That's a good point. LOL

I'd love to see you try. They'd legally kick yer ass. I'd be laughin' hard.


And what are THEY going to do? The Constitutional Party is a cult of political junkies that feel secure in their ability to mock everyone else from their own splendorous perfection of fantasy. Kinda like me, but with bold labels. Nah, I just like to nudge constitutionalists 'cause they often seem to know less about the Constitution than you would expect.

Yes, you can impeach Congress... But only one member at a time ;)

Look, Al Green doesn't speak for all of us. Many of us, including Nancy Pelosi, were hoping to get to the 2020 election WITHOUT an impeachment. Our only concern about 2020 are the voter suppression scams we've come to expect from Republicans.

We would absolutely prefer to see Trump voted out of office... The problem is that Trump keeps pushing the constitutional boundaries and it's pissing a lot of Americans off. There is an increasing demand from the people to their elected representatives to protect the integrity of the U.S. Constitution and the office of presidency.

Apparently, this last stunt with Trump using military aid to bargain with a former Soviet republic to get dirt on his political opponent was a bridge too far. I mean, really... this makes Nixon look like a juvenile delinquent. There's no way any elected Democrat is going to be able to face their constituents if they don't take action now.

Also, bear in mind that an impeachment in the House is not enough to remove Trump from office. They need the Senate to agree and we all know they won't. Pelosi knows this and so does the entire House. So, to think they're doing this to remove Trump from office is a bit silly. They're doing it to protect the integrity of our constitutional system. Or, if you prefer this interpretation, to at least act like they are.

I think we should impeach him but I was hoping we could have waited until he loses the election first. People often don't realize this but any elected official can be impeached even after he leaves office. Here's why I want to this happen to Trump...

1. He will lose the title. (Presidents retain their title for life unless they are impeached).
2. He will loose the salary - (not that Trump needs it)
3. And most importantly... He will not be allowed to run for ANY public office EVER again.

I don't want to stop there either... Once out of office, he will lose executive privilege and I would like to see him tried for crimes that he will no longer be immune to and he will go to prison, where he belongs.

Hard to remember those obscure basement media channels, eh? ;)



If you weren't stumbling over yourself to "protect" Trump's "honor" you might have notice that no one has actually accused him of anything yet. LOL.

It's funny - you get so excited that you automatically assume a suspicion is an accusation. As for the article posted, I went to it's disclosed source and read the original report. The point of that report was to explain the reasoning behind Trump's refusal to release the whistle-blower's complaint. Basically, the argument is that the whistle-blower didn't directly witness the communication and instead learned about it from other means, which could be a report a memo, or even a recording.

So none of this means it didn't happen. It just means the Trump administration is trying to figure out ways to silence the whistle-blower, which leads to the point the liberal is going to ask... Why is Trump trying to hide the complaint?

It was the same with the Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. The focus was on Russian interference, not Trump. But then Trump started acting guilty and the investigators and liberals were like... what?

"There is NO collusion!"
"Dude, we didn't say there was, but now that you're trying to fire the investigator and refuse to answer questions, it looks like obstruction of justice is a possibility."

Ha, ha, ha..!

If only you knew just how stupid Trump looks to people who don't have their heads up his vast sucking butthole.

Yes it is Seth. It's hilarious but also kind of sad to see someone so institutionalized that they can't even recognize socialism when they see it. Ya know, I once had to tell a 15 year old kid that beef is cow meat. He was actually arguing that it's not cow because it says beef on the label. This is what happens when you never look beyond the meat counter Seth.

BTW, I've already mentioned how after insisting these are not socialist systems, you haven't offered any counter on what YOU think socialism actually is. Well, I'm mentioning it again.


My education AND my own research tells me that's socialism. That seems to be a lot more substantial than the far-right lunatics that tell you it's NOT socialism.


We ARE living in the real deal and it feels fine! :) I like knowing that we have socialist systems for things like health coverage for the elderly and first-response for everyone. If you don't want to call it socialism that's just fine. it still works the same way. We can call it whatever you like.


Yes, what I post is right there for all to read... And I suppose I do judge myself when I post. I judge my effectiveness as a writer. I actually proof-read my stuff. In fact a large reason for me even posting here is to test out ideas before I develop them into op-eds. So yes, I am constantly judging myself.

