Maybe Nancy was right

Written By: - Date published: 8:43 am, November 10th, 2019 - 81 comments
Categories: corruption, Deep stuff, Donald Trump, Politics, us politics - Tags:

There is a very good chance that the upcoming impeachment trial of
President Donald Trump will turn into one massive campaign launch –
one which significantly increases his chances of winning a second
term.

Let’s move past the Democratic-dominated hearings coming in the next
few weeks. It’s a free hit for the Dems, but guess what’s coming?

Because once it gets to the Senate, the Republicans have a firm
majority. They are well practiced at using it. This is their chance to
really turn the tide against the Democratic surge.

Here’s why.

First, don’t expect any sense out of it. While an impeachment trial
has several trappings of a court trial including lawyers, evidence,
jurors, and a verdict, don’t be confusing this with a courtroom, or
any result with justice.

So for example, Republicans can go full Sandy Hook conspiracy on the
witnesses’ ass. There is nothing stopping them, in reality. They can
trot out any conspiracy they like. They can call the Bidens – both
father and son – and roast them until they are good and done.
Essentially do Trump’s Ukraine hit-job for him.

As long as President Trump’s fans remain loyal, Republicans will be
motivated to turn this trial into a full-blown circus airing every
nut-job theory, and bring in any beyond-Bolton cranky extremist, with
the net result being to allow Trump’s team to play to his massive
rhetorical strengths and communicative power by wielding
heavy-but-improbable fiction upon fiction to the public.

The Republican Senators are aware that these proceedings and the
judgement are fundamentally political. A removed official has no
appeal. There are no set rules of evidence. There’s no due process
requirement. Of course there’s no gag rule for jurors outside the
“courtroom”. This is what President Trump is so good at: politics as
World Wrestling Federation theatre.

The Republicans will dominate the media, because their majority Chair
leader will go each night straight from trial to tv talkshow. He and
his party get to frame it all. The media dominance from lower house
hearings to the Senate trial is going to mean that no other policy
issue will get any airtime until about Easter 2020 – if then.

And of course all the Democratic candidates who are Senators will
attend – how could they not do their Constitutional duty since it
calls them? That takes Sanders, Warren, and Biden out of their
campaigns and fully within the theatre-command of the Republican
Senate, when they have every reason to ensure that only Biden ever
gets to speak. There is simply no Democrat response possible to this
control of political oxygen. With Republican oxygen-control goes
Republican-directed political fire.

Sure as eggs no one will give a damn about Democratic primaries in
flyover states – not in this election now. Nor will there be room for
non-players who are not already Senators, the likes of Buttegieg or
whatever. Nor any room for any policy debate outside it. Even Frank
Underwood would marvel at this set of plays.

McConnell has downplayed how much Republicans can control the process,
saying that once the trial begins, rulings will be made by Supreme
Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — not by a majority of the
Senate. “This is not something that the majority can kind of
micromanage like it can on almost any other issue,” he said Tuesday.
Justice Roberts however has been clear that he’s just bringing the
popcorn.

The Senate trial will give the president and his lawyers a
high-profile opportunity to make their case to the American public. In
theory, Republicans will have a chance to call witnesses who could
undermine the Democrats’ case. During Clinton’s impeachment trial, the
bipartisan agreement limited witnesses and determined that video of a
private deposition of Monica Lewinsky would be aired instead of
allowing a House prosecutor to question her in the well of the Senate.

But be assured there won’t be any bipartisan rules on this one.
Republican Senators are locked hard and solid as a Roman shield-wall,
loyal and impervious to facts. Republicans appear to be staying almost
universally supportive of the president, so there is near-zero chance
Trump will be convicted.

That means we already know President Trump will survive this, and
continue to the public with universal media profile and a raging
grudge that will at very least electrify his base. Few thought he
could win last time, remember?

Nancy Pelosi resisted impeaching the President for most of this year.

This is why.

