Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

DavidG wrote:There were plenty of closed hearings re: Watergate to gather evidence prior to the more orchestrated open hearings. Good investigators don’t do it all out in the open. Though I suppose a good defense attorney would argue they should.

The words used to describe the investigation are less important than what is actually accomplished. Each passing day seems to result in Trump and/or members of his administration giving the Ds more rope to fashion into a noose. Time will tell if he slips the knot. I think any one of several of Trump's actions are impeachable. Just hope the Ds don’t screw it up.

Of course the Rs won’t convict unless truly batshit horrible stuff is undeniable by even the Trumpiest Senators. But there should be plenty brought into the open to convince the non-delusional voter to boot the thug out. Unless Arv is right and they place their personal comfort above our process of government.

On the bright side, assuming DJT does get impeached, it will be a permanent mark on his record, that historians will always be able to note. He'll never be able to explain it away. So even if doesn't change anything, I love the fact that he will have to wear that Scarlet Letter for all time. Just like Bill Clinton has to.

50 - 100 years from now, Trump will be grouped with Samuel Johnson, Richard Nixon, WJC in that circle - marked for history. By then his golden towers will have turned to dust, and like Ozymandias, nothing will be left - except that black mark.

However its frustrating that we're in the middle of a worsening trade war with the Orient, and he's all we have at the moment.

jal wrote:Hmmmmm

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-wins ... yURL_share

In all honesty, what do you guys think?

It's basically the argument for sticking with Biden or someone who will not burn down everything as their battle plan for the next 4 years.

The great state of Maine seems ready to move on...

PPP, October 15th
Maine: Biden 54, Trump 42 - Biden +12
Maine: Warren 53, Trump 43 - Warren +10
Maine: Sanders 53, Trump 43 - Sanders +10
Maine: Buttigieg 52, Trump 43 - Buttigieg +9
Maine: Harris 50, Trump 44 - Harris +6

The numbers were similar a year out for Hillary as well.
And don't forget, Maine splits its electoral votes. There are two Maines.
I still say Joe is our best bet!
I'd take Warren, though, she would drive Orange head into apoplexy.

Interesting article on Warren in today's Washington Post. You may not be able to read it without a subscription; I think you get a few articles per month.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... rc404=true

Boy, old Joe is really struggling tonight.
He has lost a step in the past 4 years.
It's becoming more and more difficult to picture him in the Oval Office, he is becoming Act III of King Lear.

As much as I hate to agree, you are so right, Jim.

I like Bernie’s health plan the best, too bad he scares little children going to bed.
Joe looks so weak
Everyone is ganging up on Elizabeth Warren tonight, she was rattled.
Mayor Pete makes a lot of sense, I just wish he had more experience than running a small town in Indiana.
Kamala is scarier than Bernie
Right now I’d vote for Amy without any reservations.

Is it just me or does anyone else feel that Kamala Harris comes across as disingenuous when she speaks?

Sanders' and Warren's versions of Medicare for All are not viable and will be cement overshoes in a general election.

Biden had a few moments but agree that he mostly looked weak.

They should just give Sanders an unlimited bathroom pass so he doesn’t have to keep raising his hand.

Everyone looked like they ganged up on Warren because between the mods giving her more time and her frequent interruptions she did most of the talking. Her scold-y side was showing and it didn’t play well, along with her shifty responses on taxes. She dropped in my estimation tonight because she seemed too rigid to compromise on healthcare.

Buttigieg and Klobuchar made good impressions.

Harris had some good moments re: women's rights and Trump but seemed to be too sarcastic or, yes CV, disingenuous at times.

Booker spent too much time chiding about attacking each other and not enough making his own case. Be a candidate. If you want to be a referee, there’s a greater need over in the NFL.

Kamala Harris makes my skin itch.
Boy, I'm not seeing the next president in this bunch.

If Klobuchar can get sufficient exposure down the road she should be a viable candidate--much more appealing to the moderate dems and independents than Sanders and Warren.

I watched Mayor Pete on CNN after the debate. Very articulate and well spoken. I like this guy but can he beat Trump-I dunno.

I find it amazing that the media -- and we the public to some extent -- are nitpicking personality quirks and policy details of the Dems when we have on display in the Oval Office, on a daily basis, a complete trainwreck on all matters of policy, character, charisma, eloquence, etc.

I get why we do it -- part of it is the basic fact that a Democrat needs to be better than a Republican to win the presidency, for all sorts of structural reasons -- but it the sheer contrast in what we tolerate without thought from Trump, but criticize in the Democrats is incredible.

Good article forwarded to me written by Matt Taibbi that dispels your argument, Patrick.
Rather, it is CNN, NYT, MSNBC, Washington Post, etc., etc., in conjunction with the FBI, CIA, and the rest of the intelligence community, that are engaged in a coup against Orange Head.
This impeachment "inquiry" is nothing more than an attempted coup and circumvention of a legitimate national election.
As Marcus told me, the American election system is well-equipped to deal with the likes of Orange Head.
I'm as disgusted by Herr Trump and the McConnell-led GOP as anyone, but i also think the mainstream media and the career intelligence hacks and the Democratic Party apparatus share largely in the blame.
Orange Head ain't going nowhere.
Let's just get to the election, a short year from now, and throw the bum out. It's going to require a knockout, we aren't going to be able to depend on leaving it to the judges.

Good article:

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup

JimHow wrote: This impeachment "inquiry" is nothing more than an attempted coup and circumvention of a legitimate national election.

Dude, if you seriously believe this, you are living in Lala land.

Matt Taibbi believes it.
I believe it.
Marcus believes it.
Many intelligent people do not agree with you, Patrick.
It is your kind of insult of anyone who disagrees with your far left party line that is the type of arrogant intolerance from the left that got Orange Head elected in the first place.
There’s a rest of the country out here beyond the newsrooms of the NYT and the studios of MSNBC and the urbane salons of the big cities and the east and west coasts.
It was from your snug left and its mainstream media minions who were absolutely and condescendingly convinced that Robert Mueller was your savior. How’s that working for ya?

By your logic, Nixon was ousted by a "coup". By this logic, the framers of the Constitution didn't really mean it when they included Articles of Impeachment. It was just a joke.

Seriously, what the hell would this guy have to do to to merit impeachment? Trying to throw the next election, colluding with foreign powers in the process, that isn't enough?!?!? Refusing Congress its duly optioned oversight duties??? The list is loooonnnng. Keep drinking the Fox News koolaid, Jim.

Marcus thinks a click-farm in the Ukraine was behind the hacking of Hillary's campaign. Not your best character witness.

Jim, you ain't disagreeing, you're calling it a COUP. Such language is a frontal assault on our constitutional process, and from your smug little utopia, you are effectively endorsing insurrection.

When are the Mueller report generated impeachment articles coming that were as equally smugly predicted here and in the pages of the NYT and WaPo editorial pages?

I’m still waiting for them.

Not sure where you are seeing that I’m calling for an “insurrection.”
I’m the one calling for him to be beaten at the polls, the same way he came in.

Watergate was a bipartisan act.
Clinton and Trump impeachments are nearly unanimous partisan acts, or, at least figuratively, “coup” attempts to upset valid national election results.

Of the four impeachment efforts, Watergate was the exception.
Trump I would lump in with the hyper-partisan politics of the Clinton and Johnson eras.

But... I respect your opinion, blanquito, I just don’t understand why the left gets so animated and intolerant and resorts to insults any time someone merely doesn’t tow the standard MSNBC line.

Ok, given that lawyers can disregard our constitution when the mood strikes them, I’m now calling Trump’s “election” a coup because more than 3 million people voted for a Hillary than him, despite Coney’s malfeasance, despite the Russian hacking and social media campaigns, despite systematic voter suppression by republican officials in the States, etc.

Oh sure, our constitution set up the electoral college which gave Trump his coup, but since we are throwing out the House’s duly constituted right to conduct impeachments, I too will pick and choose which parts of the Constitution that are legit and which parts are a coup. So as Trump got creamed in the actual election, his assumption of power was clearly a coup d'état.

JimHow wrote:Good article forwarded to me written by Matt Taibbi that dispels your argument, Patrick.
Rather, it is CNN, NYT, MSNBC, Washington Post, etc., etc., in conjunction with the FBI, CIA, and the rest of the intelligence community, that are engaged in a coup against Orange Head.

Sometimes, there might be simple reasons why it might look like the whole cabal is colluding to get you! For partisan outlets, like MSNBC, they want to rile up the dems for the election (just as Fox wants to rile up Repubs). For other outlets, they don't want Trump, not because he was a repub and the outlets are in cohoots with dems, but because they feel that the damage that Trump is causing to national fabric, his tendency and penchant for disregarding laws and his overt/covert support to racism issues. Not to mention the chaos, nepotism, corruption and favoritism his administration was beset with, and few outlets want him out! If I understand correctly, the retired intelligence officials still retain clearance to view classified stuff, and maybe they see red flags in this administration with regards to national security! If intelligence officials are so biased and partisan, how come they didn't come out during Obama administration or Bush administration? I bet Jim, in your profession, the credibility of a witness is paramount, and if one has to pick the side of the intelligence apparatus vs Trump, who would you pick?

JimHow wrote:This impeachment "inquiry" is nothing more than an attempted coup and circumvention of a legitimate national election.

Hmm. I think founders' grandest experiment was 'democracy' not 'national election'. Like I said before, election is just a means to democracy, not an end. If democracy is being trampled, constitution is being rendered useless and rule of law is being violated, then what's the point of putting election on the pedestal, Jim? It's like arguing-- well, Hitler broke lot of laws even before WWII and did lot of bad things to German people. Do you still want to say, well he was duly and legitimately elected by people. Let him finish his term, and one should stay silent...So let Bundestag not oppose him or perform an oversight, and just be a rubber stamp. And boy, did they rubber stamp, and we all know how it ended. I don't know about others, but I cannot agree with that notion of governing...

JimHow wrote:As Marcus told me, the American election system is well-equipped to deal with the likes of Orange Head.

I find it hollow. That means congress, also with mandate from the people, is ok to abrogate their duty if something goes wrong with presidency! Then why do the impeachment articles be part of constitution then? It's like accepting one part of constitution (presidential mandate) and not accepting the other part of constitution (mechanism of congress' oversight and congressional mandate). The question should not be what to accept or not to accept, but the most important question should be if president and congress are discharging their duties, justly and impartially without any ulterior motives.

JimHow wrote:I'm as disgusted by Herr Trump and the McConnell-led GOP as anyone, but i also think the mainstream media and the career intelligence hacks and the Democratic Party apparatus share largely in the blame.
Orange Head ain't going nowhere.
Let's just get to the election, a short year from now, and throw the bum out. It's going to require a knockout, we aren't going to be able to depend on leaving it to the judges.

Good article:

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup

One of the most lazy journalism works I have ever seen! The article is full of assertions and no backed up reasoning to conclude his assertions. If things can be interpreted one way or the other, and if he chose his interpretations one way, he cared not to explain why his choice is prudent and makes sense. Comparisons with the so called 'Third World' countries, and 'waking up in a country whether your president will be there by nightfall' is as comical as it can get when the author presents no evidence why we should feel that way. I am not saying US is immune to the problems of developing nations, but he does not seem to understand the reasons why developing nations (aka, 'third world countries', a derogatory usage, IMO) have political crises such as coups. The article is full of just assertions like that and make one believe that the whole US bureaucracy, military, media and half the population are plotting to throw him out by illegal means. Wow, that's one hellava racketeering conspiracy to pull it off!

The whole analogy of "Obama-Al Qaeda" and "Trump-Golden Showers" is the classic case of misinformed and misguided comparison (not to mention to misguide the readers!)...I am not a psychologist, but I have observed that time and again how linguistics, analogies and accusations (not just accusations, but how the accusations are carried out) are used to frame the mindset and thinking of people, akin to the opinionated shows on cable news are tailored. The Obama-AlQaeda is the remotest possibility (Inspite of having such associations, one would become president-elect?) and getting it compared to Trump-Golden Showers (which by the way, is close to being believable with the already existing evidence about his life style, views on women, tapes, etc!) in the article. Ofcourse, factual ascertaining is important than mere assertions, but by comparing "something that is believable by most" to "something that most of us believe is not true" is the classic case of misguided analogy...You are basically elevating the position of 'something that is believable, in this case, Trump-Golden Showers' to 'something that is hard to believe, like Obama-AlQaeda nexus', which is what the author is trying to peddle. What a pathetic piece of journalism! I don't want to go any further and will just stop here...Yes, the article does dispel something--the notion of objective journalism!

You know, I'm almost inclined to bet you guys that DJT doesn't even get impeached.
I mean, I think we all agree he's not going to be convicted, so I'm sure nobody will bet even a 2016 Lanessan with me on that one.
But i predict he won't even be impeached.
The only reason why I am hedging on that bet is because I think the Democratic Party leadership is just dumb enough to fall into that political trap.

JimHow wrote:You know, I'm almost inclined to bet you guys that DJT doesn't even get impeached.
I mean, I think we all agree he's not going to be convicted, so I'm sure nobody will bet even a 2016 Lanessan with me on that one.
But i predict he won't even be impeached.
The only reason why I am hedging on that bet is because I think the Democratic Party leadership is just dumb enough to fall into that political trap.

I never said he will be/should be/must be impeached. All I want is everybody do their duty. We all know fishy things happened with respect to our electoral process, coverup that followed, and we all agree that it was credible. I just want the facts and what exactly happened so that it will help me decide my vote, come November...

I criticize the Democratic Party because I'm a Democrat who believes we have suffered from a terrible lack of leadership from that party at the national level. I mean, there are significantly more Democrats than Republican voters in this country. Yet, we lose to the likes of Dubya and Orange Head, we snoozed when the GOP was gerrymandering huge advantages into the Congress, we are losing seats on the Supreme Court and federal bench one after another.... We win general election vote totals but lose MI, WI, PA. I mean, what is wrong with this picture? The Democratic Party leadership is really very weak, compared to the ruthless GOP. Mark my words, this impeachment mess will backfire against the Democrats. We are playing on their turf.

Trump should be impeached and convicted on the basis of his very public actions, let alone the stuff he’s managed to keep under wraps. I believe he would be removed absent any partisan bias or political jockeying on either side. But that’s not the world we live in. It’s party over country.

Jim, Trump has broken the law in an attempt to undermine our democratic system of electing a leader. The very system you say is being undermined by the impeachment process. I believe you’ve got it exactly backwards. Impeachment strikes a blow to protect the democratic process that Trump is trying to destroy. Even though we all know he won’t be removed, the process offers an opportunity to expose more of his corruption. Political calculations aside, that’s the right thing to do.

The question with respect to the 2020 election is which side will it energize more? I share your concern that it could backfire.

Taibbi's articles are reliably entertaining but hit or miss in terms of conclusions being supported by facts. This one looked to me to be mostly opinion or entertainment disguised as journalism.

As far as personal "attacks," I’ve said I considered those who believe that Russian interference is fake news are delusional. I meant it with respect to that topic and that apparent blind spot alone, not as a suggestion that they are seriously psychiatrically ill. I’m obviously biased, but the facts are pretty tough to ignore. I don’t resort to ad hominem attacks: you’re wrong on the facts and principles, not because you’re a... Never mind.

JimHow wrote: I’m the one calling for him to be beaten at the polls, the same way he came in.

He's been caught illegally engaging with foreign governments in his effort to get re-elected.
It makes no sense to wait for the election to stop him.

From what I have been hearing Giuliani is probably toast and will likely end up getting banged up. If so, question is how much dirt he spills on Trump to save his sorry ass once he goes down.

Federal election next Monday in Canada. Will Trudeau will keep it seat?

One of the worst offer ever for that election.

Nic

I feel my positions on impeachment are reaching the level of trolling so I’m going to stop because I don’t want to get anybody upset. But I truly believe impeachment will backfire against the Dems, and that Orange will be re-elected. Ah well, time will tell. We need to focus on the senate as well.

"Donald John, don’t you give me that look. You go on up to your room and think about what you’ve done. You can come down when you’re ready to tell me what really happened to the cookie jar. And no TV or Twitter!"

I am all for impeachment and I don’t believe it will hurt the democrats. What I believe is happening is that Trump is unraveling. The Kurds, Ukraine, China. He’s beginning to lose the republicans too.
David Brooks in The NY Times today even calls for voting for Warren as a way to stop Trump. For Brooks, one of the few voices on the right in the Times to come out and say this, it must have an effect on the GOP leadership.
I know Jim hates Peggy Noonan but she doesn’t mention Reagan in her column in the Wall Street Journal today and also claims that something is beginning to change
To quote a great leader
“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

Here are the two pieces
Brooks
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opin ... -ios-share

Noonan
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-impeac ... yURL_share

Yes I read both of those articles Jacques.
Brooks of course has been against Trump from Day One.
And Norman basically goes with the wind.
There a few breezes running against Orange but, like Godzilla, he will swat them away.

JimHow wrote:I feel my positions on impeachment are reaching the level of trolling so I’m going to stop because I don’t want to get anybody upset. But I truly believe impeachment will backfire against the Dems, and that Orange will be re-elected. Ah well, time will tell. We need to focus on the senate as well.

I don't think you are trolling. Although I do see inconsistencies in your arguments at times, but I just think you are being a defense lawyer or a devil's advocate and trying to present the thinking of Trump defenders. I don't think anyone is upset, and I am sure I am not upset. All is good...

Comte Flaneur wrote:From what I have been hearing Giuliani is probably toast and will likely end up getting banged up. If so, question is how much dirt he spills on Trump to save his sorry ass once he goes down.

Comte, I don't think the TV lawyer will spill beans...I think he was in there to make money, and I will not be surprised if DJT doesn't know that he was being played! If he has to spill beans on others, he cannot cover his rear end with regards to his money dealings he was doing for himself behind others' backs...

DavidG wrote:.
.
.

Taibbi's articles are reliably entertaining but hit or miss in terms of conclusions being supported by facts. This one looked to me to be mostly opinion or entertainment disguised as journalism.

Entertaining? One of the shoddy pieces of journalism I have ever seen...The writings lack any understanding of history or display good knowledge of other parts of the world. Writers are dime a dozen (especially in the internet era) and life is too short to read stuff based on assumptions rather than facts and solid deductions. Geez, if that's what people read to be informative, then I can't even imagine about people who diligently read motive and propaganda based demagoguery on the internet...

Haha, I was being more charitable than you, CV. I used "entertaining" as in amusing or appealing to a large population. Like "reality" TV entertaining. Informative or journalistic? Not so much.