impeachment stupidity

[fazer]

I found this info not sure if it helps

The fact that Bernie Sanders (I-VT) voted against the so-called Magnitsky Act of 2012 imposing targeted sanctions on Russian oligarchs to punish the Putin regime for human rights abuses is often cited as “proof” by liberal conspiracy theorists that Sanders was somehow culpable in the Kremlin’s targeted effort to damage the candidacy of Hillary Clinton as part of their broader attack on the 2016 U.S. election.

What liberal conspiracy theorists won’t tell you is that Sanders was joined in voting nay by Carl Levin (D-MI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Jack Reed (D-RI) none of whom stand accused by anyone of being Russian stooges.

What liberal conspiracy theorists won’t tell you is that the Obama administration opposed the Magnitsky Act. The administration flip-flopped only after the sanctions were attached to a bill normalizing trade relations with Russia, hence the bill’s official name: The Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 (H.R. 6156).

What liberal conspiracy theorists won’t tell you is that Sanders voted for a second, more robust version of the Magnitsky Act in 2015.

 

[iomegaman]

I found this info not sure if it helps

Not really helpful...Bill Browder who was influential in helping create the momentum for the act (he is Putins #1 target and was the reason Magnitsky was killed) said that Tulsi voted in 2016 AGAINST the act...(in a small group of voters)

I trust Browder, his very survival depends on tracking who in politics is siding with Putin...(get a copy of "Red Notice")...I get that Bernie may have voted against the 2012 version but that was in a time when US companies were being hit with penalties for doing business with Russia the the original bill was at a nebulous political moment that has since clarified...remember McCain reintroduced iit in 2016 and that version Sanders supported and Gabbard did not...

 

[fazer]

Have you listened to Gabbard ?  There’s a podcast of her on The Rubin Report.  I don’t know why the no vote but she doesn’t work for Putin.  She sounds like center politics.  She has a message that’s hard for me to argue with.  She would be a force to debate.  This is about politics to take her out of the game. IMO

 

[JohnRoberts]

Gabbard seems like she should be a strong democratic candidate and checks numerous diversity boxes, not to mention being a Major in the army national guard (i.e. a badass).  8)

It is the nature of primaries to track hard left or hard right, making moderates less attractive.  :

JR

PS: unclear what Hillary is up to... argue among yourselves.

 

[iomegaman]

I definitely like the "anti-war" stance...of Gabbard, honestly have not invested much research about her...but I do know that Clinton still has security clearance as a former state dept. head and so far she's been right about the others...

I think it gets very hard to make accurate decisions about any of this because no one can measure the second order effects of what a candidate really brings.

NO ONE can afford to be a one issue voter anymore because the "trickle-down" affects are in everything now not just economic policy...

If I had to pick just ONE issue to vote on, it would be anti-war/anti-industrial-defense-industry...but even that is so intrinsically tied to technology and the economy that it seems like we can never get it untangled...

What humanity really needs is an alien enemy...rather than fighting amongst ourselves.

 

[hodad]

Gabbard seems like she should be a strong democratic candidate and checks numerous diversity boxes, not to mention being a Major in the army national guard (i.e. a badass).  8)

It is the nature of primaries to track hard left or hard right, making moderates less attractive.  :

Gabbard tacked right before running for President.  I never cared much for her, even before all this.  Her connection to a religious group called Science of Identity is certainly worth looking into.

 

[bluebird]

I think it gets very hard to make accurate decisions about any of this because no one can measure the second order effects of what a candidate really brings.

Yup, voting for a president is just like voting for a quarterback. Gotta get the whole team in there for any of the policies to have a chance of seeing daylight.

The most important thing about the Trump presidency is the test on checks and balances. If we make it out of this alive, people will be studying this period in American history for a long time. There will be university courses on these four years alone.

Her connection to a religious group called Science of Identity is certainly worth looking into.