81 comments on “Maybe Nancy was right ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Andre 1
    10 November 2019 at 8:57 am

    Some polling results on the topic of a president abusing his power and what the consequences should be.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/9/20955441/impeachment-trump-poll-ukraine-2020-democrats-republicans

    • Ad 1.1
      10 November 2019 at 10:40 am

      As a result of the trial, which states do you think would be put in play for the Democratic candidate that weren't beforehand?

      • Andre 1.1.1
        10 November 2019 at 11:34 am

        My reckons at the moment are I can't think of good reasons for an impeachment trial moving any particular states more than others (except maybe Utah, but not enough to put it in play). Good governance considerations just aren't that high among voter concerns.

        Nor do I see any likely way turning the trial into a circus in the senate will actually lift Fuckface von Clownstick's popularity. Trying to play the victim card won't change any voter minds, he's already got the deep-state conspiracy theorists and middle finger voters locked down solid.

        I reckon the likeliest effect is simply adding to the general sense of "Trump fatigue". If you're a leftie optimist, that will contribute to depressing turnout among soft Repug supporters, and energise those who look at 2018 and 2019 results to go out and actually vote to throw the bums out. If you're a leftie pessimist, then you'll reckon the whole circus just further proves the pointlessness and dysfunction in Washington, further fueling disengagement and lowering overall turnout. Personally I'm more on the optimist side, in that I think "Trump fatigue" depressing turnout will have similar effects that "Clinton fatigue" probably had in 2016.

        As far as states in play for the Electoral College, of the states with the closest margins, I can't think of any them getting any reasons to become more favourable to the Tangerine Toddler, and most of them have been given reasons to be less favourable.

      • happynz 1.1.2
        10 November 2019 at 4:40 pm

        Cronyn(R) from Texas, Graham(R) South Carolina, McConnell(R) KY, Ernst(R) Iowa, McSally(R) Arizona, definitely Collins(R) Maine…all in play. If the House locks down an airtight case, you'll see R senators bail 'cos these craven creeps will be loyal until it jeopardises their own re-election.

        • Dukeofurl 1.1.2.1
          10 November 2019 at 4:58 pm

          Theres the (unlikely) possibility the Senate will use a secret ballot

          "A straw in the wind was provided by former senator [Jeff] Flake of Arizona recently when he said if there was a secret ballot, there would be 30 to 35 [republican] votes to convict. Well, all you need is 20."

          Guardian

        • Andre 1.1.2.2
          10 November 2019 at 5:13 pm

          Did you leave out Cory Gardner (Colorado) coz you think he's goneburger no matter what? (and Graham doesn't come up until 2022, you might be thinking of Thom Tillis of North Carolina)

          Thing is, all those senators have to first consider their primary prospects before even thinking about what their impeachment vote might do to their November chances. Every single one of them knows Hair Furor has a massive can of whoopass with their name on it that he's just itching to open on them, in the form of a horde of angry Drumpfkins that'll try to primary anyone that votes against their cult leader.

          But yeah, Cornyn must be sweating about what hispanics are thinking.

          McConnell knows Kentuckians absolutely hate him (and he probably loves it) but probably not enough to vote Dem (but he's gotta be less sure of that after Bevin lost).

          Ernst will have to be awfully persuasive to angry corn, soybean, and hog farmers hurt by the trade war with China

          Collins has nothing but hope that goodwill from her long service to Maine will overcome anger about her Kavanaugh vote and general anger about Drumpf

          McSally has nothing but hope there's enough residual republicanism to overcome general anger about Drumpf, especially among hispanics.

          Tillis has to worry that with new district maps that will be less gerrymandered, Dem turnout will increase because there will be more chance their vote will make a difference in down-ballot races.

  2. Tiger Mountain 2
    10 November 2019 at 9:12 am

    “If you fight you may lose, but if you do not fight you will definitely lose”…

    The stinking pile of Trump’s personal corruption and his enabling the erosion of US democracy and process, became too high even for Ms Pelosi to ignore any longer despite the risks entailed.

    While it may appear from afar that the best strategy is just to try and win the 2020 election–vote the orange “sack of”, out–and save pay back for later, there are battles on so many fronts in this one that need action now.

