The Short Blade of Impeachment: Most Americans Skipped Hearings
Sequestered Arms for Ukraine bombs on the Boobtube
The Watergate hearings captured a huge TV audience — 80 percent of Americans tuned in, by some estimates. Like the Moon Landings, Watergate shaped the attitudes of Americans, young and old, for the rest of their lives. Not likely this time.
By comparison, Neilsen ratings show that 5 million fewer viewers than the final episode of The Big Bang Theory tuned in for the opening of the Trump Impeachment hearings. Barely a half million people in the 18-34 demographic watched the first day of Impeachment on TV. https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-releases/2019/nearly-13-8-million-vi...
Even by the standards of recent bombshell political hearings, Day One of Impeachment was a bust. The hearings had fewer television viewers, 13.8 million, than the James Comey, Brett Kavanaugh and Michael Cohen spectacles. CNN, MSNBC, the NYT and others in the MSM visibly struggled to explain why so few people bothered to watch. More than 70 percent of those who did tune in were over 55.
There are many sources of America's mass snoozy disinterest in the daytime entertainment broadcast of Trump's Impeachment. Is it coercion or bribery we're supposed to worry about? One major source of our disinterest is that the MSM never seems to grasp is the fact that Americans have little emotional investment in the cause given by Democrats for Impeachment: Donald Trump's delay in releasing funds for military assistance to Ukraine.
In pushing forward with the Impeachment fiasco, Congressional Democrats have ignored the most basic lesson of politics: Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Rarely has so much been wagered on so shallow a peg as efforts to Impeach Trump for his efforts to sequester $310 million in lethal arms allocated by Congress to Ukraine. Most Americans probably didn't even know that we have been arming the regime in Kiev since 2015, much less care deeply one way or the other about whether the flow of antitank missiles and body counts (more than 10,000) continue.
As Congressional resolutions on war and peace go, this Impeachment is far more Presidential blow job (Bill Clinton, 1998), but without the sexual titilation, than Congressional resolution on the course of Reconstruction (Andrew Johnson, 1870). As historical drama, this isn't even a stained dress.
Polling has showed little support for intervention in Ukraine going back to when Kiev was still burning. A May, 2014 Pew poll found only 30 percent of U.S. respondents supported proposals to send arms to the Ukraine, whilst a mere 18% of Germans polled wanted NATO military aid for the Poroshenko regime that had taken control after the coup. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/01/in-germany-u-s-polls-fi...
A poll that followed a year later showed that the topic was deeply polarizing along partisan lines. In 2015, however, it was Democrats who overwhelmingly voiced skepticism about arming Ukraine while Republicans then viewed Russia as a threat and favored military aid to Kiev by a difference of 20 percent: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/15/republicans-and-democra...
As the Obama White House and its NATO allies discuss their responses to Russia’s activities in Ukraine, Washington faces its own internal divisions, some of which are being reflected in the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign. Republicans and Democrats in the United States are strongly divided on the situation in Ukraine and what to do about it.
Members of both American political parties see Russia as a major military threat to neighboring countries, but to differing degrees, according to our latest survey.
Two-thirds of GOP members see Russia as a military threat, but only 56% of Democrats share their fear. And while half of Republicans say Russia is to blame for the violence in eastern Ukraine, just 39% of Democrats agree.
There is a similar partisan divide over what to do about the situation in Ukraine. Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to support military assistance. Six-in-ten Republicans voice support for NATO sending arms to the Ukrainian government compared with 39% of Democrats.
Curiously, while billions in military aid have been supplied by the U.S. and NATO, there has been little published polling since 2015 of western opinion of arms shipments to Ukraine. Only recently, when it became the causus belli for Impeachment after the Mueller Russiagate Inquiry fell apart, the subject has again come up. Washington elites don't really care what the little people think about their twilight wars that never end on the flanks of Russia.
Arms for Kiev is now inextricably linked to the question of Trump's Impeachment. A twofer, really, for the New Cold Warriors. If you are for Impeachment, the wording of polls now can be twisted to show you to be an advocate of arming Kiev. Take this question in a recent YouGov/Economist poll of October 26:
32. Impeachable Offense
If it is proven that Donald Trump purposefully withheld military aid to Ukraine in order to get the President of Ukraine to investigate allegations of corruption
against the Biden family, do you think that is an impeachable offense?
