It seems to me that…..

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s hearing has demonstrated that the Democrats should pass legislation that establishes an IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION OF DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

WHAT ABOUT YOU?

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS REFLECTS YOUR CURRENT STATUS IN THIS MATTER?

I Agree. Set Up the Impeachment Inquiry.

I Remain Undecided

I Disagree. Do not Set Up the Impeachment Inquiry.

I WILL KEEP A TALLY…..THANKS.

211
Leave a Comment

Please Login to comment
4 Comment threads
207 Thread replies
8 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
NoManIsAnIslandAdLibKimtechMurphTheSurf3TOCB Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Kimtech
Member
Kimtech

I Agree. Set Up the Impeachment Inquiry AFTER the current items ( tax requests, subpoenas for live testimony) before the judiciary are settled.

This guy ( tRump ) will not fight a fair nor simple fight. It’ll be ugly, messy and long.

I’m with Speaker Pelosi on this, gather intel, information and garner impeachment sentiment so that when impeachment inquiry is begun, it’ll be rock solid.

Only fools rush in.

AdLib
Admin

The issue with that is that is Congress is leaving for a long break now and by the time they come back, campaigning for the 2020 will be about to begin, Dems won’t want to be kept off the campaign trail for their own re-election to preside over impeachment hearings instead.

There won’t be any impeachment inquiry or impeachment hearings unless the outcry from the public becomes too overwhelming to be denied…and while a possibility, it seems unlikely if that’s expected to happen before an impeachment inquiry begins.

Nancy Pelosi believes impeachment would put the more moderate and conservative Dems who helped give Dems the majority in 2018, at greater risk of losing their re-elections in 2020 and could cause them to lose the majority in The House.

So she has decided on this trade off as a better course. I disagree, I think Dems in The House need to recognize that by preferring political strategy over their Constitutional duty, they are injuring themselves with their own party and displaying a reputation of putting politics above duty. They are also de facto allowing Trump to continue committing crimes in office and helping to set the precedent of criminal presidents as a norm and that they are above the law.

Dems have a 400 page Mueller report representing 2 years of investigating Trump, with a mountain of testimony, evidence and conclusions from top prosecutors that Trump committed crimes. What more evidence is needed? Trump has also been declared as an unindicted co-conspirator in the crimes associated with the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels (and the evidence was sufficient to convict Michael Cohen).

The evidence of Trump’s criminality is already in the hands of The House, it is overwhelming and sufficient. You only need one proven crime to convict someone in court, why is Pelosi’s response to Trumpbeing proven to have committed at least 11 crimes (the 10 in the Mueller report and the one from the Stormy Daniels hush money) that “we need the strongest case”? What is the magic number that would finally trigger Pelosi to support impeachment (I don’t think there is one).

In fact, The House doesn’t even need to prove a crime to successfully impeach a president, his conduct alone is sufficient cause and we already have Trump on that too.

Since in reality, Dems are not lacking for evidence of Trump’s multiple crimes, it seems to me that the “we want the strongest case first” meme that Pelosi and her colleagues have been pushing is just a stall tactic to delay any attempt at impeachment until it’s too late to begin it. Remember, Pelosi has also said that she would not support impeachment as long as she doesn’t see a 2/3 vote in The Senate to remove Trump. And she has also claimed that unless public opinion on impeachment is strongly favoring it, she won’t support beginning it.

So Pelosi has thrown multiple obstacles in the way of impeachment, one of them is a constant moving of goalposts (until they have built “the strongest case” which has no finish line) and the other 2 are insurmountable before an impeachment inquiry begins. It is that inquiry that can shift public opinion and create the needed concerns from Repubs in the Senate about their re-election if they protect Trump. It’s backwards, the support for impeaching Trump will come from the publicity of his crimes being exposed in an impeachment inquiry, it can’t happen before Trump’s criminality is publicized.

To me, this seems like a policeman saying “I’ll only arrest a criminal if he commits over a dozen crimes and if I can get a judge to assure me beforehand that he’ll be convicted.”

As Dem leadership allegedly waits to have a longer and longer list of crimes and evidence against Trump (with no commitment that any amount will be sufficient), Trump is laying waste to our society and democracy.

In this way, Dems are enabling the destruction of our democracy because they are afraid they’ll lose the political power they currently have if they try to stop him.

And all they have is hope that Dems win in 2020 and keep The House, gain The Senate and win the presidency.

But what if Trump wins re-election in 2020? What if despite Pelosi’s political strategy on impeachment, Dems still lose The House in 2020 and no longer have the power to impeach Trump? This support for political strategy over protecting our democracy could instead lead to a nightmare scenario in 2020 that would cement Trumpism in the US and autocracy into the country. These are very high stakes and I think Dems are risking far too much on a political bet.