    Gerrymandering and voter suppression for instance. Electoral College “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” to try and stop a candidate becoming President that does not win the popular vote, without requiring difficult to win Constitutional change, State Governorships etc. all play a role in being able to deal with Trump at the ballot anyway.

    Internal struggles with old school oligarchical Democrats vs the newer wave–what would replace Trump if he is defeated electorally–all stack up to make a hugely difficult situation. Fight is the way to go, not capitulation.

    • marty mars 2.1
      10 November 2019 at 10:35 am

      + 1 yep – action had to be taken otherwise what's the point. T.rump won't last forever.

      • Obtrectator 2.1.1
        10 November 2019 at 1:27 pm

        But unfortunately his legacy will – courts (including the Supreme one) stacked for decades to come with his ultra-right nominees.

        • marty mars 2.1.1.1
          10 November 2019 at 1:43 pm

          yep – the malignant mango muppet has hurt so many with his actions – it will indeed take decades to unwind his malevolence.

  3. Dukeofurl 3
    10 November 2019 at 9:41 am

    Doesnt the 'House' act as prosecutor during Senate trail. Plus of course the Chief Justice presides over the trial not the Senate republicans

    as the NY Times put it

    "A team of lawmakers from the House, known as managers, play the role of prosecutors. The president has defense lawyers, and the Senate serves as the jury.

    Just as Trumps people havent turned up even when a House subpoena was issued , why would Biden do so?

    As for CJ Roberts ‘has been clear’ – hes done nothing of the sort and would scrupulously avoid any comments in advance.

    • Ad 3.1
      10 November 2019 at 10:16 am

      The rules and procedures are set out in:

      Rules and Procedures of Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials

      You can get the links here:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Rules

      However Senators in an impeachment trial not only agree to the rules, they are also jurors, and they are also questioners. They are as empowered as a majority could wish for.

      Roberts has been clear previously with his famous comments about calling balls and strikes.

      “Judges are like umpires,” Roberts said at the time. “Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”

      I would be very surprised if Roberts were any more intrusive than Rhenquist when he presided over the Clinton one. In a fully partisan context they will go out of their way to show neutrality and impartiality.

      I can think of plenty of reasons for Biden to show up – particularly if Trump declines to do so. We shall have to see on that one.

      • Dukeofurl 3.1.1
        10 November 2019 at 11:03 am

        The full detail of the Senate Rules says the Presiding Officer ( in this instance the Chief Justice of the United States)….

        VII. shall direct all forms of the proceedings…and may rule on all questions of evidence..including relevancy materiality and redundancy..

        XIX. If a Senator wishes to put a question…it shall be reduced by writing and put by the Presiding Officer…

        Whether is the existing rules or modified ones that are used this time round remains to be seen. But thats different to saying they can do all the things you suggest

        • Dukeofurl 3.1.1.1
          10 November 2019 at 1:04 pm

          As well the Clinton bi partisan Senate trail process probably wont be repeated from last time , so that CJ Roberts could sit back and do very little

          Trent Lott was the Republican senate leader

          "Tom, whether we like it or not, this is in our lap,” Lott (R-Miss.) told Daschle (D-S.D.), then the minority leader. “I’d like to work with you to make sure it’s done in a fair way and in a responsible way.”

          'As Daschle recalls, Lott said he was “mortified” by the hyper-partisanship in the House and wanted to make sure the Senate emerged with its integrity intact.'

          Washington Post

  4. bwaghorn 4
    10 November 2019 at 10:24 am

    Just out of interest did Biden jr do shit in the Ukraine that was dodgy .?

  5. Stuart Munro. 5
    10 November 2019 at 11:22 am

    The impeachment process will kill the democrat pretender candidate if it's Joe, but if Trump shoots his bolt at the Bidens only to find himself facing Warren or Sanders, he might struggle to rebuild a cynical momentum in time.

  6. Dukeofurl 6
    10 November 2019 at 11:24 am

    Its Bidens son ..not Joe Biden who has connections to Ukraine. Now Trumps son Donald ….

