What I said out loud upon being prodded to read "A Dishonorable Senate/Republican legislators abdicated their duty by refusing to seek the truth" by the Editors of the NYT.
I was told it's so "over the top in its emotionalism... Sort of tantrumlike — She thought she was going to get what she wants and you're the best parents ever, and now she's not going to get what she wants, and you're the worst parents ever."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४९ टिप्पण्या:
I refuse to read this stuff. Did the NYT go off on the Dems for faking the whole thing or something?
Sorry for your loss, suckers.
America won yesterday. Now we just have 5 more years of impeachment coming!!!
There’s that word “credible” again. It’s hard to imagine how it could be capable of doing all the work the left so often relies on it to do.
If this farce is playing out this way with Althouse, who doesn't like Trump and doesn't want to vote for him...
How's it playing out with the rest of the electorate?
"How's it playing out with the rest of the electorate?"
All I know is hard core Trump haters in my fb feed - like my boomer, unionized, blue collar, Bernie Bro brother - have bought the codswallop the MSM and all the lefty sources they read prattle on about, so they are incensed and spouting all the same rhetoric. They aren't capable of stepping back and evaluating the entire fiasco - unlike our cruelly neutral hostess.
I'm sure many, on both sides, voted their conscience. I put the hypocrisy quotient higher on the Dem side though.....If Trump had an affair with a subordinate in the White House, lied about it, and suborned others to lie about it, do you think that the measured opinion of the Dems would be that. hey, it's just sex and everyone lies about sex.
There are ways to stop five more years of impeachment.
One is that Trump loses in November. Another is that the Dems are returned to the minority in the House.
Which one do you pick?
I've wondered where I can get a bumper sticker that says, "I don't share in your hysteria."
Not exactly The New York Times described by Rex Stout in his Nero Wolfe stories, is it?
h, here you go --
Bumper stickers
William, William,
It was not what Clinton lied about, but where - in a court of the United States - and for what purpose, which was to prevent Paula Jones prevailing against him in her civil suit seeking damages for sexual harassment while he was governor of Arkansas.
The Democrats keep repeating "Clinton only lied about sex" and eventually you come to believe it.
Somebody should do a sociological study of the characteristics of people who think they're well-informed from reading the NYT. Or would that more properly be an epidemiological study?
I'm telling you- there should not be another Dem elected for 2 generations. They need an entire cleaning out and it'll take 2 generations worth to get there.
House of Reps is a start.
To think I once voted Dem. It was so many years ago. But it was also the last time in this man's life it was to happen.
There is that old joke about the New York Times:
Don’t read it, and you are uninformed. Read it, and you are misinformed.
The truth? The truth is the Democrats are living in a zombie apocalypse.
Those who haven’t been afflicted must, for their own survival, behave like they have.
Peggy Noonan said ...
The impeachment rested on a charge against the president. The Democrats insisted he did it. The Republicans had said he didn’t. Now a Republican insider has apparently come forward with an unpublished book that says, “He did it.”
It would be wrong not to subpoena him and get him under oath. This is a trial. Mr. Bolton has key evidence. It cannot be justly ignored.
It is that simple, and history will condense it down to that.
Noonan is correct in this assessment, but then she continues:
"The rationales for refusal don’t hold."
And while the rationales she provides don't hold, she does not consider the rationale offered by Rubio.
Rubio said ...
“Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office,” he said. “I will not vote to remove the president because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation.”
Irreparable is probably an overstatement, but it is reasonable to argue that the cost is not worth the reward. Trump himself does not rise to the level of an impeachable president.
The truth is the Dems don't want witnesses. Calling witnesses would hurt them, not help them. No. This is what they want. This is their pathetic goal. They have what they wanted.
Personally, I think Republicans should have called witnesses. Lots. But what do I know?
I don't recall the NYT being upset when Democrats refused to call the whistleblower to gain first hand knowledge of the complaint. Isn't that how you seek truth? Oh yeah, the whistleblower didn't have first hand knowledge, and neither did any of the witnesses the Democrats allowed to be called.
It's all part of a well-oiled machine. Everyone knew the Senate would block witnesses I truly think in the Democrat mind that is a feature not a bug. Now they will bang on hard to take back the house and the Senate for their enabling of the criminal Trump. Remember folks I'm speaking in realpolitik I am not making factual points so don't try to argue whether or not Trump is a criminal. He is a criminal in the minds of the Democrats and the plan is to make the swing voters think he is a criminal as well.
There are only two alternatives: (i) the lefties are so smugly certain that they have an iron-grip monopoly on virtue that it’s inconceivable to them that this is all a political charade intended to change the calculus of power, or (ii) they know perfectly well that they are pretending to occupy the moral high ground, and this circus is just another form of resistance by any means necessary.
I would be more than happy to support the vote to remove a truly corrupt and venal and treasonous Republican president, but since those same standards do not apply to Democrats who enter office poor as dirt and leave with hundreds of millions in their private charity, perjure themselves in a Federal courthouse, or sell out the security of the nation to an emerging nuclear power and sending billions in cash by air transport, the weeping of the Dems today is music to my ears. I say ‘step closer so that I might taste your tears.’
- Krumhorn
Irreparable is probably an overstatement, but it is reasonable to argue that the cost is not worth the reward. Trump himself does not rise to the level of an impeachable president.
You keep losing and telling yourself you've won.
Hilarious.
Trump is your intellectual superior. But, then, who isn't?