You should try it. It's not such a bad thing.

I never know if these people are aware of the false nature of their charges or of they're brain washed into thinking they're true.

All I know is that when they start churning out the same old accusations without even trying to prove them I started to get bored. I can literally go to ANY right-wing site and find the exact same canned accusations that I got from Seth.

zzzz

LOL - Their suspension of disbelief is one of the most powerful forces in the universe. They can take a case like Uranium One, which at this point is documented in great detail and just sweep all the evidence aside and replace it with a conspiracy theory that defies logic.

I question the point of any of their arguments anymore... I mean I can still find decent conservatives and have rational conversations with them, but these alt-right bigots seem more concerned with venting their frustrations than making sense of anything.

LOL - You'd be the last person I tell.

Yes, I did. Even so, I'll point out that most countries can't clean up as much pollution as we do because they make as pollution as we do. *shrug*


...and that my friend *IS* socialism. Governments don't have ANY obligation at all. You're just so accustomed to the American socialism that takes care of it's people that you take it for granted. Even worse, we live at a time when capitalists are trying to privatize our socialist systems by flooding the lobbies and the media with anti-socialist rhetoric to the point where we don't even feel comfortable talking about it. And it's not just funding either, the public interest extends to decision making. Sherrifs for instance are elected by the people. For all practical purposes these departments are operated by the public and are therefore socialist in nature.

Fire departments used to be privately operated. If you paid a membership fee, they would come out and save your house from fire but if your neighbor wasn't a member, they would just watch his house burn down. That's how capitalism covers first response situations. Nothing wrong with capitalism per se but like a hammer, it's not ALWAYS the best tool for the job.

BTW, I noticed you didn't provide any indication of what you think socialism is. If you're going to say that something is NOT socialism, it's generally a good opportunity to say what you think socialism is.


yeah... I'm just going to skip the stuff where you're just spewing baseless opinions.

[quote=Seth]
And no, it's not the Republicans who don't want to work with the Democrats', it's the other way around. In fact, when the Dems snagged the majorities in both the House and Senate in 2006, Pelosi famously declared, "We have the majority now, we don't have to listen to you anymore!" Look it up, Google is your friend (especially if you're a leftie).

First of all, Pelosi was right... When you have a majority you technically don't have to listen, but I'm guessing her quote is taken out of context. I can easily see someone saying something like that as a dig, which wouldn't necessarily be a threat.

Secondly, I'm not referring to 2006. That was 13 years ago and despite what Pelosi said (or how you took it) bipartisanship was still working. I'm referring to the 112th Congress when the Children of the Corn took over the House and stoutly refused to cooperate with the president or the Senate as a matter of protest... to the point of shutting down the government. THAT was when bipartisanship stopped.

There's a big difference between the one tough-in-cheek quote that you're trying to make a mountain out of and a stated goal of noncooperation.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell actually stated this in the National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
(didn't work - ha, ha!) The defiance in that Congress was unprecedented and it's been partisan ever since.


Nah, they're "old guard" conservatives. I'm familiar with the conservatives politics of the Reagan era. My dad was a Republican and so was I for 6 months. Reagan was my first vote. I saw those same values in Republicans like McCain. The new Republicans called him a RINO because he didn't shift right like they did.

I'm sure to you it looks like everyone else shifted left, but that's because of a little thing called relativity.


Another baseless charge... You're just full of them aren't you?


...and MORE baseless charges.

Show me one single example of where a "left wing facility" (I assume you mean university) gave it's blessing to riots and fires. Seriously, the crap you people believe just blows my mind. I bet you actually think the Clintons are running a child prostitution ring in a pizza parlor. LOL

As for your prior comment... liberal speakers haven't been in the habit of preaching hate and invoking violence so there hasn't been a cause for a university to shut down a liberal speaker and the school will defend the first amendment rights of ANY speaker that doesn't pose a safety risk to the students, provided the school is run by liberals. If the school is run by conservatives you won't see any liberal speakers being shut down for a different reason... They just don't allow them in the first place.


You don't see liberals boycotting businesses simply because they are owned by Republicans either.


A reference to a business owner refusing to serve someone who made a career out of lying to the American people.