So IMO, Dems need to use the power they have today to start an impeachment inquiry immediately and fight as hard as they can to protect our country and the people from the madman in the WH while they can.

TOCB
Member

I could not agree more!

Nonpartay
Member
Nonpartay

I Agree. Set Up the Impeachment Inquiry. I watched almost all of it, and it seemed pretty obvious to me that that was what Mueller was trying to encourage.

Kalima
Admin

Start an impeachment inquiry. It wasn’t Mueller’s duty to read the report it’s up to Congress to investigate the magnitude of wrongdoing and possible wrongdoing clearly stated in that report. It’s their constitutional duty.

Knowing what we already know, every American should read the report if they care about the country, the freedoms that democracy brings and free and safe elections. Yes I know the trumpers won’t but what about everyone else?

Mueller all but confirmed that Trump committed obstruction of justice

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/24/mueller-all-confirmed-that-trump-committed-obstruction-justice/

Jake321
Member
Jake321

If people truly care about all that then the ONLY goal is getting Trump out ASAP. And the only Constitutional way to do that is by winning decisively in 2020. Impeachment doesn’t have a chance and would be a distraction. And I’ve yet to see any evidence how it would gain us one net vote in 2020 but indications it would cost us moderate votes and could actually get more Trumpites to the polls. Continuing investigations and hearings is fine. Going all out for formal Impeachment is a loser.

Kalima
Admin

I can’t see what is wrong with having an inquiry when the material and witnesses should be easier to obtain. To not carry out their duty could be even more harmful to Dems in 2020 than not going ahead with it. Waiting around for public consent is not leading, and the public is thirsty for real leadership now. What happens if trump wins in the same way as he did in 2016, and the Dems hadn’t gone full out to expose his crimes and hold him responsible? Do you think the voters would trust them again? What was the landslide midterm victory in 2018 about?

Jake321
Member
Jake321

They should move ahead with more hearings and investigations that can inform the public. They should go to court to force compliance. They should hold Trump officials in Contempt of Congress. They might even arrest a couple for contempt. But that is very different than going for a formal Impeachment at this point. That would suck the oxygen out of Congress, our program proposals and candidate.

Kalima
Admin

I’m sure that Dems in Congress are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Court cases are moving slowly while trump is still obstructing and breaking the law.

The Dems need to grow a spine and do what the Constitution demands them to do. Uphold the Constitution and throw out the traitors. Whatever the outcome, at least they will have done their duty. Normalising trump’s behaviour is not an option. They have to take a firmer stand.

TOCB
Member

As a Democrat, I will not vote in the primary for a candidate who does not support impeachment. THAT is my part.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

If Impeachment would throw the traitors out I’m all for it. But I’m not much for principled Kamikaze politics. If you missed it, Congress is not too good at even chewing gum no less walking at the same time. Formal Impeachment will dominate 24/7/365 both Congress, the Media and the Campaign. And really make the bulk of the voters mad since they are looking for some peace and quite for a while. They want to take a rest from the Infant Terrible in the White House.

Kalima
Admin

Then I must respectfully disagree because I’ve seen many members of Congress who are intelligent, have integrity, care for their country, their Constitution and the voting public who are being cornered by peer pressure when they want to do the right thing.

Do you really believe that the majority of Americans will find any peace with that clown in the WH left free to further damage what they value the most?

I can’t speak for others, and neither can you, but to become complacent about the outcome of next year’s election as if that will fix everything, could turn out to be a huge miscalculation. Who knows for sure where an inquiry leads, but at least it will bring important information and witnesses to testify more than any ordinary hearing could ever hope to do.

Who wants to wait for months for the courts to decide. Not starting the inquiry only confirms trump’s belief that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and nothing would happen. Is this the way to win the election?

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Hear, HEAR!

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

It’s actually very simple. I read the post of yours
Kalima responded to; and while I’m not a parrot,
I agree with every word she wrote and could have
written substantially the same comment she posted
had she not done so first.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Roger that.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

Sorry, sometimes I forget to put a Smily Face when just being facetious. Of cause there are really good and serious folk in Congress. But overall, they do get distracted especially when everyone else is distracted. And even if they are not, the Media will generally make it look that way.

Sorry you missed that I was saying what the bulk of the voters want is Drama Queen Trump OUT so they can take a rest and be complacent for a while with a Prez Biden.

As an aside, the Impeachment process does not force issues to go through court any faster. And if you’re really anxious put your energy into political organizing of one type or another. And plan to go to a swing state next year to work on GOTV for whomever our candidate is. My wife and I went to Florida from safe California to try to help Hillary win there.

Kalima
Admin

The impeachment inquiry would give more access to many things they have been cheated out of by trump and barr’s continuing obstruction. The Intel Committee have the right to classified documents. The Ways and Means Committee have the legal right to obtain anyone’s tax returns, even the fake president’s.