  7. lprent 7
    10 November 2019 at 11:26 am

    There is also nothing that specifies when the house has to send it to the Senate.

    Essentially all of the things that you are describing apply there as well. Just the other way around.

    All that the democratic leadership have to do is to string things out. I’m sure that the impeachment process needs to look into areas like tax, ripping money out of charities for election campaigns, tampering with witnesses etc.

    • Andre 7.1
      10 November 2019 at 12:14 pm

      The attraction of keeping the impeachment inquiry narrowly focused on the Ukraine extortion for personal interest is that it caters to short attention spans and limited information absorption capabilities, and it avoids the perception of Dems trying to throw anything and everything in hopes of something, anything, sticking.

      The general atmosphere around Clinton's late 90s impeachment was of the Starr investigation fishing into anything and everything that might possibly turn up some kind of pretext to hang an impeachment on, no matter how flimsy. It started with investigating the Whitewater real estate deal (for the third? time), then morphed into investigating White House travel agents, then Vince Foster's suicide, then Paula Jones' sexual harassment allegations. So when they finally got a provable allegation that Clinton lied under oath about a bit of hanky-panky with Monica, the general public was 'whatevs'.

      Whereas Nixon also had a long list of probably impeachable wrongdoing, but the impeachment focused on Watergate. That focus on a single clear narrative with clear abuses of power probably helped swing public opinion against Nixon.

      • lprent 7.1.1
        11 November 2019 at 1:33 pm

        Clinton wasn't facing re-election (nor was Nixon for that matter). That is the significiant difference in the political equation.

  9. Adrian Thornton 9
    10 November 2019 at 5:42 pm

    Impeachment was always going to be a disaster and play into Trumps hands, but impeachment now, and making it about the Ukraine right in the middle of the DNC primaries was ludicrous in the extreme, it yet again exposes the leadership/strategists of the DNC as the inept idiots that they had already made plainly obvious they are.

    Imagine.if you will, that the Democrats put even a fraction of the energy into pushing back and organizing protests against the massive tax cuts to the wealthy instead of their endless Russia Russia Russia bullshit, imagine what good will that would have created in the working population in the US..but no, and now this impeachment..FFS what a bunch of dummies.

    • Andre 9.1
      10 November 2019 at 5:53 pm

      Gee Adrian, what's your history of political successes that makes you such an expert on what the Dems are doing wrong?

      • Adrian Thornton 9.1.1
        10 November 2019 at 7:57 pm

        Hey I am not the one who lost the supposed most winnable election in post war US history pal….imagine that, losing to a third rate TV host and blatantly corrupt land developer, yep as I said already, inept and useless and unliked, just like Blair they have used up any good will that the so called Left had built up through their shit, now debunked and unethical Liberal ideology..and good riddance to them I say.

        • Andre 9.1.1.1
          10 November 2019 at 8:07 pm

          Okay Mr Political Genius, what do you think the DNC should be doing right now? You've shown us you're real good on the whines about the DNC. How about some suggestions as to what the DNC should do differently that are actually within its power?

          • Adrian Thornton 9.1.1.1.1
            10 November 2019 at 8:16 pm

            Gee I duuno..how about looking like they actually care and more importantly act in defending the working class for start…how about not trying to sabotage and undermine the progressive movement within the DNC at every turn…how about supporting a the push for a health care system for all it's citizens instead of attacking that concept…just for starters.

            • Macro 9.1.1.1.1.1
              10 November 2019 at 8:44 pm

              Good grief! If you had been following any of the Democrat candidates you would have noticed that your comments here are completely off beam. Furthermore you might have noticed had you actually been observing the elections in recent days that Democrats have made huge inroads into what were previously safe Republican constituencies. Even the home town of Mike Pence is now firmly controlled by Democrats. The reason for this blue wave in American politics is precisely due to the progressive elements that are now firmly part of the Democrat established policies. That includes medicare for all, gun control, green deal, progressive taxation, improving access to education and the removal of hefty student loans, and the control and regulation of corporates.

