Open Discussion for December, 2019

Avatar
-from press release
Comment Policy: We welcome your comments, with some caveats: Please keep your comments positive and civilized. If your comment is critical, please make it constructive. If your comment is rude, we will delete it. If you are constantly negative or a general pest, troll, or hater, we will ban you from the site forever. The definition of terms is left solely up to us. Comments are disabled on articles older than 90 days. Thank you. Carry on.

101 Responses

  1. Avatar Bruce Vojtecky says:

    Merry Christmas, get those lights up.

  2. Barbara Rice Barbara Rice says:

    Just an FYI for anyone who might have done this or be thinking of doing this:

    Repeatedly re-posting the same comment/ links while using different names/email addresses/i.p. addresses constitutes Spam, and will be treated as such.

  3. Avatar Doug Cook says:

    Now if only we can have a Bethel free and Trump free Open Discussion for December… that would make my Christmas.

    • Avatar Patrecia Barrett says:

      Doug Cook,

      Don’t hold your breath.

    • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

      Doug, it’s already a Bethel- and Trump-sullied Open Discussion, thanks to your first December post. But I’ll tell you what…if Trump can resist tweeting anything outrageous this month—refrain from calling his political opponents traitors, for example—I’ll zip it.

      As for Bethel, I couldn’t be more bored by that subject. To me, Bethel is a local force of nature. If you don’t like the hot summers here, move.

      • Avatar Anita Lynn Brady says:

        You mean like pointing out that “Lisa Page had affair” tweet with Donald being a multiple offender to all of his wives…… That kind of outrageous tweet?

  4. Avatar Patrecia Barrett says:

    The impeachment report is completed. It’s extremely damning, and the evidence to support it is overwhelming.

    Of course we know that Republicans won’t do the right thing by impeaching this demented criminal. However, they had no trouble impeaching Clinton for something that was nothing by comparison.

    His treasonous crimes aside, I’ve always been curious as to why Trump isn’t already in prison for the countless sex crimes he admitted to committing. Dozens of his victims came forward (some were brave enough to come forward against a powerful billionaire even before his gloating admission). Why wasn’t he arrested and tried for his crimes?

    • Avatar Tim says:

      Because in America you need more than unsubstantiated accusations to send a rich white person to prison.

      And the partisan impeachment report won’t change a thing. Only a minority of Americans support impeaching the president (vs 80+ % of Democrats).

    • Avatar Doug Cook says:

      Wow…you already read all 300 pages to come up with that conclusion?

      • Avatar Patrecia Barrett says:

        Doug – Anyone who has made any effort at all to follow the proceedings would have come to that inescapable conclusion.

        Tim – Even when the perpetrator admits – and brags about – his crimes on tape? I can’t think of any better “substantiation” than an actual confession. As far as rich white men going to prison – quite a few in Trump’s inner circle have.

        And Democrats are Americans too (80 percent is not a “minority”).

        • Avatar Doug Cook says:

          The problem for the Democrats is, not only are they failing to move the needle in support of impeachment among Americans, they are struggling to make them care at all. President Trump’s approval rating increased since the hearings, and independents are turning against impeachment. The hearings proved nothing. The evidence was conspicuously underwhelming. Our Founding Fathers did not want an opposing party to remove a president for political reasons…simply because the other party dislike the president or his policies. Yet, that is exactly what the Democrats are doing.
          I keep asking the same question, and nobody seems to want to answer. The Senate will not vote to remove the president, so then what, Patrecia? President Trump is still in office with higher approval ratings, the Democrat Congress will have no major legislation to speak of as they put all their energy into impeachment. They are stuck with underwhelming candidates that will not beat the president. So tell me, Patrecia..what is the end game here? What do you expect will happen and how will it benefit the Democrats?

          • Avatar Patrecia Barrett says:

            Doug Cook,

            According to the more legitimate polls (like Gallup) Trump’s approval ratings have remained basically unchanged since before impeachment proceedings began – all groups still closely approve or disapprove to the same extent, which comes as no surprise. Did you really expect a huge exodus of Republicans to the other side? And of course “independent” is generally just code for an extreme version of Republicans.

            It seems to me that if Republicans can impeach a Democratic president for simply lying about an affair, they can certainly impeach one for abusing the power of his office by blackmailing a foreign government into digging up non-existent dirt on a main political rival, which could conceivably destabilize an entire region of the world, and interfere with peace efforts and efforts to address corruption. Those accusations have certainly been proven.

            Democrats are attempting to do the right thing. Republicans won’t, but that comes as no surprise either.

          • Avatar Tim says:

            Clinton didn’t just lie about an affair, he also obstructed justice by:

            1) encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
            2) encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
            3) concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
            4) attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
            5) permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
            6) attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Currie
            7) making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses

            No one disputes that Clinton was guilty of those actions, but only a minority of Americans felt his crimes were worthy of being removed from office.

            The same can be said for Trump. Like the progressive organization’s name says: MoveOn

          • Avatar Doug Cook says:

            Patrecia, in the Clinton impeachment…the Republicans made a mistake in pushing for impeachment. It ended up being a negative for the GOP and Clinton’s approval ratings soared. Same thing here. This will turn out to be a negative for the Democrats and guaranteeing a Trump victory for him in 2020. So I ask again. Since he won’t be removed from office, what is the end game? What do the Democrats hope to achieve? It is certainly hurting Joe Biden by focusing on his loser son and the crooked dealings and nepotism. I could just imagine your reaction if Trump Jr got a sweet deal with an Ukrainian oil company like loser Hunter got.

          • Avatar Doug Cook says:

            Ok, Patrecia. For the sake of argument, let’s say the polls are unchanged. That means after weeks of hearings and testimony, it changed nobody’s mind. And you want to impeach the president on that? By the way, according to Pew. Most Independents align with one if the two major parties with Democrats getting more than Republicans. So your assertion that Independents are ‘ extreme versions of Republicans’ is just not true. The fact is that the Democrats have been trying to impeach the president since before he was inaugurated, they came up with a verdict and have been searching for a crime ever since.

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            Doug — Is it so hard for you to imagine the Democrats reluctantly proceeding with an impeachment inquiry simply because it’s the right thing to do? Because the crime against the nation—demanding that a foreign power that needs our aid against one of our prime adversaries, asking that ally to interfere in our election—demands that the criminal be held accountable? That it’s the right thing to do regardless of the political consequences?

            You sound like almost every Republican in Congress— to almost the last person, their only concern is winning. The preservation of our nation’s political integrity means nothing to you people.

          • Avatar Doug Cook says:

            Steve, When President Obama refused to give military aid to Ukraine because he didn’t want to upset Putin, I don’t recall much of an outcry. When Biden threatened to withhold aid to protect his son, I again don’t recall much of an outcry. Now… holding up aid for a month is now an impeachable offense? President Trump helped Ukraine quite a bit more than President Obama did.
            No, Steve…it isn’t the right thing to do to impeach the president over this incredibly weak case. The goal in all of this is to remove the president from office, or at least damage him. That is not happening, is it? I’m sure the Democrats want to win. This is not going to give them that chance. They are guaranteeing a Trump victory.