Actually, I have first hand, when my neighbor had a Prop 8 sign on his lawn (CA Prop 8 - an equality bill), It was stolen, so he replaced it and it was stolen again. Finally he caught three grown men getting out of their truck to steal his sign and he confronted them - in his own lawn. I heard the fuss and came out. By the time I got there four adults were screaming at each other. It was very easy to tell from the words they were liberal-haters. I told my wife to get my gun and she called the cops instead LOL.


That's another distortion. Yes, they've beat up some Nazis at their rallies, I guess in your narrative that translates to innocent old people. But they don't run people over in cars and kill them.

Yeah... did you forget that one?


You don't judge others? You should go back and read what you've posted. LOL

Well, at least you can see that.


I'm not sure why you think any other county should be cleaning up "our" pollution. ;)


That's a long sentence... but I understand what you are saying... it's basically what I've been hearing for the past 10 years so I've had plenty of time to consider it's implications. I'll start by agreeing that bi-partisan solutions have dwindled over the years, but it's been my observation that the Republicans have moved further toward the right, causing a wider chasm between the aisles. I think this explains phenomenons like RINOs as old-school conservatives are now being called.

There is a corresponding narrative designed to convince people that it's not the right but the left that are radicalizing. George Soros is a primary villain in this narrative, described as being a champion of the left, but in reality most liberals have no connection or interest in Soros. Many of them don't even know or care who he is and personally, the only time I ever hear about him at all is when you folks mention him.

Naturally, when one side moves away from common ground, both sides will adapt partisan agendas. I'm never sure how to explain the socialism thing to people who are so ingrained with anti-socialist propaganda, but say with confidence that it's a much bigger deal on the right (as a form of paranoia) than it is on the left (as a type of solution).

When you describe Democrats as leaning into socialist territory it makes me think you haven't realized how socialist America already is. America is home to the largest (in terms of cash flow) and most successful socialist systems in the world. We did with socialism what the Russians failed to do and the right-wing narrative refuses to give us credit for that.

Most Democrats like myself see socialism as a solution for specific problems NOT as an all-encompassing religion the way the right-wing narrative would have you believe. That is why only a few Democrats go so far as to label themselves socialists. Most Democrats like myself are in favor of a capitalist system where ever possible. I have co-founded three businesses over my working life and consider myself an entrepreneur. I like the fast pace of a capitalist system. But I would not wish a capitalist healthcare system on my worst enemies.

Healthcare, law enforcement, education and defense are NOT profitable. If anyone says different they have a scam in mind. These are the areas that socialism is better at solving for that very reason.

Now there *is* some truth to the increase of young people on the left willing to talk about socialism and I think that's because they come from a generation that wasn't subjected to the same cold-war propaganda that we baby boomers were subjected to. Older Democrats, even the ones that understand and appreciate socialism for what it is wouldn't call it by name for fear of loosing their support because the term itself has become so derogatory. But thankfully, the younger generation has a less subjective view and don't see the reason for avoiding the term.


Well, you're welcome to your own opinion Seth. But as far as I can tell, climate change is real, and the most likely cause is anthropogenic. I think the idea that it's all a hoax is itself a hoax sponsored by the people with big investments in carbon-based energy. I'm sorry but this is all based on evidence and logic where all I'm hearing from your side is stomping feet and "no, no, no!" Not very convincing.

The pick a gender thing... yeah, I really don't see the problem there. Personally, I'm fine with the gender I was born with but I'm not going to get all hung up if someone else wants to pick a different gender. I mean seriously, how does that hurt anyone? It just seems to me that people have a stick up their ass about it and they just need to get over it.


Again, the same thing I've heard for decades now and it's always been baseless. What amazes me is how the narrative gets so close to what the right is doing while still insisting that the left is doing it. For instance, undermining our faith in our government... it wasn't the left that started the false dilemma between a republic and a democracy, nor was it the left that continues to scream about their government being too big and it certainly wasn't the left that started asking for non-politician politicians. If anyone is undermining the people's confidence in their system of government it's the right not the left.