              • Adrian Thornton …
                10 November 2019 at 8:52 pm

                Seriously, man are you really that naive?..the establishment DNC would not enact most of what you listed there in any meaningful way unless they had a gun pointed at their heads…

                When it comes to Medicare-for-all, listen to Nancy Pelosi

                “I’m not a big fan of Medicare-for-all,” Pelosi told Bloomberg TV on Friday"

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/warrens-health-care-plan-is-festooned-with-magic-asterisks/2019/11/04/7fe10b12-ff46-11e9-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html

                • Andre …
                  10 November 2019 at 9:06 pm

                  Read the actual article and try to absorb what it actually says, rather than cherry-picking an out-of-context quote to try to make Pelosi fit your preconceptions of evil.

                  Is all this necessary — or are there other, far less disruptive ways to expand coverage and drag down costs? Yes: Let those 55 and older buy into Medicare; create a public option in the existing exchanges; reduce drug costs by letting Medicare negotiate prices. Do Americans want to have their existing insurance taken away? It doesn’t look that way. Recent polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that while a bare majority, 51 percent, said they supported a Medicare-for-all system — a number that is trending down — even more, 55 percent, thought that system would still allow them to keep their current insurance. What happens when Warren informs them — the 177 million who would lose their current insurance — otherwise?

                  Over half of Americans get their health insurance through employer-sponsored plans, where the employer pays the vast majority of the cost. To them, a plan to take away their insurance and replace it within a government program paid for out of taxes looks like they're going to get worse health care that's going to cost them more. It will also be a massive windfall to employers that won't be paying massive health insurance premiums for their employees anymore.

                  Bear in mind that people in stable employment where their pay includes health insurance benefits are likelier to be in demographics with higher voting turnout.

                  • Dukeofurl …
                    11 November 2019 at 8:00 am

                    I see your points on this but there is one issue

                    " where the employer pays the vast majority of the cost."

                    Its a tax deduction, so in effect the Government pays anyway.

                    Tax Breaks for Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance

                    " Currently, employers' spending on health insurance premiums is exempt from taxation for both employers and employees. Premiums paid by employees are exempt as well if the firm has established a Section 125 cafeteria plan; roughly 80 percent of employees with insurance have such a plan. This tax exclusion is extremely costly – it reduces federal and state tax revenues by $260 Billion per year and is the government's third largest expenditure on health care, after Medicare ($400 Billion) and Medicaid ($300 Billion)."

                    • Andre …
                      11 November 2019 at 8:27 am

                      That's "tax deduction" as in "deduction from taxable income".

                      So if a company pays $100 towards an employee's health insurance premiums, that reduces the company's federal tax bill by $21 (was $35 until the 2017 Tax Giveaway to Rich People). And for the covered employee's $100 towards their premium, that reduces their federal taxes by $10 to $37, depending on their tax bracket.

                      It's not a tax credit, where spending $100 on health insurance gets a $100 (or some other $XX) reduction in taxes

                • Macro …
                  10 November 2019 at 9:14 pm

                  Gun control

                  The nation’s most powerful gun rights organization was dramatically outspent in Virginia in 2019 by gun control organizations, helping Democrats gain control of the state legislaturefor the first time in more than two decades.

                  According to the Virginia Public Access Project, the National Rifle Association spent $350,269 this cycle to help pro-gun rights candidates beat back Democrats who were running on a gun control platform, one that became particularly poignant after a mass shooting in Virginia Beach on May 31 left 12 people dead. (An NRA spokesperson cautioned that total spending numbers for the organization will not be available until later this month.)

                  But gun control groups spent far more, hoping to help get Democratic candidates into office who could push forward a package of proposals aimed at stemming gun violence, including background checks on all firearms sales and a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund and Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund (backed in part by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg) report that they spent $2.5 million in Virginia, making the group the biggest outside donor in the race — and Giffords PAC, named for former Rep. Gabby Giffords, spent $300,000 on a digital ad campaign alone.

                  https://www.vox.com/2019/11/6/20951639/nra-virginia-democrats-spending-gun-control

                  The health debate

                  The Democratic primary has spent a lot of time fighting over Medicare-for-all versus Medicare-for-all-who-want-it.

