Reuters Trump wants Senate trial, expects Joe Biden to testify: White House
So let's see...
So let's see...
- Trump refuses to testify in his own defense.
- Trump refuses to let his personnel testify in his defense.
- Trump blames the House for not having first hand testimony.
- Trump wants witnesses at his trial to testify about things that happen years ago and have nothing to do with the accusations against him.
- And I certain that the Trump True Believers are thinking this makes sense
- My usual question, if it was Obama doing this. Would they feel the same way
“President Trump wants to have a trial in the Senate because it’s clearly the only chamber where he can expect fairness and receive due process under the Constitution,” spokesman Hogan Gidley said in a statement.It is kind of like a burglar caught in the act of robbing the house calling the homeowners as witnesses to prove that they legally purchased everything in the house. Like it has any bearing on if he is guilty or not.
“We would expect to finally hear from witnesses who actually witnessed, and possibly participated in corruption - like Adam Schiff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and the so-called Whistleblower, to name a few,” Gidley said, referring to House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff, who is leading an impeachment inquiry into Trump.
79 comments:
Republicans don't see Democrats as a legitimate political party. That's why so many get the name wrong, "Democrat" Party. That being the case, anything they do to keep Democrats out of power is morally, and even legally justifiable. The impeachment hearings are illegitimate, Republicans tell us. That's because they are conducted by Democrats.
--Hiram
That seems about correct lately.
I always find it fascinating that the GOP politicians seem to be working to defend Trump and throw dust in the air rather than working to find out what really happened.
Of course the idiot Schiff is also more interested in proving guilt than figuring out what happened.
Personally I think they should all be fired.
"Of course the idiot Schiff is also more interested in proving guilt than figuring out what happened."
Seems to me they've pretty well established what was going on.
Apparently Schiff called an unplanned break just long enough to tell the press that Sondland had said the words "quid pro quo"...
His focus is wrong from my opinion.
As for what happened...
I think I know what happened, however I am not sure their is proof who was ordering it...
I think it was Trump, but that is not proof.
Does anyone remember if Sondland confirmed the call that Holmes claims to have heard?
"I think it was Trump, but that is not proof."
Trump himself asked for it in the July 25 call. There's literally now buckets and buckets of evidence that back this up in more detail, but it doesn't have to get more complicated than that.
"Does anyone remember if Sondland confirmed the call that Holmes claims to have heard?"
Yep. It's in his opening statement (and was discussed later in questioning as well).
"Also on July 26, shortly after our Kyiv meetings, I spoke by phone with President Trump. The White House, which has finally, finally shared certain call dates and times with my attorneys, confirms this. The call lasted five minutes. I remember I was at a restaurant in Kyiv and I have no reason to doubt that this conversation included the subject of investigations. Again, given Mr. Giuliani’s demand that President Zelensky make a public statement about investigations, I knew that investigations were important to President Trump."
Given a choice, whose side would you want to be on? The side of Ambassador Youvonavitch and Fiona Hill? Or the side of Donald Trump? The answer is obvious to me. I wonder if it's less obvious to anyone else, especially given the fact that so many of the folks who entrusted their fortunes to Donald Trump are now serving time in federal prisons.
--Hiram
Most of them are in jail for perjury or tax issues...
Not for things directly related to Trump...
about that "idiot Schiff " what are your complaints about him? I have not seen any opinion pieces criticizing the way he is running the investigation.
Saw a tweet from Trump this morning expressing glee about issuing a subpoena to a Democratic Congressman in connection with the impeachment. This is from a guy who refuses to honor subpoenas. It's not just that Republicans are hypocrites, it's also they case that they have no awareness of their own hypocrisy.
--Hiram
Sean,
Asking for a favor is not illegal... :-(
This also is not illegal... "I knew that investigations were important to President Trump."
We really need Bolton or another from the inner circle to testify...
Laurie,
Do you think your liberal sources would be critical of Schiff?
Hiram,
I agree. And Trump is the hypocrite in chief.
Laurie,
Here is the stunt that frustrated me...
Please remember that they are all politicians playing to their crowds...
Not Heroes, Not Villains, Just Humans who want to stay in power...
"Asking for a favor is not illegal..."
Actually, yeah, it is (if it's a benefit to your campaign). (and of course, it doesn't have to be illegal to be impeachable)
"Here is the stunt that frustrated me..."
You are trying so hard. Just come out and say you're voting for him again. After the way Congressional Republicans peacocked on Benghazi or the Ken Starr investigation, you're "frustrated" by this? Give me a break.