          • Avatar Patrecia Barrett says:

            Doug Cook,

            The only person guilty of “crooked dealings and nepotism” is Trump. It wasn’t Joe Biden’s totally unqualified nitwit daughter and thoroughly corrupt son-in-law who were on the government payroll as “senior advisors” to the president.

            Not only that, but Trump rewarded his nutty base by taking a sledge hammer to the constitutional separation of church and state. He placed God-in-government fanatics in charge of all the highest levels of government, and has surrounded himself with the most extreme religious charlatans as advisors on domestic and foreign policy.

            When push comes to shove I suspect that the majority of the population will rebel against Trump’s special-interest extremism, failed – and harmful – trade policies, broken promises, obvious corruption, blatant racism and sexism, and all-round insanity. No one pays any attention to polls anymore – not after the fiasco of the last presidential election, when Trump was supposed to have lost by a landslide (and should have).

            Tim,

            Trump has been guilty of all those things, and so much more.

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            Doug — I’m only going to address one of the steaming piles of BS you’ve shat out.

            You say that the aid to Ukraine was held up for a month.

            Lt. Col. Vindman testified that he became aware of the hold on July 3–we don’t know how long it had been on hold prior to that. The whistleblower filed a complaint on August 12. The aid was released to Ukraine on September 11. The whistleblower report wasn’t released to Congress until September 25.

            I count that as more than three months—at the very least. And it would have gone on until Trump got his Biden monkey-wrenching if Congress hadn’t gotten wind of the scheme.

            Your other accusations aren’t even worth addressing, they’re so Fox News weaksauce.

          • Avatar Tim says:

            Patrecia: Trump’s kids are not on the government payroll. They are unpaid advisors.

            Steve: “Interfering with the election” is the same old, so-hyperbolic-as-to-be-false, claim. The integrity of the US presidential election has not been compromised since the mob helped (Democrat) JFK win half a century ago.

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            Tim sez: “The integrity of the US presidential election has not been compromised since the mob helped (Democrat) JFK win half a century ago.”

            Oh you sweet summer child…how naive. The integrity of *every* U.S. presidential election is compromised, owing to everything from the influence of corporate and SuperPAC $$$ to systematic voter disenfranchisement. And then there’s the biggest violation of integrity of all: The electoral college, which was in large part supposed to be a hedge against the rabble picking a village idiot to be POTUS, and now ironically serves the exact opposite function.

            But none of that is to the point of the POTUS committing the crimes of bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The crime here is bribery, if it isn’t treason. As a congressman, Mike Pence argued that Bill Clinton’s sex life wasn’t the issue, and it wasn’t even narrowly that he’d lied under oath about having an affair. It was about the POTUS undermining the legal norms that are the foundation of the country’s government.

            So now we have a POTUS who has attempted to use financial leverage in the form of desperately needed aid to a geopolitical ally, in order to gain personal favors in the form of dirt on a political opponent. A POTUS demanding that a vulnerable foreign government influence a U.S. presidential election. If that isn’t an impeachable offense, nothing is.

            I know you’re far too intelligent to believe the idiotic lie that Trump—in defending a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor (a guy who all of the EU wanted removed for failing to fight corruption) and taking aim at the Bidens—was merely trying to combat Ukrainian corruption. Or do I have you all wrong?

          • Avatar Tim says:

            None of that has anything to do with the integrity of the election – i.e. does a person’s vote count towards the candidate of their choosing (and/or are their fraudulent votes).

            PACs and announcements about investigations influence opinions and might sway people’s choices in an election, but they are not a reflection of the election’s integrity itself. The old Democratic favorite of promising voters free stuff like debt forgiveness, college, medical care, etc falls into this exact same category btw.

            Clinton obstructed justice to advance his own interests over a lawsuit. No one can possibly argue that his crime could in any way benefit the country. The same goes for Nixon.

            This is not the case with Ukraine. I can very easily argue that investigating potential corruption is in the US’s best interests – especially corruption regarding someone with whom we’re about to send a bunch of money & aid. You may disagree with it or find the investigation was just cover for a partisan hit job, but the argument can still be made that investigating corruption is in the US’s interest.

            Yeah yeah, you’re dying to say “didn’t you follow the hearings? The national security experts all said it harmed national security!!!” They did. But they were Democrats’ hand-picked experts in a partisan proceeding. There are countless other experts who will undoubtedly testify the other way if called by Republicans (who were not allowed to call witnesses in the sham impeachment inquiry).

            So you’re left with Mueller’s report and obstruction, which Mueller didn’t think was severe enough to warrant proceeding a year ago and even the Democrat leadership agreed. So why push forward with impeachment now – less than a year from the election? If Democrats are supposed to be the party of democracy, why are they trying to take away from voters a popular choice for president in 2020? Isn’t THAT interfering with the integrity of an election?

            If they feel so strongly about Trump’s abuses, censure him and MoveOn.org

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            Tim — Are you really arguing that systematic voter disenfranchisement by the GOP aimed at reducing the percentages of minority and poor voters has nothing to do with the integrity of an election? :::boggle:::

            I have never heard a single person argue that Clinton’s offense was for the benefit of the country. Red herring.

            I am not dying to say, “Didn’t you watch the hearings?” I couldn’t care less about what the experts said about harm to national security—I think that’s not to the point. Trump probably put our national security at risk to some degree, but that in itself is not a crime—it’s just bad judgment. The crime was bribery in exchange for personal favors.

            Your last question answers itself. There is no compelling political reason for impeaching Trump with a year left on his term, and Pelosi isn’t a rash hair-on-fire leader. The pending impeachment holds tremendous political risk for the Democrats. The safe play would be to censure Trump and move on. So why don’t they?

            The simplest explanation is that they feel compelled to impeach because they truly care about the integrity of our institutions, and fear that they are under attack by sinister forces that aim to turn Trump into one of the autocrats he so admires.

          • Avatar Tim says:

            I’m not following – are you now alleging Trump is causing voter disenfranchisement?

            I’m no fan of gerrymandering and find the Democrats are just as eager as the Republicans to redistrict to their benefit. Only 21.5% of Californians and 41% of registered California voters are Democrat, yet Democrats have super majorities in both chambers & hold the governorship…

            When it comes to systematic disenfranchisement, I’m no fan. But I don’t find the Democrats’ hypocrisy very persuasive: if getting a valid ID is such an onerous process that it legitimately leads to disenfranchisement, wouldn’t requiring an ID to buy ammunition do the same? And if purchasing a pistol is such a weighty matter that it requires passing a written test given only in English, shouldn’t that apply to voting as well? I no more want an ignorant & irresponsible voter than I do an ignorant & irresponsible gun owner. The stakes are underappreciably high in both cases…

  5. Avatar Bruce Vojtecky says:

    And in really important news with all the NFL quarterback droughts will Kap and Newton find jobs. As conditions seem to be crumbling in New England and Green Bay will the two northern California quarterbacks, Brady and Rodgers, seek warmer teams in their home state? If Phillip Rivers is done with the Chargers and still in good if not prime conditions could he be headed to Sin City? Can Elway find a quarterback after passing, two drafts ago, the stud in Laramie, Josh Allen, who has the Bills relevant again after demolishing Dallas in a game that was worse than the score indicated. And in DC will the Skins leave town for Mexico City or London? Lots of burning issues to work on.

