Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2020 17:20:27 GMT
Southpaw..
”Trump calls for the remaining parties to scrap the JCPOA. The real war, as always, is with Obama’s legacy.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2020 17:21:16 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2020 17:23:25 GMT
linkNPR... “Much Of The World Doesn't Trust President Trump, Pew Survey Finds”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2020 17:25:03 GMT
MSNBC..
”That's an extraordinarily partisan attack ... amidst an international crisis right now."
-@hardballchris on Pres. Trump blaming the Obama admin. for the current tensions with Iran.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2020 18:33:23 GMT
Paul Waldman Washington Post..
“Five takeaways from Trump’s deranged speech on Iran”
“Having prepared carefully to deliver inspiring words that would bring all Americans together as they worry about the possibility of another war in the Middle East, President Trump stepped to the podium Wednesday morning and instead gave a brief speech that was vintage Trump: lacking in even the barest eloquence, replete with lies, delivered with garbled pronunciation and weirdly somnolent affect, and unintentionally revealing.
Let’s examine what we learned from Trump’s speech and how it illuminated the events of the past few days:
Trump’s Iran policy has been a catastrophic failure. “The civilized world must send a clear and unified message to the Iranian regime: Your campaign of terror, murder, mayhem will not be tolerated any longer,” Trump said. But that in itself is an acknowledgement of his own failure.
When the president came into office, we had a painstakingly negotiated agreement that by the consensus of the entire international community was successfully restraining Iran’s nuclear program. Trump not only abandoned that deal, he instituted a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, arguing that if we crippled their economy they’d become less aggressive in the region and crawl back to the negotiating table, whereupon they’d give us whatever concessions we asked for.
The very fact that we’re in the position we are now demonstrates that this policy has failed.
Rather than ceasing provocative operations, Iran has continued and even increased them. Indeed, they’ve become so aggressive that the Trump administration decided to assassinate their most important military official, a step that surely would have been unnecessary if “maximum pressure” was working the way it was supposed to. Trump himself implicitly acknowledged this by ticking off a list of recent Iranian actions to show how nefarious they are.
Trump desperately wanted to find a way to declare victory and back off. The great concern of the moment is that by assassinating General Qasem Soleimani, Trump set off a cycle of retaliation between the two countries that could spin out of control. Iran seems to be cautious about that, which could be why they aimed missiles at a largely empty area of an American base and informed the Iraqi government beforehand that the missiles were on their way.
Trump could nevertheless have thundered against the missile attack and promised to hit back, under the longstanding American principle that says we can do what we like to other countries but they can’t do the same to us (try to imagine how we would have responded if another country had assassinated, say, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs).
But Trump did not vow revenge. Instead, he said, “Iran appears to be standing down.” This is despite the fact that there’s no particular evidence that Iran is actually standing down; far more likely, they’re planning other forms of less conventional retaliation that could play out over months or even years.
Trump is still obsessed with Barack Obama. For whatever combination of reasons, Trump has long been obsessed with President Barack Obama and comparisons anyone might make between the two men. Perhaps this is because Obama embodies just about every personal virtue in which Trump is lacking; more likely it’s the fact that Obama enjoys a level of respect and admiration at home and around the world that Trump knows he will never come close to achieving.
While other, less petty presidents would refrain at moments like this from taking bogus potshots at their predecessors, Trump simply cannot resist the opportunity to blame what happens on his watch on Obama. “The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration,” he said. “The very defective [Iran nuclear agreement] expires shortly anyway, and gives Iran a clear and quick path to nuclear breakout.” None of those things is true.
Trump is comically insecure about his manhood. “Our missiles are big, powerful, accurate, lethal, and fast,” Trump said. Sometimes a missile is just a missile, but sometimes it’s an expression of your desperate fear that people will point and laugh at you.
Trump still has no idea what he wants to accomplish with regard to Iran or how to do it. Much of Trump’s speech — the parts that weren’t devoted to how great the U.S. economy is or how we’ve now reached energy independence, neither of which have anything to do with the current crisis — was about Iran’s misdeeds and how we’re now going to be hitting them with sanctions to punish them and change their behavior. Which is something you could have heard a U.S. president say at any time in the past couple of decades.
So why is that going to work now? What is the ultimate goal Trump is pursuing? Does he even know? Does he have any idea how to get from where we are now to there?