Now a court will need to decide if he was asking for his personal benefit or for the "good of the American Democracy" or to right a terrible wrong. And since the GOP owns the Senate I am guessing how the court will rule.
Now you are starting to sound like a Trump Follower
Schiff didn't say / do that.
And if he did, he didn't mean that.
And if he did, you didn't understand it.
And if you did, it's not a big deal.
And if it is, others have said worse."
I am really getting tired of both sides judging politician actions by the worst who came before.
I think I have been pretty clear that my vote will depend on where the DEMs go regarding a nominee.
Pelosi or Pete may get my vote, but I don't think Joe, Bernie or Elizabeth will.
I am concerned that Joe is acting too old, and the other two are pretty much Dem Socialists.
As for Trump, I would have to do a lot of soul searching before I would vote for that lying, argumentative, manipulative, self obsessed candidate again.
Impeachment is a political process run by politicians. Some level of politicking is unavoidable. Again, I'll put this inquiry up against the past GOP shitshows any day of the week. You'll nitpick Democrats over stupid nonsense while you had nary a negative word to say about Republican behavior in the Benghazi investigation. In fact, you leaned into the BS conspiracy theories that were being peddled. So don't serve me this "both sides" crap.
It seems I had much the same opinion then as now...
"After reading these, I am guessing the Left will still see her as innocent and the Right will still see her guilty or incompetent. Now there was a waste of 11 Hours..."
What unites Trump’s apologists? Minority rule.
Laurie,
You can blame Tribe Conservative as much as you want for playing and winning by the rules of our country.
I will never understand why DEMs want to screw with a solid system that has worked well for 2 1/2 centuries. As I keep saying, we are not a national democracy. We are 50 states who work together for the good of us all.
Do you acknowledge this or do you believe that we are one country who should rule the 50 states?
the constitution was designed to be amended as needed. Why is it so hard for you to see the problems with minority rule, which is a new problem? Like it or not we have a federal govt that has a lot of power.
Now the big question is what is the Democratic party going to do differently in 2020 to get their voters to the polls in battle ground states.
The problem with catering to welfare recipients, illegal workers, students, etc is that they either don't get out to vote or can not vote. I keep wondering when the DEMs will start focusing on the lawful workers, Church goers, etc???
By the way, a Trump supporter who really dislikes Trump made it pretty clear why he does not care what stupid little things Trump does... "Abortion is Murder and must be stopped"...
So if you believed 638,169 humans were wantonly killed in 2015, would Trump's flaws seem very significant in comparison.
Laurie,
It is my belief that the DEMs are responsible for the domineering Federal government...
Just think...
- Social Security
- Welfare
- Medicare
- Medicaid
- FEMA
- etc
Do they seem like GOP creations?
I am assuming the results are different because more and more people moved to the urban areas...
Personally I see no problem. The DEMs can control DEM states and the GOP can control GOP states.
And people are then free to move where they wish...
Why is it so important to you that the people in California control life in South Dakota?
"After reading these, I am guessing the Left will still see her as innocent and the Right will still see her guilty or incompetent. Now there was a waste of 11 Hours..."
You picked one line out of all the stuff you said. In the other stuff you wrote, you were complaining about the server, droning on and on about the talking points (even though the record shows it was clear that the CIA gave Rice the info), blah blah blah -- all from the mouth of the guy who looked the other way while kids were being abused at Ohio State.
"Just think...
- Social Security
- Welfare
- Medicare
- Medicaid
- FEMA"
Rural America is far more dependent on these than urban America.
"I will never understand why DEMs want to screw with a solid system that has worked well for 2 1/2 centuries."
By what criteria has it "worked well"? The system works as designed, but what requirements are we trying to fulfill, and are those the right requirements?
If Donald Trump manages to squeak out an Electoral College win again in 2020, it's likely that he will lose the popular vote by an even larger margin than he did in 2016. Is there no point where a variance between popular vote and the electoral college becomes problematic to you?
Especially when you combine that with the fact that the Senate has the same function. In 2018, Democrats won 20 million more votes in Senate races than Republicans but lost 2 seats. How many systems designed to blunt basic vote-counting are required in our system? (and would you feel the same way as you do if Republicans were the ones getting screwed? I think not.)
Here is another comment I made...
And I think it seems consistent with what I am saying about Trump and his lack of transparency. And where in the world did this topic come from?