  6. Avatar Gary Tull says:

    Doug, So this U.S. president goes to the NATO summit meetings in London and constantly makes incorrect statements – ignorant misspeaks and lies that reflect badly on our representation. Are you okay with that?
    https://apnews.com/6af7ca6d77fd1e6df0c747d4d118edb5

    • Avatar Doug Cook says:

      Gary, that is what everyone said about the last NATO summit he attended, where he criticized our allies about not paying their share for defense. So what happened? Instead of the US footing most of the bill, European contribution to NATO is up over $1.3 billion. That is why the president will get reelected. Other presidents get walked all over, Trump calls them out for their BS. It is refreshing

  7. Avatar Miguel says:

    NATO summit. And Donald Trump is once again utterly embarrassing himself and his country on the world stage. My humper cousins, “Well I”M not embarrassed!” Every other sentient being, “Yes .. we know. And that’s what concerns us.”

  8. Avatar Chad Magnuson says:

    I continue to hear the right wing claim Democrats have been wanting to impeach trump since day one.
    Could it be we saw the con man trump was from day one.
    From childish lies about crowd size at his inaugural day to his overt love of our countries and particularly the Republican Party bad guy Putin.
    From his cuddling up with despots and enemies of our country.
    His attacks on our institutions, our intelligence agencies, our military.

    Yeah, trump has deserved to be considered for impeachment from day one.

    • Avatar Larry Winter says:

      And part of the Democrat’s secret Deep State plan was to win the House of Representatives 2 years later.
      Boy, aren’t they cunning.

    • Avatar Gary Tull says:

      “Democrats have been wanting to impeach trump since day one”.

      Well yes. Of course they have because of his deceptive and reckless behavior since well prior to day one.

      Well spoken, Chad.

  9. Avatar Doug Cook says:

    Yes, Chad…it shows the pettiness of the left. That they can’t deal with an election that doesn’t go their way. Strange that a charge for impeachment, according to you is his love of our country. You want to impeach the president because he loves his country?And remember Chad…it was President Obama that cowered to Putin…that the former president refused to give military aid to Ukraine so as not to upset Putin. It was President Trump that gave Ukraine offensive weapons to protect their country from Russia. Why the left can’t accept election results is baffling to me. If you don’t like President Trump, find a candidate that can beat him…so far you all are failing on that front. Today’s hearing was a complete disaster (again) for the Democrats. Thank God for Professor Turley who was the only sensible person testifying. And how about that moron that brought in the president’s minor child into the discussion. Shameful and embarrassing

    • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

      Doug sez to Chad: “You want to impeach the president because he loves his country?”

      I read Chad’s post 2.8749 times, searching for the bit where Chad says he wants to impeach Trump for Trump’s love of our country. Of course it’s not there, so we have to assume that Doug is projecting his own feelings about Trump, not describing Chad’s.

      It’s a mystery to most of us how anyone could conclude anything other than: Trump has a profound love for himself, and nothing else. Trump is the Platonic ideal of self-worship.

      I’ve never wanted to see the horror movie “The Human Centipede” because it just sounds too disgusting. But I can imagine you as the third person in the triad, with Putin in the lead followed by Trump.

      As for the moron who brought up Trump’s son Baron: O! The Outrage! Her joke was a clunker: Trump can name his kid Baron, but he can’t make him a baron. Lame, inappropriate and unnecessary. I take solace in the fact that people like you who are faux-red-faced about it thought it was hilarious when when Bill Clinton had been POTUS-elect for a few days, and Rush Limbaugh, on his short-lived late-nite TV show,made a joke comparing a cute kid entering the White House. He then projected a picture of a dog, followed by picture of 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton. Howls of laughter from Limbaugh’s audience, because HA HA HA HA HA, what a great humiliating joke at the expense of an awkward-looking 12-year-old girl! Rush totally owned that kid!

      • Avatar Doug Cook says:

        Then you may want to read it a 2,8750th time. The professors entire testimony was embarrassing and a flop. And to think she was considered a SCOTUS prospect…scary. You assume that I was ok with Rush’s comments about Chelsea. Why do you assume I thought it was hilarious? No ..it was disgusting and inappropriate as any negative comments about president’s children are. What is sad is that it was obvious that she rehearsed that line. Did anyone but me actually watch that circus yesterday? Doesn’t sound like it. This is why impeachment is going nowhere. I can see Pelosi pulling the plug on this whole fiasco.

        • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

          If you take a harder look, you’ll see I said I’d read it 2-point-8749 times (i.e., not quite 3 times).

          As for the Chelsea joke, the point wasn’t that you thought it was hilarious. It was that your right-wing outrage is extremely selective.

          And you continue to see this as nothing but a political test of will and muscle. You seem impervious to the notion that at times it’s important to set aside what’s safe and simply do the right thing. Pelosi is going to pull the plug in your dreams—she’s already announced that the HOR will proceed with drafting articles of impeachment.

  10. Avatar Candace says:

    A self admitted sexual
    predator (we heard it with our own ears), racist (again, we heard it with our own ears) lying, narcissistic, crash dummy is currently the elected president of the United States. The fact that the same people who say of course they don’t condone sexual abuse or predatory behavior “because they have daughters, wives, sisters, etc.” (who also say they do not condone racism) are willing to turn a willful blind eye to this president and his cronies’ despicable behavior because “things for them personally are good right now” is what I find to be both shameful and embarrassing (sorry, people of color, just ignore the racist stuff – I am. Oh, and sorry daughter, wife, sister. Yes, our president is a self- admitted sexual predator but hey, that’s ok, don’t worry your pretty little heads about that fact – I’m not.) Also, offended about the “Baron” thing? While perhaps in poor taste, THAT’S the thing people find embarrassing and shameful? Because Trump is always so overtly concerned with decorum and respecting the feelings of others and their families? That’s like focusing on the crime of a man’s bad hair cut while ignoring the fact that he’s an axe murderer. Sad. Loosen the red hat. Grow a conscience.

    • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

      Right? The joke was lame, and the Harvard professor who told it later apologized. But she also pointed out that Trump never apologizes for any of the outrageous things he says or does—he even defended his admission of serial sexual assaults as mere locker-room talk (which isn’t even a denial of the assaults—just a rationalization of his course descriptions of them).

      In light of what Trump says and does, the faked-up conservative outrage over the Baron/baron joke is hard to stomach. And note well that the person who first brought it up here to get political mileage out of it is none other than Doug Cook. If the concern for poor Baron was in any way sincere, we’d have all agreed to not mention it at all. Instead, Doug turns Baron into an ANC football. What a flaming hypocrite.

