Labeling the House's inferences "fantasies" demonstrates your pre-judgment. There was much more than one bit of testimony, so you obviously just didn't pay attention. Lack of attention also explains why you didn't pick up on there being an appearance of conflict of interest by Trump on his Zelensky call, and this would call for a closer look at the surrounding facts. Instead of being forthcoming with those facts, he stonewalled the collection of facts. Contrast this with Biden, which I acknowledge has the appearance of conflict, but a closer look at the facts does not support it. And with Trump, it's more than a conflict of interest - he was violating his oath of office and due process by asking for an INDIVIDUAL to be investigated; due process directs investigation of crimes, not fishing expeditions of people. You ignore all this, because you like the spectacle of political dirt digging, and seem to have a quasi-religious faith in Trump's virtues.Like I said, your entire argument was premised on the fantasies of the House and the admitted presumptions of one testimony. You didn’t show Trump’s behavior violated “government ethics standards”. You showed how Biden violated them. — NOS4A2
Labeling the House's inferences "fantasies" demonstrates your pre-judgment. There was much more than one bit of testimony, so you obviously just didn't pay attention. Lack of attention also explains why you didn't pick up on there being an appearance of conflict of interest by Trump on his Zelensky call, and this would call for a closer look at the surrounding facts. Instead of being forthcoming with those facts, he stonewalled the collection of facts. Contrast this with Biden, which I acknowledge has the appearance of conflict, but a closer look at the facts does not support it. And with Trump, it's more than a conflict of interest - he was violating his oath of office and due process by asking for an INDIVIDUAL to be investigated; due process directs investigation of crimes, not fishing expeditions of people. You ignore all this, because you like the spectacle of political dirt digging, and seem to have a quasi-religious faith in Trump's virtues.
Of course you're not convinced. Faith is never defeated with facts.I’ve read every testimony except for the one the house hid. And simply repeating the accusations of the House without any reference to the defense does not convince — NOS4A2
Now that the Senate has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility, bringing this process to a conclusion, I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people.
I also am humbled and very grateful for the support and the prayers I have received from millions of Americans over this past year.
Now I ask all Americans, and I hope all Americans, here in Washington and throughout our land, will rededicate ourselves to the work of serving our nation and building our future together.
This can be and this must be a time of reconciliation and renewal for America. Thank you very much.
Romney is wrong for the same reason the impeachment brigade is wrong. It’s as simple as that really. It’s hatred and envy. — NOS4A2
I asked dozens of people a very simple, straightforward question: “Has President Trump ever told a lie to the American people?” And every single person said, “No.” Never mind that thousands of his misstatements have been meticulously documented. No, they said, he’s never lied.
I brought up his years-old claims that, unlike President Barack Obama, if Trump ever became president, he’d be too busy to play golf. Most people responded by saying they don’t care whether Trump golfs. But three people said that Trump has never golfed since he’s been president. No one said that they thought he did anything wrong with Ukraine. No one knew that our annual deficits just blew past $1 trillion. Everyone believed hundreds of miles of new wall had been built. (Fact check: False!) When I asked whether they thought Mexico was paying for the wall, most people said yes but were at a loss to explain how. On and on it went: CNN was the enemy and Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), along with the rest of the congressional Democrats, were lying traitors.
I also phone-banked this week, calling potential Republican caucus-goers throughout Iowa. I always knew it when I got a strong Trump supporter on the line by the language they used and the tone that they took: They’d say no president has been attacked like Trump has or no president has had to deal with such hatred and opposition. (Again: Not true!) They’d get defensive and throw out more lies and half-truths: China is paying for the tariffs, Joe Biden was covering up for his son, and Russia didn’t do anything in the 2016 election were all popular. On and on it went: I ended my two hours of phone time each day pretty bummed out by the mis- and disinformation I’d heard.
...
I realized once and for all that nobody can beat Trump in a Republican primary. Not just because it’s become his party, but because it has become a cult, and he’s a cult leader. He doesn’t have supporters; he has followers. And in their eyes, he can do no wrong.
They’re being spoon-fed a daily dose of B.S. from “conservative” media. They don’t know what the truth is and — more importantly — they don’t care. There’s nothing that any Republican challenger can do to break them out of this spell. (Thanks, Hannity.)
the political class — NOS4A2
That happened before already. Bush Jr. goofball act was the prelude. — Benkei
Russian tanks rolling down your streets? Seriously, NOS4A2? Russian tanks?I wonder why. In the lead up to Trump’s presidency the political class promised us the next Hitler, recessions, race wars, mushroom clouds, Russian tanks rolling down our streets. Anyone who voted opposite to them are racist, know-nothing xenophobes. So where was your “objective criticism” then? — NOS4A2
Then you simply don't actually read what I write.As is predictable “objective criticism” is reserved for the opponent only. Zero praise, zero optimism. zero acknowledgement of anything beneficial will come from you, because it would contradict the world-view so many have bought into and invested in. — NOS4A2
This is the effect of populism. Populism that can emerge both from the right and left.Its like the Brexiters over here. They are basically going Grrh ahh Grrh ahh sovereignty, Grrh ahh Grrh ahh reclaim our borders. Anyone who questions it is some sort of traitor to our great nation, or can't bare to loose, remoners. — Punshhh
Actually it’s true, it’s all they have left. — Brett
Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.
WASHINGTON—A federal appeals court threw out a lawsuit by more than 200 Democratic members of Congress that alleged President Trump was improperly profiting from his presidency.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit avoided legal issues related to Mr. Trump’s business holdings, deciding instead that the Democrats didn’t have a proper basis for suing.
Democrats had sought to argue that Mr. Trump was violating the Constitution because his private business empire was profiting from foreign governments that sought to patronize his hotels, resorts and other properties to build positive relationships with the president.
The lawmakers alleged that Mr. Trump couldn’t accept emoluments—things of value—from foreign governments without the consent of Congress.
The D.C. Circuit panel, which included an ideological mix of judges, ruled unanimously that the lawmakers didn’t have standing to proceed with their lawsuit because the group of 186 House members and 29 senators were in the minority in both chambers. That meant they couldn’t represent the institutional interests of either body of Congress, the court said Friday in an unsigned 12-page opinion.
“Our conclusion is straightforward because the members…do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the president’s acceptance of foreign emoluments,” the court wrote.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans remain largely mistrustful of the mass media as 41% currently have "a great deal" or "fair amount" of trust in newspapers, television and radio to report the news "fully, accurately and fairly." This latest reading represents a four-percentage-point dip since last year and marks the end of improvements in back-to-back years after hitting an all-time low.
Although trust in the media has edged down this year, it is well above the record low of 32% in 2016 when Republicans' trust dropped precipitously and drove the overall trust reading down during the divisive presidential campaign. Republicans' trust is still at a very low level and a wide gap in views of the media among partisans persists as 69% of Democrats say they have trust and confidence in it, while 15% of Republicans and 36% of independents agree.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.