And history really doesn't support your thesis on totalitarian take-overs either. I noticed you didn't bring it up as a loss of democracy, so I'm just going to put this out there now... totalitarianism and democracy are diametric opposites, just as republics and monarchies are diametric opposites. So you can have a democratic republic such as ours or a democratic monarchy, such as England but you can't have democratic totalitarianism. You can have a totalitarian republic such as China or a totalitarian monarchy such as Saudi Arabia but you can't have a totalitarian democracy. This is why I call the right-wing suggestion that we can't be a democracy if we are supposed to be a republic, a false-dilemma. A false dilemma designed to undermine the people's confidence in their democracy, the only thing that stands in the way of totalitarianism.

Historically, at least within the last century, the loss of democracy to totalitarianism has always been at the hands of right-wing movements, in the case of Germany and Italy they were fascist movements. In the case of Russia there was actually two revolutions in the same year, 1917. The first was the left-wing revolution inspired by communism that overthrew the czar and replaced it with a provisional government while founders sought to establish a liberal republic. The second one, often referred to as the October Revolution, was the right-wing revolution that overthrew the provisional government and established the Soviets under totalitarian control of the Bolsheviks

This is often misrepresented in American institutional history because of the perceived threat that democratic socialists pose to our capitalist empires. The academic association between democratic socialists and communist implies that the Russian Revolution is relative... the intentional failure to educate us on the significance of a double revolution, implies the Russian Revolution is a single connection between the dreams of the democratic socialists and the example of the Russian loss of democracy. It's awesome rhetoric, really it is.


That's a baseless accusation... being leftist means caring less about families? BTW, how are those families that Trump is tearing apart doing? I'll assume you're not actually expecting people to take you seriously. Your prejudice is exceeding your senses bro. Just saying.


Being obtuse could explain a lot about your argument too bro... It's no less possible that I am understanding the causes and effects better than you think. Maybe better than you are. Have you even considered the significance of Russia's double revolution?


Another false-dilemma - lol... The answer is neither.

I care about people just as much as any conservative, if there is a difference between us it's that I care about ALL people not just my own people and though I can be obtuse at times just like everyone else, that does not make me a useful idiot.

So, are we done judging me?

LOL - the problem with your wish is that it only works on conservatives since they are the only ones harboring a bigoted version of their country. My version of America and the country where I was born is inclusive, fair and multicultural so immigration really poses no threat to my version of either.

How would you know?

That's not entirely true.


Wow, you are really brainwashed. I mean you have to be a completely ignorant of the all the parliamentary systems being developed in Europe when America was still a collection of colonies to say what you did. The American republic was certainly a model of inspiration for other colonies dreaming of liberation from their owners but it most of it was itself modeled after preexisting systems in Europe.

And yes, the founders "assholes that they were" fought and almost got their asses kicked if not for the French that came to help. We should really be more thankful to them for that but maybe our patriotic arrogance gets in the way. In any case, they did manage to liberate themselves from the exploitation of the British corporations, but only to continue the exploitation themselves. It was really a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Except that slaves no longer had any hope of freedom and the Indians no longer had any reason to trust the treaties.

But go ahead and subscribe to the institutional view (ages 5 and up) that you were engineered to believe in and please keep me laughing my ass off.

That's how law works Seth... You either implement change through armed revolution or through an existing legal system. Peaceful transformations through existing legal frameworks have happened throughout history and across the world. There's nothing THAT unique about ours. I WILL say that almost every change to this country has been resisted and in many cases it's the ideas that the founders inscribed in the margins of their documents that validated the change. I would also argue that in many cases that use of those lofty ideas was NOT what the founder intended. I do NOT think for instance, that when they said "all men are created equal" they mean for later generations to interpret that as including black people.


Perhaps. Then again, I don't see why not. There is still a lot that can improve. Are you saying people should stop trying to make the world a better place?


That's just your paranoia.


That's not contempt, that's love for and dedication to the nation we are a part of whether you like it or not. We want the system the founders pretended to want - a democratic and accessible system that is befits the vision we have of a strong and benevolent nation.

Unless you can give me an example of a left-leaning, anti-constitutional judge I will continue to assume "anti-constitutional" is just another term you don't really understand.

I have no problem with the Electoral College because I know it's not what you think it is. My problem is with the uneven distribution of representatives per capita and to be honest, I am a little disappointed with those Democrats that think the problem is with the EC and not the distribution of representatives.