It is likely that Washington's arming of Kiev, that goes back to 2015, continues to be far more popular among Washington policy elites than it is in the country at large. Thus, when it comes down to the basic premise, this Impeachment effort remains on unsure footing while the chances of a real war with Russia continue to escalate.
Recent polling of Republicans on the issue reflect continues to show thin support for Impeachment among GOP voters. Only 15 percent of Republicans consider withholding military aid is an impeachable offense. Nate Silver's 538 summed it up this way: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-voters-are-more-split-on-the-su...
An Economist/YouGov poll released this week fits this theory. The poll found that 14 percent of Republican adults think that Trump “purposefully” withheld military aid from Ukraine to force an investigation into the Bidens, and another 23 percent said that they are unsure. That means only 63 percent of Republican respondents took the completely pro-Trump stance that the president did not intentionally withhold the money. Similarly, 15 percent of Republicans think that if it’s proven that Trump withheld aid from the Ukrainians until they agreed to an investigation of the Bidens, that would constitute an impeachable offense. Another 20 percent say they aren’t sure.
But that poll also found that Republicans are basically unified in opposing Trump’s impeachment (81 percent) or his removal (83 percent). Similarly, Morning Consult/Politico poll released this week found that only 11 percent of Republicans think that Trump “abused his power to influence the 2020 election,” while 73 percent said he was “acting within his power.”
All this suggests a difficult path for Democrats to win over Republican voters on the subject of impeachment. Even if House lawmakers seize on some GOP voters’ disapproval of Trump’s conduct in the abstract, they must overcome voters’ strong loyalty to the president in selling impeachment.
The raw numbers of the same Economist/YouGov poll show, not surprisingly, that a vast majority of Democrats (80%) now see this as an Impeachable offense, while less than 40% of Independents think it is. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zgaz948hz...
Finally, a NPR/Marist poll of November 18th shows the futility of Impeachment hearings, if the purpose of House Democrats is to change the minds of Republicans, or anyone else, by a significant enough margin to sway GOP Senators to vote for Impeachment. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/780540637/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-s...
Half of Americans said they approve of the impeachment inquiry — about the same as the poll found last month. Respondents are also split on whether they think Trump should be impeached and removed from office.
But 65% of Americans say they can't imagine any information or circumstances during the impeachment inquiry where they might change their minds about their position on impeachment. And 30% say yes, it's possible.
These numbers reflect the unshakable partisan polarization that is America in the 21st Century. Put this all together, and we see the next stage of ossification into mass apathy and alienation that afflicts the politics of partially democratic permanent warfare states in decline.
Unless you're among the diminishing number of people who identify as registered Democratic voters, and are over 55 years of age, you probably don't give much of a damn, anymore, about Impeachment.
Comments
awesome report!
errr...when i'd covered the first day at the Café, i admit i'd tagged it 'Satire'. the only comment it drew (iirc) mirrored michael che on SNL's weekend update:
[video:https://youtu.be/u5-lJoeg4-Q?t=1m36s]
jeebus, there are more 'witnesses' who'll be called this week! (snoooooze...)
Impeach Bush and Cheney
and I'll take this seriously. They can't be removed from office, but protection, pensions, gifts awards and the like can be. Plus setting the record right.
How shameful that Pelosi considered betrayal of public trust, and outright crimes against humanity "not worth it." But this trivial crap is, while every sphere of life deteriorates.
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
It's a punishable crime to oppose wars and military coups.
As we've seen, that can get you arrested in Washington or shot today in Bolivia. The illusion that the arc of history bows toward justice went out with Fitzmas and the Obama Administration.
One of the first things Obama and the Democrats did in 2009 was,
amend the FISA law — the one with the secret courts that hand down secret decisions in secret hearings where no defense is allowed — to protect the telephone companies from being sued for warrantless wiretapping.
https://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/Telcos-Score-Victory-in-Legal-Wrang...
