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?

Aww... you only have 11 months left to play that fantasy RP.

Ah, what the heck - I'll jump in...

Part of me hopes Trump does win in the next election year because the policies passed into law under Trump and McConnell are finally going to catch up with us in about a year or two and the economy is going to crash. If a Democrat is in the Oval Office when that happens, millions of Republican voters will blame him for it, Republican leaders will take advantage of their guiliablity and Trump will of course blame the American people for removing the "only person smart enough" to have prevented the crash.

But if Trump does somehow manage to advance to a second term, there will be no other president to blame for the things he is doing now. At first, I expect (hope for) a new wave of creative excuses to feed late night monologues but eventually, all but the most tenacious of supporters will start to change their minds about the clown.

Another four years also increases the odds of a real crisis occurring while Trump is in office. Not just as a consequence of what he is doing now but any of those things that can come out of nowhere. Trump has not been tested yet. Obama (probably the most tested president since JFK) handed him a strong America with a vibrant economy. It's been so good Trump has had to fabricate "crisis" situations and "fixes" just to make himself look good. But four more years of Trump increases the odds that he will actually have to fix a real problem.

Seriously, I don't think Trump can handle a second term. He is such a bad president that an impeachment would actually save him from an even worse fate.

Yes... and that's all America needs.

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.