      • Avatar Doug Cook says:

        The Barron joke was a minor part of her embarrassing testimony. It was a train wreck all around. You believe that the hearing yesterday was going to move the needle towards impeachment? My guess it will move the opposite way. It’s amazing how the left is now so concerned about Aid to Ukraine, when under Obama, not a word was said when the president refused to give Ukraine military Aid when their country was being overrun by the Russians. Which president had been tougher on the Russians? Obama or Trump?

        • Avatar Larry Winter says:

          Wrong Doug, the needle moved toward impeachment this morning with “smart” Nancy Pelosi, who you predicted wouldn’t go this far. The Articles of Impeachment will be written up and brought before the House.

          And the question isn’t who was tougher on the Russians, but who used their Presidential power to solicit domestic political favors from a foreign leader in exchange for “rewards”.

        • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

          Doug sez: “Which president had been tougher on the Russians? Obama or Trump?”

          Whataboutism is so weak that it deserves to be ignored, but I’ll rise to the fly.

          You guys had your shot at Obama. You took your hacks and struck out. This has nothing to do with Obama, or Trump being tough on the Russians (LOL). It’s a simple question of whether or not Trump abused his office by trading U.S. aid for personal favor.

          Regardless, Trump’s ongoing insistence that it was Ukraine and not Russia that interfered in the 2016 election—a claim that has been refuted by every agency that has investigated it, including Trump’s own AG—is far more comfort to the Russians than anything Obama ever did. Trump’s literally encouraging the Russians to do it again.

          Traitor.

    • Avatar Doug Cook says:

      I’m starting to see a certain desperation in recent comments as those on the left are beginning to realize that they have failed in finding a candidate that can beat President Trump. This desperation to push lame impeachment charges, which had done nothing but increase his support. President Trump was duly elected by the people, fair and square. Sorry Hillary. To now demand that the will of the people be overturned, just because you don’t like the president is troubling. Not to mention the precedent it will set for future presidents. I recommend you listen to Prof Turley’s testimony about why impeachment is not a good idea. Put your hate away for a few minutes and be open and concerned about our Constitution and future political ramifications

      • Avatar Larry Winter says:

        I don’t hate our President, and I did watch Prof Turley’s testimony. Rep. Swalwell recited a quote that Turley used in defending a judge that ended up being impeached with near unanimous consensus. He used the same argument yesterday and Swalwell called him out on it. Turley was exposed as playing the part of a defense attorney, and not a constitutional scholar.
        It’s too narrow and too fast and didn’t include the Judiciary Branch or a law needed to be broken were his main points.

        None of these points relate to the Constitution in any manner or form.

        What’s troubling is your continued misrepresentation of why the Ukrainian issue has pushed the Democrats to move forward with impeachment while pretending those Trump defenders as being concerned with the Constitution and future political ramifications.

        The Constitution and future political ramifications are exactly why the impeachment will occur.

      • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

        Doug sez: “President Trump was duly elected by the people, fair and square.”

        “The people” favored Clinton by 3 million votes. The electoral college (square miles) chose Trump. You can call that “fair and square.” I don’t think it’s either.

        Turley’s argument that Trump’s blatent aid-in-exchange-for-personal-favor crime wasn’t an impeachable offense was pure defense attorney argumentative hand-waving, when he was supposed to be there as a constitutional expert.

        But because I’m not a blindly hyper-partisan parrot like you, I’ve already acknowledged that Turley made some good points about allowing some of the challenges to Trump’s stonewalling be resolved in federal court before proceeding with impeachment. I’m in agreement that another 4-6 weeks to allow for that would be prudent. This is a constitutional crisis—the SCOTUS can drop what it’s doing to address it, as they did with Bush v. Gore in 2000.

        But again, the will of the people my @$$. A plurality of us wanted someone else.

        • Avatar Doug Cook says:

          Sorry Steve, Seriously? Bringing up the electoral college? We don’t and never have elected presidents by popular vote. Nor should we. Why? because our Founding Fathers knew several things we have forgotten… Simple democracies are dangerous. Emotional majorities can tyrannize even large minority groups. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner is not a good system. What would happen if we went to a national popular vote? Democrats would almost certainly spend most of their time in the large population centers in California and New York. Republicans would campaign in the South and Midwest. Large cities would be focused on almost exclusively as the candidates seek to turn out as many votes as possible in “their” region of the country. Small states, rural areas, and sparsely populated regions would find themselves with little to no voice in presidential selection. In this scenario, a handful of states (or heavily populated cities) win, while the remaining states and less-populated areas suffer significantly. Not a good system.
          We do in fact elect presidents by popular vote, the difference is it is conducted at the state level rather than the national level.

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            Doug — Who died and left you proctor of things that we can bring up for discussion here in Open Conversation? I’ll bring up the electoral college if I effing feel like it. Seriously, what color is the sky in your world?

            You suffer under most of the delusions about the reasons for the electoral college that are common today. I posted a link to a recent article in The Atlantic about that topic in a thread down below; I’ll repost it here.

            The main purpose of the electoral college was to provide the less populous southern states with more representation—they feared being swamped by the more populous northern states. The EC is related to the 3/5 compromise (irrelevant in today’s America, thank goodness). It’s also related to the fact that HOR numerical representation is determined by population, not numbers of voters, as the South at our founding wasn’t as enlightened as the North regarding suffrage (still a big issue, unfortunately). In other words, the South wanted everyone counted in one way or another for the purpose of representation, even if they only wanted a small minority of their people to have a vote.

            The electoral college was also devised as an alternative to congress selecting the president—one of the more popular alternatives on the table at the time. (Remember that at the time, US senators were selected by state legislatures, not by popular vote). It was a compromise between popular vote and selection by congress.

            Every other functioning democracy in the world makes do without an electoral college—it’s wholly unnecessary. But oh shit oh dear, the tyranny of the majority! No matter the tyranny of the minority of rubes…the tyranny of owning more real estate. The tyranny of having to put up with a shit-heel like Trump who most of us didn’t want. Not even worthy of consideration, right?

            https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/five-common-misconceptions-about-electoral-college/602596/

          • Avatar Doug Cook says:

            Sorry Steve, the Electoral College wasn’t about northern and southern states, it was to protect the smaller states like New Hampshire and Rhode Island, to allow them to have a say in presidential elections. …which are not southern states, and it has nothing to do with the 3/5th compromise. Were it not for the Electoral College, presidential candidates could act as if many Americans don’t even exist. They could simply campaign in a small handful of states with big populations. Who would care what the people in Iowa think? Or Wyoming? Or any number of other states with smaller populations? You really want California and New York to elect every president? Of course not. “Presidential candidates must build a national base among the states before they can be elected. They cannot target any one interest group or regional minority. Instead, they must achieve a consensus among enough groups, spread out over many states, to create a broad-based following among the voters. Any other course of action will prevent a candidate from gaining the strong base needed to win the election. The necessity of building such a national base has led to moderation and a strong two-party system in American politics.”