Of course, a little later, Ed Snowden came along and we found out that both private industry and the government were actually “wiretapping” everything by everyone all the time.
Washington is chock full of much greater enemies of freedom and the average citizen than Trump.
I've said in the comments here why I do care about
impeachment.
Your comment illustrates why I don't.
And I bet there are a lot of millennials who feel the same way. After all, they got swept up in the Obama movement and probably expected somebody, somewhere to be held accountable for something under Democratic rule.
Nope. Not so much.
Bush walks; Cheney walks; Rove walks; Rumsfeld walks; Wall St. walks.
"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
Lots of people are upset that Trump pardoned 3 military
guys and going against the pentagon. My Twitter feed was full of people saying how wrong Trump is for doing that. I like to remind them of Obama's decision not to prosecute Bush, Cheney or anyone else involved in the torture program. And that he didn't go after Bush for destroying Iraq on false pretenses. And that Obama's killing 3 Americans without due process has never been prosecuted.
Kill one person, go to prison. Kill millions and you are just exceptional.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
i'd add that although
obomba had repeated ad nauseum 'amerika does not torture', right on the cover of the NYT he'd admitted that he was out-sourcing torture' by repeated whistle-stop tours. and don't forget john yoo, author of the bush-era torture memos, although allegedly 'repudiated' by obomba.
bubba clinton's war crimes on yugoslavia/kosovo? milocevic died in the hague prison, and was pardoned of war crimes...posthumously.
but of course trump won't be removed from office (67 senators vote aye) unless something sincerely sohcking occurs.
Yoo didn’t just go free — he’s a prof at UC Berkeley law school
The justifier of torture is the elites’ pick to mentor and be a role model for our young people studying to be future lawyers and legislators and judges.
An invitation by the NY Historical Society
for him to give a speech there is the reason I cancelled my membership with them. Wrote to them to say so too.
So many of these institutions are fucking Neliberal shit at their core. Which is why a sociologist professor friend of ours is not a fan of museums in general. She’s helped make me a lot more discerning.
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
- Kurt Vonnegut
i do know that,
and remember the protests against his having been hired. all to #NoAvail. and i did dig up something i’d written on Obomba’s Terror Tuesdays in 2012 (when i could write, not just copy/paste) just to be sure it was the NY CIA Slimes i’d been talking about.
and my Terror Tuedsdays link had gone to this disgusting rubbish: ‘Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will’, may 29, 2012, NYT Times:
“The day before the executive orders were issued, the C.I.A.’s
top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, had called the White House in a panic. The order prohibited the agency from operating detention facilities, closing once and for all the secret overseas “black sites” where interrogators had brutalized terrorist suspects.
“The way this is written, you are going to take us out of the rendition business,” Mr. Rizzo told Gregory B. Craig, Mr. Obama’s White House counsel, referring to the much-criticized practice of grabbing a terrorist suspect abroad and delivering him to another country for interrogation or trial. The problem, Mr. Rizzo explained, was that the C.I.A. sometimes held such suspects for a day or two while awaiting a flight. The order appeared to outlaw that.
Mr. Craig assured him that the new president had no intention of ending rendition — only its abuse, which could lead to American complicity in torture abroad. So a new definition of “detention facility” was inserted, excluding places used to hold people “on a short-term, transitory basis.” Problem solved — and no messy public explanation damped Mr. Obama’s celebration.
“Pragmatism over ideology,” his campaign national security team had advised in a memo in March 2008. It was counsel that only reinforced the president’s instincts.
but i remembered the meme at the time, a well: O had been celebrated by political sunday talking heads for 'looking forward, not backward' (as per peggy noonan). we all know why that was...
as goofy as it sounds, i began tithing food every Terror Tuesday in sympathy with those he'd murdered, and still do it when i'm able. hate trump? i have quite list, myownself.
Can't get enough of this.
god bless Harry Shearer
"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
bless your ♥
and harry shearer's, as well.
walks
Because money talks.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=315FlJyaqZc]
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
money talks; bullshit walks
it's an old saying
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I never before really understood that statement
in other words, bullshit walks away from its crimes scot-free.
