If Bolton testimony is blocked, our democracy has ended.

So what if people are presenting legitimate concerns that are perhaps emotionally colored? What difference does it make?
Where have you seen people in power governing without emotions?
Crook in chief built his whole political career using that scheme of connecting with electorate. In fact that's why pundits think this sham of a trial is so damaging to him.
Emotions sway opinions better than logic and inter-election opinions can get a president removed from office via impeachment. Constitution ensures of that.

 

This post might get to the heart of the matter. The repubs constant criticism and mean spirited Fox News babble is pretty much what started it. But for Christ’s sakes, the Dems amped it up after Trump was elected. He was being impeached by dem house members weeks after he won. And then 3 years of the Russia investigation, still calling for impeachment until some ticky tack bullshit was manufactured and they finally brought on the Articles. And yeah, I have no problem calling it ticky tack and apparently the majority of the Senate agrees.
I was pissed that the republicans put up Trump has the nominee. I didn’t vote at all in 2016 because of that. I regret not doing so because of how the local elections went, specifically the County elections.
But my point is that the right phucking media hounded on Obama for 8 years and the Dems just went ape **** and coordinated their effort with almost every news outlet not names Fox News. Neither party is innocent and I’ll go as far as blame the republicans for setting the tone during the Clinton era. At some point someone needs to be a bigger person/party and rise above it. But it’s not going to happen until one party decides enough is enough and quits trying to one up the other.

 

You may be right about the result. But would it still be if it were one of the other 8 Republican candidates that could have won? To a small extent. But a large part of it is because it is Trump.

 

It's like you're a troll.

 

I don't think the answer is mutual respect for something that is approaching brown and blackshirts territory. Perhaps the last 100 years has taught us nothing about how to deal with fascists because Trump is following the dictatorship playbook and a whole bunch of people, tens of millions of them, don't seem to mind or care. Then there's the mickfrys that are victims of the failings of American education which naturally reinforces the dictator's appeal.

 

I saw a piece somewhere talking about how Schumer was pretty incensed that he had to take the turd of a case the House left him with, and try to make something happen with it in the Senate...this issue being one of them. You can certainly see how he's been working overtime beating the witnesses drum, and I think it was because he knew it would be hard to overcome this question.

 

Using that to try to do away with the electoral college. I'd bet money on it.

 

What an insane liberal idea.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/re...toral-college-votes-after-presidential-losses

 

A very fair and enlightening post as usual, B-bob. I would agree that there are many who fit your description. What I would like to add though is that the 'sore loser' moniker doesn't stem from this election...but from every election the Democrats have lost, going back to GWB. ie, there are those who probably fit your description about pretty well, and have really only 'whined' about this election...and there are those who have 'whined' about every election not won by a Democrat going back almost 20 years. It's the latter group that creates the 'sore loser' perception.

I do think this was a shame as well. I think he actually had the ability to be a fairly good uniter, but he went the other way. I know a ****-ton of Republicans/conservatives who would agree on the daily insults as well.

I have found that, by and large, those who are really against Trump dislike him mostly for stuff he said/says...and those who like him like him for stuff he did/does. I would be great if we had someone bridge those two (and I think he has toned down his 'insults' tremendously since the first year or so of his term, but the damage was done and the perception created)...but given a choice between those two, I'll pick actions over words most times. I have had this discussion with liberal friends of mine, and they most eventually, albeit grudgingly, admit that based on actions and outcomes, he's been a fairly good President. Like I suspect yourself, that doesn't get them over the issues you mention above, but it does, I think (and as you seem to be looking for in these things) put it into a different perspective.

FWIW, I thought Van Jones' investigative journalism during the election into why Trump supporters supported him was very good, and one of the few pieces of investigative journalism I've seen, from any MSM source, in quite a while.

 

I would say many people who dislike Trump , dislike his policy choices also especially his tax policy that decreases tax revenue, increases the national deficit and consolidates more wealth towards the top.

Also, as someone who actually has been deeply imbedded in a right wing bubble while living 4 years in Marine infantry barracks and be aquinted with family and friends of peers i served with who are mostly conservative/right wing, culture wars, not policy, drive their motivation to support Trump. And from my years of being a in a liberal bubble attending a university in Massachusetts, liberals tend to be more policy driven even if you think their polices stem from naive idealism.

 

What if you're a former Republican voter who thinks both his actions and words are unconscionable?

He's been terrible for our country, and will continue to be so for as long as you let his family cabal run things.

 

following last night's "sore losers" discussion.

excerpt:

. . . while it makes perfect sense to ratchet the requirements up as the race goes along, those metrics should have been established at the outset. Otherwise, it appears that the party is crafting them to choose their preferred candidates—even if that’s not what’s actually happening.

Now, it’s true that the Republican Party looks to be changing the rules to ensure that President Trump faces no serious primary challenge. Indeed, it looks like a number of states may not have presidential primaries at all on the GOP side. But Trump would cruise to the nomination regardless and alienating the seven people who might cast a protest ballot for Bill Weld or Mark Stanford isn’t going to divide the party.

The Democratic Party is bigger and more diverse. Tensions between the progressive and establishment wings are going to leave a large swath of the party bitter regardless of the outcome. And Sanders is simply a sore loser; he’s going to feel robbed regardless if he loses. But it’s the job of the party leadership to minimize these challenges. Doing everything in their power to ensure that the process seems fair is a minimum first step in that.​

 

looked this up this morning. not sure why this never registered with me at the time it was happening.

 

and yes, that's a pretty good description of the Republican Party in the Age of Trump

 

Just to make sure I understand... Bolton refused to appear before Congress claiming he was afraid of legal repercussions from the White House but either concurrently or very shortly thereafter wrote a book with all of the details?

 

His next book will be titled "How to Sell Millions of Books to People Who Have Always Hated You".

 

Money over everything, it's the Republican way.

 

suddenly bolton is great lol just somehow... not a massive turd... cause orange man bad