"I guess I am a bit with the Right on this one. To me it just seems like Hillary has been doing everything she could to avoid opening her books and being transparent with Congress. Of course that tends to draw attention and suspicion.
This whole mess could have been done with the first investigation if she had turned over her server on day 1 to the proper authorities who had equivalent security clearance... For some unknown reason she chose to do otherwise... And the hounds got the scent.
Can we look forward to this kind of poor transparency if she becomes President? Or did she learn something from this example of poor judgement?"
"This whole mess could have been done with the first investigation if she had turned over her server on day 1"
No chance in hell.
Here's why:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kevin-mccarthys-truthful-gaffe/2015/09/30/f12a9fac-67a8-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html
But you've got nothing to say about that.
Sean,
I am pretty sure that States could have taken care of their poor and elderly, for better or worse the DEMs decided they could do it better at the Federal level. And I am happy that now the DEM State citizens have to pay more for their choice. :-)
I am sorry but I blame the failures of the DEMs on their choices, not the systems... I want a government that is supported all across our country, not just supported in the highly urban areas...
Hopefully the DEMs learn what it takes to attract rural America to their banner.
Sean's Link
Sorry, I always thought and still think that Hillary is not trustable.
And I have no doubt that both sides play the game, and yet you claim the moral high ground. Personally I want politicians from both sides to live their lives so they can be transparent when questions arise.
"“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.”"
"McCarthy’s statement does not make Clinton’s problems disappear miraculously. She has suffered damage, some of it self-inflicted, from using a private e-mail server during her time at the State Department. Clinton herself has acknowledged that she should have used a government server. Almost no one in her own party believes that she handled the ensuing controversy particularly well. She has recalibrated her response in recent weeks, accepting that she has to answer the questions and meet the challenges thrown her way from journalists and political foes alike."
"I am pretty sure that States could have taken care of their poor and elderly, for better or worse the DEMs decided they could do it better at the Federal level."
The reason this had to be taken care of at the federal level is because the states weren't taking care of it. You can't just rewrite history to meet your fantasy of how the world should work.
"I want a government that is supported all across our country, not just supported in the highly urban areas..."
Why is a rural vote worth more than an urban vote?
"And I have no doubt that both sides play the game, and yet you claim the moral high ground. Personally I want politicians from both sides to live their lives so they can be transparent when questions arise."
The behavior speaks for itself as does your hypocrisy. There have been lots of documented instances of Trump Administration officials using non-official means of communication, yet you've spent a miniscule fraction of your time and energy to call that out compared to Hillary's server -- which by the way, even the Trump DoJ found should not have been prosecuted.
So, sure "both sides" engage in politicking, but there's no comparison between the levels. Hillary Clinton spend 11 hours testifying before the GOP committee specifically designed to destroy her. For cripes sake, man, suggesting that Schiff taking time during a break to talk to the media is the same thing? You've lost your mind.
Trump and his associates are famously insecure in a number of ways yet that has virtually no affect on their polling numbers. The reason for that is that there has been no focused political campaign making that an issues, and because his supporters don't care.
--Hiram
Sean,
Because I believe that it is just as important to have regional stability as it is to have majority rule. Haven't we seen enough countries torn apart by regional conflicts?
That is because Hillary's server was news for months... And I was pretty clear how frustrated I am with GOP politicians.
I read the GOP comment differently... I think they knew she was a manipulative liar, and having her testify helped others understand that reality. The same reason I want Trump to testify under oath...
Schiff presenting info during a normal scheduled break would be one thing. From my understanding in this case he immediately stop the proceedings to go crow "Quid Pro Quo"... Toi me they are quite different.
Hiram,
To me it seems they don't care as long as he stays ProLife...
"Because I believe that it is just as important to have regional stability as it is to have majority rule."
Enshrining minority rule isn't a pathway to "regional stability". The longer the system stays unresponsive to majority rule, the more likely you are to get an overreaction by the majority should they ever take power again. That's how you're going to get D.C. and Puerto Rico as states, an expanded Supreme Court, and the end of the filibuster.
"Schiff presenting info during a normal scheduled break would be one thing. From my understanding in this case he immediately stop the proceedings to go crow "Quid Pro Quo"... Toi me they are quite different."
Yeah, well maybe get yourself some better sources. If you review the transcript, you will see the break in question took place at the end of the 45-minute questioning by the Democratic counsel and as Schiff was recognizing Nunes, Sondland signaled to Schiff that he needed a break. This isn't that hard, but you constantly go back to your safe bubble of right-wing talking points instead of the truth.