"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
Bush doesn’t only walk — he’s a big old lovable sweetie-pie!
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=michelle+obama+bush+wonderful+sweet
Who are we to argue with Michelle Obama and Ellen DeGeneres?
But that’s history, isn’t it? The elite sparkle, laugh, dine, and dance at Berchtesgaden while the little people are dying in the camps, in the burning firebombed cities, or on the eastern front.
Ugh.
That just turned my stomach.
"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
Exactly right
Pelosi overlooked illegal wars, handwaved away war crimes, nodded her head at torture, was okay with the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and the displacement and suffering of millions more. All so her class could enrich themselves. Along with failing to prosecute any of that, Obama joined in and ramped the wars up from 2 to 7 -- according to the LATimes the Nobel Peace Prize winner was the first President ever to keep the nation in war throughout both of his terms -- and he ramped the war crimes up to bombing a Doctors Without Borders hospital. Our economy is a thunderdome wasteland for over half the people trying to survive in it and the people responsible for that are poisoning our air, water, and food while they hold our medicine hostage and collect all our private data.
But sketchy phone calls from a sketchy man, that's some impeachable shit? WOW.
All these everyday people who are just clean out of fucks to give about Ds and Rs and only have something like disdain or contempt for the whole affair and everyone involved in it, that gives me a little bit of hope that the sickness in the nosebleed class might not be as contagious as I feared. I have no idea where we go from here but the notion that most regular people don't want to follow any of these assholes anywhere is a good thing and right now I'll take as many of those as I can get.
This is an excellent encapsulation of the impeachment nonsense.
This deserves wide circulation.
Sure does.
"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
Sketchy phone call indeed
Impressions. Feelings. My beliefs. I thought he.... I overheard someone saying to someone that Trump said.... My staff told me that she thought what that other person overheard was quid pro quo. Bottom line for me is that 1) Zelensky did not know the money was being withheld and 2) he said that he felt no pressure to deliver on anything. Even the Solderman (?) telephone call that someone overheard because Trump was being loud only said that Trump wanted the 'investigation' to go forward. THere was still a lot of corruption happening in Ukraine and the president has every right to look into before releasing the money. Articles I have read is that many people in congress involved in this were getting kickbacks from the aid we delivered. If that is true I think an investigation is warranted.
But with the many other serious crimes Trump has committed it's just foolish that this is what Nancy thinks is wrong. She sure didn't think it would be worth her time to investigate Bush/Cheney et all like you say.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Just what does this have to do with the phone call?
Vinland has connections to the arms industry that was selling weapons to Ukraine. Yeah no conflict of interest there. Nooope.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Authoritarian Communism is bad.
Authoritarian Nazis are bad if they're not our friends.
Other kinds of authoritarianism are freakin' awesome.
apparently
"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
Kickbacks from Aid,
BINGO. I think we all know just where that aid ends up, on the bottom line of the MIC, and of course our prostitute leaders want their share of the spoils.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
She can't investigate Trump for the real shit he does wrong.
Because if she does, Trump will tell Barr to investigate everybody else for doing the same shit.
"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
The only thing that surprised me
was how few Democrats have actually drunk the kook-aid about the Ukraine.
On to Biden since 1973
If that's a typo, it's wildly appropriate
and if it was intentional, it's very clever.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Interesting Twitter thread on the WB in Ukraine
Well now this is very interesting.
I don't think democrats have thought this impeachment thing through very well because there is a lot of information that will come out that shows them in a bad light.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
The Democrats
not thinking things through very well.
Now there's something new and different.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Holy shit.
More than 70 percent of those who did tune in were over 65.
That's...some number.
"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
Young voters on impeaching Trump:
'OK Boomer'
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Ok Boomer
Man I love that line it makes me chuckle every time I read about someone using it. I wish I could use it myself but I'm guessing it would lose some of its punch coming from someone that is a boomer. That being said I don't consider myself an 'Ok Boomer'.
I actually think
it might be more effective coming from a fellow Boomer. I mean "effective" in the sense of getting them to start letting down their defenses and begin to question what they think they know.