As for harnessing my energy to help candidates. I wish that I could but I’m European so it’s ilegal. Judging by my inbox every day, there are thousands of groups and millions of Americans who are working very hard to do exactly what you have suggested.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

The House Judiciary Committee is moving in the way I think we both agree with. Putting the legal screws on Trump & Company through the Courts and hearings while looking into whether they can put enough together on Trump to fully justify bring Articles of Impeachment. Since they are taking a 6 week summer break, I doubt there will be Impeachment. Also, since after the Mueller testimony only a few new Dem Congress Members came out for Impeachment, they really don’t believe there is any more desire for Impeachment that doesn’t result in Trump’s removal to make it worth doing. All that is left is 2020 or God. Now maybe you could put some energy into praying a lot…hey, being illegal never stopped the Russian-type Europeans from campaigning here!

Kalima
Admin

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. The list of trump’s crimes against America would fill the Oval Office walls just from the Mueller report alone. There’s enough to impeach already and much more to come. I don’t believe it’s too late to impeach. That timeline is politically motivated when it should be a moral obligation to uphold the Constitution. If trump gets away with this continuing abomination, it will be the Dems that people will blame because the repubs are already corrupt to the core.

The Russians are not Europeans and neither are the Brits.

I pray every day because there is so much rot in the world but what is needed more is action like the people of Puerto Rico and the mass protests that made the corrupt governor resign.

Kalima
Admin

100 Dems have come out for impeachment. 60% of republicans believe that Mueller conducted a fair investigation.

Don’t have time to reply at length as it is my Saturday midday and I’m busy.

‘Moscow Mitch’ is refusing to protect elections from Russia after ‘bribe’ from oligarch: Intel expert

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/moscow-mitch-is-refusing-to-protect-elections-from-russia-after-bribe-from-oligarch-intel-expert/

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

As you will almost undoubtedly have learned before you may read this, written on Aug. 2, now 118 Democrats, a majority of the Democratic members
of the House of Representatives, have announced
they favor the impeachment of Trump and want an impeachment inquiry against him to begin.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

I’m for the inquiry, too, and concur with you it’s
important to have the word “impeachment” on
the table.

And whether or not the inquiry and all of its
ramifications strengthen the Democratic hand, as
much of the truth regarding trump’s treasonous
conduct and other impeachable offenses as can
be wrested from him and his criminal associates
must be made public.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

I agree with you, and Adams knew very well what he
warned about.

If the current political crisis continues to worsen, it
won’t be much longer before the existence of this
constitutional republic will be in free fall — and it
won’t take a modern-day Nostradamus to predict the
possible dire consequences.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Yes, and the U.K. is a very striking example of this.
I wonder how long it will take the Brits to regret the
election of Boris Johnson as P.M.?

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

No, it definitely won’t be soon enough to affect Brexit, but
I wasn’t thinking of that but just in a general way. For
sooner or later I think they will realize the Conservatives
made a poor choice in picking Johnson.

Of course, I don’t think they had a plethora of good people
to choose from.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

It does sound familiar — and not in a good way.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

No wonder at all. But then, to coin a phrase, “Clowns
of a feather flock together.”

Kalima
Admin

They would not have voted for him and the Tories only lead by one seat after losing to the LibDems in a recent local elections. He will screw up and be toast soon enough. Only the anti-Europe racist pols support this clown.

Kalima
Admin

Good to see you again, NoManIsAnIsland. Yes, I believe I posted that on Time Out yesterday and I think that 16 of them decided to speak out after the Mueller hearing. This is a moral issue not a political one.

On the other side, in the last two weeks, 6 republicans are resigning from the House but I doubt they have the guts to speak out against trump.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Yes, Hurd did criticize trump several times recently;
but when he announced he won’t run for another
term, he said he will vote for trump in 2020.

….Go figure.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Hurd actually did. I didn’t think very much
of him before, and I do even less now.

But very sad to say, the vast majority of
his soon-to-be Republican colleagues in the
House are even less intelligent and principled
than he is.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

I find him a sad case. It’s not saying much; but while
Hurd appears to be smarter than the average Republican
dimbulb congressman or woman, he lacks what it takes
to withdraw his support and vote for trump.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

It looks that way to me, too.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

It’s good to see you again, too, Kalima. I’m close
to being nauseated over Nancy Pelosi’s and the
almost reactionary Democratic establishment’s
reluctance to do the right thing in regard to
removing Trump from office as soon as possible.

I used to admire Nancy Pelosi for her many
outstanding accomplishment but have now lost
almost all respect for her.