Sean,
You call it Minority Rule... I call it Region Weighted Popular Voting.
Maybe someday the DEMs will start thinking beyond the urban folk and non-citizens... :-)
Maybe I heard it in correctly or the source was biased. I'll try to check.
It does appear I was incorrect.... I apologize...
The report I heard said it was Schiff that asked for it when it seems Sondland did.
"SONDLAND: I believe -- I believe that is correct.
GOLDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
SCHIFF: That concludes our 45 minutes.
I now recognize Mr. Nunes.
Oh, OK. Why don't we take a 5- or 10-minute break?
SONDLAND: Thank you.
(RECESS)
SCHIFF: The meeting will come to order. I now recognize Ranking Member Nunes and minority counsel for 45 minutes of questions.
NUNES: I thank the gentleman. For those of you watching at home. That was not a bathroom break, that was actually a chance for the democrats to go out and hold a press conference. Ambassador for all the supposed bombshells that were in your opening testimony."
" I call it Region Weighted Popular Voting."
On what basis do we determine that one region is more valuable than another?
They are all important.
That is why we have a system that does not let little itty bitty California rule over ND, SD, MO, ID, WY, NE, etc...
Do you really want a country where huge regions feel powerless against a domineering federal government?
Please remember that DEMs are the party of FED power and intrusion.
Usually the GOP pushes for less Fed Gov't intrusion.
Oops. Here a link to the State Power weighting
Please remember that California is still Goliath (55) to Wyoming's David (3).
And you want to take even David's sling shot.
"That is why we have a system that does not let little itty bitty California rule over ND, SD, MO, ID, WY, NE, etc..."
That's what the Senate is for. Why do we need multiple anti-democratic mechanisms? Is there no point where a variance between popular vote and the electoral college becomes problematic to you?
I have not thought about it...
I guess I can not figure out what is preventing the DEMs from being a party of all the people. Not just the party of the city folk...
Sorry, but I really value the wisdom of rural America.
The city folk seem to think the government gets money off a tree in the White House back yard. :-( Not out of worker's pockets...
Maybe they did not need to work hard enough for their money.
"Maybe they did not need to work hard enough for their money."
Seriously, drop the tropey nonsense, John.
"I guess I can not figure out what is preventing the DEMs from being a party of all the people. Not just the party of the city folk..."
Do you ever ask the inverse question of Republicans? Nope. And yet you claim the moral high ground?
"I have not thought about it..."
That should be this blog's motto.
One of my normal puzzles where I question the common sense of Liberal City folks... They seem to want to:
- let tons of low knowledge refugees and asylums seekers in to compete with our low income citizens
and they want to:
- offer much more in welfare benefits and set high minimum wages
and their only answer as to how this is sustainable is to raise taxes and maybe provide an annual income to everybody when we have too many of the wrong workers...
I think they need to take a basic economic supply and demand course.
You are certainly in a fine mood today...
I am not claiming any ground, please remember that I want both parties to come to the center... I am lonely here... :-)
"You are certainly in a fine mood today..."
Because you're devolving back to your typical nonsense. In response to actual questions, you start telling your fables and spreading your talking points gleaned from right-wing media. You're talking your usual "rural America has special wisdom and city folks are just dumb and lazy" crap, even though all the numbers show that urban America is the one producing more of the wealth and subsidizing the rural parts of the country.
"please remember that I want both parties to come to the center... I am lonely here..."
You ain't in the center. You nitpick Democrats over tiny things and claim that it's the same as Republicans doing huge stuff. (And, oh by the way, the incessant claiming that you're in the center and above it all most assuredly is claiming ground.)
Sean, thanks for pointing out the many errors in John's thinking. I don't have the time or the energy or the knowledge / skill that you do in taking this on. I enjoy reading your comments.
Here is an excellent post by K. Drum today, which I think partly explains why dems do poorly in rural areas and what they could do to win more votes.
A Middle-Class Agenda for Democrats
Well... Thankfully the rules are what they are...
Please feel free to disagree with them as much as you wish... It is kind of like yelling at a brick.
However if you want to change the rules, the DEMs have to win the battle ground (ie moderate / balanced) states. And that is unlikely unless the DEMs and yourself find common ground with the rural working class Americans. (ie my friends and family)
That will likely be a challenge if you think I am on the Right, because they call me a socialist... :-)
And here is one more link on how dems can win by appealing to voters everywhere:
How Democrats can win, everywhere
Hi Laurie
Now that's what I am talking about... Though I sure don't think Unions are a good idea... They just drive up the cost of doing business which sends business and consumers abroad...