Apparently not. But if nothing else, at least we know that Trump doesn’t seem to want to escalate the military conflict further. Not for the first time, his tendency to beat his chest fiercely and then back down may put a limit on how much damage he does.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 8, 2020 18:37:31 GMT
Found some money! It would cost a small bit to get it! ** The proportion of taxpayers facing an IRS audit has dropped to the lowest point in decades, potentially depriving the government of billions of dollars in revenue. The IRS reported this week that it audited just 0.45 percent of individual filers last year, less than half the level from 10 years ago and a fraction of the level seen in previous decades.In its progress update, the IRS pointed to a steady decline in employees in recent years. From 2010 to 2019, it lost nearly 30,000 full time positions. “These losses directly correlate with a steady decline in the number of individual audits during the past nine years,” the report said. It also noted that nearly 20,000 employees, representing 31 percent of its current workforce, are slated to retire in the coming five years, potentially leading to a significant knowledge and experience gap. In a recent paper, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and University of Pennsylvania professor Natasha Sarin argued that the IRS could easily recoup $1 trillion over a decade by simply increasing audits, requiring more reporting and investing in information technology. Even that, they calculated, would be just 15 percent of an estimated $7.5 trillion in uncollected taxes over 10 years.Every additional dollar put towards enforcement is estimated to yield $4 in revenues.In December, Congress approved an $11.5 billion budget for the IRS this year, which was a $207.5 million increase over 2019 but still billions below the funding it had just a decade ago. The federal deficit is nearing $1 trillion, and the national debt has surpassed $23 trillion. ** thehill.com/regulation/finance/477354-irs-audits-drop-to-lowest-point-in-decades
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 8, 2020 18:41:37 GMT
Trump is comically insecure about his manhood. “Our missiles are big, powerful, accurate, lethal, and fast,” Trump said. Sometimes a missile is just a missile, but sometimes it’s an expression of your desperate fear that people will point and laugh at you. NAILED it!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2020 19:07:25 GMT
Laurence Tribe...
”So it wasn’t just me? I wondered whether I was imagining things, but it truly upset me to watch the man in the White House look and sound, well . . . tranquilized. The fact that lots of others sensed the same thing is creepy at best. We need to know more.”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 8, 2020 19:38:31 GMT
Laurence Tribe... ”So it wasn’t just me? I wondered whether I was imagining things, but it truly upset me to watch the man in the White House look and sound, well . . . tranquilized. The fact that lots of others sensed the same thing is creepy at best. We need to know more.” Yes and had a very strangely blotchy face.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 8, 2020 22:25:22 GMT
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) GOP Sens. Mike Lee (Utah) and Rand Paul (Ky.) ripped the administration over a closed-door briefing on Iran on Wednesday, announcing they will now support a resolution reining in President Trump's military powers. Lee, speaking to reporters after a roughly hour-long closed-door meeting with administration officials, characterized it as "the worst briefing I've seen, at least on a military issue.”Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, CIA Director Gina Haspel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley were dispatched to brief both the House and Senate on Wednesday amid days of concerns from lawmakers that Trump was on a path to war with Iran, which on Tuesday night launched missiles at Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops. Lee said the officials warned that Congress would "embolden" Iran if lawmakers debated Trump's war powers."I find this insulting and demeaning ... to the office that each of the 100 senators in this building happens to hold. I find it insulting and demeaning to the Constitution of the United States," Lee said. Lee did not say which briefer made the assertion, but specified that no administration representative contradicted them. He added that he was going to have a "conversation" with Trump about the remarks. "I find that absolutely insane. I think that's unacceptable," Lee added.** thehill.com/homenews/senate/477424-rand-paul-mike-lee-rip-administration-over-insulting-and-demeaning-iran
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2020 23:26:55 GMT
If I may, you are making the incorrect assumption that there is only one way and it’s the progressive way. When in fact there are almost always other options to achieve a goal, it’s just the matter of coming up with the best way to achieve the goals. And if you can’t answer my two questions, then I’m thinking the progressive way may not be the best way to quickly achieve the goals we all want and need. In full disclosure I’m not a fan of free 4 year colleges or forgiving student debt. But I think junior college if it has some sort of trade school associated should be tuition free. I am a fan for free 4 year colleges AND trade schools, and forgiving student debt, also free childcare and more money for education and less money for vulture capitalism, hedge fund shenanigans, tax games, the richest paying zero or lower taxes than the middle, etc. etc. etc. If Plan A doesn't bring in the requisite funds, you make adjustments. But you seem to be dead set against progressive policies. That's your right. Just as it's my right to champion them and rail against our current putrid system