Then again, I'm finding many of our fellow Boomers to be a hard nut to crack. Step by step, I guess.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
I think this must be what you’re referring to with “OK Boomer”
[video:https://youtu.be/YFPmcat1RCM]
It’s almost as good as this oldie …
[video:https://youtu.be/OeHTziiFVx0]
If you listen until min. 2:18
you will hear his famous comment, "I can smell the uranium on your breath".
uranium??
HE'S EATING URANIUM??!!??!11!!
(The only element that heavy, that isn't seriously poisonous, is Bismuth.)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Thanks Than
for your reference to Bismouth. It’s crystals are beautiful, even if weakly radioactive.
More context regarding Longe ...
You can read PM David Lange’s argument that nuclear weapons are morally indefensible, here.
Great stuff.
We need more David Lange's handing it to the snotty Imperial toffs.
Loved the look on Falwell's face at the end. Talk about walking into a buzzsaw.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Pleased you appreciated it, NHK
I wished I could have experienced David Longe during his tenure as PM. We arrived 7 years too late, just before Jenny Shipley became PM . You wouldn’t have liked her an more than Hillary Clinton.
Where the hell are all those young people now?
Oxford is the training ground of the elites...and the gateway for a few lucky highly intelligent non-elites to power.
How many of those in that hall ended up in government or finance? Why didn't they carry their convictions forward, while people still could?
Why the fuck was Tony Blair what we got?
"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
"Where the hell are all those young people now?"
I wouldn't hazard a guess.
Thanks for the correction: that's 70% over 55. Must be getting
more dyslexic with each advancing year.
Glad Russiagate!! and the Impeachment!! debacle isn't a formative part of my outlook. Facade of democracy falling down infront of us, and what a rotten skeleton of Empire beneath. Must suck to be a Young American these days.
Still. Even 70% over 55 is...
some number.
Gen X begins in 1965. The oldest GenXers are 54 right now.
That means 70% of those who tuned in were Boomers, Silents, or Greatest Generation.
Shit, man!
"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
A lot more retired people . . .
were at home during the broadcast than people under 55.
People didn't bother to stay home to watch
Most have tuned out after the "failure" of the Comey and Mueller hearings to bring any sense of resolution and concensus, or even the sense the system still works.
What Americans are left with is polarization, spreading political apathy, resignation to corruption, and mass alienation from their system of government.
That suits the elites just fine, and they're taking it as carte blanche to pursue their historical agenda - a permanent Cold War, Oligarchy, and Fascism with the veneer of increasingly meaningless elections.
And this is an example
of why I don't take surveys.
32. Impeachable Offense
If it is proven that Donald Trump purposefully withheld military aid to Ukraine in order to get the President of Ukraine to investigate allegations of corruption
against the Biden family, do you think that is an impeachable offense?
On the merits of the question itself, without context, I'd have to answer "maybe." Which could easily be twisted in MSM reporting to make it look like I supported, or at least gave soft support to, arming the Ukraine.
"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
Exactly the point. Or one of them.
That's why I say this ground for Impeachment is a twofer for the New Cold Warriors. Switching the Dems into a pro-war party could be even more valuable to them than simply getting rid of Trump.
Not just that
Centrists have become pro intelligence agencies since Trump's election as well as many ex military. I just saw a comment saying that General McRaven should be who the candidate picks for his VP. The whole thread and context made me shake my head. And sigh. Mass hysteria has gripped the country along with the new Cold War mentality. What people say about Russia and especially the thug Putin is so far from reality it's scary. Putin didn't win his election fairly. Oh no he muscled and threatened his way into winning. Scary indeed.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
You're missing the "intent" factor.
Obama periodically threatened to withhold money from Ukraine over their raging corruption. He made Biden the point man in Ukraine to police this.
So this alone is not impeachable.
The question is did Trump do it to enrich himself? Or was he continuing the corruption track by exposing Ukraine's significant meddling in the 2016 election to bring about a Hillary win?