Choosing party over politics can advance careers
and win elections. But in the end it’s always
wrong — not to mention immoral — and it speaks
very poorly of the of the Democratic Party, which
is in grave danger of losing its heart and soul.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

I take and understand your points. but while I give Nancy Pelosi great credit for essentially birthing the ACA as if she were delivering her own child, I don’t agree that her incremental approach to the almost certain impeachment of trump is the most appealing or effective one.

And this is the first time in her long career of remarkable achievements I’ve found fault with her strategy and tactics.

You and I may have similar outlooks on a number of issues, but on this one we can do no more than agree to disagree.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Of course “congressional action in everything is led
by public opinion and not the other way around.”

That’s a principal reason why the United States has
never become the country it could and should have
and why few, if any, other countries ever have as well.

Kalima
Admin

Actually it was paid for by Putin, Robert Mercer and his Cambridge Analytica, Farage the racist and Far Right friend. In other words, the people who brought you trump.

Kalima
Admin

Mercer’s toy, Cambridge Analytica was supposed to have disbanded but he just set them up under another name and they still do his dirty work. Crazy bugger that one.

Kalima
Admin

Some rich people actually do amazing things for people who need help. This prick financed breitbart and created the monsters like bannon, miller, kellyanne and finally trump. He should be investigated.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

There you have it!

Kalima
Admin

I agree, party over politics and not respecting your oath is far more damaging and it’s what the republicans do all the time.

Why did the Dems have the largest win in 2018? Because the voters wanted them to take on trump and his corrupt presidency. To provide the checks and balances in an administration gone rogue. Where is the leadership that voters expected?

Kalima
Admin

These are extraordinary times where playing by the rules against an opponent who plays dirty and doesn’t follow any rules is damaging. To think that what has worked before will work now is normalising the threat and national emergency who resides in the WH.

The landslide victory for the Dems was about issues but the urgency in people coming out to vote was about trump and holding him responsible. I am deeply disappointed with the inaction regarding the criminal in office, and the lack of concern from many Americans about what has been happening and will happen again if the cheaters steal next year’s election as well.

The Dems are playing with fire and some will get burned. I can only hope it won’t cost them the most important and urgent election of their lives. Nothing is normal about the last 3 years and playing by the rules and not carrying out constitutional duties will make them look weak. Playing right into the hands of trump, the Russians, the traitorous gop, and all the RW rabble in between. Sorry, but nothing will make me change my mind about this and morality is something I look for in a politician I would vote for. It’s high on my list of attributes. Bearing this in mind, running around in circles won’t change either of our opinions so I think I’m done. Thanks for the conversation though.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Americans who gave the Democrats their greatest
triumph in history in the House of Representatives
in an off-presidential year election did want them
to take on trump and his corrupt administration.

That said, the primary issue that most Democratic
candidates campaigned on was trump’s attempt
to destroy Obama’s Affordable Care Act and
replace it with nothing.

This principled and forceful move reminded me of
the power Democrats once wielded when they were
known for putting country over politics.

So “Where is the leadership that voters expected?”
It’s not leading from the front, and Chuck Schumer
has joined Nancy Pelosi in her overabundance of
caution and helpless and hopeless dithering.

Far from leading from the front, Pelosi and Schumer
are not even leading from the rear — they’re all but
leading a retreat from the rear.

If they don’t wake up soon from their torpor of timidity,
it may be too late for them to wake up at all. And if
the House Democrats take lying down Pelosi’s refusal to perform her constitutional duties and don’t then challenge her leadership, they will have essentially abandoned the political field to trump and his Nazi rabble.

Kalima
Admin

Spot on, NoManIsAnIsland. Why is it so difficult to understand that being cautious with an opponent like trump who has no moral compass and is breaking every norm and every law on the books will lead to a win next year. Have their been too many obstructions, laws broken, Constitution shredding and gifting of the democratic election process to a foreign power for them to remember? Maybe they all need to read Mueller’s report again or open any reputable newspaper to see how his obstruction and blatant corruption destroys democracy on a daily basis. What more do they need to move on with saving America?

There is far too much emphasis on what the outcome of an impeachment inquiry might be than what the outcome of Congress sitting on their hands letting trump get away with his crimes certainly would be. They are obligated by their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Thank you, Kalima. I can’t give a definitive answer
to your very pertinent question because it’s next to
incomprehensible to me how anyone who has even
a vague understanding of trump’s utter insanity and
evil could possibly think anything less than a very
aggressive plan to defeat him could have the slightest
chance of success!

While it’s vitally necessary to begin the impeachment
inquiry against him ASAP to document as fully as
possible all the evidence of his impeachable crimes,
we already have far more than enough to charge him
with now. If those who still want to delay an inquiry
say we don’t have sufficient facts to begin the process,
we can be sure they really mean NO amount of evidence
will satisfy them as they don’t want him impeached at all.

Of course everyone who knows trump must go wants to
be sure he will end up losing his trial in the Senate after
finally being impeached in the House.