where the richest skate w/no or low taxes compared to the wearied and overburdened middle. Pragmatic - compromise - finding a balance - education - skills - opportunity.You got to love today’s progressives. They seem to think they and they alone came up with the policies that in fact have been the foundation of the Democratic Party ever since I can remember. The reason I am a Democrat. Although if I remember correctly the party did at one time have a socialist aspect why back when. But the party evolved to what it was before Sanders decided to hijack it and try and turn it into what he felt it should be. An agenda that is not necessarily good for the party or for the country. The new age progressives think if they really tax the rich and corporations they can pay for all these expense programs. That they will get soooo much revenue from these taxes that the middle class won’t have to pay a single penny in additional taxes. Problem is it’s all conjecture. There is no other country in the world the size of the United States that has made the transition to these policies that are paid for, as advertised, by taxing the rich and corporations. But there are examples where other countries thought they would get “x” number of dollars by taxing the rich and corporations but came up short. After President Obama got the ACA passed, the Republicans pretty much shut down any program that would help the masses. And worked very hard to dismantle the ACA. Now after 9 years of their destructive road blocks, there is a certain amount of urgency to get things done. We can no longer ignore them. Which we only have a chance of achieving if the Democrats run the table after the 2020 election. We have reached the point that the Democratic policies are not a “wish list” but are a “must do” list. And we may only have a limited time to do it. And I don’t care how you spin it, there are only going to be so many dollars to spend on what needs to be done. Which means the dollars we have must be spent wisely. AOC got hysterical because Mayor Pete said while he supported free tuition for a 4 year college he would only support it for those who couldn’t afford to pay the tuition as opposed to supporting it for all. His reason was the money that would be spent on those could pay for tuition could be better spent elsewhere. AOC felt everyone should get free college otherwise it went against her progressive agenda. Money better spent elsewhere... As a Democrat, I think we need to look at our policies keeping in mind the first three words at the top of this post. We need to be pragmatic in our thinking, willing to compromise to get the best deal and find balance in what we achieve. To be clear my progressive friends, as a Democrat here is what I support... - Quality healthcare for all at a reasonable cost
- Quality education for all up through 2 years at a community college/trade school.
- Mounting a serious fight against climate change
- Fixing the Infrastructure before bridges and dams actually do start to crumble
- Fixing Social Security for those coming behind me.
- Attacking the “technology “ revolution that will continue to challenge our workforce.
- A strong military and State Department to keep a stable world which is in the best interests of the United States.
- Attacking the affordable housing issue.
- Finding ways to make sure there is “opportunity “ for people in all parts of the country
- Common sense gun laws.
- Addressing the issue of childcare and paid family leave for all Americans.
- Keeping a woman’s right to chose.
- Find ways to push the poor up into the middle class.
- Have a stronger EPA so we will have clean air to breath, clean water to drink, and areas that are not polluted with toxins for us to build houses and schools on.
- Strengthening the safety nets and if need be expand them. That would include free breakfasts and lunches in all our schools.
- Find a way to address the homeless problem, that makes sense, once and for all.
- Make it easier for people to have a 401(k) plan if there employer doesn’t provide one. California is trying to address this problem with a new program.
Just to name a few.
The majority of these issues are going to cost money. A lot of money. But they can no longer be ignored. And add to all this the debt the Republicans are merrily racking up. And it can’t be ignored either. The progressives policies while nice are too expensive and their proposed revenue stream is too iffy. Which means we have to look at alternative ways of addressing the policies to get them done. We also have to be selective in what can realistically be done. This is important because we want results. No more half assed promises, but actual results. IMO As to not supporting free tuition for a four year college? There is no question college is more important today then when I graduated from high school back in the ice age, but the reality is, a lot of kids have no intention of going to a 4 year college. Therefore, at this time, to spend what limited funds there is by waiving tuition for those that do is unrealistic when you consider the items that must be dealt with. Maybe sometime down the road it will make more sense. As to “forgiving” student debt. Talk about an elitist move. There are millions of Americans that are staggering under huge amounts of debt that have nothing to do with student loans. A lot of them, I suspect, are not college graduates. What about them and their debt? Why is it ok to “forgive” student debt but not the debt of others? Ceftainly reduce or eliminate the interest on the loans, but unless everyone’s debt is forgiven. I just can’t see it. Probably more information then you wanted but I have been procrastinating by pounding out “Fred’s view of politics and being a Democrat “ instead of doing what I should be doing and didn’t want to do.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2020 23:39:57 GMT
Deadline White House....
