Your Life. Sold. To the Highest Bidder . Impeach the Mofo. Now.
How can this waking nightmare get any worse?
A lobbyist for Boeing heads the Pentagon, a coal lobbyist heads the EPA, an oil lobbyist heads the Interior Department, and a Big Pharma lobbyist heads Health and Human Services. All of those agencies are charged with regulating those same industries. https://t.co/bkQOzzzwlv
— Public Citizen (@Public_Citizen) January 5, 2019
Thanks, Hillary. Thanks, Democrats.
What is #ThirdWay? The latest incarnation of #DLC Democratic Leadership Council. Name changed b/c brand was tarnished when too many people realized it was funded by right-wing Koch Brothers to move the #DemocraticParty to the right. #Bernie2020 #BernieRRhttps://t.co/y9y4QfrLTE
— Sally Hansley Odum (@sallyodum) December 28, 2018
Ralph Nader and Robert Reich are now calling for impeachment hearings, and neither nention Ruskies. (Yeah yeah yeah. Pence etc.)
Impeach the motherfucker. Or at least hold hearingsm
#ImpeachTheMF is now the most trending hashtag on Twitter in the U.S.https://t.co/gaNFnmMx7a
— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) January 5, 2019
Yah. It probably won't hapoen But saying it sure is fun.
Comments
Amen.
Like still talking about the Hapsburgs
It's 1930 and we're wasting time on complaining about the Hapsburgs.
BushI, BushII, Clinton, Reagan, BO. We shoulda impeached Nebuchadnezzar! The Archduke had no business going to Sarajevo!
What year is this? Is this what experiencing Kos does to people?
I humbly submit we need to deal with the existential threat in front of us.
edit: not dumping on you, zb, just a general comment that seems to fit here.
A curiously arbitrary reference
In relation to the point I am making. Could it be that we are having two different conversations?
Ok, so maybe it's best if I begin by responding to the conversation I think you are having: YES, it is congress' duty to impeach any sitting President who is abusing his power, and YES The Hairball is clearly abusing his power by hiring industry insiders to cabinet posts within his administration and YES he should be impeached for that abuse of power.
The conversation that I AM HAVING, is that the political kabuki show surrounding impeachment is NOT meant to address that abuse of power or the endemic corruption running throughout our government. If it was, the entire scope of the corruption would be addressed and the leaders in congress would actually begin impeachment proceedings against Trump. But none of that is going to happen. Why? Because what our politicians prefer doing is milking this partisan impeachment reality show so they can "highlight" the Trump presidency as a horrific unprecedented anomaly of collusion and corruption in the most sensationalized display of hypocrisy our political leaders can muster while manipulating their constituents into a frenzied outrage over this shit show.
Call me crazy but maybe I'm just a little too jaded having watched our political leaders repeatedly fuck us in the ass with a 2x4 to jump on this bandwagon and engage in a purely theoretical cheerleading discussion about the impeachment that is not going to happen of this soulless huckster of a President.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Way too obvious.
As I see it, Trump’s biggest sin to the Dems is that he’s blatant about what he’s doing, not that what he’s doing is anything new or different. Maybe that’s what makes his crazy different from Obama and Clinton. They at least recognized they couldn’t parade around like the sociopaths they were. Don’t know if that’s impeachable though.
It’s all academic. Impeachment isn’t going to happen but hell, if Regan wasn’t mentally unfit enough to be removed, who is?
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
If Regan wasn't mentally unfit who is?
+ 100,000 on that comment
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Wish I could find the snl clip
It was one of the funniest things I've seen on snl. No actor portrayed Reagan. The viewer/camera was him, set in the oval office (?), getting make-up and prepped for addressing the public (state of the union, maybe?). Aides are swarming around him and the room, one with a powder puff, powdering the camera/viewer/him, another saying, "Here are your lines, sir." He, voice all shaky, attempts to be reassured that there won't be "real bullets this time" should there be another "shooting scene" because "you promised" they would be blanks.
Even as a kid (12 maybe?), I got it, and laughed out loud.