But that was different
According to many people ByeDone did that in the interests of the USA while they say Trump did it to derail ByeDone's campaign. But they leave out that Trump was upset that other countries weren't paying their fair share of money to look into corruption in Ukraine. According to the transcript he never mentioned Burisma, but a few people are saying that he did. It's interesting to read the leaked information from CNN or MSNBC and then read from an alternative source that says something completely different. I guess whatever side you're on makes all the difference in what you believe.
But this is funny.
25 times Trump was soft on Russia
Hmm...
Caitlin had a blast with this list.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Apparently visiting bad people is verboten.
You know, like the Congressional fact-finding mission where they met Assad. BAD! BAD! BAD!
You can't have heads of state meeting with other heads of state if they're BAD.
"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
Well...
I'm not taking it as a given that Obama was above impeachment or shouldn't have been impeached.
However, I admit that this whole thing strikes me as falling into the category of "I'm shocked, shocked to find that there's GAMBLING going on around here!"
"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
Followed by, “Your [party’s VP’s son’s] winnings, monsieur.” n/t
LOL
"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
My peeps!
while less than 40% of Independents think it is.
Partisanship has become really, really scary.
In 2015, Republicans wanted to arm Kiev and Democrats didn't.
In 2019, Democrats want to arm Kiev, and Republicans don't.
Does this flip seem kinda "we've always been at war with Eastasia" to anybody, or is it just me?
It feels like people will believe whatever their political party and its associated media outlets tell them to believe.
"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 can't believe how many people think that we need to arm
Ukraine just so they can fight Russian aggression because Russia wants to take over Europe now and Ukraine is standing in Vlad's way. The ignorance of people spouting this type of crap is staggering. People are accusing Putin of creating the white nationalist movements here and in Ukraine. I wonder if any of them have opened a history book and read about Russia's fighting during WWII. But people think that it'd be way cool if Ukraine joined NATO too. Actually I'm just dumbfounded by how many people are involved in this new Cold War thinking. George Soros has been involved in many of the color revolutions including Ukraine, but if you mention that now you are being anti Semitic. How that works in people's heads is quite bewildering.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Those were our Nazis
ByeDone claimed that the military aid was necessary to counter the Russian army, who had killed 13,000 Ukrainians in the Donbas. Wow, what an incredible lie. The Ukrainian army shelled and bombed Ukrainians in the Donbas, with our encouragement. There has repeatedly been the absence of any evidence that the Russian army is in the Donbas. The Ukrainians in their assault of the civilians of the Donbas were assisted by neo-Nazi groups, whom we financed and armed to overthrow the Democratically elected government of Yanukovych. (Wikipedia calls it the "2014 Ukrainian revolution", yet another reason to not use or support Wikipedcia, misspelling on purpose)
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
How does the cultivation of Cold War hatred work? Why the
massive shift in attitudes toward Russia, and the exchange of positions between Democrats and Republicans in so few years? A proper explanation goes deeper than simply partisan support or opposition to Donald Trump.
Many of the most notable members of the Harvard faculty have been Hegelians, or, owing to the taint of anything Marxist, crypto-dialectical thinkers. The self-destructive tendencies of the Democratic Party and its rediscovery of Cold War zeal and McCarthyism, I believe, is summed up in the following statement by the long-time Director of Harvard's Institute of International Relations. Samuel P. Huntington wrote in his widely influential 2003, The Clash of Civilizations about what he viewed as the dialectic of identity and the permanent nature of hostilities:
The shifting attitudes toward Russia does, indeed, seem to track the rise and ebb of American public hatred for another synthetic enemy, Islam. People and institutions have a need for a collective enemy, and will invent them, if necessary in order to maintain social and political cohesion. But, to carry around more than one enemy in our brains at the same time creates cognitive dissonance, so we eject enemies (and allies) in order to accomodate new ones (or, as in this case, to reintroduce old ones). That's reflected in the Gallup timeline of polling, below, that shows American attitudes toward Russia warmed after 9/11 and appears to have peaked in 2006, as the Iraq War and US-Russian cooperation in the GWOT was winding down: https://news.gallup.com/poll/237137/republicans-positive-relations-russi...
