Chairman of the bored
I certainly don't trust them to look through the decades of success that the President has and determine anything,"
I think that's the best part about it. No one even listened to most of his crazy stuff. They just refused to do it, or figured out ways to deflect it.Yea the report certainly doesn't exonerate him. It really makes him look pretty crazy. It also makes the people around him look weak (except that they protected him by not actually doing what he asked of them). But being mean and crazy isn't illegal.
I will say that no one who is innocent says "This is the end of my Presidency" when you find out they are looking into you.
His issue will be with the Southern District of New York. The Mueller Report just set the stage for a group who really doesn't like Trump. I certainly wouldn't feel nearly as comfortable as Trump seems to be playing if I was him. Maybe this is just his way to puff up his chest and ignore the reality that is likely coming? Or he truly believes if he just says the same thing (no collusion no obstruction) over and over again that it means he is safe.I think that's the best part about it. No one even listened to most of his crazy stuff. They just refused to do it, or figured out ways to deflect it.
And honestly I think his line about "end of the Presidency" was more because he had zero idea what the special counsel was even for. I think he is just so dumb and inexperienced he just assumed that the counsel would completely railroad him, regardless of whether he did anything wrong. It also seems like a lot of his cronies were doing stuff that perhaps he wasn't even directly aware of. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just saying that to me the comment sort of reeked of "I do not know what this is, but I know it's really bad!".
I think the issue was always going to be with the Southern District. It was pretty clear from the beginning that in this case the federal charges (if any) wouldn't even begin to compare to the state charges.His issue will be with the Southern District of New York. The Mueller Report just set the stage for a group who really doesn't like Trump. I certainly wouldn't feel nearly as comfortable as Trump seems to be playing if I was him. Maybe this is just his way to puff up his chest and ignore the reality that is likely coming? Or he truly believes if he just says the same thing (no collusion no obstruction) over and over again that it means he is safe.
Either way, the coming months should be interesting.
I don't think one needs to succeed to obstruct, simply attempt to do so.It seems like he obviously intended to obstruct the investigation, but his folks never actually did what he asked them to do. So did he actually obstruct it? I think this is why the report was hesitant to say flat out that the President obstructed the special counsel. He tried, but his own people didn't do anything he asked. I guess if "conspiracy to obstruct" was a charge, that would be a possibility right?
It's actually kinda hazy there. Obstruction requires both the intent AND an actual action. The failure of his underlings to do his bidding may have actually helped him since there was no actual action of obstruction. The Comey firing may be obstruction but it's difficult to prove. Changing Trump Jr.'s note on the Trump Tower meeting may be obstruction, but again it's very difficult to prove that the intent was malicious. This isn't like Watergate. The chances of Trump winning in a full legal trial are pretty good because the evidence is just not strong enough.I don't think one needs to succeed to obstruct, simply attempt to do so.
"uppity"But what IS clear is that it's not legal to impeach a republican President if an investigation was started by democrats. Both Ms Conway and Fox news agree so it must be true. I'd say this will effectively put a stopper to all those uppity house democrats and their illegal investigations once and for all.
Fun fact - Jefferson Davis was arrested in an area that's sort of my ancestral homeland - not on property owned by anyone in my family, but pretty darn close to it. There is still a road in the general vicinity named after my peeps.When the el Guapos, michaelskis, and bubbas of the world aren't busy oppressing minorities and yearning for the return of Jefferson Davis (), ...
I'm no longer a principled conservative. I'm a fully out of the closet sorta libertarian. Most of my political opinions can be characterized as follows:Personally, I tend to agree with Pelosi's view that pursuing impeachment at this point is not the way to go. The unfortunate fact is that despite all of Trump's obstructive antics, at the end of the day a conviction in the Senate isn't going to happen and the public already knows it. If impeachment hearings are initiated now, it is likely do two things: 1) create the impression congress is wasting their time given the foregone conclusion there will be no conviction and Trump will not be removed from office; and 2) the likely timeline for impeachment proceedings would end the process later this year, leaving Trump a full year to campaign without that cloud over his head anymore. Dems should want to see Trump bleeding heading into fall of 2020. It's wiser to hold lots of oversight hearings keeping the public informed of all of his fraudulence and misdeeds, and further cement the public perception that Trump is as corrupt as they come and doesn't care a whit for the rule of law. Then pick at least an adequate candidate and administer an arse whooping at the polls in 2020.
I'm confident we'll have a new President in 2021. We shouldn't make the mistake, of course, of taking his defeat for granted in 2020, but recognize Trump barely eked by in 2016. After assuming office, he enjoyed the shortest honeymoon ever seen, and his approval numbers have consistently lingered in the low 40's. Trump doesn't appear to see it yet, but the biggest threat to his re-election is not from any democrat, but rather, from within his own party. He's done absolutely nothing during his time in office to broaden his appeal. He's now facing a primary opponent in his own party (Bill Weld) and it's quite possible others may throw their hat in the ring as well. Incumbent Presidents that have faced primaries in their own party during the modern era have consistently lost reelection bids. When the el Guapos, michaelskis, and bubbas of the world aren't busy oppressing minorities and yearning for the return of Jefferson Davis (), they're occupied with thoughts of being principled conservatives. Principled conservatives represent an appreciable portion of the electorate, and they are NOT amused by things like massively increasing federal deficits, alienating historic allies, fawning over autocrats, and blatant disregard for rule of law. Trump will likely win his primary but if/when that happens it's not unlikely that many real conservatives that might have been willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2016 are going to sit out 2020.