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            Doug — The electoral college was about sharing the power of the vote in disproportion to population. The Three-fifths Compromise was about sharing the power of the vote in disproportion to population. They are often mentioned in the same paragraph. To say that they are unrelated is ignorance squared.

            The Connecticut Compromise that created a bicameral Congress, giving both large and small states two US senators, was the primary protector of the interests of small states. Not the electoral college.

            Do you know who were the primary proponents of the electoral college? Not the New Englanders—not even the ones from Rhode Island. It was mostly the Virginians—Southerners—Madison in particular. The primary supporter from the North was Hamilton. Hamilton was from populous and voter-rich New York. You’re just flat wrong, Doug.

            For every absurd question you ask—do I really want California and New York picking the president?—there is an even more compelling counter-question.

            Do I want only swing states to determine who gets elected president? Do I want the other states to be largely ignored during the campaigns for president? Do I want the interests of those states pandered to, often at the expense of ours?

            No, I do not. I live in California.

            You say: Small states, rural areas, and sparsely populated regions would find themselves with little to no voice in presidential selection.

            I say: Too bad. People should bet represented, not square miles. Your argument is analogous to that of the State of Jefferson yahoos who insist that we have no representation, when in fact we have equal per-capita representation, and what they really want is disproportionately more per-capita representation. They have never presented a cogent argument for why they’re entitled to that. Neither have you.

  11. Avatar Common Sense says:

    Where’s Rudy?

    Oh, he is back now. What do you do when you commit crimes against our Country and have taken in way too much of the Kool Aid? You go to the scene of the crime again, that’s what you do. Rudy and Co. are doubling down.

    https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1202273499060064256

    Rudy….a little advice…..you are Not getting Pardoned…..and if you do get Pardoned you are not getting away from State level Indictments and Crimes! Co conspirator #1 will find that out one day.

    Who else is going down with the ship? There will be many….no doubt.

    The toughest call right now for the 20+ Republicans that are up for re election in the Senate….should we vote to Remove after he is Impeached or take our chances?

    Do you believe the facts….or the Alternative Facts? Do you believe in the rule of Law and our Constitution and Democracy or not?

    Do you have a grip on “Reality” or are you still watching Faux News and following every “Conspiracy Theory” down the rabbit hole?

  12. Avatar Candace says:

    “Put your hate away for a few minutes and be open and concerned about our Constitution and future political ramifications”. EXACTLY. great advice for OUR PRESIDENT. SPOT ON.

    • Avatar Doug Cook says:

      But yet, it is the left that wants to dump the electoral college..that wants to stack the Supreme Court, that wants to turnover a fair and free election. The left that is in favor of stifling free speech. Seriously, you are trying to convince me that the left is concerned about the Constitution? Hilarious

      • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

        The Constitution, by design, is amendable. Many of the articles of the Constitution we hold most dear are amendments. It’s appropriate to dump the electoral college if it’s not working as intended* (not that it will ever happen). Just as it was appropriate to dump the rule that made slaves worthy of 3/5 representation on behalf of their masters, but gave them no vote.

        The rest of your comment is just the usual hooey that everyone on the left wants the same über-PC restrictions on free speech as Birkenstocks-wearing radical feminists on university campuses. That’s bullshit. There is currently a big backlash going on within the left against “cancel culture.” Former President Obama recently and famously called bullshit on the practice of calling people out for un-PC behavior, as if that accomplishes anything.

        *Here’s a good article, published last week in The Atlantic, about the Founders’ intentions when they hatched the electoral college:

        https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/five-common-misconceptions-about-electoral-college/602596/

      • Avatar Patrecia Barrett says:

        Doug Cook,

        It takes a lot of nerve to talk about “stacking the Supreme Court” when Trump has been doing exactly that – with sexist, racist, homophobic throw-backs who are salivating over the prospect of depriving entire groups of hard-won civil rights. At least with the left we’d get SANE moderates like Merrick Garland, instead of ultra-religious lunatics.

        In addition, the antiquated electoral college hasn’t been much of problem up till now, since Trump is only the 5th president in the entire history of the country who didn’t get both the popular vote and the electoral college vote. In this case the electoral college failed in the one thing it’s actually good for, which is to keep a presidential candidate who is provably mentally and morally unfit out of the office.

        Finally, the bulk of society has finally moved past just standing idly by while hate groups and their spokespeople use blatant lies and hate speech to incite violence and prejudice against vulnerable groups. If the vast majority of students (thousands of whom actually live on the campuses being violated by these thugs) don’t want them in their schools/homes, they have every right to protest. It’s too bad there weren’t more protests during Hitler’s rise to power.

        • Avatar Tim says:

          In reality Trump’s 2 picks for SCOTUS are the moderate “swing” votes. The liberal wing votes as a block a majority of the time…

          And court packing isn’t merely replacing a vacancy with a judge you hand pick, it is expanding the court to add more judges until you get the court biased in your favor. This perversion is a strategy being actively endorsed by many leading Democrats.

          Patrecia says: “Finally, the bulk of society has finally moved past just standing idly by while hate groups and their spokespeople use blatant lies and hate speech to incite violence and prejudice against vulnerable groups.”

          Tell that to the president of Chico State’s College Republicans, who was recently violently assaulted for holding an “All Lives Matter” sign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIxh5cr83sg

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            The far-left’s calls to pack the SCOTUS are a product of Senate Republicans’ refusal to hold confirmation hearings on Merrick Garland, President Obama’s 2016 nominee to the bench to replace Justice Scalia.

            I am not a proponent of packing the court—I agree with you that it’s a perversion, if only a theoretical one at this point. But it’s 100% a response to the GOP’s *actual* perversion.

          • Avatar Patrecia Barrett says:

            Tim,

            Yeah right. He was so “violently assaulted” that he’s strutting around with a big smirk on his face. Trump supporters have committed more ACTUAL violence – by far – than left-wing protestors. Getting hit with a piece of paper is a far cry from being stabbed to death, shot, run over with a vehicle, beaten in the head with a metal pipe, shoved down flights of stairs, etc. etc. etc. If right-wing white supremacists are out looking for a fight, they’re probably going to find one.

            And expanding the Supreme Court may be the only way to save the country’s judicial system. Trump’s lunatic fringe appointees could undo a half-century of hard-won civil rights, and cause untold harm for decades to come.

          • Avatar Tim says:

            Steve: they should have held the hearings & voted. This toxic partisanship goes back a long way – even long before then Senator Obama attempted a filibuster during the Alito nomination.

            Patrecia: I’m talking about actual violence by illiberals against Californians here in the North State. I’m also talking about Californians being shut out of jobs, denied educational opportunities, and even being systematically denied banking & internet hosting based on their beliefs & convictions.

          • Avatar Tim says:

            PS: Very sad to see SJWs normalizing the commission of a hate crime here in the North State, but it makes obvious their underlying disdain for “equal protection under the law.”

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            As for the video from Chico State: All I see are two obnoxious recital orifices.

          • Avatar Tim says:

            …one violently infringing upon the rights of the other based on race, sex, gender, &/or political affiliation (all 4 of which are supposedly specially protected classes in California).

