The know-nothing GOP

[Recording Engineer]

Schiff has been at the top of the heap.  first he fabricated what the phone would have been like, then when called on it said he was doing a parody. He also claimed the anonymous whistle blower received death threats. How can a person who is anonymous receive a death threat over an action no one knows they did?  either Schiff knew the whistleblower andis lying that the whistleblower is anonymous or the whistler blower did not receive a death threat.

If the first thing mentioned isn’t everyday politics on both sides, then I don’t know what is. Plus, I imagine this was brought up due to it being part of the absolutely terrible strategy of Trump’s defense team and presented the first day of trail; which is apparently, part of just what Trump’s base needs to hear.

The second thing mentioned, I have no idea, nor you. If anyone were to believe anything from Trump or anyone around him, they’ve said for quite a while that everyone in Washington knows who the anonymous whistle blower is. Regardless, at the very least, the whistle blower is anonymous to the public , so the use of the word anonymous is very much appropriate.

 

[pucho812]

dismissing stiffs behavior as everyday is why we  have gotten to this point. you can't  hold one side to one set of standards and then hold the other side to a different set of standard. However most do. seems to be the main thing is when the party you support does it,  the outcry, the rage and anger of how could they and how dare they vanishes like a fart in the wind.  But when it's the opposition  the outcry, the range and anger of how could they and how dare they stick around like a fart in a room without hvac or fans.  it doesn't do us any good to treat  parties and their reps differently. they are all the same, it's us vs them.  as was said before this is a political ink blot test, what did the ink blots tell you?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Name calling can be used to telegraph disdain, but we are not in kindergarten...

Adam Schiff is making a name for himself that will serve him well in future CA political races (they don't like President Trump either). I could imagine him in the senate someday, he already has the DC moves down.

No hurry tho....

JR

 

[hodad]

Name calling can be used to telegraph disdain, but we are not in kindergarten...

Adam Schiff is making a name for himself that will serve him well in future CA political races (they don't like President Trump either). I could imagine him in the senate someday, he already has the DC moves down.

No hurry tho....

JR

Just watch the damn hearings.  You say all this blather , your coy condescending cuts(so often connected to a call for civility)--but have you even watched the case being presented?  I'll wager not.  And don't claim you know it all already. 

 

[hodad]

dismissing stiffs behavior as everyday is why we  have gotten to this point. you can't  hold one side to one set of standards and then hold the other side to a different set of standard. However most do. seems to be the main thing is when the party you support does it,

You're being told what to think about the impeachment, and what to think about Schiff.  Go back and watch the hearings (or tune in now & see what's left.)  Think for yourself instead of being one of the sheeple.

 

[pucho812]

You're being told what to think about the impeachment, and what to think about Schiff.  Go back and watch the hearings (or tune in now & see what's left.)  Think for yourself instead of being one of the sheeple.

I have not been told what to thing about Schiff or anyone else or this process.  you like others seem to think that if we disagree with you, must be told to by any number of outside influences, that we cannot think for ourselves and develop an outcome that is different then yours.  Yet, if I follow your heard I am not a sheep and I am a free thinker? explain that one.  I have seen the hearings from the get go. Schiff did make up the phone call between trump and the Ukraine and then when caught called it a parody. I believe Schiff was not expecting the transcript to be released.  The call it self and all the evidence tell me nothing happened. Many a witness didn't witness and at best those who had the closest to first hand knowledge would give testimony that would contradict themselves. if I was a lawyer in court I could not put anyone of those witnesses on the stand for that reason.  Schiff reps Southern California, I live in the district next to his.  trust me when I say Schiff is an embarrassment to California. Trust when I say the sheep will keep him in place, maybe. His last town hall in his district became a circus with people calling him all kinds of choice words and demanding he give up this impeachment stuff.  For a person who is to represent a district he sure seems bent on doing the opposite of what his constituents want.  the majority at his meeting where shouting to drop the impeachment while he stood there looking like a goof who had no idea what to do when people said opposite of what he wanted to hear. 

 

[Recording Engineer]

dismissing stiffs behavior as everyday is why we  have gotten to this point. you can't  hold one side to one set of standards and then hold the other side to a different set of standard. However most do. seems to be the main thing is when the party you support does it,  the outcry, the rage and anger of how could they and how dare they vanishes like a fart in the wind.  But when it's the opposition  the outcry, the range and anger of how could they and how dare they stick around like a fart in a room without hvac or fans.  it doesn't do us any good to treat  parties and their reps differently. they are all the same, it's us vs them.  as was said before this is a political ink blot test, what did the ink blots tell you?

Right. So the questions are:

-When and how do we start holding both sides to the same standard? Is the time now?
-Who determines if both are sides are being held to the same standard? Voters?
-With all this conspiracy-theory and swamp-dweller garbage going around, how do we determine a legitimate election?

The only way I can tell which way is up or down is by our court system. Even with no conviction, the process lets me get a pretty good view of things.

 

[JohnRoberts]

You're being told what to think about the impeachment, and what to think about Schiff.  Go back and watch the hearings (or tune in now & see what's left.)  Think for yourself instead of being one of the sheeple.

sheeple.... ?

You can't pay me enough to watch the reruns of the house hearings...  This is a political rally trying to manufacture public sentiment... Unfortunately they would need higher ratings for that to work.