This is such a great point
As the graf shows the turn to thinking that Russia is our enemy started in 2015 which is when we started hearing that Russia had hacked the DNC computers and were doing other nefarious things. But it really picked up when people agreed with Russia and especially Putin cost Hillary the election. I am seeing such naive and stupid comments about Russia and Vlad from people who were alive back during the McCarthy days and seeing people agreeing with them. Case in point:
Many people actually believe that the GOP is being run by Putin and that they are selling out the country for him. Some republicans went to Russia during the the 4th of July and they think that means they went to get their 'marching orders from Vlad' when trips like that have been happening for ages. No kind of talk like that when democrats go to Israel on an Israel paid trip though. And we know that Israel has far more influence over our government that Russia could ever dream of. I like to remind people of that time Vlad went before congress and told them to vote against Obama's deal with..... fill in the blank. But it was no problem that BIBI did just that.
BTW: Bibi has been charged for fraud and other charges, but apparently he still doesn't have to step down from being PM.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
You already have the answer.
Partisanship is an illusion.
It hasn't really mattered who wins the Presidency for well over a half-century. It's what happens at the global level that determines the people's well-being — if there is anything left over for the People after they pay all the expenses of the MIC each year. The permanently installed deep state (a term that refers to the State Department) makes those decisions. They are still on the Empire path and cannot be stopped.
I think people are starting to notice.
it used to be when someone pointed out the lack of difference between the parties, people would get so upset and challenge that statement. I’m seeing less and less of that. Maybe this realization will be the one positive out of what we’re going through.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
I was once told by someone I love
that saying both the parties were the same was a "right-wing talking point."
"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
Me too.
I'm starting to hear it less these days. I will take that as a positive because it's all I got.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
I care about impeachment
for one reason only: I'm terrified of Mike Pence getting within reach of the red phone.
"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
Same here, RE Pence.
I don't want a president who is obsessed with his invisible friends in the sky.
And on that note, I distrust governments that pray together. As if that gave them the moral right to destroy nations and murder people around the world. Nothing against prayer. But If a representative absolutely must pray, s/he should do it before they leave for work and stop displaying their private creepiness in my government. Get some dignity, politicians. And pray to a better god — one that would damn you to hell for the monstrous wars that you hypocrites vote for.
As a boy in Sunday School
I was told a parable(?) about how God doesn't listen to those who pray loudly and ostentatiously in public, but rather listens to those who pray silently in private.
That's certainly my kind of god.
So Pence is a Pharisee?
EDIT: I don't remember where this line comes from but it fits Pence:
"I don't know what kind of smug God you have taken on as your junior partner, but ..."
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Matthew 6:5-8
.
They don't know to pray properly in Congress. The only reward they will get for their ostentatious behavior with their preacher-for-hire is some airtime on CSPAN. But then, that's probably what they are praying for.
If I delve back into my Christian past
then I'd say yes, he looks like a Pharisee to me.
"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
better god(s)
-- Christian Scriptures, Matthew 7:21 (KJV) source
Christian Scriptures, Luke 6:46 (KJV) source
Boss Hogg, Dukes of Hazzard
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I can rely on you to frame the sentiment
...with wisdom and wit.
You're the best.
thank you!
Thank you!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Yes. You are.
Motion seconded.
Ich Danke dir sehr!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Indeed. :-)
"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
What the HELL is up with Dominionists?!?
"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
Even the Pope called the business of international capitalism
and its war machines "devil dung."
It's pretty bad when the Catholic hierarchy can see that you're doing something politically wrong.
"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 want this question polled.
Is Trump being impeached for what Biden did?
(I wish I had thought of that line because it is golden).
That depends.
Did he do it to secure solid evidence of Ukraine's illegal donations to Hillary's campaign to expand AG Barr's investigation into criminal acts within the government to rig the 2016 election — debuting in December? I seem to recall that Ukraine was the largest donor to Hillary's "family trust" in 2016. Ukraine now says that money was stolen and they want it back.
Or did he do it because he thought that the obviously-senile Biden was going to beat him and he wanted to smear him.
The latter. n/t
Neither.
I agree with whoever said that Biden was obviously the secondary part of that conversation. If the "transcript" is correct.
