I quite like desert in Namibia at night, southern stars are crystal. What age were you when you came to America you don't know desert from dessert? Anyway.. you keep cheer-leading for team authoritarian if you want but you don't have THAT much time left to be your own man in this life.
Seems like I’ve been on your mind a lot this week. This is at least the second post you have referenced me. It’s ok, as I love you as well. Nothing like you having a properly working ticker again, I guess. You’ve been witty and productive. By productive, at least as framed in the reality I perceive you are living in, you have managed to get someone to put you on ignore and had someone else reaffirm their decision of putting you on ignore from some time ago. Your performance was blemished, however, when you put someone on ignore. Stronger would have been to psychologically dismantle them. Perhaps you were low on energy at that time. Who knows, after all these years on Earth, you may just be a banana away from fulfillment. Maybe Trump will share one of his with you before he gets reelected.
latest spin: "ok, so there was quid pro quo, but so what?" https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...084a3e-fcc4-11e9-9534-e0dbcc9f5683_story.html Growing number of GOP senators consider acknowledging Trump’s quid pro quo on Ukraine A growing number of Senate Republicans are ready to acknowledge that President Trump used U.S. military aid as leverage to force Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his family as the president repeatedly denies a quid pro quo. In this shift in strategy to defend Trump, these Republicans are insisting that the president’s action was not illegal and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as the Democratic-led House moves forward with the open phase of its probe. But the shift among Senate Republicans could complicate the message coming from Trump as he furiously fights the claim that he had withheld U.S. aid from Ukraine to pressure it to dig up dirt on a political rival, even as an increasing number of Republicans wonder how long they can continue to argue that no quid pro quo was at play in the matter. The pivot was the main topic during a private Senate GOP lunch on Wednesday, according to multiple people familiar with the session who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the meeting. Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) argued that there may have been a quid pro quo but said that the U.S. government often attaches conditions to foreign aid and that nothing was amiss in Trump’s doing so in the case of aid to Ukraine, these individuals said. Inside the lunch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who ran against Trump in 2016, said a quid pro quo is not illegal unless there is “corrupt intent” and echoed Kennedy’s argument that such conditions are a tool of foreign policy. “To me, this entire issue is gonna come down to, why did the president ask for an investigation,” Kennedy, who worked as a lawyer, said in an interview. “To me, it all turns on intent, motive. ... Did the president have a culpable state of mind? … Based on the evidence that I see, that I’ve been allowed to see, the president does not have a culpable state of mind.” The discussion underscores the dilemma for congressional Republicans as a cadre of current and former Trump administration officials paint a consistent picture of a president wiling to use foreign policy to undercut a potential domestic political adversary. On Thursday, Trump appointee and longtime Republican aide-turned-National Security Council adviser Tim Morrison became the latest official to testify that nearly $400 million of congressionally appropriated military aid for Ukraine was frozen to increase pressure on President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden, a 2020 presidential contender. And with the House Democrats voting Thursday to open the closed-door impeachment investigation, undermining the GOP’s complaints about a secretive process, Republicans are frantically seeking a new strategy and talking points to defend the president. Meanwhile, the president has frustrated Senate Republicans by seeming to change his messaging strategy every day rather than present a coherent defense of his actions, said multiple Senate GOP officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment frankly. On Thursday, Trump told the Washington Examiner that he wanted to do a series of “fireside chats” — as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously did during the Great Depression and the early part of World War II — to defend himself. He said he perhaps would read aloud the transcript of the July 25 telephone call in which he asked Zelensky to do him a “favor.” The willingness of some Senate Republicans to acknowledge a quid pro quo while dismissing the offense comes just two weeks after acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney had to walk back a similar assertion. Mulvaney argued in a long-winded news conference on Oct. 17 that quid pro quos are a common feature of foreign policy and that the media should “get over it.” Congressional Republicans balked, forcing Mulvaney to retreat. Indeed, a strategy that includes acknowledging a particular kind of reciprocity with a foreign government would almost certainly unnerve moderate Republicans such as Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), who faces reelection next year in a Democratic-leaning state and has said it was “completely inappropriate” for Trump to invite China to investigate Joe Biden, which the president did after the Ukraine controversy began. Collins has repeatedly declined to comment on Ukraine, arguing that she probably would be a juror in a Senate trial of the president. One senior Republican aide cautioned that acknowledging a quid pro quo is unlikely as a strategy for the Senate GOP, even if some conservatives like the idea. Such a step would also undercut Trump’s central talking point on impeachment — and would clash with House Republicans’ strategy. Trump’s Capitol Hill allies and Republican leaders, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (La.), are sticking with Trump’s line that there was no proposed trade-off with Ukraine. “You can’t have been in [the impeachment depositions] with 10 different witnesses and come out with any credible belief that there was a quid pro quo for aid. … It’s just not accurate,” said top Trump ally Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) “I’ve heard people say, ‘Well even if he did it, it’s fine.’ The problem with that is: I know that he didn’t do it.” In the Senate, however, some Republicans aren’t as confident and have expressed concerns about the endless drip of embarrassing headlines from daily witness testimony that the U.S. aid and a White House visit for Zelensky hinged on the Biden probe. The Senate lunch, according to those in attendance, also focused on how best to rally to Trump’s defense if he is impeached. Under the constitutional process, the Senate would hold a trial, with conviction requiring the votes of two-thirds of the senators present. While some Senate Republicans have argued for a quick trial, most other senators believe that moving quickly could backfire. Senate Republicans, especially those up for reelection next year in Democratic-leaning or swing states, could face criticism that they did not take the charges seriously. During last year’s contentious battle to confirm now-Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Republicans thought that the more thorough process, including a new FBI investigation in the final days of the confirmation fight, arguably helped to win more support, including that of Collins and then-Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). Some Republicans suggested a longer trial could help the president by giving the GOP the opportunity to try to poke holes in the Democrats’ case. Among those who made a case for thorough proceedings was Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who responded to a remark from Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) that while, in theory, White House attorneys could move every day to try to dismiss the case, the administration would be advised not to do that. Cramer appeared to agree with that argument. “This may be his only opportunity to change what the public sees and hears if they’re gonna continue with their very one-sided process over in the House,” Cramer said, later adding: “In my view, [it is] in the president’s best interest to have the whole thing played out. I don’t mean five weeks, but at least the case so at least the public gets to hear his case.” Cramer also subscribed to the idea that “there’s lots of quid pro quos” in U.S. foreign policy, pointing to stipulations on assistance for Venezuela and other nations. “We’ve done quid pro quos a lot of times,” he said. “... The question isn’t whether it was quid pro quo; the question is: Was it corruption?” Kennedy argued that there are two views on Trump’s actions: that he pushed for an investigation of a political rival; or that he pushed for an investigation of corruption in a country that has a history of missteps — and the request just happened to include the Bidens. Kennedy, an ally of Trump’s, said he expects the president’s lawyers to argue the latter during a Senate trial. Trump asked Zelensky in the call to look into the Bidens, referring to allegations that Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian officials to fire a prosecutor who was probing the company where Hunter Biden served as a director. Former Ukrainian and U.S. officials say the prosecutor’s investigation into the company was dormant. “He honestly believes that there may have been corruption in Ukraine, and before he turns over $400 million of American taxpayer money, he’s entitled to ask,” Kennedy said, later adding, “The issue to be litigated … is going to be: Did the president have a good-faith reason to believe that Hunter Biden may have been involved in corruption? And if I’m correct in my analysis, then there will be a lot of time spent on what Mr. Biden did for the money.” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who has been heavily involved in the Ukraine saga and is chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee on Europe and regional security cooperation, argued that the United States often puts conditions on foreign aid. Johnson also said that Trump would not allow him to promise Ukrainian officials military aid earlier this year because of other reasons, including concerns about corruption and the desire for European nations to do more to help Ukraine. “My point is those are legitimate reservations,” he said. “There’s nothing wrong with that. … That’s not impeachable.”
If they get to a longer process they will blur reality or at least make many so sick to death of it they capitulate. The GOP mandarins are "de-educating" adults with all this 2+2=5 stuff. The cost of this all is huge. The 'he honestly believed' is all just mens rea legal trickyness. Need to keep this short and simple is all in the congress, the senate will make a pig's breakfast of it for sure. I think it is time the Dems just took the 2/3 of the population through authoritarian personality syndrome and how Trump is/will exploit it further to stupefy more and what are the counteractions. e.g. https://www.mindingtherapy.com/authoritarian-personality-syndrome/
Go to blazes kid, many are up their own arses a bit including me but you have passed the event horizon.
Yeah, what are the repubs thinking. That is reserved only for dems. Remember how many of the libtards on this site were ranting and raving about payment-in-kind and how many people in the Trump campaign were going to go to jail because of the Trump tower meeting including Don jr. Libtards ranted about it until I pointed out that many dems running for president had been busted for payment-in-kind including Sanders and many, many others.