JR

PS: You can try to tell me what to think (over and over) but it still isn't working. Will you grow weary at some point and stop (rhetorical don't answer)?  8)

 

[pucho812]

Right. So the questions are:

-When and how do we start holding both sides to the same standard? Is the time now?
-Who determines if both are sides are being held to the same standard? Voters?
-With all this conspiracy-theory and swamp-dweller garbage going around, how do we determine a legitimate election?

The only way I can tell which way is up or down is by our court system. Even with no conviction, the process lets me get a pretty good view of things.

the time should have been long ago, it was at one time however between the 24 hour news cycle and the dumbing down of the populous  it has long since been forgotten. People are now told what to think and behave like.  we need to bring back classes like civics. the amount of incorrect information about how an impeachment happens is staggering.

sides being held to the same standard would include both parties in support or against  something. I.E. not having it be one sided. Voters can make this call too but then again  are voters smart enough to make such a call.  look at California, we went from a nice looking state to looking like the third world in less then a few years.  yet we continue to vote in the party controlling it all, again and again. definition of crazy,  doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.

how do we determine a legitimate elections? that's pretty simple, if you decide to vote for a person because social media told you to do so, then you get what you deserve.  An election is legitimate when those involved do the honorable thing. While I am certain there has always been influence but outside sources in our elections I don't know if they were successful. America has done it, it would be arrogant and naive  to think it has not been tried here.  a legitimate election comes when those involved  accept the results. These last couple of ones were really something.  So certain they won that they didn't even prepare a speech to concede.  best was too many people not knowing how it works think it was o.k that one party ignored the fly over states and now want to change the rules just because their candidate lost.  you want a legitimate election, participate so others do not do so on your behalf.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I read in one of my books recently that "fairness" is an argument made by children and idiots....  Life is not fair (no offense anybody, just repeating something I read).

This is all painting with words to influence those barely paying attention even when they think they are. Humans are easily swayed by persuasion or else we would not pay premium prices for branded toilet paper, razor blades, and otherwise identical gasoline. Human decision making is not very rational.

Trying to argue logic and fact about politics is not a good use of time, mine or yours.

JR

 

[Banzai]

not like his improvised version of the phone call...  : when he didn't expect the transcript to be made public?

Transcript was made public and available online 2-days before Schiff's "paraphrasing".

Fake news'd.

 

[pucho812]

Transcript was made public and available online 2-days before Schiff's "paraphrasing".

Fake news'd.

and schiff did it anyway.  :

 

[sodderboy]

Shiv played the Trump "Hey Russia!  If you're listening. . ." quote like it's something serious other than a joke.

So bogus!  And the media hacks are discussing his brilliance.  Puh-leeze.  Just because it's on the radio, feevee, anti-social, and front pages doesn't make it true.

Now time for the media complex hacks to trash the defense.

Mike

 

[Scodiddly]

You can't pay me enough to watch the reruns of the house hearings...  This is a political rally trying to manufacture public sentiment... Unfortunately they would need higher ratings for that to work.

What if there were witnesses?  Wouldn't you want to hear Bolton testifying?

 

[fazer]

What if there were witnesses?  Wouldn't you want to hear Bolton testifying?

Why did the house not use the courts?  They passed on using them for the importance  of their well deserved Xmas break?  No time to use the courts but now demand the senate to.  It all smells funny and political.  3 equal branches.  They keep each other in check.  They all have privileges until two disagree.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I think it is safe to assume that neither side will be satisfied by the outcome we are headed toward. This is a classic lose-lose as both political parties get diminished in voter's eyes. So who benefits? The political pundit class from both sides get to pontificate stirring up political distrust and anger, to generate more campaign funding.

This is actually a lose-lose-lose as not only both parties, but all voters lose too as the system gets perverted and abused for sliming each other.

I hope that we are wise enough to step back and see the mass manipulation for what it is.

This is a glorified family squabble, where after it is over, we are still one county.

Keep up the civil discussion, and patience.

JR 

 

[pucho812]

What if there were witnesses?  Wouldn't you want to hear Bolton testifying?

well apparently  the gop had witnesses they wanted to call but the house refused them too. The senate chooses how it conducts it's chambers the house does not get to demand they change modus operandi nor does the senate get to demand the house do the same.  If the house felt it so important, they should have had them in, but nope we have to rush these things and we don't have to to wait, only to wait after they voted. 
nothing like political theatre to rally the base and push the middle further apart. 

 

[Matador]

well apparently  the gop had witnesses they wanted to call but the house refused them too.

Which witnesses were denied, and when? By whom?

 

[pucho812]

Which witnesses were denied, and when? By whom?

it's all right here...

https://republicans-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rm_letter_to_chm_re_witness_request.pdf

 

[Recording Engineer]

well apparently  the gop had witnesses they wanted to call but the house refused them too. The senate chooses how it conducts it's chambers the house does not get to demand they change modus operandi nor does the senate get to demand the house do the same.  If the house felt it so important, they should have had them in, but nope we have to rush these things and we don't have to to wait, only to wait after they voted. 
nothing like political theatre to rally the base and push the middle further apart.

The GOP wanted to call witnesses of having absolutely nothing to do with the charges against the person on trail.

I don’t understand any line of thinking that if it’s house felt it was so important to call a witness, they should sit-around for years to the court to get around to it. Or it’s just a waste because another election is just around the corner. While of course there’s political-purpose, but word-taken, that’s the whole reason for the impeachment-process. It’s so important that they can’t wait.