sanctuary for young men who have trouble standing up on their own with great options like a paid college education... Paid by who? Paid by the American tax payers and what do those tax payers get back in return? Imaginary protection from imaginary threats to our freedom? Less funding for things like healthcare?

I hope this doesn't offend you too much. I'm not trying to insult those who served, like I said I have great admiration for those who put themselves in harms way thinking they're fighting for their country. I just don't think they realize how they're being used or how unrelated their efforts really are to American freedom. Most times, I just don't have the heart to break it to them.

Yeah... I'm going to disagree with your bit about Leftists hating him and the Right standing by him. That really makes no sense to me at all. I think people get a little confused between their "left and right" and the juxtaposition that spectrum always crosses with other spectrums like "liberal vs conservative" and "Republican vs Democrat". None of these spectrums are the same, nor are they historically tied to each other.

Political parties are instrumental platforms of compromise and leverage and as such they can shift positions in much the same way the government can, it just depends on who is driving. There is no real anchoring to ideology as many people seem to think and a political party can drift in any direction at all.

Conservative vs Liberal is a little more rooted to the ideas of tradition, where conservatives fight to preserve tradition (or the status quo) and liberals fight to "liberate" themselves from it.

Left vs Right is probably the most nebulous of all these spectrums but despite the ambiguity a number of concepts have stood the test of time, such as the fact that every leftward movement since the French Revolution has always fought for an open society while every rightward movement has always fought for a closed society. We see this today with those on the right demanding we build a wall and accusing the left of wanting open borders. We saw it in Nazi Germany when the right wanted to exclude Jews and Gypsies from their society, in fact Hitler hated communists BECAUSE they pursued an international (inclusive) agenda that he saw as a threat to his (exclusive) nationalism.

MLK came at an interesting juxtaposition when the Democratic party, which was the conservative party for decades was starting to warm up to leftist (inclusive) ideas such as LBJ's "Great Society" and many of those conservatives, especially in the South, left the party and ended the era of the Democratic South. They called them "Dixiecrats". In the years that followed, people like Nixon and Goldwater completed the transition by inviting the disenfranchised Dixiecrats to the Republican Party thereby creating the "New Republican Party". Meanwhile a lot of liberals previously in the Republican party jumped over to the Democratic Party. It doesn't happen often but our political parties actually have switched sides on several spectrums on several occasions.

So, getting back to your point. Those people who "hated" MLK were tied to the RIGHT by virtue of the fact that they didn't want the open their society to black folks. Many of them were probably Democrats because the transition was only starting to happen and most conservatives interested in preserving the status quo (blacks at the back of the bus) were still in that party.

So did Democrats hate MLK? Yes, many of them did. Were they leftists? No... not even close.

LOL - I'll start by agreeing with your final point... (indeed, there are many stupid voters... on all sides).

I also agree with your point about the law of averages. I too think that with humans being what they are, we should see more even numbers in the aggregate and this is why I pointed out the difference between the elected politicians and the appointed politicians, because when it comes to the elected politicians, the numbers ARE more even... well, 8 Democrats to 13 Republicans, but parity is lost on the appointed politicians 1 Democrat to 12 Republicans. So as I said, my conclusion there is that the Republican leaders are less excusable that the Republican voters.

I have some theories about the lesser difference between voters based on the idea that political differences often tie into cultural differences. For example, there is a certain "compliance" that is bred into people who come from a congregational culture. These people are effectively trained to believe what they are told by the pastor whom they are told to trust. There is no flexibility in this model. This culture is far more rooted on the right than it is on the left and I think it's effects carries into politics.

That being said. I'll go through your enumerations...

#1 - list is grossly inaccurate: I got the initial list from Wikipedia for reasons I stated earlier and I verified at least six of the names and found no error. I won't say inaccuracy is impossible but I think it's unlikely.

#2 - Republicans are by nature more dishonest than Democrats: This is where I have to ask if you're referring to private citizens or the politicians themselves. I don't think this statement applies to the average voter, but I suspect it does apply to the politicians (with exceptions on both sides of course).

#3 - Democrats being far more devious than Republicans: This time, I'll just assume we're talking about the politicians and yes, the thought HAS crossed my mind. It could be that the Democrats are just better at not getting caught. Of course there's no way to prove that either way.

#4 - voters reactions after convictions not accounted for: Hmm, I'm not really sure how reactions after convictions make any difference as to whether or not a politician is elected then convicted. Are you saying that if Republican voters are disappointed with a convicted politician they can take back their vote so we can take that name off the list?

#5 - Nationally Republicans outnumber Democrats leading to a higher number of disgraced politicians: The basic problem here is that nationally, Democrats outnumber Republicans. There are of course variations among the polls but the average result from all of them indicates Democrats are ahead by a significant margin. This is not a new trend either and it explains why the only presidents in my lifetime that won the EC but lost the popular vote were Republicans. It also explains why almost all of the recent gerrymandering is being done by Republicans. It makes sense... they are fighting the odds BECAUSE there are far more Democrats. Finally, I don't see ANY Republicans pushing to reform or eliminate the EC. That fight is all on the Democratic side which wouldn't make any sense unless they had the numbers.

I don't know about you but a lot of conservatives seem to get confused when they look at an election map and think because most of the surface area is red, it means there are more Republicans. But unless you're counting the cows and the trees as Republicans, this is assessment is erroneous. There are far more American citizens in those little blue blotches than there are in the large swaths of red. So if that's what you're going by, I suggest you find the maps that account for population not just acreage. Look up "cartograms".

Otherwise, I'm not sure why you would think there are more Republicans than Democrats.

I'll go with your #2 - with emphasis on politicians rather than voters and maybe #3 as an unprovable possibility.