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            I agree—the woman who’s yelling that he made her unsafe has to be joking, right? He could have suffered a paper cut to the eyeball from her physical attack.

            He’s still an obnoxious penis with limbs, though.

  13. Avatar Candace says:

    Doug. I watched every bit of the hearing. I didn’t see a circus but I did see a couple of apoplectic GOP carnival barkers. As usual you assume you’re the smartest guy in the room.

  14. Avatar Common Sense says:

    The Florida move might not pan out like it was supposed to?

    How would you rate the job Donald J. Trump is doing as president?

    Combined disapproval-Florida,55% Combined Disapproval! Floridians have good memories on those “No one will lose Preexisting Conditions” and other campaign promises.

    https://trumpsbrokenpromises.org/florida/

    Start drinking more Orange Juice to keep that “glow” up is my advice…..that and get another Attorney or two on the payroll.

    Impeached….another one added to the History Books.

  15. Avatar Chad Magnuson says:

    The republicans now want us to believe the impeachment process is moving to fast. Actually it was their only defense as spouted by their constitutional expert.
    But as I recall this same group complained the Mueller investigation was taking to long.
    So what is it?

    The swift activity of the House maintains the constitutional guarantee of a speedy investigation/trial.

    Certainly the efficiency of the House is a weak defense from the republicans.
    But when the facts are against you they will stoop to any level to find an arguable, yet weak deflection.

    • Avatar Doug Cook says:

      The efficiency of the House. .lol, good one. The only reason Pelosi is pushing for a quick vote is to get this fiasco over with. Chad, we already know the outcome, don’t we? The Senate, controlled by Republicans get to set the agenda for the trial. They will show the folly of this ill advised circus, make the Democrats look bad, and the American people will move on and forget all about impeachment. I’m sure Pelosi is kicking herself for letting AOC and her gang talk her into impeachment.
      By the way, did you happen to catch the video of Nadler from the Clinton impeachment days saying that we should NEVER go through impeachment if it isn’t a totally bi partisan effort.

      “There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other, “Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions”
      My, how times change.

      • Steven Towers Steven Towers says:

        Pelosi is nothing if not pragmatic, and there’s probably some truth to the notion that for pragmatic reasons she’d like to punt the process to the Senate ASAP. She’s in a weird position, because while Trump is clearly guilty AF of soliciting interference by a foreign power to monkey-wrench our election in exchange for aid, Republicans have convinced themselves that his crimes of bribery and attempted election-queering amount to nothing more than party fouls*. She further knows that Democrats risk energizing Trump’s base of Dunning-Kruger berzerkers who have plenty of reasons to abandon him, not the least of which is that significant numbers of people, including some former supporters, are sick of his Flunky the Clown act.

        *The most bizarre of the GOP’s defenses is the repeated assertion that Trump’s attempted crimes weren’t fully consummated before he got caught, so HE’S NOT GUILTY OF ANYTHING!

        • Avatar Doug Cook says:

          “… Trump is clearly guilty AF of soliciting interference by a foreign power to monkey-wrench our election in exchange for aid”

          That is your opinion, not proven by facts, matter of fact…the only witness from the hearings that actually had a conversation with the president testified that the president said, I want nothing, no Quid Pro Quo. Sorry, Steven. You can’t impeach a president on speculation and interpretation. You need facts.

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            It’s not just my opinion, Doug. It’s the sworn testimony before Congress of quite a few people in Trump’s administration. As for Sunderland’s quote of Trump, that’s the kind of thing that a guy like Trump blurts out when the lights come on and his pants are down around his ankles. Everything else Sunderland had to say corroborated the quid pro quo charges.

            Not to mention, Trump has muzzled nearly all of his closest advisers, some of whom seem eager to spill the beans if given the go-ahead by the federal courts. If you’re innocent, why do you muzzle those who could exonerate you?

            You muzzle them if they’re going to bury you. There might be two or three idiots left in Trump’s orbit who would be willing to go to prison for the loyalty-free president. Barr and Pence might be that stupid, but I wouldn’t count on anyone else committing perjury on behalf of Trump. Bolton, in particular, seems eager to come clean. And I’m 95% sure that Giuliani will vomit out a confession to save his own ass.

  16. Avatar Linda Cooper says:

    Perhaps corny, yet it’s how I feel right now. I’m feeling proud of the United States constitution. Which allows for a process of checks and balance. Frankly, I had tears when I watched every square inch of the impeachment hearing, and learned new aspects of the constitution. One point that stood out was that the office of the President, is the only elected position with requires an individual to be “born” here. Because the founders were so concerned about foreign influence. I knew the law, I didn’t know the reasoning in regard to the law. Frankly, in high school I just assumed the founders were maybe racist. If someone makes a snarky comment about former President Obama’s birth certificate, (you know who you are) I’m going to write, “don’t mess with me.”

    I don’t get those in opposition with an inquiry and eventual trial, and I actually find them un-American. Especially when comments are made that Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, etc. were from long ago, so why listen to them. Really? I grew up with the “Russian threat” as presented by mostly Republicans. How times have changed.

    I am so relieved to live in a country that allows for this impeachment process. Instead of being inflamed about the process, I embrace it. Makes me wonder (not really) why there are those self-serving individuals who are inflamed and resistant. Something about that line from a movie, “you can’t handle the truth.”

    Of course we all know how the Republicans will vote. Unlike silly me, who has served on a jury, my goal was to keep an open mind and respect the process.

    • Avatar Doug Cook says:

      Linda, we can all be proud of the US Constitution, but be concerned about this impeachment and what the ramifications are for the future presidents. I quote Prof Turley who testified Wednesday, “…Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and,
      at times, bitterly divided.”
      What we all should be concerned about is a party who’s dislikes the president so much that they were talking impeachment before he was even inaugurated. Go back and read my last comment where I quoted Rep Nadler talking about the Clinton impeachment, where he said we should NEVER impeach a president if it isn’t a bipartisan act.
      Impeachment was never intended to be used as a mid-term corrective
      option for a divisive or unpopular leader. Republicans could have easily brought up impeachment charges on President Obama for a variety of questionable acts…obstruction in the Fast and Furious scandal, droning and assassinating an American citizen as examples. But we didn’t impeach him because that is not what we do…until now.
      Linda, I don’t mind the process, I am not resistant to it. But unlike the trial you were on as a juror, this process is not fair to the president, where the opposition controls the list of witnesses and line of inquiry. I hope you are just as open minded when the GOP Senate gets to set the agenda for the impeachment trial.

  17. Avatar Patrecia Barrett says:

    Doug Cook,

    The evidence provided by a long list of highly credible witnesses is overwhelming. Trump’s own post-whistleblower admission that he demanded help from a foreign president to dig up non-existent dirt on a main political rival with $400 million in military aid (already approved by Congress) being with-held, and the lengths to which he went to cover up this act of blackmail, would be enough to convince anyone who isn’t determined to ignore all facts.