                  But next year, by the time the general election campaign rolls around, the important distinction on health policy will be between a Democratic agenda of expanding health coverage through increased government spending and a Republican plan to dramatically deregulate health insurance and shrink the government’s role in guaranteeing health care.

                  The stark differences between the two parties were laid bare in a new white paper last week from the Republican Study Committee, an internal think tank for House Republicans. The paper laid out the conservative agenda for health care reform: roll back Obamacare’s insurance rules requiring comprehensive health insurance and replace them with high-risk pools and tax breaks for individual health care expenses.

                  The plan would turn the Affordable Care Act’s funding for private insurance subsidies and Medicaid expansion, which had helped bring the uninsured rate to historic lows, into a block grant for states. The traditional Medicaid program would also be subject to spending caps for the first time.

                  The result: Fewer people would have comprehensive health insurance. The protections for preexisting conditions would be weaker. More of the responsibility for paying for health care would fall on individuals and the states.

                  The new plan isn’t legislative text and therefore can’t be precisely analyzed, but the proposal closely resembles the 2017 Graham-Cassidy plan to replace Obamacare. The Congressional Budget Office said that plan would have meant “the number of people with comprehensive health insurance that covers high-cost medical events would be reduced by millions” and that it would cut federal health care spending by $1 trillion over 10 years.

                  Democrats are debating whether to have the federal government provide health insurance to every American or just to many more of them than it does now. Republicans want to shrink both the federal government’s obligation to ensure coverage and its spending to support it. Democrats will likely set their differences aside in the general election and run fiercely against the GOP agenda, a playbook the party thinks led to its sweeping wins in the 2018 midterms.

                  Public sentiment is actually with the Democrats. Asked if the government has a responsibility to make sure all people have health insurance, 56 percent of Americans said yes and 42 percent said no in Gallup’s most recent test of the question — up from 47 percent yes and 50 percent no in 2009 and 2010, the heydey of the Obamacare debate.

                  https://www.vox.com/2019/10/28/20928474/2020-health-care-plans-obamacare-medicare-for-all

                  As for Nancy – she has changed her mind not only wrt to impeachment which she now sees as imperative – but also wrt to medicare. There is a growing realisation within the US that they are paying far too much on an individual basis approximately $10,000 per capita for Health care and not getting the results they should.

            • Andre 9.1.1.1.1.2
              10 November 2019 at 8:48 pm

              Have you any inkling of what the DNC actually does? It doesn't set policy or develop platforms, it doesn't choose candidates, it doesn't have any authority over elected officials.

              It's the various random citizens that put themselves forward as candidates that choose their policies and priorities and platforms. Those random citizens that have the most popular policies and are most persuasive and get the most votes and win their elections that determine what legislation gets pushed and enacted in legislative chambers. Not the DNC.

              The DNC helps organise the mechanics of campaigns as an umbrella organisation. While they theoretically have power to withdraw support from a candidate, they really aren't going to do that from a candidate that has popular support.

              The DNC can do precisely nothing to actually implement changes to the healthcare system, as much as individual members would like to. Changes like that can only get done through having majorities in both chambers of Congress plus the president. Change like that relies on the individuals that actually successfully get themselves elected. Any proposal won't pass if it's too radical for the 218th House Rep (likely someone like Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania) and (if they nuke the filuibuster) the 50th senator (likely someone like Jon Tester of Montana) or the 60th senator (if the filibuster stays) which would be someone like Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Individuals lawmakers that are independent of the DNC, they're not the DNC.

              • Dukeofurl …
                11 November 2019 at 8:10 am

                I agree with you on all those points Andre, you say it so much better than I could.

                Theres this obsession with the DNC that doesnt make sense in the highly decentralised US system. And of course once elected not all follow and vote the 'leadership position' in both houses of congress, Senators are especially independent minded and some can be fairly conservative if the represent a normally Republican state.