I truly don't see
how anyone could conclude that he has mental problems or is a moron or has no idea what he is doing.
He has been attempting to do things that he talked about years before he became president, like trade and foreign interventions. He actually has been remarkably consistent over the years.
His style is mercurial, and he is certainly willing to change on details, causing people whiplash. But he still seeks to achieve his over-arching goals.
Like Bernie completely changed some conversations, Trump has completely changed the conversation on foreign intervention and trade.
dfarrah
How about he's an egomanical prick who has no integrity?
Could you see how anyone could come to that conclusion?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Sure.
But what else is new? Plenty of politicians who manage to get elected are the same.
dfarrah
OK, but when you convict a murderer
.
you don't generally take the gun out of his hand and put it in the hand of another murderer. Not sure what the point is of replacing Jeffery Dahmer with Ted Bundy. At least, if you want to do that, it shouldn't be portrayed as some kind of moral action.
Damn, I meant that as a reply to Al. Oops.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Pence is a mental case with etiquette.
He reminds me of a more controlled version of this:
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Quid Pro Quo
You make an excellent point about the political distraction behind the latest "Impeach the MoFo" adrenaline shot. Not only does it fail to address the real problem of industry insiders corrupting every level of government, but using impeachment as a political tool for the same kind of corruption that has infested previous administrations, only raises the bar for how politicians will be able to manufacture partisan dissent in the future. And do any of us really believe that the same people yelling "Impeach the Mofo" now are going to hold the next Democratic President to the same standards? More likely they are going to call the Republicans attempt to do what the Democrats are doing now "a witch hunt".
It's all so very tediously predictable at times.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Bottom line for me is this
If Trump is impeached because of the emoluments clause then Hillary needs to be charged for it too. This is exactly what she did with Bill and her foundation.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
So it seems like what people are saying is
that because other public officials have gotten away with corruption and bad behavior, never again shall any one of them be held accountable for anything, ever.
Big Al is right, this is like saying that because some murderers killed got away with it, none should be prosecuted going forward.
I don’t understand that. But I honestly feel it’s a mistake to say we must give carte blanche to all presidents forevermore, because in the past some bad people were not held accountable for bad behavior.
This is not what I'm saying
If Trump has broken the law and it's an impeachable offense then of course he should be. But then Trump is a war criminal as have been the other presidents, but for some people that is not something they should have to answer for. But then most world leaders would also have to be charged for war crimes and crimes against humanity too.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Hi Snoopydawg,
Please see my earlier comment above, about impeachment. Bottom line: It is not about whether trump broke the law. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.
I know of course that most, probably all, other presidents have gotten away with many criminal acts, as well as other “high crimes and misdemeanors” which are not necessarily illegal but would have been grounds for impeachment. And that congress failed to do that.
I still say, that does not grant trump, or any future president, immunity from it.
Impeachment is the only way to deal with a dangerous or fundamentally incompetent president, between and other than through 4-year elections. That is its sole purpose.
Just think if , let’s say, Hillary had been elected and subsequently implemented a new open torture policy just like bush did. Would anyone then seriously argue that because bush wasn’t impeached for it, she can’t be either?
I certainly hope not.
Did anyone but the fringes
object to Bush's torture?
So, nobody would object to HRC doing it either.
This doesn't make it right.
And elections are also the way to get rid of politician. Recalls have not been very successful across the board.
dfarrah
I did see your previous comment on impeachment
People who are saying that he should think that he has done a lot of things that qualify him for it, but we know that anything related to Russia Gate is bogus. But they want him impeached for the emoluments clause the most in my opinion and that's why I'm saying that if he is then she should be too. And I doubt that they aren't alone in influence peddling and using their positions. Just more obvious with it. Many members of congress have 'charitable' foundations that probably are full of money from people who want something from them.
But as Big Al said, Trump does seem looney as a loon , but then again so was Reagan and no one thought of doing that to him. Bill was impeached for the crime of perjury just not convicted of it. And Nixon was one vote shy of being impeached and so he quit before he was. Hmm. Why then did Ford pardon him? Or do I have that wrong? Darn now I have to look for the answer for this.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Hillary can’t be impeached
because she is not a government official.
