I think the case should be dismissed. But then again I I also want a senate trial where everyone testifies, including the ones Whitehouse counsel didn’t want to testify, but also Schiff, the whistleblower, and Hunter Biden, just to see it all blow up one way or the other.

So, you don't have a stance...

but also Schiff, the whistleblower, and Hunter Biden, just to see it all blow up one way or the other. — NOS4A2

There are no grounds whatever to call Schiff as a witness, he's a serving member of Congress, and the only reason for his involvement is to prosecute the argument. It is analogous to a criminal defendant trying to call the prosecutor as a witness; more absurd nonsense and obfuscation. As for Hunter Biden, whatever his vices, sins and flaws, he has no case to answer and nothing to contribute. The whistleblower is protected by federal law, which is just as well, as the day after the story blew up, Trump implied that he should be executed.

Here's a question I even thought to start a new thread, but this one comes so close I chose to ask it here:

Can the Democrats learn from the UK elections or will they mimic the path of Labour and leave the World with four more years of Trump?

Will they choose some American version of Jeremy Corbyn and go with let's say Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, or the other way around, a Warren/Sanders ticket? I would suspect that many progressives would be happy with those two candidates. Meaning a lot of vocal supporters would be fine with them. But how about the whole field of Democrat leaning voters, which likely is quite heterogenous bunch. Even if a lot of Democrats simply hate Trump, could the "woke progressivism", either real or imagined, turn off enough voters to choose either voting for a third candidate/party, opting to stay home or even... voting Trump?

Now I know that the UK and US are two totally different political animals, however I've noticed that they do partially mimic each other. Thanks perhaps to the shared language and shared social media environment. And naturally there's a huge difference between Johnson and Trump for starters.

Opinions?

Bernie supporters are pretty tenacious, but I don't see him winning the nomination. Warren? I doubt it.

It'll probably be Biden, who doesnt excite the Democratic base but could win in Wisconsin because he's not a moronic blowhard.

That said, present consumer confidence is a predictor for a Trump win.

Completely different situation. Sanders is very popular and polls better against Trump than most other candidates. Corbyn ended up being very unpopular, largely because he was caught in the Brexit vice not because he was progressive.

(I could see Warren turning off independents and white rural voters though, especially as she'll be portrayed both as an elitist and a commie.)

That said, present consumer confidence is a predictor for a Trump win. — frank

As typical, voters vote basically on the economy, which actually hasn't so much to do with the Presidency, but has to do with the business cycle.

Completely different situation. Sanders is very popular and polls better against Trump than most other candidates. Corbyn ended up being very unpopular, largely because he was caught in the Brexit vice not because he was progressive.

(I could see Warren turning off independents and white rural voters though, especially as she'll be portrayed both as an elitist and a commie.) — Baden

What democrat wouldn't be portrayed both as an elitist and a commie btw.

Well, to take an example from US history, democrat candidate George McGovern was very popular with liberals and students.

Sanders is very popular and polls better against Trump than most other candidates. — Baden

You must be looking at nation-wide polls. A New York Times poll of likely voters in 6 battleground states paints a different picture, with Biden ahead of Trump in 5 of the 6, Sanders ahead in only 1 of the 6 (plus one tie), and Warren behind in all 6. (NYT Pol)

Surprisingly, polling in Texas (deep red Texas, where I live) is all over the place. One poll has Biden beating Trump by 4 percentage points, and another with Trump beating Biden by 7 points. (Texas-Biden). Trump vs Sanders looks better for Trump (Texas-Sanders), while Trump would win handily over Warren (Texas-Warren).

FWIW, all 3 of them are miles ahead of Trump in California (vs-Biden, vs-Sanders, vs-Warren).

It's possible that Trump might lose the popular vote by an even bigger margin than last time, but still win enough electoral votes to win.

Several have jumped on me before for saying this, but I still believe Democrats' chances are best by nominating a centrist like Biden. At any rate, that's who I'm planning to vote for in the Texas primary.

What's the point of voting for a centrist knowing nothing will change then? Might as well vote Republican then... Same difference.

Several have jumped on me before for saying this, but I still believe Democrats' chances are best by nominating a centrist like Biden. At any rate, that's who I'm planning to vote for in the Texas primary. — Relativist

But it's the Party, all those superdelegates etc, that make the decision. So let's see what happens. Biden the "boring" might indeed just what only you need to win Trump.