Ha, always gotta be careful with those religions that have the word "science" in them. I like my religions to be straight up religious... ;D

 

[dmp]

Gabbard is polling at about 1% and has said she has no intention of being a third party candidate
This insinuation by Clinton helped her more than hurt her.
Very strange

Gabbard seems like she should be a strong democratic candidate

She seems like she should be a strong REPUBLICAN candidate before the GOP lurched so much further right...

 

[fazer]

GOP lurched so much further right...

And the Dems moved hard left.  But it’s primary season and candidates come back to center once one chosen.  Will they this time?  Extremes scare voters.

 

[dogears]

And the Dems moved hard left.  But it’s primary season and candidates come back to center once one chosen.  Will they this time?  Extremes scare voters.

Do they? I think the voting base has polarized, too.

 

[fazer]

I think the voting base has polarized, too

Maybe! 

Saw that Bloomberg is thinking about running.    Takes a billionaire to run against a billionaire.  Brave new world.  At lease he wouldn’t  scare people’s wallets. Just no sugar for us all.

 

[hodad]

And the Dems moved hard left. 

Yes.  It's possible that today's Dems' domestic policies have veered to the left of noted pinko Richard M. Nixon.  8) :-*

 

[dogears]

Yes.  It's possible that today's Dems' domestic policies have veered to the left of noted pinko Richard M. Nixon.  8) :-*

Dawg we have people openly running as socialists.  ;D

 

[hodad]

Quid.  Pro.  Quo.  I can't wait to see where the Rs move the goalposts to now.  Another stadium?  Another planet?  ;D 8) :-[ ??? :-* :-\

 

[Matador]

Quid.  Pro.  Quo.  I can't wait to see where the Rs move the goalposts to now.  Another stadium?  Another planet?  ;D 8) :-[ ??? :-* :-\

You have to remember, the goalposts are irrelevant, because it's only illegal when a Democrat does it. 

 

[dogears]

What’s illegal exactly?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Quid.  Pro.  Quo.  I can't wait to see where the Rs move the goalposts to now.  Another stadium?  Another planet?  ;D 8) :-[ ??? :-* :-\

I guess I need to add teaching latin also.... ;D

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

What’s illegal exactly?

"High crimes and misdemeanor" is pretty much whatever a majority says it is. It was intentionally left vague.

A majority in the senate (where an impeachment  trial will decide) trumps a majority in the house (that only makes the charge). With the election now roughly one year away, and effectively zero chance of success (removing POTUS), it is hard to ignore the obvious alternate goal of sliming POTUS, for lowly political benefit.

Selectively leaking from secret closed door house investigations is far from open and trustworthy, good governance. Pursuing this without a vote in the house is likewise a purely political strategy so representatives do not have to publicly declare their intentions, likely to be unpopular with voters in a number of districts subject to votes just 12 months from now.

I am not smart enough to predict the future, but this does not look like a good plan for anybody. (President Bill Clinton became more popular after he was impeached and he actually did something wrong).

Indeed we are living in interesting times (the old chinese curse).

JR

 

 

[dmp]

Assuming what is alleged and the white house has pretty much acknowledged happened - does anyone think that is OK and good for the country?

Trump withheld aid to Ukraine that had been appropriated by Congress in order to bully the Ukrainian President to publicly open an investigation into the Democrats (specifically about a "server" & crowdstrike) and the Bidens.

For instance, would conservatives have been OK with Obama asking a foreign President / country to investigate and slander Republicans in the Senate for political motives? If Obama had withheld aid to bully foreign governments?

 

[hodad]

it is hard to ignore the obvious alternate goal of sliming POTUS, for lowly political benefit.
JR

POTUS is the slime--but you steadfastly ignore this.  He is the one doing all the bad stuff, not the Dems.  Now, if you want to talk lowly political benefit, we can't talk about the years spent on Hillary's emails (which was a giant nothingburger that Rs spent YEARS on for political gain.).

No.  This time we have a genuinely sleazy president--like openly and over-the-top sleazy--and because he's an R, you refer to "lowly political benefit."    Whereas when Rs actually did abuse their oversight power to go after HRC, you had no problem with it. 

Hypocrisy, thy name is JR. 

:-X :-[ ??? 8)