    • francesca 9.3
      10 November 2019 at 6:05 pm

      And they talk about the RUSSIANS spreading division and confusion in the minds of the American people

      Oh for the good old days when the media environment was "controllable"

      https://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillary-clinton-reminisces-on-controllable-media-environment-of-the-past/

      • The Al1en 9.3.1
        10 November 2019 at 6:06 pm

        So you're equating the open and constitutionally legal impeachment process with Russian electoral and political interference. Okay 🙄

      • Adrian Thornton 9.3.2
        10 November 2019 at 8:09 pm

        Clinton, man she is like some sort of horrible infection that you just can't get rid of, every time you think it has finally gone away, she raises her unwelcome voice to plague the environment with her toxic presence again and again..yuk.

        how about this little pearler..

        Hillary Clinton Laughs When Asked How She Killed Jeffrey Epstein On "The Daily Show"

        https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/01/hillary_clinton_laughs_when_asked_how_she_killed_jeffrey_epstein.html

        • Andre 9.3.2.1
          10 November 2019 at 8:22 pm

          Amazingly, she's not only boogeyman (well, boogeywoman, actually) to the entire right, she's also boogeyman to the convergence moonbats, purity progressives and a bunch of other factions of the loonier left.

          • Adrian Thornton 9.3.2.1.1
            10 November 2019 at 8:37 pm

            I would say she is a boogey woman to the people of Libya too.

            Libya slave trade sends shockwaves across the world

            https://www.antislavery.org/libya-slave-trade/

            I love it how you centrists call us thing like 'purity progressives' because we happen to actually stand firmly by our principles and demand that the politicians we support do the same…unlike you pragmatists who fold under the slightest pressure from the right..you lot are pathetic, although don't be too sad, at least the right love you, cause they know what a bunch of spineless flops you are.

            • Macro 9.3.2.1.1.1
              10 November 2019 at 8:50 pm

              Good grief! That old chestnut – It may have escaped your notice – but Hillary is NOT running for President.

              • Adrian Thornton …
                10 November 2019 at 8:53 pm

                Did I say she was?

                • Macro …
                  10 November 2019 at 9:15 pm

                  So why bring it up? As if she represents the current crop of Democrat candidates.

                  • Adrian Thornton …
                    10 November 2019 at 9:59 pm

                    Settle down melonfarmer, if you could just contain yourself for one minute and check before shooting your mouth off as usual, you would have seen I was replying to Francesca

            • Andre 9.3.2.1.1.2
              11 November 2019 at 6:19 am

              although don't be too sad, at least the right love you, cause they know what a bunch of spineless flops you are.

              Who do you think the right loves more?

              Lefties that are pragmatic and vote for candidates that actually win elections that go on to move things in a progressive direction even though that movement falls short of what they want?

              Or lefties that throw a tantrum when they don't get exactly what they want and throw away their vote on unelectable fringe candidates or even don't vote, thereby allowing the right to actually win and implement their regressive agenda?

              Put another way, which Bernie supporters are likely to have a bigger contribution to a Trump win in 2020?

              Those that swallow their disappointment that their preference wasn't the most popular and go on to work hard to elect Warren (or god forbid, Biden)?

              Or those that go around falsely whining about how the DNC didn't treat their idol fairly and paint false equivalences between the 'establishment Dems' and Repugs?

  10. xanthe 10
    10 November 2019 at 6:24 pm

    until the DNC either become sane or disappear . we are stuck with Trump as the least worst. This is a total collapse of democracy. #dumpDNC

    • Andre 10.1
      10 November 2019 at 7:30 pm

      What do you think the DNC should do differently? Ignore the results of all the votes held in primaries around the country and just appoint the candidates? You think that would be more democratic than what they have now, where literally anyone can call themselves a Democrat and contest the Democratic primary to become the Democrat candidate for any elected position in the country?