What's the point of voting for a centrist knowing nothing will change then? Might as well vote Republican then... Same difference. — Benkei

You and I don't have much to do with this, of course, yet the topic is interesting.

So Benkei: If then the democratic party chooses someone else than a centrist, won't that be a similar move as the Labour party made in 2015 with chosing Corbyn and not going with a Blairite or others (Burnham, Cooper, Kendall)?

Here's a few reasons:
- judicial appointments, particularly the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsberg
- Protection (or restoration) of the ACA
- rejoin Paris Climate Accords
- Resuscitate the Iran nuclear deal
- better chance of meaningful immigration reform
- restore standing with allies
- stop relaxing of environment regulations
- Terminate bully pulpit for a white nationalist/conspiracy theorist/overt narcissist

But it's the Party, all those superdelegates etc, that make the decision. — ssu

Superdelegates are 16% of the total number of delegates, and won't be allowed to vote on the first ballot. I'm comfortable with that.

Joe Biden said he would defy subpoenas to appear in senate impeachment trial. He’s not even the primary candidate and he’s already committing impeachable offences.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-says-he-would-defy-subpoena-to-appear-before-senate-in-trumps-impeachment-trial/

That is grim.

Capitalism with a human face doesn't require democracy. There's no meaningful difference voting for a centrist or republican where it concerns the slow but certain erosion of people's agency. I mean, the last time every government across the world agreed on something it was an economic crisis. Trillions were spent, not for a clear goal, but to improve people's trust in the financial system at the expense of taxpayers for the benefit of the rich capitalist. No vested power offers an alternative to that sort of injustice. Risks have been socialised but profit is still private. Under the guise of capitalism we have a really fucked up form of socialism.

Can the Democrats learn from the UK elections or will they mimic the path of Labour and leave the World with four more years of Trump? — ssu

The UK elections have little to nothing at all directly to do with what Americans need to learn...

The problems in American government that led to Trump are solved by looking at America. Trump is a symptom. Americans need to learn that. The way was paved for Trump's rise. Reagan, Arnold, and Jesse were all similar candidates in that they appealed to voters who did not trust career politicians.

The problem now includes the governmental and political pundits' near complete disconnection from a very very large swathe of Americans.

This is reflected by the commonly held belief that all politicians are "in it" to line their own pockets. That none of them could be trusted to do what they promised. That all of them have some ulterior motive. That all of them are monetarily corrupt. That all of them sided with those whose interests were in direct opposition to the average American voters' best interest.

Those beliefs were and are still true in the overwhelming majority of cases. Hence, Trumps claims to drain the swamp, played off of these beliefs.

Trump tapped into that... as well as other common beliefs.

Biden is just another Democrat who has been monetarily corrupted by major multinational corporate interests. In the most important ways, there is little to no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties have enacted legislation that caused demonstrable financial harm to workers and everyday citizens. Both parties have bailed out the financial and business sectors by virtue of increasing the tax burden of the workers and everyday citizens. Both parties have taken drastic measures to end public assistance programs. Both parties have failed the American people.

Risks have been socialised but profit is still private. Under the guise of capitalism we have a really fucked up form of socialism. — Benkei

Indeed. Socialism for the government workers, elected officials, and the financial/banking sector and pure capitalism for the everyday citizens.

It's grim if you think think Trump and Biden are equally atrocious. But if you're like me, and consider Trump to be the worst thing that has ever happened to our society, then it's pretty heartening that Biden seems to be standing a pretty good chance of defeating Trump - despite the fact that he's an incumbent during a high point in the economic cycle.

- judicial appointments, particularly the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsberg
- Protection (or restoration) of the ACA
- rejoin Paris Climate Accords
- Resuscitate the Iran nuclear deal
- better chance of meaningful immigration reform
- restore standing with allies
- stop relaxing of environment regulations
- Terminate bully pulpit for a white nationalist/conspiracy theorist/overt narcissist — Relativist

Nothing in there about restoring American confidence in the government to act on behalf of all Americans by virtue of eliminating the financial corruption that impedes that. Nothing in there about eliminating the legally paved path to bribery. Nothing in there about eliminating the unparalleled power of free speech afforded to those who are not American citizens by virtue of Citizens United. Nothing in there about eliminating the ability of unelected operatives of corporate interests to write American law. Nothing in there about adequate anti-trust laws. Nothing in there to fix the underlying systemic problems of today's American government.

He’s not even the primary candidate and he’s already committing impeachable offences. — NOS4A2

Prima facie evidence that you either do not know what you're talking about when it comes to who can be impeached and on what grounds, or you are deliberately misrepresenting your own belief.

Capitalism with a human face doesn't require democracy. There's no meaningful difference voting for a centrist or republican where it concerns the slow but certain erosion of people's agency. — Benkei

Yet the erosion of people's agency is seldom solved by those with extremist views. In my view the cure is good governance and solutions that work, not populist rhetoric or idealist views.

I mean, the last time every government across the world agreed on something it was an economic crisis. Trillions were spent, not for a clear goal, but to improve people's trust in the financial system at the expense of taxpayers for the benefit of the rich capitalist. No vested power offers an alternative to that sort of injustice. Risks have been socialised but profit is still private. Under the guise of capitalism we have a really fucked up form of socialism. — Benkei

A bit off the topic, but I cannot restrain from commenting this...

The 'socialism for the rich' was indeed one of the most ugliest outcomes of the financial crisis, however that bankers would go to jail and that the governments would wield the power they have isn't at all far fetched. With the 80's Savings & Loans bankruptcy the US did exactly what the authorities ought to have done and back then bankers did go to jail, but of course now you had an ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs as the acting Secretary of Treasury, so Wall Street banks had firm control of power. The Nordic banking crisis of the 1990's is also a good example were the governments didn't choose just to bail the rich out, but did reform the banks and the worst actors went out of business. And then there is the best example of Iceland: they bit the bullet, the stock market lost 90% of it's value, the GDP dropped 10% and the crisis lasted until 2011. And that was the end. After that Iceland has enjoyed economic growth. This is what basically happens when the market mechanism is let to handle the bursting of a speculative bubble. It's hard, but quick. Iceland shows what happens, when the government takes the right choices. Yet when you have 'socialism for the rich', then you prevent the market mechanism to solve problem.

Nothing in there about restoring American confidence in the government to act on behalf of all Americans by virtue of eliminating the financial corruption that impedes that. Nothing in there about eliminating the legally paved path to bribery. Nothing in there about eliminating the unparalleled power of free speech afforded to those who are not American citizens by virtue of Citizens United. Nothing in there about eliminating the ability of unelected operatives of corporate interests to write American law. Nothing in there about adequate anti-trust laws. Nothing in there to fix the underlying systemic problems of today's American government. — creativesoul

Well, I didn't think my list was exhaustive, but it does seem you have some lofty expectations. Are you suggesting any Democrat would make all these things happen, that some particular one will, or are you just saying we have a shot at moving toward those (very fine) objectives?

Joe Biden said he would defy subpoenas to appear in senate impeachment trial. He’s not even the primary candidate and he’s already committing impeachable offences.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-says-he-would-defy-subpoena-to-appear-before-senate-in-trumps-impeachment-trial/ — NOS4A2

IMO, It would be unwise, and worthy of contempt of Congress, if Biden simply doesn't show up for a subpoena. On the other hand, if he took it to court he could get out of it - just like McGhan. There would be no ruling until after the Senate Trial is over, which would make it moot.

The problems in American government that led to Trump are solved by looking at America. Trump is a symptom. Americans need to learn that. The way was paved for Trump's rise. Reagan, Arnold, and Jesse were all similar candidates in that they appealed to voters who did not trust career politicians.

The problem now includes the governmental and political pundits' near complete disconnection from a very very large swathe of Americans.

This is reflected by the commonly held belief that all politicians are "in it" to line their own pockets. That none of them could be trusted to do what they promised. That all of them have some ulterior motive. That all of them are monetarily corrupt. That all of them sided with those whose interests were in direct opposition to the average American voters' best interest. — creativesoul

Creativesoul, you have just aptly defined the landscape where populist movements and basically populism, be it from the right (or the left, in some other cases), cherishes and where populist fervor can get a stranglehold on politics.

Yet this is no wonder in a country where the political power is firmly in the hands of just two political parties, which enjoy such a total dominance over communal, state and national politics, that other political parties seem to be a joke for the majority of the people. Hardly surprising that such entrenched and firm power devolves into corruption, distrust of politicians in general and simply apathy.

Hence, Trumps claims to drain the swamp, played off of these beliefs.

Trump tapped into that... as well as other common beliefs. — creativesoul

Trump was surprised how "the drain the swamp" thing echoed, but anyone else that understood the political landscape it's no wonder. To fight corruption is an issue that both left-wing and right-wing activists would happily agree on. Naturally they hate each other so much, that they don't even notice this.

Biden is just another Democrat who has been monetarily corrupted by major multinational corporate interests. In the most important ways, there is little to no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties have enacted legislation that caused demonstrable financial harm to workers and everyday citizens. Both parties have bailed out the financial and business sectors by virtue of increasing the tax burden of the workers and everyday citizens. Both parties have taken drastic measures to end public assistance programs. Both parties have failed the American people. — creativesoul

Then the issue would be to have TOTALLY DIFFERENT PARTIES. Period. No matter how much any candidate is "outside" the system, as the candidate of the two parties there simply won't be any change. Voting Trump hasn't changed anything. And voting Bernie won't either.

But because the vast majority of Americans (perhaps) think that God has given them these two parties and they have to make a choice between them and voting a third party is equivalent of throwing away your vote, the will vote for the two parties and the two parties will remain in power.

Prima facie evidence that you either do not know what you're talking about when it comes to who can be impeached and on what grounds, or you are deliberately misrepresenting your own belief.

And here I though this was impeachable conduct.

Nothing in there about restoring American confidence in the government to act on behalf of all Americans by virtue of eliminating the financial corruption that impedes that. Nothing in there about eliminating the legally paved path to bribery. Nothing in there about eliminating the unparalleled power of free speech afforded to those who are not American citizens by virtue of Citizens United. Nothing in there about eliminating the ability of unelected operatives of corporate interests to write American law. Nothing in there about adequate anti-trust laws. Nothing in there to fix the underlying systemic problems of today's American government.
— creativesoul

Well, I didn't think my list was exhaustive... — Relativist

I just pointed out the fact that that list did not include any concerns at all about the systemic problems in American government. None.

...but it does seem you have some lofty expectations.

Lofty?

:brow:

Are you suggesting any Democrat would make all these things happen, that some particular one will, or are you just saying we have a shot at moving toward those (very fine) objectives?

Those are not the only two options...

Putting these problems on center stage... in clear simple terms... will separate those who are and have been a part of the problem from those who are a part of the solution. Those problems must be openly discussed as a means to inform the American electorate and begin the path towards being able to trust elected officials once again. We need elected officials who make it their aim to correct the systemic problems, and actually do so. We need to get rid of the elected officials who stand in the way of this agenda. It is NOT a partisan issue.

Prima facie evidence that you either do not know what you're talking about when it comes to who can be impeached and on what grounds, or you are deliberately misrepresenting your own belief.

And here I though this was impeachable conduct. — NOS4A2

For an elected official like Trump. Biden is currently not.

Biden is just another Democrat who has been monetarily corrupted by major multinational corporate interests. In the most important ways, there is little to no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties have enacted legislation that caused demonstrable financial harm to workers and everyday citizens. Both parties have bailed out the financial and business sectors by virtue of increasing the tax burden of the workers and everyday citizens. Both parties have taken drastic measures to end public assistance programs. Both parties have failed the American people.
— creativesoul
Then the issue would be to have TOTALLY DIFFERENT PARTIES. Period. — ssu

No.

There's a long game to be played...

The issue would be to point out how both parties have erred against what's in the best interest of Americans, and demand change in that regard. The starting point is to show Americans what has happened, how it ha happened, and who voted for those measures. We define the problems, show their consequences, and then make concerted efforts to correct the aforementioned problems.

Force elected politicians to choose between what's best for the overwhelming majority of American people and what's not, by showing them the damage that has been incurred as a direct result of not doing so. Stake it out... clearly.... force the politician to show their hand, and deal with them accordingly in the next election cycle.

It may take several election cycles to get enough elected officials on board via voting out the ones who stand opposed.... no matter who they are... no matter what party affiliations they may have.

For an elected official like Trump. Biden is currently not.

But what about the law?

18 U.S.C. § 1505

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress

The impeachment process is about Trump's purported abuse of power and obstruction.

Joe Biden has nothing to do with any of that. There is nothing he can say that is relevant to what's under consideration.

It won't happen anyway. There are no grounds for compelling Biden's testimony in the impeachment matters. May as well subpoena Oprah.