Pelosi getting very, very worried about the dems continuing leftward movement- as well she should be. Not to worry Nancy, probably everyone will just be focused on the impeachment for the next five months and won't even know what the issues are. Hope that works for ya, dumphuk. We have idiots right here on the forum- we know who they are- that follow the lefty script that says that Pelosi is playing 5-D Chess. Ya right, she has lost total control of campaign direction and messaging, lost control of the house to the Squad, lost control of the impeachment thing that just plunges further and further in to the lobster trap and point of no return. And she has also lost to Nadler and Schiff who are trying to score political points for themselves at the expense of the party and the country. It is not just the Squad that is unraveling her. If you have ever seen a cow trying to walk on the ice, that is what Pelosi's leadership looks like now. Nancy Pelosi Is Worried 2020 Candidates Are on Wrong Track Speaker Nancy Pelosi is issuing a pointed message to Democrats running for president in 2020: Those liberal ideas that fire up the party’s base are a big loser when it comes to beating President Donald Trump. Proposals pushed by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders like Medicare for All and a wealth tax play well in liberal enclaves like her own district in San Francisco but won’t sell in the Midwestern states that sent Trump to the White House in 2016, she said. “What works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan,” Pelosi said at a roundtable of Bloomberg News reporters and editors on Friday. “What works in Michigan works in San Francisco — talking about workers’ rights and sharing prosperity.” “Remember November,” she said. “You must win the Electoral College.” “As a left-wing San Francisco liberal I can say to these people: What are you thinking?” Pelosi said. “You can ask the left — they’re unhappy with me for not being a socialist.” Her call for caution is backed by the authority she carries as a giant of Democratic politics who rose from the left wing of the party to become the first female speaker of the House and has earned grudging praise from her foes for her skill as a legislator. She spoke as polls show a significant tightening of the race with Warren edging up on Joe Biden at the top of the field. A New York Times/Siena College survey of Iowa Democrats released Friday showed the top four candidates — Warren, Sanders, Biden and Pete Buttigieg — all bunched up in a five-point spread at the top of the field. The speaker’s concerns reflect those of many Democratic leaders and donors who believe that left-wing policies will alienate swing voters and lead to defeat. Warren and Sanders are betting on a different theory — that voters who float between parties are less ideological and can be inspired to vote for candidates who represent bold new change in Washington. Pelosi said Democrats should seek to build on Obamacare instead of pushing ahead with the more sweeping Medicare for All plan favored by Warren and Sanders that would create a government-run health insurance system and abolish private coverage. “Protect the Affordable Care Act — I think that’s the path to health care for all Americans. Medicare For All has its complications,” Pelosi said, adding that “the Affordable Care Act is a better benefit than Medicare.” Warren has been under pressure from Biden and other candidates to demonstrate that her plan wouldn’t require tax increases on middle-class Americans. On Friday, her campaign said it would cost $20.5 trillion and would be funded by raising taxes on large corporations and the wealthy, cracking down on tax evasion, reducing defense spending and putting newly legalized immigrants on the tax rolls. The Biden campaign called that plan “mathematical gymnastics” intended to hide the fact that it would result in higher taxes for the middle class. Warren swatted back at the criticism, accusing Biden of “running in the wrong presidential primary.” “Democrats are not going to win by repeating Republican talking points,” the Massachusetts senator said in Des Moines, Iowa. “So, if Biden doesn’t like that, I’m just not sure where he’s going.” Pelosi also expressed worries about voters’ reactions to the Green New Deal, which Sanders and Warren also support, that calls for radical, rapid reductions in carbon emissions. “There’s very strong opposition on the labor side to the Green New Deal because it’s like 10 years, no more fossil fuel. Really?” she said. Pelosi said Democrats must stick with pay-as-you-go rules to avoid adding to the debt, a point of contention with left-leaning figures who want to permit more deficit spending for ambitious liberal priorities. “We cannot just keep increasing the debt,” she said. Pelosi added that she doesn’t understand the race to the left among some candidates, because “Bernie and Elizabeth own the left, right? Is anybody going to out-left them?” She stopped short of endorsing a tax on wealth, an idea that Warren and Sanders have embraced as a means to reduce income inequality and expand the safety net. The speaker said she wants “bipartisan” tax changes that lower the debt and fix the “dumb” Republican tax cuts of 2017. She also steered clear of backing a cap on pay for chief executive officers. The speaker, who recently led the House to formally vote on an impeachment inquiry into Trump, said the most critical question candidates should be answering for voters is why they should be president. “Show them what’s in your heart, your hopes and dreams,” she said. “It’s not about you. It’s about them.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...is-worried-2020-candidates-are-on-wrong-track