Fox News Sondland Coverage
NYT We Followed President's Orders
I still think our genius transparent President who orchestrated the activities and made the wonderful call should testify publicly under oath. Why wouldn't he? He does work for the American people... Right?
Has he not heard said that "the truth will set you free"? :-)
Why is the GOP treating our public servant with such kid gloves?
NYT We Followed President's Orders
I still think our genius transparent President who orchestrated the activities and made the wonderful call should testify publicly under oath. Why wouldn't he? He does work for the American people... Right?
Has he not heard said that "the truth will set you free"? :-)
Why is the GOP treating our public servant with such kid gloves?
14 comments:
And if not Trump because he is too scared...
How about Pompeo
Why would GOPers want to be complicit in a cover up?
I just think of all those politicians in Nazi Germany who didn't like Hitler but were positioning themselves for their post war careers.
There was a hideous article in the New York Times by a guy named McCarthy who arguing that for Trump the personal is political, and the American people elected him. The thought immediately occurred to me that of course the personal was political for Hitler too. One difference between Hitler and Trump, however, is that Hitler did win his last election by a substantial plurality, and Trump lost his. Trump is the choice of the electoral college, not the American people.
--Hiram
Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning was an interesting read that discussed how people dealt with the holocaust.
Do you often complain about the rules of the game when your team loses?
It is simple: the DEM's platform alienates people in vast regions of the country. Only the DEM's can fix that...
If you want different rules... Move to a different country. :-)
This Red, Blue, Purple map is interesting
Chris Wallace is excellent!!!
"This question of President Trump, and he did lay out the possibility that he was going to testify, I would think that that would be akin to Prince Andrew testifying about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which one British critic said was like an airplane crashing into an oil tanker causing a tsunami that set off a nuclear explosion," deadpanned Wallace.
"It’s an entertaining thing and it’s certainly got us all talking but my guess is it’s not going to happen and if it did it would be a very controversial and perhaps unwise policy by the president," the veteran newsman added."
FOX Todays Testimony
Bloomberg Suspense
Trump is the guy who wants to release his taxes but his lawyers won't let him. I don't believe anything the president says, and I don't believe anyone else does either.
--Hiram
I left my usual challenge on FB with some Conservatives. No answer yet.
"I am fine with many of his policies and actions, however his continual lies, exaggerations and attacks have soured me on him. Remember that I voted for him. :-( I had the hope that he would grow into the position.
Unfortunately he did not and continues to do the same things in the same ways.
Now for my questions that no Trump supporter seems willing to answer...
- if it was Obama and his staff, would there refusing to testify under oath indicate guilt or innocence?
- if it was Obama and his staff being investigated by the GOP, would you be supporting Obama calling the process flawed and refusing to participate?
- if Obama had done what Trump did, would it be impeachable?
Please remember that to me Trump is just another public servant who answers to us tax payers. His unwillingness to publicly testify under oaths is unacceptable. We is our employee, not our emperor... :-)
Now for my other challenge, which of these "pants on fire" statements are true? I will happily research it on my blog if you identify where Trump is telling the truth and Politifact got it wrong.
If they are all lies, how do you determine when Trump is being honest and when he is lying?
Trump Pants on Fire
I am not sure if he is smart or not, however he is certainly a genius at disrupting the news cycle and manipulating people.
On the other hand he has increased deficits to record highs during an economic expansion. That just means we live large and our kids get burdened with more debt... Is that smart or not?
Probably since our kids and grandkids don't get to vote... :-)
about your frequent defense of the electoral college, I don't think you have a clue as to the actual reasons it was created. It was not to give people in rural areas more voting power.
"Another camp was dead set against letting the people elect the president by a straight popular vote. First, they thought 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.
Out of those drawn-out debates came a compromise based on the idea of electoral intermediaries. These intermediaries wouldn’t be picked by Congress or elected by the people. Instead, the states would each appoint independent “electors” who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency."
https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention
The writers of the constitution provided a way to amend the constitution when they got something wrong- like creating the antidemocratic electoral college.
It would be much more democratic to have the majority pick the leader (President or governor) (like people in Mn cities voting for a dem governor) and have one branch of the legislature provide for a balance of power, like the US senate (although I think it goes too far in giving power to people in small states.)
I think your views on this issue are the more annoying to me than almost any other issue, as I don't disagree with you nearly as often as I used to.
Then I guess they just got lucky and did a wonderful thing.
I am still waiting for the DEMs to figure out how to represent all of us and not just the city folk. :-)
History Constitution
how come you have so little concern as to how the conservative senators and presidential candidates can better represent people who live in cities?
Laurie,
Please remember that I would love to eliminate a lot of Federal control and funding. And that I think States and cities should deal with most things that impact their citizens.
The problem with Democrats is that they seem to live to pass Federal Laws, Regulations, etc that limit the freedoms of people in the States. I am not sure why they think they are smarter than the locals and should be able to rule over them.
And yes the GOP does this also, but to a lesser extent...
Remember how upset folks in high tax (Democratic) States were when they could not write off as much of their State / Local taxes on their Federal taxes. They seem to want to mandate all these high cost Federal programs, but they did not want to pay their full share of the Federal taxes. That is not acceptable from my view.
So I will fight against GOP Senators whenever they try to rule over all the States...
Thoughts?
I am not sure why they think they are smarter than the locals and should be able to rule over them.
Actually, I do think the locals are smarter than Donald Trump.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Please remember that Trump has not been able to do much of anything in the Liberal States and cities. That is why I like a weak Federal government.
The sanctuary cities, pot smoking states, etc have been pretty much able to thumb their noses at him.
Post a Comment