However, unless enough Republican Senators begin to
fear for their own re-elections in 2020, not enough of
them will turn against him to insure his conviction in a
trial before that election.

But rather than waiting for impeachment and a following Senate trial after the election — with the hope that the Democrats will recapture the Senate in sufficient numbers
to guarantee trump’s conviction and removal from office —
if Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the leadership of the House
Democrats care even a fig for their sworn oath to protect
the Constitution, they will launch the impeachment inquiry
with a vigor equal to their inexcusable efforts to forestall
such proceedings.

There is rising impatience and anger among important
segments of the Democratic electorate at the self-imposed
impotence of the House leadership. And the resulting
uproar against the House Democrats for “…sitting on their hands letting trump get away with his crimes” certainly
would overshadow the reaction to whatever the outcome
of an impeachment inquiry would be.

Kalima
Admin

I sometimes read the comments on Progressive sites and the majority are seething about the dithering of starting an impeachment inquiry. Most have read the Mueller report and know how damaging it is for trump. Unless someone like Elizabeth Warren is the nominee, it would be a tragedy to lose those votes because many are really angry, and the Dems can’t afford another 2016, nor can the nation.

The outcome is not as important as the challenge Dems take on to expose trump’s continuing upheaval of the Constitution and the laws of the land.

Who knows what future presidents might do if they are given carte blanche powers that defeat democracy to reign as a monarch over serfs. America has already fought that brand of power and rightfully defeated it.

“Anyone entrusted with power will abuse it if not also animated with the love of truth and virtue, no matter whether he be a prince, or one of the people”.

Jean de la Fontaine, poet (8 Jul 1621-1695)

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

I will be very disappointed if Elizabeth Warren isn’t the nominee, as presidential candidates with her charisma, dedication to righting economic and social injustices, and impeccable qualifications rarely appear and even more rarely get elected. Cynical and disillusioned voters often think people like her are too good to be true and foolishly fail to support them.

But another progressive candidate would still be worth
supporting and would get the votes of most young
liberals and progressives as well as much older ones
like me.

This is a fairly strong statement, but if — regardless of
whether or not trump would survive a trial in the Senate — the Dems fail to impeach him, essentially the American Revolution will have been fought for, and come to, nothing.

If trump is allowed to escape even the slap on the wrist
an impeachment by the House but no conviction by the
Senate would amount to, he could complete his treasonous coup against our constitutional republic and its small “d” democratic form of government — and there might never be future presidents.

I think the danger is that grave.

Jean de la Fontaine got it right. And no other head of state in American history was less “animated with the love of truth and virtue” than trump. For as a sociopathic malignant narcissist, trump is incapable of feeling any normal emotion.

While even his very stunted intellectual development doesn’t keep him from knowing the words “truth” and “virtue,” he literally has no idea what they mean and, therefore, can’t exemplify them.

Kalima
Admin

No one said they were not going to vote for a Democrat or not vote at all. They were angry that with so much evidence against trump, an impeachment inquiry was not underway already. I think it is underway already despite Nancy’s stance.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Your analysis of the great Democratic victory in the
House in the 2018 midterms is very cogent.

And I salute you for your efforts to awaken your
deluded red neighbors to the fact if they want relief
from the “homegrown” problems that are largely
— but of course not entirely — caused by their own representatives and senators in Congress and the
right-wing reactionary party they represent, they
should look to their political reps to address them.

I’m glad to learn that “bit by bit” your diligent
awareness raising is having a positive effect; and
if there were more people like you opening eyes in
the country’s rural areas, eventually some red states
might be turned purple, at least.

Lastly, the seemingly purposeful demolition of the
public educational system in leaving history and civics
out of the core curriculum has certainly wreaked havoc.
And corrupt, self-serving and self-dealing politicians
have done far more than their share to make the
situation worse.

O tempora o mores…!

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Thank you! And these days, anyone who even knows who
Cicero was is Aces in My Book!

So my six years of Latin from seventh through twelfth
grade weren’t completely lost! And with that grounding in the mother of romance languages, I was able to read my classmates’ French textbooks pretty well without ever having studied French. But I digress….

I not only empathize with you, I also feel your pain. In my lifetime, the area I live in was heavily Democratic and is less so now, but the state has changed from a bellwether to a right-wing reactionary red state.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

The metropolitan area I live in — a city and its surrounding county — were once very heavily Democratic and are still
Democratic though not as strongly so as in the past.

The state, however, was famous for generations as a
bellwether state as it usually voted for the winner of
presidential elections, be he a Democrat or Republican.

Despite this fact, at the same time the state legislature
remained under strong Democratic control. But now, as
I’m sure you know — as I believe it’s your state, too,
right-wing reactionary Republicans have the governorship
and control both houses of the state legislature. As a sad result, the state is red as it can be.

I hope my meaning is clear now — I can see why it wasn’t
before.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Thank you.

Kalima
Admin

If they don’t take on trump at every turn, then there is a chance he could win in 2020. If the Dem candidates are too stupid to take on trump in their debates and instead attack the legacy of most popular Democrat in the Party, Obama, when trump is a national emergency, why should anyone vote for them?

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

You just raised a very important point, and it was discussed at some length by Mark Shields of the Boston Globe and David Brooks of the New York Times on the PBS NewsHour just a few hours ago (I don’t know if you’re familiar with either of them or the program).

I agree the Democratic candidates should be taking trump on in their debates, and it’s very unproductive to attack Obama’s legacy — especially as trump is a national emergency who will leave only a legacy of hatred, corruption, and division.

If the candidates concentrated on saying how they’d take Trump on instead of trying to show why each of them thinks she or he would be the best candidate — mainly by attacking each others’ records — could we expect their approaches in beating trump would be so different that would help us decide who would make the best nominee?

It would be great if it had that result, but I couldn’t predict it would.

What I’m sure of, however, is the so-called “debates” aren’t really debates at all. They’re mostly exchanges of charges and counter-charges and represent to me the worst way possible to winnow down the the field.

The problem is that no one has suggested a better format, desperately needed as it is.

Do you have any thoughts about a better way to handle the programs so that they would be worthy of being called “debates?”

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

I actually read your excellent piece on who will be on
the stage in September before you cited it today.

Your suggestions are spot on. And along with citizens
who are so disillusioned they won’t vote at all, those
who will vote but won’t do the homework to look for
the best candidates deserve whatever — however bad
it is — they get.

Unfortunately this also means that those who are well informed and have done their homework often have to
suffer the consequences of those who don’t care at all
or don’t care enough.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

You’re welcome. I’m really enjoying these conversations,
too. I was on the Planet for some time but was away
for a few years until I came back two days ago.

We did run into each other before and had a good numberof very interesting and productive conversations. But as I could tell from your first in this series of posts to me, you didn’t recall me; and I decided not to mention this unless and until you wrote something — as you just did — that would let me bring it up gracefully.

I remember your writing at some length about protecting your identity as you lived in a very red and rural area in the same state I do, and it wouldn’t do if it somehow became public knowledge how much you differed in your outlook and political inclinations from your neighbors.

This seems to have changed; for as you wrote yesterday, you’ve been trying open the eyes of some of your farmer neighbors to political realities and are suggesting they talk to their elected Republican officials, who are complicit with the duplicitous trump mis-administration in duping and using them, to ask for their help instead of being subjected to their hindrance.

From what you wrote years ago, it seemed to me you lived roughly within about 125-175 miles northwest of my house, which is about 11 miles from the city line of what was once the largest city in population in the state but is now the second largest one.

I wonder how long you’ve lived where you are now. I ask this because when you wrote “…in my life time this area was Democratic…of course, it was Dixie Democrat,” it made me think that unless you’ve moved, while you must still be west of me, perhaps it may be more southwest, rather than northwest of me.

I hope you don’t feel bad about not thinking we’d run into each other before. You’re a very prolific and adept blogger and poster who is in contact with many more people than I am; and as we’ve been out of touch for some time, I would have been a little surprised had you remembered me.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

You’re very welcome, and the feeling is mutual. I’m very pleased to be in contact with you again.

It’s interesting to learn what you’ve been up to — I assume after you left (retired from?) teaching history.

Are you still involved with the co-op and with the ACA as a navigator?

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

The co-op is very lucky to have you with it, and leave it
to the trumpistas to “improve” the ACA by hampering it.

Somehow this reminds me of the infamous quotation that was said during an infantry battalion briefing during the Vietnam War.

While it’s come to be known as “We had to destroy the
village in order to save it,” the actual words were “We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it,” and it came from the mouth of a very flustered Major Booris as he tried to explain why the town was very heavily damaged in the ultimately successful effort to recapture it from a very determined Viet Cong force which was reluctant to leave it!

No other quotation underscored the utter insanity of the
Vietnam War more than this one.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Thank you for providing the link to former Army
Capt. Michael Miller’s Saving Ben Tre.

I did read his article many years ago when I saw it
after trying for some time to find out who uttered
the instantly infamous words.

Maj. Booris, who you know from Miller’s fascinating
account, mistook Capt. Miller and his men returning
from a mission across a rice paddy for V.C. and
ordered them shot, which luckily didn’t happen.

So it’s possible Maj. Booris thought himself to be the
very model of a modern U.S. Army major, not unlike
Gen. Stanley, in “The Pirates of Penzance,” who
deluded himself into believing “I am the very model
of a modern major general!”

So knowing this about Maj. Booris’ military ineptitude
— no, I don’t think he had a clue about the irony
within his words “We had to destroy Ben Tre in order
to save it.”

