- May 11, 2013
The point OboeGal is making is important. Calling someone left right or whatever has become weaponized. I have long been a proponent of seeing what would happen to discourse if we dropped our self-labeling and the stereotypes and other negative baggage that often accompany it. What causes me to disengage from posters opinions is when someone says (for example): I'm a christian conservative anti fa vegan and I believe the earth is flat." However, when someone states "It's my opinion that" and offers tangible facts free of dogma that support that opinion, then that person has my attention and respectful consideration of the stated opinion. I would like to see what would happen to discussions here if we stop labeling ourselves and stop forcing labels on others.Just reminding you that it's irrational and incorrect to make broad-brush statements like "the left". All people of liberal tendencies are not the same, don't think the same way, don't behave the same way. I'm firmly liberal. I'm not nasty. Not to regular people. Not to anyone. Are there people who lean left who are nasty to others? You betcha. Are there people who lean right who are nasty to others? You betcha. Some independents, too. How does it feel to you if people come here and say the right are stupid racists? How accurate is that? I'm guessing it's not accurate for you, and most right-leaning people you know. In fact, it's clear in some of the exchanges here that posters here besides me are feeling hurt and offended because posters on both sides are making these broad-brush characterizations about "the left" and "the right" that aren't really accurate or true, and it does damage.
One was done openly with Congressional blessing as part of an international effort. The other was done "under the table" and in violation of the Impoundment Control Act. If Trump thought the initiative would burnish his reputation & increase his stature on the world stage, he would have tweeted about it, repeatedly and with CAPS and !!!
I wanted to make a comment on Red's post and Molly Malones response to her. I wanted to add the recent examples of acceptable use of Executive power vs unacceptable.
During the immigration problems at the border, Pres. Trump threatened to withdraw aid from either Guatamala or Hondorus if they did not stop their citizens from coming up to the US/ Mexican border. DT also threatened Mexico with changes to the new trade agreement if they did not stop these caravans from advancing to the US border. This falls within the authority of the Pres.
In the Ukraine, the Pres. wanted to publicly discredit Joe and Hunter Biden to use in the 2020 election. They also wanted evidence that Ukraine was the culprit in interfering in our election. In order to get the dirt they spoke to those officials who were ousted from the previous administration. They needed the announcement from the new administration of this investigation. This would hurt Joe Biden.(I know you know this). He stopped the aid pkg and visit until he received the announcement.. When he was found out , he then sent the aid.
The difference between the two above is clear. Trump gets no personal benefit from those. He only gets personal benefit from the Ukraine deal.
Your comment on John Bolton becoming the darling of the liberals is of course not true. He has the most direct info on what Trump said and did. The left is probably relieved he is no longer there, but his beliefs on foreign policy have no bearing on what he could report as a witness. Its much like your complaint that because you sometimes support Trump that you are a bad person. If the liberals want him, he's no good.
can't wrap my head around how it's fine to admit you withheld government aide to another country until they fired employees you thought corrupt, but it's not fine to withhold aide to the same country because of alleged corruption. The only difference is who did it and how much contempt you hold for that person. Oh and "intent" I guess. Frankly we should reexamine all aide we provide to other countries and have terms on its distribution that shall be confirmed.
I don't think it actually matters that much if DT removed or not, Pence is right behind him to pick up the same agenda and his term is entering lame duck territory in any case. The point is drawing a line on how much corruption we will tolerate as a society. Imho Trump should never have been allowed to take office without divesting of his businesses. We should have drawn the line a long time ago.Thanks for coming back. The short answer IMO is that from what I have seen so far, none of it is worth the disruption and discord an impeachment will do to the country when there is an election in November. Vote him out. This opinion is obviously not shared here. Politicians saying they must impeach him because he might get reelected says quite a bit about what this is really about. Plenty of people are frustrated on both sides.
It's the job of the voters to decide they've had enough not the judicial branch to upend an election. If your senators and reps have become rich while in office and you keep reelecting them then you must be fine with it. I am speaking to the general you. Most of it is legal but also disgusting.DT proved no different on this account. The Judicial branch should have enforced the emoluments clause (and should be rooting out corruption more broadly) imho.
Obama's DOJ would have had to start that process so can you imagine the uproar that would ensue from that? Do you seriously think that would have been a good idea?not to upend an election but to enforce the law. as in, he could take office once he complied with the law, but he got a free pass. it is on us, the voters, now.
We don't wait if a provable crime has been committed and DOJ or other prosecutors bring charges.not to upend an election but to enforce the law. as in, he could take office once he complied with the law, but he got a free pass. it is on us, the voters, now.
ETA if a politician commits a crime, we shouldn't have to wait until the next election to be able to do something about it. too many politicians and leaders of industry get away with breaking the rules, not just bending them in a legal but disgusting way.
Dancing Fire, You know that the above statement is both fatuous and provocative. Why do you enjoy attempting to make mischief here? I know that you are actually a thinking person.Meanwhile more bad news for the Dems. Remember, any good news for our country is bad news for the Dems.
Nahhh, since I'm a Trump supporter I have a very low IQ according to the liberals here.Dancing Fire, You know that the above statement is both fatuous and provocative. Why do you enjoy attempting to make mischief here? I know that you are actually a thinking person.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul publicly identified the alleged Ukraine scandal whistleblower Thursday after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read a question he submitted at President Trump’s impeachment trial that included the person’s purported name.Roberts just did something right: he wouldn’t let the whistleblower be named.