Otherwise, this is just going in circles. I guess we just disagree. That’s ok.
Who else did what is not relevant to whether trump should be impeached or not. That’s the bottom line for me. It should be based on HIS fitness for office, or lack thereof.
Of course that’s not reality. Who cares how things should be. I agree with Big Al that it makes zero difference what we think anyway.
It is the job of the Congress to impeach or not, and they will not impeach him.
The Dems won’t, because it’s not good for them politically. And obviously the republicans won’t since they like his tax cuts and such, and the MIC doesn’t want him out because he’s “led by the bit in his ego like a mule”, as you posted earlier.
So even if he is the most incompetent idiot, delusional and mentally ill, and completely unfit for office, no one cares.
So on that happy note, I’ll leave it. I really was just interested in knowing the facts about what are valid grounds for impeachment and what are not. It’s pretty disheartening that not many people seem to care about that.
But Al is totally right — it doesn’t matter, our opinions are all just chatter.
Night snoopy.
No of course she can't
but she can be charged for influence peddling if the statute of limitations hasn't passed. But my point is that it's hypocritical for Trump to be impeached for something when others who have done the same thing walked.
I don't think we're on opposite pages here. I don't disagree with you at all. Maybe I'm just not saying what I mean to clearly. But then there's a good reason for this today.
Of course they aren't going to do that even though Nancy said that "Impeachment is still on the table." I appreciated that you looked up why presidents can be removed from office. But I feel that I'm still not making sense or the point I'm trying to. Rack it up to bad hair day.
Night
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Lots of do care
No! Not true! I very much appreciate what you posted above and especially the Constitutional Rights Foundation article on what constitutes "High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
If we don't know what the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, and the history of it, we are all just stumbling around in the dark. I think it's required of us that we know; at least my own conscience requires it.
Thank you!
It helps, and I very much appreciate you saying that.
I was going to say, what if he's a certifiable psycho?
But then I thought, wait a minute. What the fuck kind of political system and country is this that we have to put up with that? Why is it so hard to recall a president, but easy to fire a store clerk? I mean, you see what this guy is saying? I feel like I'm in a nightmare movie scenario where you can't escape no matter what you do.
Regardless all the this or that talk, IF I HAD A SAY IN THE MATTER, I say he has to go. But I don't have a say in the matter, none of us do. It's all up to these two political parties that are both equally culpable in the crimes against humanity and their country and if it is done it certainly won't be for the right reasons, it will be all political bullshit among the oligarchy.
I read somewhere else, maybe here, an article stating that the constitution and the founding fathers intent was to not make it so hard to get rid of a sitting president. I didn't read it, just skimmed. I think it said, "we're making too big a deal out of this", i.e., "hey, just remove the fucker and move on".
But in the end, that's what it is, we don't have any say in it anyway. I think everything has to come back to that for those US citizens who want to fight back. We have no democracy and we are not even represented.
(and I'm not yelling at you.:))
It all looks petty and trite and prejudiced to me.
Cultures are constantly evolving, and that includes ideas about morality and laws. Woman would be especially aware of this. Some perfectly acceptable behaviors now would been considered obscene a century ago, and the accused would be punished or shunned for life. Laws evolve drastically, as well. However, the US is one country that denies Generational Sovereignty to to its people to re-ratify and re-confirm wrong-headed and obsolete laws that are forced on them by people long dead. This is reason so many are incarcerated in the US on absurd charges with outrageous mandatory sentences. Such injustice does not even deserve a seat at the philosophical table, domestically or globally.
Emoluments have degrees and ranges. Someone using the power of the Presidency for insider trading or to move the markets so he could profit greatly over the rest of us should be illegal. Someone with the power to boost a market sector, like defense, and does so because he owns a defense enterprise is obvious financial abuse and conflict of interest. Yet, that is how congress always manages to come home millionaires. A businessman who owns a hotel with his name on it in DC, well that's a weak tea complaint — unless he is compelling anyone who wants to do business with the government to stay there. A businessman who spent 30 years of his adult life trying to build a hotel in Moscow, like he has in many other world capitols — and who is still being rejected by the Russian government no matter what kinds of perks he offers — doesn't get much coverage in my inner newspaper. Now, Pay for play, that's a serious crime — but we call that a modern Democracy. It's as easy to prove as insider trading is. The evidence can be largely circumstantial. So, let's see someone prove that Trump did this. Or, colluded to do so. What did Ivanka do that Beau Biden didn't do? Or any other career-minded child of a US President or politician, throughout the nation's history?
We have almost as much trouble defining the evolving scope of criminal acts and laws in the US as we do defining what victory means when we invade a county to go to war. Perhaps the US should stop criminalizing human behavior, especially since the American people no longer have a moral compass to guide them.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
OK, let me put it this way:
You're relying on criminals who have committed the exact same crime to put away a criminal for committing the crime they have, and continue to, commit.
What's wrong with it? What's wrong with it is that the criminals investigating and prosecuting the crime get to portray themselves as agents of justice and law.
While they continue to commit the crime of which they accuse Trump.
What do you expect the endgame of this to be? Suppose they do impeach Trump. What do you expect to happen the next day, the next year, the next election cycle? What do you suppose all this is in aid of? Because it sure as shit isn't the defense of law, justice or democracy. The people leading the charge should show you that, given that that includes the Clintons, members of the Bush administrations, the corporate media, and the CIA.
This is a reputation makeover for all the people who would otherwise be held accountable for repeatedly smashing a wrecking ball into our crumbling world.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I’ve already said RIP to impeachment, forevermore
I am convinced, impeachment is now a completely useless concept, and it will never happen again in this country. Bill Clinton was the last.
Personally I don’t and never did think or expect it would happen to trump in any case.
Why? On what grounds?
Yes, he's nutty as a fruitcake, as my mom would say. Yes, he loaded up with swamp creatures instead of Swamp Rangers. Yes, he spews stoopid shit on Twitter and in front of cameras. Yes, he pushed for, and signed a shitty tax bill that was presented to him and passed by our reps. Yes, he takes issue with being illegally spied on during the election. Yes, he called a dictator Rocket Man. Yes, he is resisting the beating of the war drum against Russia. Yes, he has announced pulling ground troops from Syria. Yes, he has proposed a ridiculous wall that will only be tunneled under or flown over, probably just to prove that it can be done. And yes, his rejection of the immigration reform that our other elected idiots in DC refused to work together on caused a shutdown.
Is it because his attorney, the expert he hired as he's not a law expert himself, paid off two mistresses? Even if he knew about it, he wasn't the one who actually did it. No way I believe the money came from campaign money, no matter what crooked ass Mueller says.
Is it because those calling for his impeachment want us at war in Syria and Russia and N. Korea?
Is it because he's a narcissistic turd? He's no King George or Charles Manson or Andrea Yates.
What exactly, would he be impeached for? High crimes and misdemeanors? Which one(s)? Is it a high crime or misdemeanor to do anything I listed in my first paragraph? And what if he is impeached? What then? Clinton was, and nothing happened other than he was proven to be a philandering liar and his wife publicly held him unaccountable for his own wandering penis, blaming Monica, as if Slick was a victim. That's all. He was not removed from office.
Are people in the Twitter world confusing the word impeachment with removal from office? I don't get it. Doesn't there have to be a "there, there"? Or can we do it simply because we don't like him?
I think we're all getting it backwards
It's not that Trump should be removed, it's that the corruptocrats not only haven't proved it, they have engaged in a strategy that is designed to turn America into a failed state, where presidents are removed, not for legitimate reasons, but at a whim.
Trump is a crook? Trump is insane? Who cares? The Democrats say he's a pooty-head! Is this a country or a 1st grade?
On to Biden since 1973
^^^
There is great significance in the form it is taking. The meta is the message.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Pages