Also, I don't think green energy will be a big winner because people think it increases their utility rates.
"Thanks to the demise of unions and the nature of our economy, the affluent have done very well. Thanks to the big increase in social welfare programs, the poor have done well too in relative terms. It’s the working and middle classes that have done the worst—and it’s not close. What’s more, the rate at which they’ve lost ground to the top and bottom has accelerated since 2000."
"So what if we decided to focus our attention tightly on the working and middle classes? What would a Democratic agenda look like? Something like this:
•Instead of Medicare for All, double the subsidies for Obamacare and reduce the maximum allowable deductible and OOP expenses at the silver level. The new subsidy levels should be set so that families with incomes all the way up to the high double-figures would have to pay no more than about 5 percent of their income for premiums. This would cover virtually the entire middle class and would be affordable by nothing more complicated than repealing the Republican tax cut for the rich.
•Propose a serious and aggressive pro-union plan. This would cost nothing, and it would primarily benefit the working class and the lower middle class. Figure out how to sell this in terms that make sense to ordinary workers, and if you don’t know how then ask Sherrod Brown.
•Put forward a massive and detailed plan to build green infrastructure—solar, wind, grid upgrades, etc. This would address climate change and provide hundreds of thousands of middle-class construction jobs for every state in the country. Finance it with taxes on the rich.
•Stay honest about hot-button social issues, but do your best not to talk about them a lot. In most cases it’s a lose-lose proposition.
You get the idea. These are things with limited costs that can be sold to the middle class as real, concrete benefits. At least, they can be if you know how to talk to ordinary people. And since, like it or not, middle-class workers tend to worry about spending and deficits, it’s appealing that these things can be financed in fairly ordinary ways, not via stupendous new taxes that barely sound plausible even to low-information voters."
Just think of how many voters the DEMs alienate by being unable to do this simple thing...
•Stay honest about hot-button social issues, but do your best not to talk about them a lot. In most cases it’s a lose-lose proposition.
They spend so much energy and focus on:
- abortion rights
- welfare availability
- refugee and asylum rights
- LGBT rights
- etc
that I am amazed they get as many votes as they do...
And here is one more link for John about why he should vote against Trump (and the GOP in general) next fall.
For aiding Trump’s abuse of power, the GOP deserves to be voted out of existence
Sorry. It seems to be behind a pay wall...
I am guessing I would disagree with it.
It reminds me of Hillary's irredeemable deplorables comment.
Please remember that it is not the GOP party that keeps Trump in office but the ~65 million citizens who seemingly love him... Warts and all.
RCP Trump Approval Numbers
It looks like the DEM Inquiry didn't harm him a bit. He may be a lying self absorbed megalomaniac, but he is their megalomaniac.
Now what do you think we should with those 10's of millions of citizens?
So you think leaders should follow the views of their voters rather than have morals, character, and Judgement? Should they act like leaders?
btw, what is wrong with the 40% of the people that still support Trump? Why can't they see him the way that you see him (even though I predict you will vote for him again, in spite of his being the worst president in the history of the country)
btw2 it will be the GOP senate that keeps Trump in power.
btw3 How would you vote on removing Trump from office if you were a senator?
I guess it depends if you think they are there to represent the people that voted for them? Or are they there to rule?
If there was top secret evidence against Trump, then maybe they should do differently than their voters demand... However it seems everything is out in the open, would you be happy if your DEM representative voted for acquittal because they thought they knew better than folks like you?
The interesting thing is that they see him as one of the best Presidents... He says what he is thinking, the economy is booming, he has slowed illegal border crossings, he is putting religious conservatives on the benches, he cut taxes for most people, he stood up to China, etc, etc, etc... He is a lot of things, but he has been getting results that they appreciate.
The GOP Senate will only do so because most GOP voters want them to... They would abandon him if they could, but the voters will crucify them if they do so.
I would need to have a better idea of what is "impeachable"? Maybe after I see the inquiry report. So far a lot of it is second hand, assumed, etc. With an election coming in Nov, I am not sure yet???
Should the Senate decide or the voters? It is an interesting question if one supports democratic principles.
"The 2018 Siena poll of 157 presidential scholars reported George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson as the top five US presidents, with SCRI director Don Levy stating, "The top five, Mount Rushmore plus FDR, is carved in granite with presidential historians...."[16] Donald J. Trump—entering the SCRI survey for the first time—joined Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin Pierce among the bottom five US presidents. George W. Bush, who presidential scholars had rated among the bottom five in the previous 2010 survey, improved to a position in the third quartile."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States
in answer to your question, I want to vote for people who share my values but are more knowledgable than me and use their best-informed judgment on a variety of issues (including impeachment) rather than follow a bunch of ignorant voters. They could consider voter opinions as pne of many factors.
Ranking of Presidents
It will be interesting to see how this changes over time...
The categories are interesting.
C-SPAN's academic advisors devised a survey in which participants used a one ("not effective") to ten ("very effective") scale to rate each president on ten qualities of presidential leadership:
"Public Persuasion,"
"Crisis Leadership,"
"Economic Management,"
"Moral Authority,"
"International Relations,"
"Administrative Skills,"
"Relations with Congress,"
"Vision/Setting An Agenda,"
"Pursued Equal Justice for All,"
"Performance Within the Context of His Times."
He may do better on this one... He will certainly score high on imagination. :-)
Bg = Background
Im = Imagination
Int = Integrity
IQ = Intelligence
L = Luck
WR = Willing to take risks
AC = Ability to compromise
EAb = Executive ability
LA = Leadership ability
CAb = Communication ability
OA = Overall ability
PL = Party leadership
RC = Relations with Congress
CAp = Court appointments
HE = Handling of economy
EAp = Executive appointments
DA = Domestic accomplishments
FPA = Foreign policy accomplishments
AM = Avoid crucial mistakes
EV = Experts' view
O = Overall
Blue backgrounds indicate first quartile.
Green backgrounds indicate second quartile.
Orange backgrounds indicate third quartile.
Red backgrounds indicate fourth quartile.
From these scores... I think we have some Liberal Elites doing the grading.
Of course that is why we have the electoral college... Protect the country from the idiot masses? :-)
Sienna Graphics
Oops.. Forgot this one...
Sienna Latest Poll
"the economy is booming"
Then, I suppose you have to admit that under Obama, the economy was booming as well, because Trump hasn't fundamentally altered the trajectory of the Obama economy, other than reversing Obama's trend of reducing the deficit off of the post-Great Recession highs.
"They spend so much energy and focus on:
- abortion rights
- welfare availability
- refugee and asylum rights
- LGBT rights"
Do they? Because for the most part, I don't see it.
Democrats have done nothing at the national level on abortion in decades. Welfare availability? Democrats have come out against welfare cuts, but no substantive expansion of welfare has been in the cards. Refugee and asylum rights? They've tried to maintain existing levels from a policy perspective. LGBT rights? Marriage came from the courts, not from legislation. Since then, it's been conservatives trying to drag us backwards.
A point I have raised repeatedly. However the reality is that those tax cuts and Trump's something have kept the good times rolling, instead of cycling like normal.
And unfortunately the modern voter does not seem to care that we are living the good life by indebting out children. :-(
Maybe you don't see it because you support them.
I just know that:
- defending stopping little hearts
- defending giving people money with little or no expectation of accountability and improvement
- defending encouraging low education / low skill folks to flood our borders with generous asylum and refugee programs
- defending that Religious people must associate and serve people who live the LGBT life style
seem to make the news often. And for many people they are not of value.
Oh, Jesus, here we go again.
So goes the circle of life... :-)
"I just know that:
- defending stopping little hearts
- defending giving people money with little or no expectation of accountability and improvement
- defending encouraging low education / low skill folks to flood our borders with generous asylum and refugee programs
- defending that Religious people must associate and serve people who live the LGBT life style
seem to make the news often."
Why are they making the news, though? Because Republicans are trying to undo decades of settled abortion law. Because Republicans are trying to cut our already rather meager asylum and refugee programs. Because Republicans are trying to undo LGBT rights. If it weren't for Republicans trying to roll the clock backwards, Democrats wouldn't be talking about these issues.
Yes that is what people do in democratic society.
They push, pull, jostle, move forward, move backward, move sideways, etc.
Tribe Liberal has moved things pretty far Left over the last 50 years and there is bound to be resistance...
Especially when it comes to sensitive topics like:
- the life of a fetus (ie beating heart)
- free stuff given to some citizens after being forcefully taken from other citizens
- bringing in low cost replacement workers from other countries
- religious rights
- etc
I have new idea for a post... More on this later... :-)
Post a Comment