Kalima
Admin

Unfortunately the questions asked were geared to produce dog fights and the time allotted to answer questions was ridiculous. The mid sentence interruption was the height of bad manners.

I can’t think of anything that would be better with so many on the stage at one time. Maybe it will improve once the thinning begins of those who really have no chance of winning.

If the candidates keep up the infighting instead of attacking trump and his abuse of power and breaking the law, I believe that many votes will be lost from people who want to see strength, leadership, and a candidate who can point clearly to the difference between them and trump.

The last debates showed weakness and lack of conviction that trump gleefully used during his wannabe authoritarian rally in Ohio.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Very well said.

I wasn’t home to see the debate, but I saw some of it
the next day on my computer. I saw very little of it,
however, because the rude and disrespectful way CNN conducted the program made it more of a debacle than
a debate, and I stopped watching it in utter disgust.

Later I read about the disaster and saw a few clips on
news programs that only reinforced my initial reaction
and made me hope the Democrats don’t let CNN
broadcast any more debates.

I just thought of this: since it’s apparent the so-called
debates so far haven’t been very helpful, it could be
better to just cancel all of the remaining ones for the
rest of the year and not schedule new ones until
sometime during the primaries next year when the
results can dictate that the eight leading primary
winners, say, will participate in new debates.

Then before the national convention a final debate
would include the top two or four candidates. And I
don’t think it would be disastrous if there were no
more debates held at all.

In the past the Democratic Party has given us good
candidates without “benefit” of debates, and a number
of them have been elected president. It could happen
again, if only the Party had the guts and sense to try it.

Are you still living in Japan? I ask this because it’s after midnight where I live in the midwestern U.S. and time
for me to go to sleep. If you’re in Japan, it’s already the
afternoon. It’s been very interesting talking with you
again; and if you respond to this comment, I’ll answer
later.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Very good history, Professor, of the origin and evolution
of the presidential candidates debates.

From the Kennedy-Nixon debates until their recent and
sickening devolution into chaotic and utterly dispiriting
free-for-alls full of sound and fury but signifying nothing
— if I may coin a phrase ;^) — the debates served a
useful purpose and gave the candidates a good forum to
either make positive impressions on potential voters or,
conversely, torpedo their campaigns by revealing their
own unsuitability for office.

But as the televised so-called “debates” have been
turned by the yahoos of the television networks into
brain-dead, tasteless and trashy political theater. they
have lost any redeeming value.

And as I wrote to Kalima, as they’re very unlikely to be reformed into anything worthwhile, it would make sense
to stop them until the primaries begin. Better still, stop
them until after each party nominates its presidential candidate.

Kalima
Admin

If the debates are as uninspiring as the last two days, then maybe you don’t need all the ones still to come that will disappoint voters, and give trump any fodder to repeat out of context by, or perceived weaknesses of the remaining candidates.

If they start to attack him, at some point he will have to defend himself and the indefensible. He’s really not good at that.

Yes, I’m still in Japan where we are dealing with 36C and a heat index of 47C for the last week. It was good to be able to chat with you again too. Hope to see you back here soon.

Goodnight.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

That is exactly the thought I had about the mass protests in Puerto Rico. For that to happen here against Trump something way way more shocking and outrageous would have to be found on Trump. It he would have to take some new totally over the top action.

Clinton’s Impeachment didn’t remove him. It increased his popularity and cost the Republicans politically. Our overriding obligation is to get Trump out so we can have a Constitution to uphold. Impeachment without removal will gain us no votes and might energize the Trumpites besides being a gigantic diversion and thus a hindrance to our programs and candidates.

Kalima
Admin

Well we will have to agree to disagree on impeachment. Life is too short to live it armed with “what ifs“. Nothing would ever get done. Dems must show actual leadership, that is why they won last year. It will come back to haunt them if they don’t. This is not the time for nail biting. It’s a time for integrity and doing the right thing no matter how long it takes.

Mass protests work. We have them often in Europe. The constant pressure makes governments uneasy.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

Life is too short to do anything that will not get Trump out. Since if we don’t get him out, life will likely be much shorter. Impeachment does not get him out and is likely to help him. Mass demonstrations have to be keyed. Trump has done so much he has made people numb. He must go to an entirely new outrageous level before there will be mass demonstrations. They do have an effect here. Back in my day was in plenty of them. They helped get Ronnie Reagan elected governor of California and Nixon elected Prez in reaction but also helped end the Vietnam War. Was also in the massive Women’s March protest in DC. Was great. Did nothing to deter Trump from anything.

AdLib
Admin

Couldn’t agree more, Kalima! Congress has the benefit of a 2 year investigation by top professional prosecutors and investigators that concluded Trump committed crimes and Mueller has said this in his diplomatic way.

Dems are also undermining the rule of law if they decide it’s to their political advantage not to fulfill their constitutional duty of impeachment.

It’s been many years since I saw the Dem Party as the bumblers who could steal defeat from the jaws of victory but it’s sure looking more like that now with the political cowardice on impeaching a criminal in the WH.

Kimtech
Member
Kimtech

Mueller’s testimony was for an audience unlike our informed and aware selves.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

Mueller’s testimony was a near total bust and won’t change a vote. But he did get animated a wee bit about the Russian attack on our democratic system. That might do some good especially if we win and can then go after Putin.

TOCB
Member

No prudent person needed Mueller to confirm trump committed obstruction of justice, as he OPENLY did it boldly and unapologetically. It is also evident to a prudent person that he knew of and encouraged his team to work with Russia to influence the election. In fact, he publicly said so. You might recall he said that Flynn was simply doing his job by talking to Russia before the inauguration about relieving sanctions, and if Flynn had not done this, trump said he would have instructed him to do so. Of course, he did not actually say “sanctions”, but he knew that is what Flynn talked about.

Trump has several problems, one of which is that he is as dumb as a rock. He is also a crook, a demagogue, a con man, a psychopath and a narcissist. Did I miss anything?

Kalima
Admin

There is much to investigate in Mueller’s report that it would be an injustice not to follow his detailed example. Trump failed his oath of office. He failed to protect the American people from an interfering hostile foreign power while instead encouraged it. Mueller called it a crime. Everyone in his orbit lied about it, including trump in his written answers under oath. Manafort, Flynn and trump tried to make money from foreign entities during the campaign. Trump can be indicted once he leaves. What more do they need to start an inquiry?

Liar, bigot, racist and pathetically weak nut job. The other choice words I will not write here in case my cats read it.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

Yes. Unfortunately, he is all that but also has a savant-like diabolical intuition.

Kimtech
Member
Kimtech

How many prudent persons who are members of Cult45 do you know ?

I know zero.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

Well, since there still isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Trump will be removed by Impeachment before the 2020 election, nothing more than a continuation of hearings to see if there should even be a further impeachment investigation should be pursued. Going for Impeachment that will not remove Trump is a political loser. I’ve never been much for jumping off cliffs to make a principled point.

Oh, it was sad to see the sorry state that Mueller is in. Actually shocking. Gained the Dems very little, unfortunately. Now back to the issues that matter to the electorate like universal healthcare. And picking someone who can beat Trump. With yet another false identity politics narrative by Warren, she’s in trouble. This time she helped Dow Corning limit their liability to the tens of thousands of women they harmed. She did NOT represent or help the women as she claimed. She represented and helped the giant chemical corporation AGAINST the women! Looking more and more like Unky Joe will be the one. Which is good since he is the only one at this point who seems able to decisively beat Trump. Wish he was 20 years younger, though…

TOCB
Member

I got the impression from Pelosi’s comments yesterday that she is leaning more toward impeachment. It now becomes more of a logistics issue.

Pelosi said her goal is to build such a strong case for removal from office that it would make the Senate look bad in the eyes of voters if they don’t remove trump after the House impeaches him. I like that approach better than what she previously said about a bipartisan impeachment. Yes, it would be nice if republicans put the country’s interest above their perceived party interest, but I don’t expect them to do that.

Although Mueller did not commit to saying trump and his minions conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election (which they clearly did and Mueller documents much of it in his report), he did say trump attempted to obstruct justice, AND THE ENTIRE WORLD SAW AND HEARD TRUMP ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IN REAL TIME.

Of course, I would have begun impeachment even before the Mueller report, but I was willing to wait for the report. Now that the report is released, there is no excuse for not impeaching trump. I really think it is better for everyone that the republican Senate does not remove trump from office, because if they did, Pence would become president a SURELY pardon trump. If trump remains in office as an impeached president, voters will likely hold that against the entire republican party.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

Hey, I wanted Trump out from BEFORE his inauguration by Impeachment or whatever. If Pelosi sees the political wisdom in moving forward with Impeachment I might reluctantly support it but would still think it has more danger of increasing votes for Trump. If I was sure there was a shift in moderate public opinion towards Impeachment that would help. If I knew being Impeached would so stress out Trump that he would have a stroke or heart attack before doing something really destructive to the world that would really help. But since Mueller hardly helped us at all, more likely hurt with the public, few Dem House Members will change their views on going ahead with all out Impeachment. Maybe some preliminary hearings after the August break to see if looking into Impeachment is an option. And it will go nowhere as we head into Primary Season. So, unless something new and even way more outrageous happens with Trump or they release tapes of Trump scr*wing kids on Epstein’s Lolita Island including one of an underage Ivanka, I don’t think there will be a formal Impeachment process and
vote.