A great number of powerful people in the USA are not concerned about people getting sick and in some cases dying. They are only concerned with how it will impact the stock market and the economy. The President is concerned the economy will slow and he won’t be re-elected. We have 1700 test kits like a third world nation but we have the FED cutting interest rates and the President saying not to do anything... the proof is in the pudding. Like always this is disproportionately impact minorities and the poor and the old and young.
We live in a democracy, so I’ll share my thoughts as much or as little as I wish to, just as you have that right as well. God bless.
We do live in a democracy and you have the right to prove you are a brainless idiot if you are so inclined. Just don’t be surprised when you are called our for it. There is stupid and then there is STUPID.
You are wasting space on this server. You have the right to go away. Please do so. If you feel unwelcome, that’s because you are. If you decide to quit saying stupid things, maybe hang aroundor just lurk. Lastly quit invoking God, he doesn’t like idiots either.
You can use names and hyperbole and ignore reality all you want. The fact is that CDC and FDA weren’t on the ball the way they should have been back in January and up until very recently. If you don’t think that the attention of the White House, and any White House for that matter, was focused squarely on an effort to remove the President then you are oh so wrong. It’s common sense that less focus on the trial would have meant more attention on important issues of the day and may have meant earlier action to address shortcomings at CDC et al and more oversight over preparedness actions in the early days of this virus.
So you basically are forming an argument of regardless of what actions the President does, he should have impunity from all illegal actions because... "He's busy"?
Taken during the trial: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...-high-in-gallup-poll-despite-impeachment.html Taken after: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...post-impeachment-acquittal-poll-1486339?amp=1
No. I felt that in this particular case that the effort was without merit. I took the Pelosi view from earlier last year that such an effort should not be undertaken without bipartisan support.
Surely, the government should be able to handle multiple "crises" at once - correct? Especially considering the CDC, HHS and other appropriate departments were not involved in impeachment hearings. If a President cannot deal with multiple "crises" simultaneously, then we need a President who can - wouldn't you agree?
So impunity then? We live in a modern world of divided media bubbles where there will from here on out NEVER be bipartisan support for holding a president accountable. Half of America has an entirely different set of facts and narratives than the other half and therefore GOP senators or Democrat senators will always be fearful of their electorate pushing back at the them and primaring them the moment they hold a president of their same party accountable because their voters have been watching and reading media that basically has spammed in their heads that the president has done nothing wrong
You’re correct that CDC, HHS and other relevant agencies weren’t involved in impeachment, but senior level officials at the White House who can help ensure effective decisions at those were very involved and focused on it (POTUS, VP, Chief of Staff, etc). Of course we want and need people in those positions who can “walk and chew gum” at the same time but at the same time there are only so many hours in a day and they were focused on a critical matter. The fact of the matter is that impeachment is thankfully over and now we need wise decision-making from the very top.
Valid points. I just still believe that there would have been bipartisan support had there been a real case to be made and if the President was an actual threat to the country. The option of removal was designed for such instances, which is why it requires a 2/3 vote and has never before been successfully carried out.
Nope....not acceptable. For example...assume that NK decides to get ornery. Should the President and administration not be expected to fully act because they are tied up with the virus? How did the administration manage to sign an accord with the Tailban during this time of crisis? How is the president finding the time to shuffle his staff? Attend town meetings? Participate in Fox interviews? The administration does not get a pass on this due to the impeachment trial. You do realize that even the Republicans agreed that the evidence was overwhelming that Trump did do the "quid pro quo" that he was accused of? And I guarantee that if the roles were reversed, the Republicans would have done the same to a Democratic President. Whether or not one agrees with how the administration has handled the virus, the argument that they were too busy due to the impeachment hearings is laughable.
You do not think it was a valid point if you follow that up with your conclusion that if there was a "valid" case, there would be bi-partisan support. What do you mean by "valid" btw? My point is that the President could "shoot someone on 5th avenue" and there still wouldn't be bipartisan support for removal because of the divide in media bubbles.