I think more people are labeling themselves as libertarian because it bridges the gap between D's and R's. It stays out of peoples personal rights (abortion, gay rights, etc.), but is fearful / doesn't want more big government. Libertarians generally were R's with D ideas, but I am seeing more and more D's not supporting the very progressive agenda of the Democratic Party.The older I get the more Libertarian I become. Now get off my lawn and leave me alone.
In my experience, the number of folks identifying as libertarian increased probably tenfold following Trump's election. Without exception, the converts formerly identified as R. YMMVI think more people are labeling themselves as libertarian because it bridges the gap between D's and R's.
I actually have a little card that says I paid the Libertarians some money. They are not the most effective political party, so it was like pissing money away. I can't vote for economic fairytales so you won't see me casting a vote for a progressive. I'd vote for Rupal if she paired Chicago School economics with a belief in smaller government, non-interventionism and a post 14th Amendment due process/originalist view of the Constitution.I think more people are labeling themselves as libertarian because it bridges the gap between D's and R's. It stays out of peoples personal rights (abortion, gay rights, etc.), but is fearful / doesn't want more big government. Libertarians generally were R's with D ideas, but I am seeing more and more D's not supporting the very progressive agenda of the Democratic Party.
2020 will be interesting. Joe is in, so will the D's pick him because of name recognition and Obama association? Will they go with a SUPER progressive angle like Sanders or Warren? Or will they go with a new guy like Buttigieg who would likely be the most "firsts" for a president ever.
Crap, you have me all figured out. Much like EG, I can’t follow the republic party because they too have abandoned the foundational beliefs that this country was founded on.When the el Guapos, michaelskis, and bubbas of the world aren't busy oppressing minorities and yearning for the return of Jefferson Davis (), they're occupied with thoughts of being principled conservatives.
A funny historian outclassed Trump
Abrams announced that she is not gong to challenge Perdue - the interview she gave the local fish wrapper afterwards makes it sounds like she'll only pursue an executive office (i.e running for Governor (again) or President (because there aren't enough D candidates already)).Senate Elections 2020
David Perdue (r) is up for reelection (here in Georgia) to the Senate in 2020 - this could get interesting...and nasty. He's tolerated at best by the GOP rank and file (views generally range from lukewarm to he's an empty suit). The interesting part will be whether or not the state GOP leadership allows a true challenge to him in the primary. The nasty part could be the general (emphasis on could). Stacey Abrams is considering a run at it for the Dems, and she has the best statewide ground game I've ever seen here. But, she's damaging herself with her post-Gubernatorial actions, and (just personally) I think her skill set is better suited to take over for John Lewis in GA-4 (she'd be a great rep for that district for many years). And, now, Jon Ossoff (the greatest fundraiser ever in a House of Reps race) is considering a run for the Dems as well (just a couple of weeks after urging Abrams to run). Ossoff is a slick political chameleon - after running for GA 6 with a dual message (moderate to in-district audiences, hard left in out-of-state fundraisers), he tested the waters with a populist-toned speech yesterday to a small select group of Dems in a heavily red county in north Georgia. If either Abrams or Ossoff end up squaring off against Perdue (who I really hope gets primaried), it'll be weeks of negative ads and robocalls from both sides. Yay.
But the Pope isn't preaching a religion that doesn't care about the low, poor, or the immigrant, or says that you should be a rich person who doesn't care about anyone else. So it must be socialism....Staying off the national page for a minute, here is some local crazy.
Rep. Paul Gosar lobbed another broadside at the Catholic Church on Wednesday, saying the pope is obsessed with "leftist politics."www.azcentral.com
Yep, our rep thinks the Pope is peddling socialist-tripe and should stick to bible-based theology. Um...I'm not religious expert, but I understand this Pope is a Franciscan and they basically dedicate their lives to following what Jesus did and taught more so than any others that I've seen. I don't think it gets more bible-based than that.
Oh yeah, this guy is a good Catholic.
Of course we can argue that this Pope is a little more invovled in politics than I think a religious leader should be, but maybe our politicians can take a little of the religion out of politics or maybe learn what the religion is about. Hint, they are all generally based on peace and love for all man kind and treating each other right.
Jimmy CarterAccording to Gandhi, the seven sins are
wealth without works,
pleasure without conscience,
knowledge without character,
commerce without morality,
science without humanity,
worship without sacrifice, and
politics without principle.
Well, Hubert Humphrey may have sinned in the eyes of God, as we all do, but according to those definitions of Gandhi's, it was Hubert Humphrey without sin.
But weren’t evangelicals his key supporters during the crucial months in late 2015 and early 2016?
Here’s where some fascinating work by Timothy Carney in his new book, Alienated America (Harper, 2019), breaks down the data and exposes the mistake that has taken hold. Carney’s summary:
“The best way to describe Trump’s support in the Republican primaries—when he was running against the likes of Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich—
would be: white evangelicals who do not go to church.”
Please go for it.I had hoped that America could wash away this wretched stain by a vigorous defeat of the administration in the fall 2020 general elections. While I fully hope that happens, I have concluded that impeachment is essential in the meantime. This president and his corrupt administration must be shown that America will not stand by and watch our national ideals sullied without a fight. Yes, I know a Republican Senate will never vote to convict, but impeachment matters if only to show that no one, not even a president, is above the law.