Trump led off with talking about Crowdstrike and spent a lot more time talking about them. Or has the transcript changed in the last couple weeks?
"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
usually when one
is elected to high office, the victor doesn't spend a lot of time investigating why he didn't win more convincingly. He would be far more interested in arranging to stay in power and win the next election. Joe Biden looked vulnerable to embarrassment with Hunter's Ukraine activities, a way for Trump to tar Joe in a "Hillary's emails" fashion. Low-hanging fruit Trump probably thought. Just needed some assistance from the Ukrainians. A little extortion and bribery could encourage them.
And it is hard not to notice how so many supposed progressives are intent on spinning Ukraine and impeachment to favor Trump.
That's all it is?
So it doesn't have anything to do with Ukraine's help in digging up dirt on Manafort or what the Brennan and his pals at the CIA and FBI has put this country through with its bogus Russian rabbit hole? He just wants to know why he didn't win ever more bigly? Got it.
Another dig at people's opinions here? Why am I surprised? This has nothing to do with favoring Trump and hoping he beats impeachment cuz of some nefarious reasons. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to impeach him, but doing it on this ain't it. If Barr gets to go where he wants to with his investigation into the creation of the other bogus Russian boogie man then we will see how it was all created to keep Trump from winning and then once he won from being able to do what he wants FP wise.
BTW are you saying people here aren't real progressives? You get to decide that?
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Actually it was clear
that I said just the opposite. In my view, while he would be interested in the origins of R-gate, his primary focus with Zerensky would have been, and by the evidence we have seems to have been, to get dirt on Biden.
As for progressives, I merely noted what was rather starkly obvious, that so many seemed to be arguing in Trump's defense on impeachment, often by citing, as you do in another thread in particular, mostly GOP talking points and perspective. I find this very interesting, but don't find it at all out of line to note it here openly. Btw, are you some sort of official thread nanny here that we all must obey?
GOP talking points?
I would be interested in having those presented to us out here so we can see what you determine is a GOP talking point. And really, if we in this country insist on this being a partisan issue we are not going to really change one damned thing. This isn't a partisan issue, we are talking about Impeaching a sitting president for something that not only have all his accusers themselves done, but it also appears to be for something that is barely even really illegal in this country. And while we spend time and energy debating the legality of this latest piece of theater, all other far more important issues are simply ignored.
If it can be done to Trump do you really think our owners will spare Bernie Sanders from the same fate? How about Liz Warren or whichever nominal "progressive" who might succeed in getting elected?
At the end of the day, it is highly doubtful Republicans in the Senate are going to all of a sudden have an epiphany and Impeach Trump, so what IS the point of it all? I don't think that is a partisan question but in todays America apparently it is. And we wonder why people all over the world shake their heads and wonder when Americans are going to wake the hell up to what's being done in our name...
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Really?
How many times has Biden run for president and failed to get the nomination?
Why would Trump want to harm the chances of Mr. Rejection getting the nomination?
@Pluto's Republic Neither of those things
Neither of those things come close to being an impeachable offense.
Since when has a President not smeared an opponent?
Doesn't a President have the right to investigate corruption between some other country and ours?
Are political opponents supposed to be granted immunity for criminal acts?
question
If that's the genuine cause of/for the investigation, sure.
If it's really to use your governmental powers to rid oneself of a political opponent, that could be itself corruption, which is an impeachable offense.
But it's still grasping at straws. And it's obvious why: the Dems know full well this impeachment will fail, and the circus draws America's attention away from..... other things.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Thing is, if he wanted to rid himself of a political opponent
by finding and/or manufacturing evidence, he sure as hell didn't have to go to Ukraine to do it. He could just hire someone like Karl Rove. There must be someone of similar pedigree willing to worth for Trump.
"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
To quote Rod Blagojevich
It's f'ing golden!
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Has any of Schiff's witnesses committed sedition?
Alexander Vindman – Why Diaspora Ukrainians are Driving Sedition
How about Brennan, Clapper or any of the other people involved in trying to overthrow Trump? The FBI started its investigation of Trump's campaign on false pretenses. This should have some consequences.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Pages