You'd have to be stupid to ever vote for any of these Democrats again. Or Mitt Romney.
Remember folks I'm speaking in realpolitik I am not making factual points so don't try to argue whether or not Trump is a criminal. He is a criminal in the minds of the Democrats and the plan is to make the swing voters think he is a criminal as well.
I think that is mostly right, Howard. The goal is to make swing voters think he is a criminal.
However, he is only a criminal in the minds of the Democrats because he is a successful Republican POTUS.
He is a criminal in the minds of the Democrats and the plan is to make the swing voters think he is a criminal as well.
A gotcha that has failed now hundreds of times.
Next time it's got to work, right?
meanwhile another terrorist leader, al rimi, seems to have been scratched off, he'll probably be replaced by al quosi, who was released by Obama to sudan in 2012, but still,
Had the experience in my life of living in a country with a leader who later was charged with crimes against humanity, but died before trial. When someone hysterically calls Trump a dictator, I ask how many people he had killed. Not how many people may die because of climate change, but how many actually were murdered on his direct command. If you respond with tales about scoops of ice cream and size of salt and pepper shakers, I will not take you seriously.
This is from the same party that uses the courts as an end-around to the legislative process. If the Democrats are corrupt there, why wouldn't they be elsewhere.
I'm at the point where I not only refuse to vote for a Democrat candidate at any level, I go to vote and tell their candidates that. Let them see that if you join a fascist party, that you're a fascist too. Punch them in the face with words.
Oh contraire Francisco. As the British say, Trump has form
Poor sad NYT. Poor sad readers. Poor sad Democrats. They can try impeaching Trump again in his second term... if they can keep the House!
Well Thomas, we shall see in November. I'm glad you people are so confident.
The NYT likes to use the word 'truth'.
I am hearing a line from the Princess Bride: "You keep using that word, but I do not think you know what it means."
Our hostess is a weather vane. Her arrow generally points in the direction where the winds of white suburban women blow. She is a reflexive D voter...except when she’s not. She announced right up front, before the first impeachment vote in the House, how this would affect her. I get no sense that her view has changed in any respect. On the assumption that her arrow still points true, the lefties should be ready to poke out their eyes so that they do not see what is coming.
- Krumhorn
The only question is, how much cheating can the Democrats get away with in November?
Isn't one of the Alinsky Rules for Radicals that "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
Where do they go after impeachment? It had to have been a pretty unsatisfying ending after getting wee wee'd up the last 3 months. I think the biggest penalty for the democrats will not be getting thrown out in November but that no one will listen to them anymore, even their own followers.
Yesterday I forced myself to listen to Schiff, focused on looking at his soft pudgy hands rather than his bugged out eyes, while he claimed that a trial has to have witnesses because that's how all trials are done in the US. He also previously claimed that the process in the House was like a grand jury, offered as an excuse for why the Republicans were excluded from the fact finding process.
But in a genuine and fair process of fact finding exculpatory evidence has to be considered,and the Democrats refused to allow for that when that would have been appropriate -- before voting for articles of impeachment. So none of this sham impeachment was ever genuinely aimed at finding the truth. It had one purpose to damage Trump. I don't know if there is a way to completely void an impeachment but in this case there should be.
the same party that uses the courts as an end-around to the legislative process
Judicial overrides, central party choices, JournoList trials and tales, rioters' veto, sociopolitical consensus... In Stork They Trust.
This frivolous farce should have been dismissed on a demurrer the first day. But weasel Romney et al. would have prevented it out of obtuseness.
he claimed that a trial has to have witnesses because that's how all trials are done in the US
Some jurisdictions will, in fact, entertain and grant a motion to dismiss after the opening statements are given if the opening statement states all the evidence that the plaintiff proposes to offer in support of the allegation and it is apparent that the facts proposed to be shown would not sustain the complaint.
And if the case is dismissed after opening statements, it is still considered to be a real trial.
As I've said before, elsewhere, I despise, detest, and distrust everything in the NYT.
Mark: Some jurisdictions will, in fact, entertain and grant a motion to dismiss after the opening statements are given if the opening statement states all the evidence that the plaintiff proposes to offer in support of the allegation and it is apparent that the facts proposed to be shown would not sustain the complaint.
And if the case is dismissed after opening statements, it is still considered to be a real trial.
I sat on a jury once where exactly that happened. (I was kinda cheesed that we had to sit through a whole damned week of the prosecution's blathering, when it was obvious by day two that they had no case.)
I love all these newly-minted legal experts and the wonderlandian definitions of terms they're pulling out of their butts.
Gk1: Where do they go after impeachment? It had to have been a pretty unsatisfying ending after getting wee wee'd up the last 3 months. I think the biggest penalty for the democrats will not be getting thrown out in November but that no one will listen to them anymore, even their own followers.
Unfortunately for the rest of us their followers appear to have an infinite appetite for getting wee wee'd up.
I don't know if there is a way to completely void an impeachment but in this case there should be.
Re-elect President Trump in a landslide in November.
The only question is, how much cheating can the Democrats get away with in November?
There's a real chance that they are going to overdo it out of desperation. We could see things like 120% of votes being cast in some precincts. We could finally see the lid blown off, followed by real electoral reform.
Seems that none of these people, especially the lawyers in Congress, have ever heard of a directed verdict or a summary judgement.
Why the rush in the house then? Seems like that was the time to gather evidence. But in any case it’s inconsistent to praise the house for its rush job and then complain the senate deals with what house put before it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा