Any Reasonable Folk See Any Impeachable Offences? by JEWELSTAITEFAN

Nope.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 8, 2019 4:08 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Nope, especially when you look at the legal meaning (at the time) of 'misdemeanor' - which means 'failure of fiduciary duties'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 8, 2019 4:43 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr

Yes.

The Demz are calling it bribery, kuz that word actually appearz in The Constitution, but really, the correct name for hiz little skeem iz extortion.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 8, 2019 4:53 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

JO -

Trump never mentioned any payment/exchange that had to be made to avoid any bad ending. You can't be extorted if no one is holding any consequences over you.

And EVERYONE who testified (something you'd know if you watched the public hearings, instead of plugging yourself into propaganda that feeds your paranoia) said that Zelensky didn't know about any 'consequences'.

And I have to ask - HOW MANY TIMES DOES ZELENSKY NEED TO REPEAT THAT HIMSELF?

Or are you going to continue to dismiss facts to cling to your fantasy?

ETA: I know you like to think of yourself as a smart guy. Show us you really are one by coming to a logical conclusion that doesn't involve dismissing facts like the transcript of the call or Zelensky's repeated statements; and that doesn't involve inventing 'new' facts like SLOPPY's IRS fantasy.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:16 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr

Earth to 1KIKI.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Earth to 1KIKI.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com .

Wow, now THAT was intelligent! [NOT]

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.- WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:22 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FWIW, not so far.

And if the Dems thought there were any they would be trumpeting them to the stars, not Pelosi's "end of civilization as we know it" and "RUSSIA!!" fantasies.

JO, supposedly you pay attention to who is motivated to lie. So why is Pelosi throwing out giant red herrings instead of focusing on the matter at hand?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.- WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:25 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

JO - I would respect you a lot more - OK - at all - if you could actually back up ANY of your arguments with the full range of known facts, and without making stuff up.

But you can't.

I know you think you're being clever. But anyone who can read understands your posts are filled with strawman arguments - also known as lies, unsupported assertions, and ad hominems - not to mention LIBEL and red-baiting. You're not making yourself look very intelligent, JO, or honest, honorable, logical, or even sane.

So all your 'ideas' may play well with you in your own head.

But one thing I ALSO know about you - you're completely resistant to real-world information, like the feedback that your wonderful noalf hasn't taken the English-speaking world by storm. So I don't expect you to learn anything at all from reality. Not about noalf or indeed anything else. After all, why would you change your life-long pattern?

That means I'll just laugh at you at you at every opportunity, and continue to point out how reality-deficient your posts are.

Or, you can join the real world and start working with facts.

Deal?

Flies shit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 9, 2019 9:45 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Earth to 1KIKI.

It's useless trying to communicate with them, they're not looking to actually understand something. They're here to agitate and say, "nuh-uh" and type, type, type and add to their post count.

BTW - I see your Extortion and raise you Obstruction of Congress/Justice.

Imagine if this was one of the Clintons or that Black fella with the Muslim name... holy sh*t!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 9, 2019 10:15 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. Some are fooled both ways.

www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2019/12/the-responsibility-of-intell
ectuals-who-teach.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 9, 2019 10:19 AM

lol

I'm trying to "teach" you the reality that Trump will be relected in 2020 and the Democrats are likely to lose the house over this.

That's okay if you don't want to learn that now and it will take another year for reality to teach you that lesson.

I'm prepared for four more years of non-stop bitching about it from you guys then too.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 9, 2019 12:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. Some are fooled both ways.

And ... that would be you, SECOND. And also CC, JO, WISHY, SHINY, and THUGR.

There is no "there" there in this impeachment process. Trump said there was no quid pro quo. ZELENSKIY said there was no quid pro quo, and that he was unaware of any "pressure". The TRANSCRIPT says there was no quid pro quo, and furthermore there is not a single witness who has heard anything like it. Even SONDLAND says that he only presumed that's what Trump wanted, and when he asked trump directly Trump said "I want nothing ... no quid pro quo".

Is it possible that Giuliani secretly strong-armed Zelinskiy, and that for reasons best known to Zelinskiy he chooses to keep that private? Well, yes, I suppose it's possible. But you can't impeach Presidents based on your imagination, there has to be some sort of EVIDENCE.

This is turning out like the RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!! hoax, just like I said it would. You believed stuff that wasn't true then, and you're believing stuff that isn't true (or at least demonstrable) now.

And just like the RUSSIA!RUSSIA! hoax (which you fell for, before you pivoted to THIS hoax and forgot all about your last failure) and the Kavanaugh hoax, and the "children in cages" hoax, and the "Covington student assaults American native" hoax, you will be pivoted to yet another hoax and forget all about this one, and so on down the line all the way to the election, which you will believe that Trump "stole" should he happen to win, again.

Which btw is looking more and more likely, thanks to the DNC.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.- WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 9, 2019 6:05 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol

I'm trying to "teach" you the reality that Trump will be relected in 2020 and the Democrats are likely to lose the house over this.

That's okay if you don't want to learn that now and it will take another year for reality to teach you that lesson.

I'm prepared for four more years of non-stop bitching about it from you guys then too.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6ix, if you knew what you talk about you'd talk in percent probability Trump is reelected. This is how that was done in 2016: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

It is not too soon to place your bets: www.oddsshark.com/how-bet-us-politics

If you really believe Trump is guaranteed to win, sell your house and bet all that house money on Trump. You will be well rewarded for your certainty.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 9, 2019 7:22 PM

I said Trump was going to win in 2016 when everybody here and that I knew IRL "knew" that wasn't true.

Fuck fivethirtyeight.

BTW...

https://www.oddsshark.com/other/2020-usa-presidential-odds-futures

Trump is a HUGE favorite for re-election right now if you're looking to place a wager.

I have a long history of saying that I don't gamble here, and how I won't even play the stock market anymore. Good luck with your bet if you make one though.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 13, 2019 5:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I'm wondering, have any of the sensible people been convinced/converted into thinking there has been any Impeachable actions, or have seen any evidience, or heard any witnesses?

I'm obviously not referring to the parade of Trolls who have been galloping to their delusional tune all this time, believing whatever that senile mumbler Stretch Pelosi blathers. Hey, she's only 79.

Has anybody changed their minds?

Looks like it is 4-0 so far. Nobody has changed their minds.

However, with some of the posts of Kiki & Sigs lately, I am wondering if there are parts or details of the events disclosed Monday or recently that you two were not aware of? It almost seems as if you 2 were not familiar with all of the truth, facts, story of all the nefarious Dems and Libs. I had conjured that all reasonable folk were already aware, and I have mentioned at least some of the parts of the criminal activity, but i can understand that I did not make full discloossures all the time.

Maybe I'm reading your late posts incorrectly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 13, 2019 9:24 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
JSF: I'm wondering, have any of the sensible people been convinced/converted into thinking there has been any Impeachable actions, or have seen any evidience, or heard any witnesses?
I'm obviously not referring to the parade of Trolls who have been galloping to their delusional tune all this time, believing whatever that senile mumbler Stretch Pelosi blathers. Hey, she's only 79.
Has anybody changed their minds?

JSF: Looks like it is 4-0 so far. Nobody has changed their minds.
However, with some of the posts of Kiki & Sigs lately, I am wondering if there are parts or details of the events disclosed Monday or recently that you two were not aware of? It almost seems as if you 2 were not familiar with all of the truth, facts, story of all the nefarious Dems and Libs. I had conjured that all reasonable folk were already aware, and I have mentioned at least some of the parts of the criminal activity, but i can understand that I did not make full disclosures all the time.
Maybe I'm reading your late posts incorrectly.

JSF, I don't post everything I know, or surmise. I know there is a lot of corrupt money flowing thru Ukraine (which was the biggest donor to the Clinton "Foundation" pre-2017).

I know that there was no "quid pro quo" in the transcript, or that was admitted to by Zelenskiy.

I know that the DEMS think there was no crime committed, otherwise they would have referred to it in their articles of impeachment.

I know that RUSSIA!RUSSIA! was a hoax.

I know a lot of other things that make it irrelevant, IMHO, to pursue details further, because this is all Democratic political theater. But if you feel there is something else that is critically important to know, please let ME know.

OTOH, I also know that Lindsey Graham is a warhawk and deep-stater as much as any of the Dems (just like his good buddy John McCain [a moment of silence for John McCain's tumor, which gave its all for the country]) and that he will protect Trump but also protect the deep state by shutting off testimony PDQ. If you really think that the GOP is behind Trump's foreign policy initiatives, place a bet, because IMHO the GOP showed its true colors when GWB was in office.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.- WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 14, 2019 9:51 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Impeachment exists to protect the US, not to punish its president

Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power. Or at least that is what US founding father and philosopher James Madison thought.

Madison believed that for the American democratic experiment to succeed, each participant had to be informed. Freedom, he thought, came with responsibility. “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge brings,” he wrote in the 18th century, an exhortation now etched on the outer walls of the Library of Congress.

Yet just across the street from the building where Madison’s words serve as a reminder to all who pass, some American politicians—all of whom have sworn an oath to the Constitution that Madison and his fellows formulated in 1787—are engaged in a dangerous misinformation campaign with grave implications.

Miffed by the inquiry into Donald Trump’s Ukraine dealings, which today yielded House Judiciary Committee approval of two articles of impeachment—abuse of power and obstruction of Congress—Republicans have framed the process as a “sham” and a purely political Democratic tactic to attempt to remove Trump from office ahead of the 2020 elections. Mike Johnson of Louisiana, for example, tweeted that the American people should get the final vote and that impeachment isn’t intended as a “corrective option.”

Johnson is right. Impeachment wasn’t designed to remove an unpopular president, just as elections weren’t created to investigate executives. Impeachment was designed to obtain information and use the knowledge to protect the American people and their institutions, to ensure the nation’s safety.

Thus, failing to follow up on allegations of wrongdoing, or engage with them in good faith, is a breach of duty.

More at https://qz.com/1768065/

James Madison Wants You to Read the Articles of Impeachment
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/
documents/Articles%20of%20Impeachment.pdf
Madison wants you to listen to the witnesses in that impeachment trial before deciding. The GOP Senators would rather not. Why listen? They have already decided. What they would much rather listen to is Hunter and Joe Biden, but the Justice Department handles cases such as Biden's, not the Senate.

The Senators are not interested in witnesses testifying about Article 1 "Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election."

The GOP Senators are even less interested in witnesses testifying about Article 2 "Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its “sole Power of Impeachment”."

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 14, 2019 10:13 AM

THG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

I'm wondering, have any of the sensible people been convinced/converted into thinking there has been any Impeachable actions, or have seen any evidience, or heard any witnesses?

I'm obviously not referring to the parade of Trolls who have been galloping to their delusional tune all this time, believing whatever that senile mumbler Stretch Pelosi blathers. Hey, she's only 79.

Has anybody changed their minds?

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

The Trump-Ukraine impeachment inquiry report

https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

As this report details, the impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into President Trump’s domestic political opponent. In pressuring President Zelensky to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine.

The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his own presidential reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political rival, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In doing so, the President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

At the center of this investigation is the memorandum prepared following President Trump’s July 25, 2019, phone call with Ukraine’s President, which the White House declassified and released under significant public pressure. The call record alone is stark evidence of misconduct; a demonstration of the President’s prioritization of his personal political benefit over the national interest. In response to President Zelensky’s appreciation for vital U.S. military assistance, which President Trump froze without explanation, President Trump asked for “a favor though”: two specific investigations designed to assist his reelection efforts.

Our investigation determined that this telephone call was neither the start nor the end of President Trump’s efforts to bend U.S. foreign policy for his personal gain. Rather, it was a dramatic crescendo within a months-long campaign driven by President Trump in which senior U.S. officials, including the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Acting Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Energy, and others were either knowledgeable of or active participants in an effort to extract from a foreign nation the personal political benefits sought by the President.

The investigation revealed the nature and extent of the President’s misconduct, notwithstanding an unprecedented campaign of obstruction by the President and his Administration to prevent the Committees from obtaining documentary evidence and testimony. A dozen witnesses followed President Trump’s orders, defying voluntary requests and lawful subpoenas, and refusing to testify. The White House, Department of State, Department of Defense, Office of Management and Budget, and Department of Energy refused to produce a single document in response to our subpoenas.

Ultimately, this sweeping effort to stonewall the House of Representatives’ “sole Power of Impeachment” under the Constitution failed because witnesses courageously came forward and testified in response to lawful process. The report that follows was only possible because of their sense of duty and devotion to their country and its Constitution.

Nevertheless, there remain unanswered questions, and our investigation must continue, even as we transmit our report to the Judiciary Committee. Given the proximate threat of further presidential attempts to solicit foreign interference in our next election, we cannot wait to make a referral until our efforts to obtain additional testimony and documents wind their way through the courts. The evidence of the President’s misconduct is overwhelming, and so too is the evidence of his obstruction of Congress. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine a stronger or more complete case of obstruction than that demonstrated by the President since the inquiry began.

The damage the President has done to our relationship with a key strategic partner will be remedied over time, and Ukraine continues to enjoy strong bipartisan support in Congress. But the damage to our system of checks and balances, and to the balance of power within our three branches of government, will be long-lasting and potentially irrevocable if the President’s ability to stonewall Congress goes unchecked. Any future President will feel empowered to resist an investigation into their own wrongdoing, malfeasance, or corruption, and the result will be a nation at far greater risk of all three.

The decision to move forward with an impeachment inquiry is not one we took lightly. Under the best of circumstances, impeachment is a wrenching process for the nation. I resisted calls to undertake an impeachment investigation for many months on that basis, notwithstanding the existence of presidential misconduct that I believed to be deeply unethical and damaging to our democracy. The alarming events and actions detailed in this report, however, left us with no choice but to proceed.

In making the decision to move forward, we were struck by the fact that the President’s misconduct was not an isolated occurrence, nor was it the product of a naïve president. Instead, the efforts to involve Ukraine in our 2020 presidential election were undertaken by a President who himself was elected in 2016 with the benefit of an unprecedented and sweeping campaign of election interference undertaken by Russia in his favor, and which the President welcomed and utilized.
Having witnessed the degree to which interference by a foreign power in 2016 harmed our democracy, President Trump cannot credibly claim ignorance to its pernicious effects. Even more pointedly, the President’s July call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, in which he solicited an investigation to damage his most feared 2020 opponent, came the day after Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified to Congress about Russia’s efforts to damage his 2016 opponent and his urgent warning of the dangers of further foreign interference in the next election. With this backdrop, the solicitation of new foreign intervention was the act of a president unbound, not one chastened by experience. It was the act of a president who viewed himself as unaccountable and determined to use his vast official powers to secure his reelection.

This repeated and pervasive threat to our democratic electoral process added urgency to our work. On October 3, 2019, even as our Committee was engaged in this inquiry, President Trump publicly declared anew that other countries should open investigations into his chief political rival, saying, “China should start an investigation into the Bidens,” and that “President Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens.” When a reporter asked the President what he hoped Ukraine’s President would do following the July 25 call, President Trump, seeking to dispel any doubt as to his continuing intention, responded: “Well, I would think that, if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer.”

By doubling down on his misconduct and declaring that his July 25 call with President Zelensky was “perfect,” President Trump has shown a continued willingness to use the power of his office to seek foreign intervention in our next election. His Acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, in the course of admitting that the President had linked security assistance to Ukraine to the announcement of one of his desired investigations, told the American people to “get over it.” In these statements and actions, the President became the author of his own impeachment inquiry. The question presented by the set of facts enumerated in this report may be as simple as that posed by the President and his chief of staff’s brazenness: is the remedy of impeachment warranted for a president who would use the power of his office to coerce foreign interference in a U.S. election, or is that now a mere perk of the office that Americans must simply “get over”?

Those watching the impeachment hearings might have been struck by how little discrepancy there was between the witnesses called by the Majority and Minority. Indeed, most of the facts presented in the pages that follow are uncontested. The broad outlines as well as many of the details of the President’s scheme have been presented by the witnesses with remarkable consistency. There will always be some variation in the testimony of multiple people witnessing the same events, but few of the differences here go to the heart of the matter. And so, it may have been all the more surprising to the public to see very disparate reactions to the testimony by the Members of Congress from each party.

If there was one ill the Founding Founders feared as much as that of an unfit president, it may have been that of excessive factionalism. Although the Framers viewed parties as necessary, they also endeavored to structure the new government in such a way as to minimize the “violence of faction.” As George Washington warned in his farewell address, “the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”

Today, we may be witnessing a collision between the power of a remedy meant to curb presidential misconduct and the power of faction determined to defend against the use of that remedy on a president of the same party. But perhaps even more corrosive to our democratic system of governance, the President and his allies are making a comprehensive attack on the very idea of fact and truth. How can a democracy survive without acceptance of a common set of experiences?

America remains the beacon of democracy and opportunity for freedom-loving people around the world. From their homes and their jail cells, from their public squares and their refugee camps, from their waking hours until their last breath, individuals fighting human rights abuses, journalists uncovering and exposing corruption, persecuted minorities struggling to survive and preserve their faith, and countless others around the globe just hoping for a better life look to America. What we do will determine what they see, and whether America remains a nation committed to the rule of law.

As Benjamin Franklin departed the Constitutional Convention, he was asked, “what have we got? A Republic or a Monarchy?” He responded simply: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Adam B. Schiff
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 14, 2019 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
JSF: I'm wondering, have any of the sensible people been convinced/converted into thinking there has been any Impeachable actions, or have seen any evidience, or heard any witnesses?
I'm obviously not referring to the parade of Trolls who have been galloping to their delusional tune all this time, believing whatever that senile mumbler Stretch Pelosi blathers. Hey, she's only 79.
Has anybody changed their minds?

JSF: Looks like it is 4-0 so far. Nobody has changed their minds.
However, with some of the posts of Kiki & Sigs lately, I am wondering if there are parts or details of the events disclosed Monday or recently that you two were not aware of? It almost seems as if you 2 were not familiar with all of the truth, facts, story of all the nefarious Dems and Libs. I had conjured that all reasonable folk were already aware, and I have mentioned at least some of the parts of the criminal activity, but i can understand that I did not make full disclosures all the time.
Maybe I'm reading your late posts incorrectly.

JSF, I don't post everything I know, or surmise. I know there is a lot of corrupt money flowing thru Ukraine (which was the biggest donor to the Clinton "Foundation" pre-2017).

I know that there was no "quid pro quo" in the transcript, or that was admitted to by Zelenskiy.

I know that the DEMS think there was no crime committed, otherwise they would have referred to it in their articles of impeachment.

I know that RUSSIA!RUSSIA! was a hoax.

I know a lot of other things that make it irrelevant, IMHO, to pursue details further, because this is all Democratic political theater. But if you feel there is something else that is critically important to know, please let ME know.

OTOH, I also know that Lindsey Graham is a warhawk and deep-stater as much as any of the Dems (just like his good buddy John McCain [a moment of silence for John McCain's tumor, which gave its all for the country]) and that he will protect Trump but also protect the deep state by shutting off testimony PDQ. If you really think that the GOP is behind Trump's foreign policy initiatives, place a bet, because IMHO the GOP showed its true colors when GWB was in office.

This.

At the end of the day, there are no "good guys".

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 15, 2019 7:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Everything that the Dems did/are doing the Repubs did too. Everything that the Repubds did, Democrats did too.

Hounding a President with an endless cascade of frivolous and ever-changing impeachment allegations? Check. (The investigation of Bill Clinton which started with Whitewater and ended with Monica Lewinsky)

Rigging the Congressional system to blot out the minority party? Check

Hacking an election? Check (2000, 2004)

Expanding the government surveillance state? Check. (GWB tapping into AT&T lines, "Patriot Act")

Blowing the budget on endless wars? Check (GWB's many middle east invasions and the "GWOT")

Expanding the "wealth gap"? Check, check, and check. This is a perennial favorite of BOTH parties.

*****

It's not like the Dems are terrible and the Repubs are pure, or vice versa. There is plenty of corruption, warmongering, and Constitution-shredding to go around. I can only name a few people in Congress who are at all honorable: Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard, and they barely belong in their own parties; and Marcy Kaptur.

So while I don't see any impeachable offenses now, I didn't see any with Bill Clinton either, even tho I STRONGLY disagreed with most of his policies (ending "welfare as we know it", DADT, DMCA, Commodities Futures Moderinization Act, ending Glass Steagall, and destroying Yugolslavia). DISAGREEING with a President is not a cause for impeachment.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.- WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 15, 2019 2:02 PM

Yup. The pendulum has just swung wildly the other way this time. It's the only reason people would mistake me for a Republican by what I post. I know full well that it will swing the other way in the future and people are going to accuse me of being a Democrat again when that happens.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 15, 2019 2:51 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

To get back to impeachment for a bit ... I think the dims messed up with their defense of Clinton, and so we have the situation we have today.

To be impeached, one must have committed a criminal act, an act listed under criminal statutes. In addition, it must be an IMPEACHABLE criminal act - a serious crime on the order of treason or bribery committed against the state. So for example, while perjury (I did not have sex with that woman) is a crime, perjury about getting a blow job doesn't rise to the level of an IMPEACHABLE criminal act.

As for 'misdemeanors', in the law at the time, it was defined as failure of fiduciary duties - for example, if the criminal act was setting up a corporation to funnel government monies to themselves personally (as we see in many corrupt states around the world - like Ukraine, Nigeria, Mexico, etc).

To be IMPEACHABLE, it has to be a crime so serious, that allowing it to continue would jeopardize the very existence or functioning of the state.

The dims should have planted their flag there when it came to Clinton, at the level of offense that makes an act IMPEACHABLE, and forced a clear definition of IMPEACHABLE offense, as a precedent. Instead, they blew past the hard question, and simply exonerated him.

And my opinion is that 'The Framers' (like, with 2x4's, hammer, and nails?) would have laughed their asses off over these obviously political idiocies today.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 15, 2019 8:18 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:

To be impeached, one must have committed a criminal act, an act listed under criminal statutes.

1kiki, you are so full of shit.

Even the most secure of US presidents would be unnerved at the prospect that their political demise is only 67 votes away. And while Trump has been called a lot of things, "secure" is not one of them. This is the same Trump who just days ago took to Twitter to despicably mock 16-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg, likely because she beat him out for the title of Time magazine's "Person of the Year."

Adding to Trump's stress level are comments like the one made by former GOP Senator Jeff Flake, who recently declared that there would be "at least 35" Republican senators who would vote to remove Trump if ballots were kept secret. That number may be a bit high, but Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy stated a few weeks ago that he thinks there are at least five GOP senators already likely to vote with Democrats.

Any doubt that Trump is running this math through his head over and over, trying to figure out if he mocked or angered enough Republican senators that could spell his political doom?

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/27/jeff-flake-at-least-35
-gop-senators-would-impeach-trump/3792866002/
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/473337-democratic-senator-says-he-
knows-handful-of-gop-colleagues-considering-voting

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 15, 2019 9:01 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Do you have an actual REPLY to my statements?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 15, 2019 9:52 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Do you have an actual REPLY to my statements?

You mean your statement? "To be IMPEACHABLE, it has to be a crime so serious, that allowing it to continue would jeopardize the very existence or functioning of the state." 1kiki, you didn't get that idea from the Constitution. Even Trump knows better than you. Trump's own Twitter is a glimpse of a President in full panic mode. On Thursday, Trump unleashed a barrage of 123 tweets during the House Judiciary Committee debate on the articles of impeachment, many commenting on the hearings, including one instance where he accused two Democratic members of the House of lying.

Trump should be worried. Anything can happen in a trial. All it will take is just 20 Republican senators to join the Democrats in saying they had enough of his antics, and Trump will have earned himself a place in history as the first president removed by the Senate.

www.businessinsider.com/trump-very-busy-day-after-tweeting-over-90-tim
es-2019-12

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 15, 2019 10:32 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Do you have an actual REPLY to my statements?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 15, 2019 10:41 PM

Nobody is panicking.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 15, 2019 10:58 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I'm dividing my time between cooking*, housework, and posting, so I only come by here and there to see if I've gotten anything meaningful from SECOND. But it looks like SECOND is at present incapable of anything besides irrelevancies, including posting unrelated opinion pieces from back in September.

So, I'll just ignore SECOND at this point.

* I really enjoy developing new recipes. My next batch well be marinara. I know - EVERYONE does marinara :rollseyes: . But this will have a very tasty brand of ground beef, and be, I hope, a winter-worthy dish of comfort food.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 16, 2019 6:14 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Republicans have made crystal clear that they understand the nature of the President’s abuses of power and that they will not only protect him from the consequences of his actions but, in an effort to do so, bend reality to pretend that it is in fact fine and even admirable for a President to use extortion to force a foreign power to intervene in a US election.

Republicans have made their intentions crystal clear. Republicans have already decided to protect a lawless President from constitutional accountability. If some Republican Senators decide to change their minds and do the right thing, they are welcome to do so.

Senate Republicans have made very clear there is no level of lawless behavior from this President that they will not defend. This needs to be said over and over.

www.salon.com/2019/12/15/lindsey-graham-on-impeaching-donald-trump-i-a
m-clearly-made-up-my-mind/

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/schiff-nadler-slam-gop-senators-for
-already-deciding-not-to-impeach-trump-before-trial

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 16, 2019 11:56 AM

Nobody cares what you or Salon.com thinks.

Your impeachment is a political partisan hack job.

You've even got one or two house Democrats flipping to GOP over this.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 22, 2019 3:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So while I don't see any impeachable offenses now, I didn't see any with Bill Clinton either, even tho I STRONGLY disagreed with most of his policies (ending "welfare as we know it", DADT, DMCA, Commodities Futures Moderinization Act, ending Glass Steagall, and destroying Yugolslavia). DISAGREEING with a President is not a cause for impeachment.

Whoa.

This blows a hole in the polling.

I guess we're at 3-0 now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 28, 2019 4:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So while I don't see any impeachable offenses now, I didn't see any with Bill Clinton either, even tho I STRONGLY disagreed with most of his policies (ending "welfare as we know it", DADT, DMCA, Commodities Futures Moderinization Act, ending Glass Steagall, and destroying Yugolslavia). DISAGREEING with a President is not a cause for impeachment.
Whoa.

This blows a hole in the polling.

I guess we're at 3-0 now.

Alright, continuing now....

If you were to recalibrate your viewpoint and relate for us, how do you feel the rudeness, bumbling, bloviating of Trump compares, in an Impeachment spectrum, to the crimes which Clinton was Impeached for, as well as the crimes Clinton was not Impeached for?

Are Trump's actions closer to Impeachable, in your opinion, than Clinton's crimes?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 28, 2019 5:54 PM

WISHIMAY

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
This is the same Trump who just days ago took to Twitter to despicably mock 16-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg, likely because she beat him out for the title of Time magazine's "Person of the Year."

But the party of fascist family values LUUUVES teens like Greta, Malala, David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez, Jazz Jennings...

In fact, here's a whole list of kids for you to hate at.

https://time.com/5463721/most-influential-teens-2018/

I can't wait for an entire generation to see what total POS's the Rethug party has been lately AND RUN THE OTHER FUCKING WAY

.
It's gonna be great!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 29, 2019 4:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Alright, continuing now....

If you were to recalibrate your viewpoint and relate for us, how do you feel the rudeness, bumbling, bloviating of Trump compares, in an Impeachment spectrum, to the crimes which Clinton was Impeached for, as well as the crimes Clinton was not Impeached for?

Are Trump's actions closer to Impeachable, in your opinion, than Clinton's crimes?

Bill Clinton was impeached for

Quote:
lying under oath and obstruction of justice. The charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones and from Clinton's testimony denying that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

I know that Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress about having sex with Lewinsky. Personally, I think that impeachment was a farce; demanding testimony about a private personal matter between two consenting adults. If I had been in Bill's shoes I would have lied, too. Whatever happened between him and Lewinsky was no affair of Congress'. I'm not sure where the "obstruction of justice" charge comes from in the Paula Jones case, unless it had to do with providing misleading evidence to the relevant civil court about the case. I think that's more important, but probably not worthy of impeachment. It probably should have been pursued in the relevant courts, not Congress.

Trump is something of a different matter. In a similar vein to Bill Clinton one of the articles of impeachment is "obstruction of Congress". That's not even a crime (like lying under oath) and if I thought that "lying under oath" to Congress - given the personal and non-criminal matter being questioned - was farcical grounds for impeachment then "obstruction of Congress" is even more farcical. "Abuse of power" is a totally made-up charge which nobody testified to, not even the presumed victim. Although the grounds for impeachment in Trump's case SOUND more serious, they're based on made-up stories that have less to do with reality than the Clinton articles of impeachment.

Congress ... is being Congress. Small-minded, vindictive, more concerned with partisan power than governing, petty and evil. One time it was the GOP, and one time it was the Dems. They both deserve to be booted out of office, and (in Bill Clinton's case) many of them were. I hope that in the upcoming elections the Dims who orchestrated this farce themselves will be voted out of office, altho Pelosi (being from CA) will be safe in office.

In both cases I think a party in Congress was/is acting in a cynical, partisan and completely transparent power grab, which I find incredibly frustrating and offensive. What I find more worrying about Trump's situation is that in his case the deep state itself is fabricating evidence against him.

*****

I would have been much happier if the Dems could have gotten onboard with the positive aspects of Trump's plans. I see no upside to fostering massive illegal immigration, and no upside to constantly warring in the mideast, no upside to pursuing a policy of constantly provoking Russia and China (all we've done is drive them into each other's arms) and no upside to outsourcing more jobs and signing more "free trade" deals. Congress might have been able to make some deals by agreeing with these parts of Trump's platform in exchange for making progress on healthcare, for example (allowing Medicare to negotiate better drug prices, requiring posted standard pricing for hospital charges, breaking up the insurance oligopolies etc.) and reducing military spending by bringing troops home in exchange for better defensive preparedness.

Instead, they chose to make up all kinds of crap about "Russian hacking" and "collusion" and "Ukrainegate" ... all of which are fabricated. Why they didn't focus on real problems and real solutions instead is beyond me (unless they were so implicated in dirty money they they HAD to try and remove Trump from office?)

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.- WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 29, 2019 4:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BTW, I still see no impeachable offenses.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.- WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 29, 2019 4:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
SECOND: This is the same Trump who just days ago took to Twitter to despicably mock 16-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg, likely because

Mind-reading again, SECOND?

Quote:
she beat him out for the title of Time magazine's "Person of the Year."

But the party of fascist family values LUUUVES teens like Greta, Malala, David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez, Jazz Jennings... In fact, here's a whole list of kids for you to hate at. https://time.com/5463721/most-influential-teens-2018/

Since when is a teenager having a massive and continuous temper tantrum going to change anything? I see ... as she will too, in time ... that the elites who are propping her up at various conferences and meetings have absolutely NO intention of changing anything. Want to know how I know? Because they [the cause of the problem] are applauding her. If they really wanted to change, they would feel threatened, and there would be no applause, they would be worried. They're just using her to virtue-signal. Don't worry ... they'll carry on with their nefarious plans, with or without her!

Quote:
I can't wait for an entire generation to see what total POS's the Rethug party has been lately AND RUN THE OTHER FUCKING WAY .
It's gonna be great!

Yep, especially when they see that the Dims are no better. THAT'LL be a great day!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.- WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 29, 2019 8:20 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
SECOND: This is the same Trump who just days ago took to Twitter to despicably mock 16-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg, likely because
Mind-reading again, SECOND?
Quote:
she beat him out for the title of Time magazine's "Person of the Year."

But the party of fascist family values LUUUVES teens like Greta, Malala, David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez, Jazz Jennings... In fact, here's a whole list of kids for you to hate at. https://time.com/5463721/most-influential-teens-2018/
Since when is a teenager having a massive and continuous temper tantrum going to change anything? I see ... as she will too, in time ... that the elites who are propping her up at various conferences and meetings have absolutely NO intention of changing anything. Want to know how I know? Because they [the cause of the problem] are applauding her. If they really wanted to change, they would feel threatened, and there would be no applause, they would be worried. They're just using her to virtue-signal. Don't worry ... they'll carry on with their nefarious plans, with or without her!

Quote:
I can't wait for an entire generation to see what total POS's the Rethug party has been lately AND RUN THE OTHER FUCKING WAY .
It's gonna be great!
Yep, especially when they see that the Dims are no better. THAT'LL be a great day!

The average American makes around 16 tonnes of CO2 per year and the average Republican does not want to pay to handle that waste. It was the Republicans who were outraged at the cost to stop raw sewage flowing into Galveston Bay. They just didn't want to pay because the Gulf of Mexico would swallow the sewage at no cost. We are seeing the same Republican fury at paying for sewage now turned to CO2, which Republicans feel can be swallowed by the entire Earth's atmosphere at no cost.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=US

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 29, 2019 12:24 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
SECOND: This is the same Trump who just days ago took to Twitter to despicably mock 16-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg, likely because ...

SIGNY: Mind-reading again, SECOND?

SECOND... she beat him out for the title of Time magazine's "Person of the Year."

TWITCHY: But the party of fascist family values LUUUVES teens like Greta, Malala, David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez, Jazz Jennings... In fact, here's a whole list of kids for you to hate at. https://time.com/5463721/most-influential-teens-2018/

SIGNY: Since when is a teenager having a massive and continuous temper tantrum going to change anything? I see ... as she will too, in time ... that the elites who are propping her up at various conferences and meetings have absolutely NO intention of changing anything. Want to know how I know? Because they [the cause of the problem] are applauding her. If they really wanted to change, they would feel threatened, and there would be no applause, they would be worried. They're just using her to virtue-signal. Don't worry ... they'll carry on with their nefarious plans, with or without her!

TWITCHY: I can't wait for an entire generation to see what total POS's the Rethug party has been lately AND RUN THE OTHER FUCKING WAY .
It's gonna be great!

SIGNY: Yep, especially when they see that the Dims are no better. THAT'LL be a great day!

SECOND: The average American makes around 16 tonnes of CO2 per year and the average Republican does not want to pay to handle that waste. It was the Republicans who were outraged at the cost to stop raw sewage blah blah blah ...

SLOPPY (in honor of your sloppy retention of facts): I KNOW this has been posted before, but ...

No Republican has ever budged the needle on carbon emissions (except GWB) ... and no Democratic President has, either. Do they REALLY want to reduce carbon emissions??? Then rein in the biggest single carbon-emitter on the planet -the Pentagon - and institute a carbon tax to increase the cost of fuel about 30% (which TPP and TTIP would have made illegal). Everything downstream of that price increase - from land-use planning to SUV sales (which btw you're all for) to farm production- will fall in line. All of this nibbling around the edges with lightbulb standards and Paris Accord is virtue-signalling and, by definition, ineffective.

It's like the wealth gap: Obama oversaw the biggest increase in the wealth gap ever.

Yanno, you complain about Americans being innumerate and forgetting what their DC politicians have done, and yet when it comes to evaluating the Dems you apply a kinder, gentler, stupider evaluation.

Oh BTW, for people who don't know their history, the EPA was set up by Nixon (R). https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/gallery-why-nix
on-created-the-epa/67351/

It's not a PARTY thing, it's a MONEY thing. And BOTH parties are equally guilty about sucking up to money!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.- WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 29, 2019 12:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh btw - to veer sharply back on-topic: STILL no impeachable offense, just offensive political theater. Like Bill Clinton's impeachment.

NOW, WITH !ALL NEW! DEEP STATE FABRICATED EVIDENCE!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.- WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 29, 2019 1:44 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Oh BTW, for people who don't know their history, the EPA was set up by Nixon (R). https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/gallery-why-nix
on-created-the-epa/67351/

It's not a PARTY thing, it's a MONEY thing. And BOTH parties are equally guilty about sucking up to money!

2009: The EPA concluded that carbon dioxide should be regulated under the Clean Air Act in an effort to mitigate human-caused climate change. And who undid that? Trump and GOP.
https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._Environmental_Protection_Agency

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 29, 2019 2:00 PM

THG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I'm wondering, have any of the sensible people been convinced/converted into thinking there has been any Impeachable actions, or have seen any evidience, or heard any witnesses?

I'm obviously not referring to the parade of Trolls who have been galloping to their delusional tune all this time, believing whatever that senile mumbler Stretch Pelosi blathers. Hey, she's only 79.

Has anybody changed their minds?

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/12/politics/impeachment-articles-
annotated/

The articles of impeachment against President Trump, annotated
By Zachary B. Wolf and Curt Merrill, CNN
Published December 10, 2019

House Democrats unveiled the two articles of impeachment they prepared against President Donald Trump after a two-and-a-half month investigation into his pressure on Ukraine to investigate his 2020 political rival Joe Biden as well as conspiracy theories about foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Click here for a PDF of the full resolution
RESOLUTION
Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
This is written in legislative language, so get ready for some legalese. Lawmakers who vote for these articles would be agreeing with impeaching Trump and referring his case to the Senate for trial.
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The Democratic lawmakers who wrote these articles argue they’re speaking for all Americans rather than just for House members. This is important since, while Congress is the unit of government closest to the people, Trump’s defenders have argued impeachment would overturn the will of the people expressed in the 2016 presidential election.
ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER
This is the first article of impeachment. There will be votes on each.
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, a Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States — and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed —
The oath of office, as spelled out in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, is: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Article II, Section 4 has the portion about the President being impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate.
Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency, in that:
It’s important for Democrats to prove this point. It can’t just be a political or policy difference that leads them to this drastic step. They most prove that Trump has betrayed the trust of the American people.
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.
The fact of this charge is above dispute. He asked Ukraine’s President, in a phone call, for the favor of investigating the Bidens. Democrats argue they have to move fast and now because this is about the coming election in 2020. He’s trying to harm the democratic process in real time.
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage.
The Intelligence Committee hearings featured testimony from numerous career diplomats backing up this idea, which was also central to the whistleblower report that launched the inquiry in the first place. Trump denies the claim, although his acting chief of staff all but admitted it. And obtaining the investigations was a clear aim of Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Read more on his role here.
Trump sought Ukraine’s help on two investigations. First, he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into a discredited conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine and not Russia that interfered in the 2016 presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee. Second, Trump wanted an investigation of Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden’s position on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma. Neither Biden has been accused of wrongdoing.
President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.
The acts in question are a White House meeting that was coveted by Zelensky, who was elected in April, to establish his legitimacy — and, more importantly, $391 million in security aid approved by Congress, much of it for Ukraine’s military, which is at war with Russian-backed separatists.
President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit.
The idea here is that if the Ukrainians were investigating Joe Biden’s son’s arrangements with Burisma, that would undercut the former vice president’s credibility at exactly the time he was gearing up to run against Trump.
In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.
Distancing the US from Ukraine and standing in the way of the aid it needed to fight its war with Russia certainly emboldened Russia, which arguably compromised US national security.
Fiona Hill, who served until this past summer as the top White House Russia expert, testified during the impeachment inquiry that the idea Ukraine interfered in the US election “is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.” And inviting a foreign power to undercut the credibility of a candidate in the 2020 election arguably undermines the integrity of the democratic process.
President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:
(1) President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government—corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into—
Trump acted directly during the Zelensky call when he asked for a “favor” — of investigations. He acted through his agents in the US government by pushing EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland to work with Giuliani on investigations and by pushing for the aid to be frozen. He worked through agents outside the US government in the form of Giuliani, who was essentially conducting a shadow foreign policy.
(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and
(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.
US senators have been briefed by the US intelligence agencies on the fact that Russia is pushing the false notion it was Ukraine — not Russia — that meddled in 2016. Here’s a full fact check.
(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government—conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested—
(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and
There has been testimony from career State Department and Pentagon officials that they understood Trump to have been behind freezing the aid. It was formally frozen by his political appointee on the same day as the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky even though it was known within the US government to be frozen weeks before that. Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney admitted Trump held the aid. The aid was unfrozen in September — but only after Trump and the White House learned of the whistleblower complaint against him.
(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.
Trump did ultimately meet Zelensky on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September. Both denied there was pressure exerted by Trump on Zelensky in the July 25 phone call, although reporting suggests Zelensky was feeling pressure even before the call. A White House meeting for Zelensky has not yet occurred.
(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.
The aid was released after Trump knew about the whistleblower and after White House attorneys counseled the acting director of national intelligence not to inform Congress, as required by law, of the whistleblower complaint. So while the aid was unfrozen, it was only after Trump knew he was being accused of holding it up for political reasons. Further, there was no other change in Ukraine’s behavior to explain why the aid was released in September rather than earlier in the year. And after it was released, Congress had to pass a special law to release it since the fiscal year was ending.
These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.
After the Ukraine scandal broke, Trump publicly asked Ukraine and China to investigate the Bidens.
In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. He has also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
Part of the challenge for Democrats who support impeachment is to justify doing it as the country approaches the 2020 election, when Trump could be removed from office by voters. Their argument here is that leaving him in office endangers that very election. If he is impeached by the House and the Senate votes to remove him from office — which is not at all likely — he would be barred from holding federal office.
ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS
This is the second article of impeachment.
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors“.
There were many possible articles of impeachment considered, including for bribery (by dangling the promise of US taxpayer funds in exchange for his “favor” from Zelensky), obstruction of justice in connection with special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, and more. Democrats chose to narrowly tailor these efforts to the Ukraine scandal that has been the main subject of investigation since September.
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its “sole Power of Impeachment”.
The White House has ignored subpoenas for documents and testimony from agencies in the executive branch, including the Pentagon, the State Department and the Office of Management and Budget. Officials in Trump’s Cabinet and top aides in the White House have also ignored subpoenas. Trump has said he can do whatever he wants under Article II of the Constitution. That obstruction is obvious, but Democrats — who have their eye on the election calendar — have chosen not to pursue lengthy court battles to force compliance with subpoenas. That decision complicates this article somewhat.
President Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:
The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on President Trump’s corrupt solicitation of the Government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United States Presidential election. As part of this impeachment inquiry, the Committees undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from various Executive Branch agencies and offices, and current and former officials.
It’s important to note that the people who did testify — mostly career civil servants — chose to comply with the subpoena from Congress rather than the White House line. Track every subpoena Democrats issued here.
In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the “sole Power of Impeachment” vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.
President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:
(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.
Incredibly, the only documents included in the inquiry were WhatsApp messages and emails provided to the committee by Kurt Volker, the former special envoy for Ukraine, and Sondland. Read those here.
Officials from the State Department and Pentagon who testified had to rely on their own notes and recollections. They would at times describe other emails or communications in their testimony, but none of it was furnished as a result of subpoenas.
(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.
See who has and who has not cooperated with congressional subpoenas.
These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.
While Democrats chose not to add anything from the Mueller report into these articles of impeachment, this is a clear reference to the possible elements of obstruction of justice outlined in the Mueller report.
Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of Representatives in the exercise of its “sole Power of Impeachment”.
Arrogate: to claim or seize without justification. It is true that by Trump’s logic, no President could ever be impeached.
In the history of the Republic, no President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
Although neither Richard Nixon nor Bill Clinton blocked all cooperation as Trump has, neither of them were exactly cooperative. It took a Supreme Court decision for Nixon to turn over Oval Office tapes, and then he turned them over to a special prosecutor and not Congress.
This abuse of office served to cover up the President’s own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment—and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.
Trump says he refused to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry in order to protect future presidents from superfluous congressional inquiry. His actions also had the benefit (for him) of hiding things like documents on the freeze of the aid to Ukraine from investigators.
In all of this, President Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
This is an incredible paragraph. They’re saying Trump violated public trust, subverted the Constitution, damaged the US legal system and did harm to the American people — exactly the opposite of what a President vows to do when taking the oath of office.
Wherefore, President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 29, 2019 2:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
SIGNY: Oh BTW, for people who don't know their history, the EPA was set up by Nixon (R). https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/gallery-why-nix
on-created-the-epa/67351/

It's not a PARTY thing, it's a MONEY thing. And BOTH parties are equally guilty about sucking up to money!

SLOPPY: [2009: The EPA concluded that carbon dioxide should be regulated under the Clean Air Act in an effort to mitigate human-caused climate change. And who undid that? Trump and GOP.
https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._Environmental_Protection_Agency

Wow, gee, 2009 ... the second year into Obama's two terms as President.

Did he manage to DO anything in those eight years, despite accruing to himself the regulatory authority to do so thru the EPA? (and BTW being willing to throw it away on TTP and TTIP)? I mean, besides having the CO2 emissions drop because of the 2008 finanical lockup and subsequent economic downturn?

It's kinda like the wealth gap (which also shrank in 2008 when the elites lost billions in wealth)- Obama gets a lot of credit for shit he didn't accomplish.

No big fan of GOP denialism and rampant environmental destruction, but Dem virtue signalling and hand-wringing isn't helpful either. You've got to be willing to cross powerful financial interests in order to make real change. Yanno, like crossing the hospital, pharma, and health insurance interests in order to make better healthcare. Obama wasn't willing to do that, either.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.- WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 29, 2019 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
SIGNY: Oh BTW, for people who don't know their history, the EPA was set up by Nixon (R). https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/gallery-why-nix
on-created-the-epa/67351/

It's not a PARTY thing, it's a MONEY thing. And BOTH parties are equally guilty about sucking up to money!

SLOPPY: [2009: The EPA concluded that carbon dioxide should be regulated under the Clean Air Act in an effort to mitigate human-caused climate change. And who undid that? Trump and GOP.
https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._Environmental_Protection_Agency
Wow, gee, 2009 ... the second year into Obama's two terms as President.

Did he manage to DO anything in those eight years, despite accruing to himself the regulatory authority to do so thru the EPA? (and BTW being willing to throw it away on TTP and TTIP)? I mean, besides having the CO2 emissions drop because of the 2008 finanical lockup and subsequent economic downturn?

It's kinda like the wealth gap (which also shrank in 2008 when the elites lost billions in wealth)- Obama gets a lot of credit for shit he didn't accomplish.

No big fan of GOP denialism and rampant environmental destruction, but Dem virtue signalling and hand-wringing isn't helpful either. You've got to be willing to cross powerful financial interests in order to make real change. Yanno, like crossing the hospital, pharma, and health insurance interests in order to make better healthcare. Obama wasn't willing to do that, either.

2009 was the FIRST year of Obamination.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 29, 2019 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Alright, continuing now....

If you were to recalibrate your viewpoint and relate for us, how do you feel the rudeness, bumbling, bloviating of Trump compares, in an Impeachment spectrum, to the crimes which Clinton was Impeached for, as well as the crimes Clinton was not Impeached for?

Are Trump's actions closer to Impeachable, in your opinion, than Clinton's crimes?
Bill Clinton was impeached for
Quote:
lying under oath and obstruction of justice. The charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones and from Clinton's testimony denying that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
I know that Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress about having sex with Lewinsky. Personally, I think that impeachment was a farce; demanding testimony about a private personal matter between two consenting adults. If I had been in Bill's shoes I would have lied, too. Whatever happened between him and Lewinsky was no affair of Congress'. I'm not sure where the "obstruction of justice" charge comes from in the Paula Jones case, unless it had to do with providing misleading evidence to the relevant civil court about the case. I think that's more important, but probably not worthy of impeachment. It probably should have been pursued in the relevant courts, not Congress.

Trump is something of a different matter. In a similar vein to Bill Clinton one of the articles of impeachment is "obstruction of Congress". That's not even a crime (like lying under oath) and if I thought that "lying under oath" to Congress - given the personal and non-criminal matter being questioned - was farcical grounds for impeachment then "obstruction of Congress" is even more farcical. "Abuse of power" is a totally made-up charge which nobody testified to, not even the presumed victim. Although the grounds for impeachment in Trump's case SOUND more serious, they're based on made-up stories that have less to do with reality than the Clinton articles of impeachment.

Congress ... is being Congress. Small-minded, vindictive, more concerned with partisan power than governing, petty and evil. One time it was the GOP, and one time it was the Dems. They both deserve to be booted out of office, and (in Bill Clinton's case) many of them were. I hope that in the upcoming elections the Dims who orchestrated this farce themselves will be voted out of office, altho Pelosi (being from CA) will be safe in office.

In both cases I think a party in Congress was/is acting in a cynical, partisan and completely transparent power grab, which I find incredibly frustrating and offensive. What I find more worrying about Trump's situation is that in his case the deep state itself is fabricating evidence against him.

*****

I would have been much happier if the Dems could have gotten onboard with the positive aspects of Trump's plans. I see no upside to fostering massive illegal immigration, and no upside to constantly warring in the mideast, no upside to pursuing a policy of constantly provoking Russia and China (all we've done is drive them into each other's arms) and no upside to outsourcing more jobs and signing more "free trade" deals. Congress might have been able to make some deals by agreeing with these parts of Trump's platform in exchange for making progress on healthcare, for example (allowing Medicare to negotiate better drug prices, requiring posted standard pricing for hospital charges, breaking up the insurance oligopolies etc.) and reducing military spending by bringing troops home in exchange for better defensive preparedness.

Instead, they chose to make up all kinds of crap about "Russian hacking" and "collusion" and "Ukrainegate" ... all of which are fabricated. Why they didn't focus on real problems and real solutions instead is beyond me (unless they were so implicated in dirty money they they HAD to try and remove Trump from office?)

OK. So we are back to 4-0.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 29, 2019 2:44 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
OK. So we are back to 4-0.

What's 4-0?

Oh btw you're right: 2009 was Obama's FIRST year in office.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.- WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 29, 2019 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
OK. So we are back to 4-0.
What's 4-0?

Oh btw you're right: 2009 was Obama's FIRST year in office.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I'm wondering, have any of the sensible people been convinced/converted into thinking there has been any Impeachable actions, or have seen any evidience, or heard any witnesses?

I'm obviously not referring to the parade of Trolls who have been galloping to their delusional tune all this time, believing whatever that senile mumbler Stretch Pelosi blathers. Hey, she's only 79.

Has anybody changed their minds?
Looks like it is 4-0 so far. Nobody has changed their minds.

However, with some of the posts of Kiki & Sigs lately, I am wondering if there are parts or details of the events disclosed Monday or recently that you two were not aware of? It almost seems as if you 2 were not familiar with all of the truth, facts, story of all the nefarious Dems and Libs. I had conjured that all reasonable folk were already aware, and I have mentioned at least some of the parts of the criminal activity, but i can understand that I did not make full discloossures all the time.

Maybe I'm reading your late posts incorrectly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 29, 2019 3:48 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Since when is a teenager having a massive and continuous temper tantrum going to change anything? I see ... as she will too, in time ... that the elites who are propping her up at various conferences and meetings have absolutely NO intention of changing anything. Want to know how I know? Because they [the cause of the problem] are applauding her. If they really wanted to change, they would feel threatened, and there would be no applause, they would be worried. They're just using her to virtue-signal. Don't worry ... they'll carry on with their nefarious plans, with or without her!

I think she learned at home that righteous angry temper tantrums get results, which is why she behaves the way she does. But if she's on the spectrum, she'd have to be very bright to intellectually learn what she doesn't learn socially - that the world 'out there' is different from home, and in addition, to learn the way bodies of powerful people function. That's a tall order.

But hell, even adults who are supposedly normal can't learn that. After all, look at SLOPPY, THUGGER, and WHIZZY, who keep treating the entire planet as if it was a re-creation of their small childhood experience.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 29, 2019 10:56 PM