    • Adrian Thornton 10.2
      10 November 2019 at 8:24 pm

      True that, watch them sabotage Sanders if he looks like winning the nomination, the establishment DNC would rather Trump as POTUS than Sanders that is for sure.

      Although when you think about it, that makes perfect sense as they have more in common with Trump ideologically than they do with Sanders..just like many of the commenters on this site.

      • Macro 10.2.1
        10 November 2019 at 8:31 pm

        🙄

        What a load of twaddle! You have no idea of what the DNC think.

        • Adrian Thornton 10.2.1.1
          10 November 2019 at 8:40 pm

          Their actions speak volumes, so yes I have a very good idea what they think actually.

          • Macro 10.2.1.1.1
            10 November 2019 at 8:47 pm

            ok! Cite some actions to back up your claims – if you can find anything credible that is.

              • Andre …
                10 November 2019 at 9:13 pm

                And how many of those whines have been fixed by the rules the DNC has implemented for next year's primary? (hint, not all of those whines were about things under the DNC's control)

                • Dukeofurl …
                  11 November 2019 at 8:24 am

                  The DNC organised the TV debates and ( tries, its like herding cats) to set the dates for the various states primaries.

                  Whether a state does a caucus or a full primary and what type is up to ….the state , not the DNC

                  And Adrian , your guardian link is an opinion piece not a factual news article

                  The Super delegate system is still an issue , but Clinton had a lead over Sanders without them. 2205 to 1846. Superdelegates are 15% of all delegates

                  Another item

                  "During the New York primary, between 3 and 4 million “unaffiliated” voters were disenfranchised due to a statute that required changing one’s party affiliation 25 days prior to the previous general election." – That has nothing to do with the DNC , its a state issue. And its changed this year by the state. Of course , nothing like 3 mill unaffiliated voters whould have switched to Democrat anyway.

                  https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2019/09/26/new-york-presidential-primary-switch-enrollment-february/3774435002/

                  The Guardian columnist, like many of them , write a lot of rubbish

                  • Andre …
                    11 November 2019 at 8:36 am

                    That superdelegate thing is a bit of a thorny one.

                    On one hand, it just seems wrong to give a massive amount of extra influence to party insiders in what should be a democratic process.

                    On the other hand, it seems that putting it all in the hands of general public party enthusiasts tends to select for candidates that get the activists' juices flowing, but aren't able to get the job done. See “Cunliffe”, “Little”, “Corbyn” et al. Whereas party insiders experienced in actually getting the job done might be better positioned to properly assess who can actually get the job done. See “Ardern”.

    • Macro 10.3
      10 November 2019 at 8:28 pm

      American Public Opinion on Impeachment and High Crimes

      Washington, DC, November 7, 2019

      A new Ipsos survey of the American public conducted on behalf of Perry/Undem and Vox finds that while a small majority (56%) of Americans believe in removing from office elected officials who engage in unethical behavior a large majority (71%) supports removing officials who break the law or abuse the power of their offices.

      In a testament to the low regard Americans have for elected officials, a majority (54%) believe half or more of elected officials engage in unethical behavior and a similar number (50%) believe half or more of elected officials break the law or abuse their offices.

      Combining these two findings together and it is not surprising that a large majority (78%) view impeachment as an important tool for our democracy.

      Focusing on how the public defines “high crimes and misdemeanors,” large, bipartisan majorities say that the following qualify:

      • Abusing the powers of your office for personal enrichment – 88%
      • Misuse of public funds or assets – 87%
      • Abusing the powers of your office for political advantage – 80%
      • Negligence of the oath of office – 76%
      • Dishonesty to the American people – 63%

      Topline_Vox_impeachment_survey_110719 (1).docx (pdf)

  13. JustMe 13
    16 November 2019 at 8:32 pm

    Trump is an amazing quirk of nature and that is he seems to get others to do his dirty work for him.

    He isn't really leadership material but it also appears to cement that America got the sort of idiotic, ego-ridden president that they voted for.

    Some think he will get a second term as president of the United States of America but I am not too sure. He comes across as too unstable and volatile and of course self-serving. Much like Simon Bridges.