”It's just sad that we're still sitting here with a President of the United States who - out of a weird mixture of envy and deep antipathy - has to attack his predecessor in the most political manner with the military standing behind him" - @brhodes w/ @nicolledwallace”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 9, 2020 0:01:43 GMT
Deadline White House.... ”It's just sad that we're still sitting here with a President of the United States who - out of a weird mixture of envy and deep antipathy - has to attack his predecessor in the most political manner with the military standing behind him" - @brhodes w/ @nicolledwallace” With many lies! A large amount of the monies that we had held in bank accounts and arms, which was owed to them. It was felt it was better to return it because it was earning too much interest, which also had to be paid.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 9, 2020 1:17:34 GMT
NY GOP member does it again, no, he said his WIFE did it!! The former New York state top Republican reportedly tried to blame his wife before admitting to the DWI that prompted him to resign as Assembly minority leader last week, USA Today reported. Assemblyman Brian Kolb allegedly told a tow truck driver his wife was driving when his state-owned vehicle ended up in a ditch by his house. “The male stood up and put his hands up and said, 'My wife was driving!' He then said, 'You know how women drive.' I did not see anyone else around the vehicle," tow truck driver Michael Scoville said, according to court papers obtained by USA Today. ** thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/477460-former-ny-state-top-republican-reportedly-tried-to-blame-wife
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 9, 2020 1:38:06 GMT
Turn the sound down if you want, but look a the Army guy behind dt's left shoulder, watch his eyes. But also look at dt's blotchy face or his makeup or whatever. And it seems everyone thinks he is on drugs with his slurred speech and sniffing....
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 3:43:44 GMT
Acyn Torabi...
”Lindsey Graham says Trump’s speech from this morning will be remembered long after his second term. He also says it’s as good as Reagan’s Tear Down This Wall speech”
Graham has really gone off the deep end.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 4:13:01 GMT
Bill Kristol...
”There is always a certain meanness in the argument of conservatism,’ Ralph Waldo Emerson once observed, ‘joined with a certain superiority in its fact.’ Forced to choose, the new tribal conservatives opted to keep the meanness and throw away the facts.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 4:42:35 GMT
The Washington Post - Jennifer Rubin..
“On Iran, one presidential contender rises to the moment. Another doesn’t.”
“It is no secret that Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) presidential campaign has been struggling of late. She has fallen in the polls (she is currently fourth in the RealClearPolitics averages in both Iowa and New Hampshire), dipped in fundraising and been pushed into an about-face on immediate Medicare-for-all (thereby disappointing some on the left).
Because she is a a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, you would think she would seize an opportunity now to show she would be a capable commander in chief. Instead, she issued multiple statements after the strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, the first a tweet Thursday in which she made the observation that “Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans,” and then, when the far left balked (we cannot say he was a murderer?), she issued a new series of tweets Friday that seemed to mimic Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) unvarnished anti-war tone. By Sunday, she was off touting her 100,000th selfie.
In an appearance on “Meet the Press,” Warren was a one-trick pony. All she could come up with was a “Wag the dog” explanation:
“CHUCK TODD: So far from what you’ve learned, what do you believe was the right call here?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: Look, we are not safer because Donald Trump had Soleimani killed. We are much closer to the edge of war. The question is: Why now? Why not a month ago? Why not a month from now? And the administration simply can’t keep its story straight. It points in all different directions. . . . When people started asking questions about what had happened on the phone call between Donald Trump and the president of Ukraine and why aid to Ukraine had been stopped, the administration did the same thing. They pointed in all different directions and gave a whole lot of different answers. And of course what it turned out to be is that Donald Trump was doing what Donald Trump does. And that is he was advancing his own personal political interest. And I think the question people reasonably ask —
CHUCK TODD: Do you think that’s happening here?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: I think the question people reasonably ask is, “Next week Donald Trump faces the start potentially of an impeachment trial. And why now?” I think people are starting to ask, “Why now did he do this? Why not delay?” And why this one is so dangerous is that he is truly taking us right to the edge of war. And that is something that puts us at risk. It puts the Middle East at risk. It puts the entire world at risk. . . .
CHUCK TODD: It sounds like you believe — you want to investigate and find out if this is a motivation.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: Well, I think that people are asking, “Why this moment?” You know, as I said, the administration can’t keep its story straight. And in the case of Ukraine, it was all about protecting Donald Trump’s skin.”
“Now, she may be right that Trump is looking for a distraction from impeachment, but that’s an argument her Twitter followers can advance. She is supposed to be auditioning for commander in chief and providing insight into how she would confront national security issues.
Contrast that with former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg, who appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union”:
“Jake Tapper: Mayor Pete, thanks so much for joining us. After the strike you called Qassim Suleimani, the Iranian general who was killed, you called him a threat to the safety and security of the United States. So are you saying that President Trump deserves some credit for the strike?
Pete Buttigieg: No, not until we know whether this was a good decision and how this decision was made, and the president has failed to demonstrate that. The secretary of State just now, when asked whether this strike prevented directly an attack, he did not prove, he did not demonstrate, he did not even claim that the answer was yes. Now, let’s be clear — Qassim Suleimani was a bad figure. He has American blood on his hands. None of us should shed a tear for his death. But just because he deserved it doesn’t mean it was the right strategic move. This is about consequences. This is one of the most volatile places in the world and we need answers on how this decision was reached, whether there was an alternative and whether the president has thought through the consequences — in particular for American lives, not just the troops who are on planes going to the Middle East right now, but US citizens around the world whose lives may be at risk because of the fallout from this action. Until we get answers on that, then this move is questionable to say the least.
Jake Tapper: The chairman of the Joint Chiefs has said that there was compelling intelligence of a significant campaign of violence that was going to be leveled against Americans within days, weeks, or months. If you were commander in chief and had the chairman of the Joint Chiefs who was bringing you information like that, do you think you would have ordered the strike?
Pete Buttigieg: I would never hesitate to use force if it was necessary in order to protect American lives. The question is, was it necessary and was it better than the alternative? It is not hard to believe that General Suleimani was in the middle of a campaign of violence. He was a walking campaign of violence. But when you’re dealing with the Middle East, you need to think about the next and the next and the next move, this is not checkers. And I’m not sure any of us really believe that this president and the people around him — especially given that he hasn’t even filled some of the key national security posts — is really going through all of the consequences of what could happen next. Even as we speak, it looks like there has been a suspension of anti-ISIS activities in Iraq just to deal with the fallout here. We need answers on whether this is part of a meaningful strategy, what choices were offered to the president and why he believed this was the best choice when we really haven’t seen the indication that it even served to prevent whatever attack they’re talking about. Remember, this was not a battlefield maneuver. We’re talking about a senior official. In what way did taking him out prevent an attack, and was it better than the alternatives? We just haven’t seen that. Let alone —
Jake Tapper: Let me just ask you, some of your Democratic opponents including senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who I’ll be talking to shortly, called the strike a “assassination.” They say it’s an assassination. Do you believe it was an assassination?
Pete Buttigieg: I am not interested in the terminology. I’m interested in the consequences and I’m interested in the process. Did the president have legal authority to do this? Why wasn’t Congress consulted? It seems like more people at Mar-a-Lago heard about this than people in the United States Congress who are a coequal branch of government with a responsibility to consult. Which of our allies were consulted? The real-world effects of this are going to go far beyond the things that we’re debating today and we need answers quickly.
“That sounds like someone who knows what questions to ask and is looking for solutions that protect Americans short of a full-scale war. A president is not expected to know all the answers, but he or she is supposed to have a realistic world view (understanding the numerous, complicated challenges we face, hire the best people, demand facts and options and then make an informed judgment). Voters should take note.
Oh well, we shouldn’t consider Mayor Pete as a visible candidate because he’s too young and he hasn’t won a state wide important election. May I remind you that he is still hanging in there when older more experienced candidates have had to drop out. And older more experienced candidates didn’t qualify for the January debate when he has. And his 4th quarter fund raising, including the donations from the wine cave event, put him #2 ahead of both Biden and Warren.
It’s my beliefs that either Sanders, Biden, Warren or Mayor Pete will be the nominee. It is also my belief that one of the reasons Mayor Pete is where he is because many see him as a replacement for Biden if he falters.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,387
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Jan 9, 2020 8:25:18 GMT
I can't imagine supporting Mayor Pete anymore. link
|
|
smginaz Suzy
Pearl Clutcher
Je suis desole.
Posts: 2,606
Jun 26, 2014 17:27:30 GMT
|
Post by smginaz Suzy on Jan 9, 2020 9:01:18 GMT
I can't imagine supporting Mayor Pete anymore. linkI would want to validate the data in the story as Cenk Uygur is not what I would consider a reputable source. I am also not confident that Pete is a feminist, so he is not my candidate either, but I question the credibility of the link as well.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 14:46:28 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 14:53:10 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 14:55:51 GMT
"There are no "honorable" Republicans. Let's just get this out of the way. Anyone who believes otherwise should go kick footballs with Charlie Brown. M itch McConnell declared Tuesday, between fits of maniacal laughter, that he has the votes to ensure a smooth sham impeachment trial for Donald Trump. It wasn't narrow. There were no "noble" holdouts. He has the support of all 53 members of his caucus. According to Politico, it took only a few hours for McConnell to remind Senate Republicans that they're a bunch of crooks. Once that was settled, it was easy to move forward with a framework for the president's trial that gives Democrats the collective middle finger. You might wonder what happened to Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney, who Politico laughably describes as "moderates"? They folded. That's what happened. The media wanted to believe they could be turned from the dark side, but all we got was the standard "disturbed" and "very concerned" tap dance. It's probably not even accurate to say they caved. Their original factory setting is one of total subservience to what benefits Republicans, not the silly rule of law or even the country and its citizens." www.wonkette.com/susan-collins-so-pissed-chuck-schumer-made-her-rig-impeachment-trial-for-trump
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 15:23:45 GMT
Iran crisis averted for now so we are back to our regularly scheduled tweeting..
trump..
”STOCK MARKET AT ALL-TIME HIGH! HOW ARE YOUR 409K’S DOING? 70%, 80%, 90% up? Only 50% up! What are you doing wrong?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 15:26:17 GMT
trump..
”U.S. Cancer Death Rate Lowest In Recorded History! A lot of good news coming out of this Administration.”
Is he trying to credit for the drop in cancer deaths? Sounds like it to me. But I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 9, 2020 15:28:44 GMT
Iran crisis averted for now so we are back to our regularly scheduled tweeting.. trump.. ”STOCK MARKET AT ALL-TIME HIGH! HOW ARE YOUR 409K’S DOING? 70%, 80%, 90% up? Only 50% up! What are you doing wrong? What IS a 409K? Is that why I make no $$$$ on my retirement account, I only have a 401K?
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 9, 2020 15:29:45 GMT
trump.. ”U.S. Cancer Death Rate Lowest In Recorded History! A lot of good news coming out of this Administration.” Is he trying to credit for the drop in cancer deaths? Sounds like it to me. But I could be wrong. He can try saying that in 10 years or more!!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 15:40:03 GMT
MSNBC...
“Sen. Booker says a looming impeachment trial and other pressing issues in Washington, DC, could deal a “big, big blow” to his Democratic pres. campaign by keeping him away from Iowa in the final weeks before the Feb. 3 pres. caucuses.”
Talk about not facing facts. Or maybe he’s laying the ground work of announcing he is ending his campaign and it will be the impeachment trial’s fault.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 15:44:00 GMT
From E J Dionne’s column in the Washington Post on how far the Republicans have fallen..
”President Trump’s incoherent recklessness is not the only problem for U.S. foreign policy dramatized this week. Also troubling is the eagerness of Republicans to fall in behind whatever he does and turn to demagoguery to paint his political opponents as traitors, a term Trump regularly deploys himself.
The surprise winner of the prize for the most mendacious and shameful partisan attack is former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley for her statement on the Democratic response to the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani. Many Republicans — and some outside the party’s ranks — once praised her for a certain measured independence and civility.
Not this time. “The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and our Democrat presidential candidates,” Haley told Fox News. “No one else in the world.”
Wow. Clearly this is a politician who has decided there is no future in GOP politics for anyone but a Trumpian distorter of reality and divider of the American people, even at a moment of crisis.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 10:26:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 15:53:20 GMT
From Greg Sargent’s column in The Washington Post about Senator Mike Lee’s outburst yesterday after the Iran briefing to members of Congress.
”Now, in the interview with NPR’s Rachel Martin, Lee has gone into more alarming detail. Lee reiterated that officials “were unable or unwilling to identify any point” at which they’d come to Congress for authorization for the use of military force. Then this exchange happened:
MARTIN: What kind of hypotheticals were you putting to them in hopes of understanding when the administration sees a need for Congressional authority?
LEE: As I recall, one of my colleagues asked a hypothetical involving the Supreme Leader of Iran: If at that point, the United States government decided that it wanted to undertake a strike against him personally, recognizing that he would be a threat to the United States, would that require authorization for the use of military force?
The fact that there was nothing but a refusal to answer that question was perhaps the most deeply upsetting thing to me in that meeting.
Obviously, this was an extreme hypothetical. But the point of it was to discern the contours of the administration’s sense of its own obligation to come to Congress for approval of future hostilities. And it succeeded in doing just that, demonstrating that they recognize no such obligation.
|
|