It sounds like you just don't like us Seth. I'm heart-broken, really.

I didn't say it did. The additional details simply changes the motive for creating that system. It's a point that answers what you said about the founder's vision, not the system they created for achieving it.


The liberals corrected them not the conservatives. By definition the conservatives are ALWAYS against change, that is the defining character of a conservative and our history proves that indeed all changes to the original vision have been made by liberals, even when they were called Radical Republicans.


I'm not sure that even makes sense. It seems like your floundering now. You're not bringing up any examples or logical explanations... So, is this just a showdown of baseless opinions? Let me know 'cause if that's all you got - I have other things to do.


Aw... do you want your PC back little girl? Trump lost his right to be respected when he clearly showed his own lack of respect for others.


Better yet, if you're so uncomfortable with our right to express our opinions and our right to be represented in legislation, then maybe China or North Korea would be a better place for you. They certainly don't allow any liberals there. Or Iran might be good for you too, where secularists and homosexuals are not allowed.

Bottom line Seth... It's YOUR side that is asking for a totalitarian system not mine. We stand for freedom you just like to pretend you do. The system you want is the commercial system that raises Americans like a human crop. Well, F that.


Left and right is relative. From what I can tell, I am left of you and people like Eagle. But doubt you actually understand what I mean by left anyway.

As for being a Brit... yes, my parent immigrated here when I was two years old. So I'm about as British as you are Polish.



I got a better idea. I think I'm going to stay here and do everything in my power to destroy YOUR version of America. It's amazing what immigrants can do. I got my citizenship when I turned 18, so I vote, I write op-eds that get published, I write to my representatives. I've had children here and one of them is getting her degree in public law and is currently working with AI to battle the Trump administration to keep immigrant families together. It's a great feeling knowing that I am making a difference, so why would I want to go somewhere else?

You should probably try to understand the concepts before you slam them with the standard rhetorical responses. When you mention things like "fundamentally transforming America" there's an opportunity to have a real discussion and actually learn more about what the problems are. I would start by asking what you think a fundamental transformation actually means because to be honest I have no idea what you think it means, so I can't even comment.

But just to point out some of the transformations that we progressives have put America through over the past century that actually worked out well... Workers don't have to work 16 hour days anymore and can enjoy more time with their families. Children aren't forced to work anymore and can actually go to school, the largest and most successful socialist systems in the world have been established that our police, fire, first-response... all those thin lines have depended on for over a century, not to mention social security and medicare for our elderly and oh, yeah - our national defense. There is also the consumer protections that safeguard Americans from exploitation and harm.

So what were you saying about every single "change" we want to engender in this country?


When you're done telling the government to outlaw same-sex marriage, come back and talk to me about your distaste for an overbearing government. You are blind as a bat if you can't see both sides trying to load up the government - the only difference is, the liberals tend to use government to regulate commerce where the conservatives use government to regulate people.

The reason why I used to call myself a Jeffersonian is because I value smaller government. Trust me, between the two of us YOU are the one asking for a larger government. You just don't really think about it outside of it's value as a canned attack on liberals



Our republic is defined by its laws none of which describe our republic as a capitalist system. Our Constitution can host any number of economic systems including capitalism and socialism and in fact it does. Our economic system, like most economic systems throughout the world today is a hybrid of both capitalism and socialism. These systems obviously work well together, socialism works better for solving problem that are not profitable, like protecting people from crime or disease. Capitalism works well for everything else. But for every market space handled by socialism there is a capitalist that would rather find a way to take public funding away and force the consumer to buy from him instead. That is why there is such an effort among business leaders with these types of interests to socially engineer your opinion on a subject you apparently don't know much about.


Oh, I see alright... I see a little item called the "double standard" that is depending entirely on a complete fantasy about how the people and the media would react if Trump was negotiating with Medvedev. LOL.

Got news for ya... That never happened. Also, since you apparently don't understand what people are concerned about with Trump... the Obama-Medvedev Commission was NOT a secret. In fact if Trump were to do what Obama did, our jaws would drop in disbelief. Liberals would be on the floor twitching. The shock of seeing Trump doing something constructive would simply blow our minds.