    And of course Trump and his close associates have been involved in so many sleazy and illegal activities that quite a few of them are now in prison, or on their way to prison. That Democrats haven’t been able to thoroughly investigate Trump’s involvement (which the Mueller Report in no way ruled out) is simply due to the fact that before they can devote the attention to each outrage it deserves, something even worse comes along. We would know more if Trump hadn’t spent so much time trying to keep the public in the dark about his finances and business dealings. However, we do know that Trump is in hock up to his eye teeth to Russian investors, because his son admitted as much publicly.

    Trump should clearly not have been allowed to assume office to begin with. Prior to the election the public was warned by entire national psychiatric associations and countless other mental health professionals that he is demented and potentially dangerous, and were it not for members of his staff who have been able to control him to an extent (so far at least, but we don’t know how long that will last), the consequences would have been dire. Just one example of his derangement was his recent demand that asylum-seekers all be shot down at the border. Just the fact that Trump has openly incited so much violence should have automatically disqualified him from being president.

  18. Avatar Doug Cook says:

    “…Trump should clearly not have been allowed to assume office to begin with”

    That sentiment is exactly why the Democrats will lose again in 2020. Apparently, Patrecia knows better than the rest of us. Meanwhile latest job reports are out, unemployment has dropped yet again to a new low of 3.5% and wages grew over 3%, Average hourly earnings climbed 3.1% from a year earlier, exceeding projections, and the prior month was revised higher. Those are statistics that will give the president what he needs for reelection. Get used to 4 more years, Patrecia

  19. R.V. Scheide R.V. Scheide says:

    Trump is going to lose because he’s way more embarrassing than any of the leading Dems. Embarrassing sums him up.

    • Avatar Tim says:

      Aside from you, do you know of any other 2016 Trump voter who isn’t eager to vote for Trump again? Because I know a lot of Libertarians & independents who absolutely refused to vote for Trump in 2016 but currently see him as the least evil in 2020…

      The only times Democratic presidential candidates from wokity woke left-wing states win over swing states is when those candidates are unusually young, attractive, and charismatic (JFK & Obama). And the only time incumbent presidents lose is when a recession hits in the year or two before the election.

      • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

        It doesn’t speak well of swing-state moderates and Libertarians if they only vote for Democrats when they’re young and pretty, but we’ll take your word for it.

        Tulsi Gabbard/Cory Booker 2020, I guess.

        • Avatar Tim says:

          Sure, but mainly their preferences say IA, OH, MN, PA, etc. liberals have considerable difficulty relating to CA, NY, NJ, & MA liberals and instead relate more to liberals from conservative-leaning places like AR, GA, & TX.

          Swing state conservatives are the same way, they tend to reject candidates from the deep red states:

          Nixon: CA
          Reagan: IL/CA
          Bush 1: CT/TX
          Bush 2: CT/MA/TX
          Trump: NY

  20. Avatar Chad Magnuson says:

    I recently responded to a friend that I was a constitutionalist.
    I’ve taken the oath to uphold and defend this document. Albeit decades ago, I remain confident that oath was a covenant for a lifetime.

    He responded that how could I be a constitutionalist if I didn’t support the 2nd amendment.
    My response was that supporting the constitution had nothing to do with believing the constitution to be amendable and is not the final word on an issue. Certainly as our country evolves so should our constitution. As it has been evolved/amended many times.

    As a result the constitution outlines and provides a tool for investigating and keeping the checks and balances of the branches of government accountable in an easy to understand processes. It’s interpretations are nothing new today.
    But interpretations are not subject to unfounded conspiracies that rebuke verifiable facts and thoughtless spewing of lies.

    The debate for when a president should face the articles of impeachment is really not debatable.
    Trump has certainly met those minimum limits on more than one occasion.

    This impeachment is really not about trump. It is about defense of our constitution.

    If a mere man is sacrificed to maintain the integrity of our constitution it is a small price to pay.

  21. Avatar Bruce Vojtecky says:

    The Democrats are like the Dallas Cowboys, over flowing with incredible talent, but no leadership.

  22. Avatar Doug Cook says:

    Chad, if you are so concerned about the integrity of the Constitution, a document we both served our country to protect, you would have accepted the will of the people and have accepted the outcome of the 2016 election. But no, you consider President Trump to be an illegitimate president. You want to sacrifice this man because you don’t like him. That is not being a Constitutionalist. That is being a petty loser. Your Democrat leader and Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee have both said that impeachment should only happen if it has bipartisan support. It does not. Yes, it is debatable that President Trump should or should not face impeachment. Half the country believes he shouldn’t, half of Congress believes he shouldn’t. Don’t hide behind the Constitution, just because you dislike the president and want to overturn the will of the people. The Democrats have not proven their case. During the Senate trial, they will prevent the opposing view, which will further instill doubt of his guilt. Once again, not accepting the results of a duly elected president is not being a Constitutionalist

    • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

      Doug — Your repetitions of this nonsense grows tiresome. Removing Trump from office puts Mike Pence in the Oval Office. Arguably, since there isn’t any real Pence fatigue that’s built up over the years, he’s more electable than Trump next year.

      And like many moderates and liberals, I see NOTHING that I like in the prospect of having Mike Pence as the most powerful man on the planet. His apocalyptic vision of Christianity scares the hell out of me, as does his rabidly rigid self-righteousness. I don’t think he’s one bit better than Trump, and I could argue that he’s worse. For one thing, he’s capable of focusing on what he wants—he’d keep his head down and go to work, as opposed to Trump’s obsessions with whining about persecution, tantrum-throwing, and self-aggrandizement.

      Absent game-changing new evidence, there is zero chance of Trump being convicted by the Senate. You daily parrot the official GOP line—Maybe Trump has done things that are inadvisable, but not criminal. We can argue about that all day long, but it’s not going to change the fact that Trump likely for certain will finish out his term.

      So why are the Democrats going forward (in the case of their leader Pelosi, very reluctantly) with the dead-end impeachment process? I have repeatedly asked you to come up with a reasonable alternative to this: Because they feel compelled to do so—it’s the right thing to do in the face of Trump’s actions, even if it’s going nowhere.

      And you have repeatedly ignored me, because you got nothin’.

      • Avatar Larry Winter says:

        Doug Cookthebooks could go pro. He’s got it down. Diversions, whataboutism, false premises, sweeping judgements categorizing the “left” as the borg that’s incapable of differences in opinion, repeating statements that we’ve already debunked but he ignores, pretending to not be a Trump supporter but will bend reason and logic to defend Trump’s actions because he thinks it’s “required” to “balance” these discussions.

        He has built a good resume on these pages to warrant a paycheck by those that spread confusion and doubt through online boards through methods described above.

        • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

          It’s like having an ANC Sean Hannity…and I don’t mean that in a good way. I rarely agree with Tim, but at least he constantly forces me to think, and occasionally alters my point of view. Arguing with Doug is like playing a game of wack-a-mole—it’s fun for one or two minutes before it gets tedious.

          I believe Doug is smart enough to engage in real debate rather than parroting, deflection, evasion, and whataboutism, but he appears to be constantly trying out for a gig on Fox News.

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            And yeah, most wearying of all is the insulting pretense of not being a Trump sycophant, like we’re all stupid enough to believe that.

          • Avatar Doug Cook says:

            Nobody is forcing you to read my comments.

          • Hal Johnson Hal Johnson says:

            “I believe Doug is smart enough to engage in real debate rather than parroting, deflection, evasion, and whataboutism . . . ”

            Yeah, I determined that about Doug early on. As a somewhat liberal gun-humper (I got tired of calling myself a “half-assed libertarian”), I sometimes agree with Tim. More often, I disagree, but I think his posts are usually thoughtful, and not *too* condescending.

            Sometimes I read Doug’s shorter comments before I catch myself, but more often, I skip over them, and it ain’t because he’s a fixed-wing pilot. It’s a shame, because I think he’s a smart guy and capable of genuine discourse.

            “Nobody is forcing you to read my comments.”

            Yet.

        • Avatar Patrecia Barrett says:

          The most baseless pretense in Doug’s comments is his repeated claim that millions of people want Trump removed from office just because we don’t “like” him. Of course this ignores his treasonous blackmail schemes, his massive corruption, his endless lies, his admitted sex crimes, his many incitements to violence, his defense of white supremacists, the destruction of entire industries on his watch, his vast efforts to conceal his finances and business dealings, his ruination of America’s reputation on the international stage, his provable mental derangement etc. etc. etc. There has never been a president like this in my entire 81 years on this planet.

          And it wasn’t (as Doug claims) “the will of the people” that elected him, given that a substantial majority of the country voted for Clinton. The antiquated electoral college compromise (created before most of the country even existed) failed in the one thing it’s good for, which was to keep someone who is clearly mentally and morally unfit out of the presidency.

        • Avatar Doug Cook says:

          Larry, let me explain my support of President Trump. As a candidate I did not support the Trump candidacy Why? Because the was basically a Manhattan liberal most of his life. I was a Rubio guy. After the election, I was pleasenty surprised that the president governed much more conservatively than I thought he would. That gave me hope and so far I have agreed with most of his policies. So in 2020, I expect to proudly cast my vote for the incumbent. I still believe that Nikki Haley will he the new VP, which will set her up perfectly to be the first female president.

      • Avatar Candace says:

        Steve, the thought of a Pence presidency keeps me up at night. Horrifying thought.
        Doug, just in case (true to form) you’re itching to mock my use of the word “horrified” at the prospect of a Pence presidency, I’ll clarify my usage of the adjective for you. It scares the hell out of me for the exact reasons Steve stated. For those reasons alone, I find it a horrifying thought. (“Scares the hell out of me” = “horrified”.) If you weren’t planning on mocking or insulting me, well, that’d certainly be a welcome change.

        • Avatar Linda Cooper says:

          Ah, dear Candace. Please don’t even try to ask him for anything (like not mocking you). I recently made the mistake that I thought he could perhaps shift a little bit, and wrote the most stupid post recently. My attempt at trying to at least get him (pronouns deliberate, over and over again) to focus on process.

          Steve Tower’s point that the Democrats have proceeded at various risks to the party is well taken. This is the America I hear singing.

          My husband and I were pondering the “why” question of these blatant, right-wingers. (Gloves off here.) Husband came to the conclusion that some people are just stupid. This surprised me. He never uses “plain English” like that. However, I thought about the farmer’s in the mid-west who are suffering as a result of Trump, but by golly, they will vote for him again. Along with stupid, I would add racist. And it’s a subtle racism. By that I mean that some people want to return to the times when being white was more in control. The fear that something is being taken away from them. I thank Nancy Pelosi for taking one for the team. However, I have no reservations at times for feeling a deep hate for a pack of congressional gangsters who disrupt a hearing, take it over, and leave their pizza trash behind. I remember those guys from high school.

          Yeah, there’s an elephant in the room. And with another nod to Steve Towers. It’s boring. So sad for ANC. If we wanted to watch the boring show, we could turn to Faux News. I’ve been trying to stay away for this reason. I really don’t want to hate. To kind of quote Maya Angelou, “when someone first shows you who they are, believe it.” This individual is getting a lot of recognition here. He can’t get the same attention on a right-winger page, because they parrot and bore each other.

          I have no idea for a remedy, except to ignore the ignorance. That’s all.

          • Avatar Doug Cook says:

            “…Along with stupid, I would add racist. ”
            Wow, is that where the progressives are these days? Perhaps you can enlighten me on why you believe I am stupid and a racist?
            “… I really don’t want to hate…” But that is what you are doing, isn’t it? I guess you want ABC to be a progressive strong hold free from differing positions. So tell me Linda, why am I stupid because I gave a different political view than you?

        • Avatar Doug Cook says:

          Candace, I would actually agree that a Pence administration could be horrifying to me too. So we agree. But of course Trump will not be removed from office, we already know that.

          • Avatar Candace says:

            Well whadda you know, we actually agree on something (Pence) Doug Cook. Now if only I could get you to agree with me about Trump. Color me cautiously optimistic (or delusional). I’m guessing the latter.

      • Avatar Doug Cook says:

        I don’t understand your comment Steve. We both agree that Trump will not be removed from office. That has been my question to you all… what’s the point then? Why even bring up Pence? You want the impeachment because you believe it is ‘ the right thing to do’? Or is it because the Democrat party veered so far to the left that Pelosi can’t keep her caucus under control. Pelosi agreed to this fiasco because otherwise she would more than likely lose her speakership if she fought impeachment, the grown ups in Congress know this is a mistake. Congress isn’t going after Trump because it’s the ‘right thing to do’. They are going after him because that has been their goal since Jan 21, 2017. Russian collusion was a flop, obstruction was a flop, and this weak case is the best they could come up with. Even you seem to have some doubt if Trump’s actions were criminal. That isn’t enough to impeach a president over. The Democrats haven’t proven their case.

        • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

          What’s the point? I’ve explained that to you at least three times, and you’ve never responded to the point. I’m not going to bother explaining it again. It’s like arguing with a Russian bot.

          • Avatar Doug Cook says:

            Just because I disagree with your point doesn’t mean I am not responding to it. I have been very clear in stating my opinion on impeachment, the folly of it, and in my opinion the reason the Democrats are moving ahead with it. It is also my opinion that it will in the end hurt the Democrats in 2020. Your ‘point’ is that it is the right thing to do. That is your belief. It is my belief that it is not the right thing to do. I respect your opinion, even though I think you are mistaken, perhaps you should do the same with my opinion. Each of our opinions have half the country and Congress supporting it.

    • Avatar Chad Magnuson says:

      I beg to differ of what constitutes being a constitutionalist.
      I have never questioned the results of the 2016 election. I have always been critical of trumps actions as commander in Chief. His repeated lies, bragging, race baiting talk, his disrespect of our countries intelligence agencies, and his use of the military for partisan purposes.
      It is clear trump has abused his power with his attempts to go after a political rival.
      It is clear he has obstructed a constitutional process. Bribery is obvious.
      Impeachment is our constitutional remedy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *