HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Qutzupalotl » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »

Qutzupalotl

Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 11,168

Journal Archives

I never said it would be easy.

I said we likely won’t get 20 Republican Senators, but that shouldn’t matter to the House.

Take off your D hat for a moment and just look at the situation as an American. It is intolerable that a traitor was installed by a foreign mobster. Every day Trump attacks the Constitution and dares us to do something about it.

I’m in a very red corner of a blue state, so I understand not wanting to make the gun owners mad. But dammit, we are right. They are wrong. Republicans don’t get to flout the law and still call all the shots. We are on the strongest possible legal grounds, the Constitution itself. We have a clear duty before us. And we must not fear to do the right thing.

If we stand up and fight for what we believe in we might win a few converts. But if we even appear to be afraid or unsure, we signal to the red hats that we don’t really believe what we are saying and are not to be trusted.

The impeachment process will lay out the facts of each count of misconduct for the American people clearly. It will be news every night for weeks, and that will help the people understand the extent of Trump’s disdain for the law. Senators will have to explain their vote for or against each count, and then have to go home and explain it to their constituents. That is how the system should work.

This is not 1998 and Trump is not Clinton. Gingrich imploded because he led an actual witch hunt. Trump repeats “witch hunt” but then goes out and commits high crimes!

We have solid evidence, corroboration and even two public confessions, for Christ’s sake.

So have no fear. The corruption show is just getting started, and it will open the public’s eyes.

It is naive to expect the next election will be fair

if this president is left unchecked.

We don’t know what will happen. We might as well do the right thing and defend the country from a dire existential threat — a traitor elected President.

To dither about political calculations at this point is to ignore the oath of office each member takes.

Let your neighbors watch witness after witness recount Trump’s abuse of office. That “spectacle” will convince ordinary citizens their country is on the line. It is.

Without the integrity of our elections we cease to be a republic.

Roberts will lead the Senate trial. Mitch gets one vote.

The country will already know the charges and will hear the evidence at trial. Republican Senators, some facing reelection, will be forced to say publicly that high crimes are not impeachable, that clear violations of the Constitution are just fine, and to vote against what they said they stood for: the rule of law.

Granted, most elected Republicans are rank hypocrites and comfortable with duplicity. We may peel away a few brave ones, probably not 20, but that is not for Congress to second guess. The House has its own duty to defend the Constitution from this outrageous daily assault, damn the consequences.

Agreed. It is not the House's job to second-guess the Senate.

The House’s duty is to determine whether the president’s conduct is impeachable, using the tools at their disposal. Mueller has given them strong indications that it is, as much as he is allowed to say.

The Senate’s actions are largely irrelevant to the House’s decision. Yes, they will certainly acquit. Yes, Trump will claim vindication — but he already has, even though the report and testimony are damning, so we might as well do the right thing for history.

If at the end Trump only gets an asterisk, then he gets an asterisk; but the House will have spoken, to him and future generations, that this conduct is unacceptable.

And more can come out in an open-ended inquiry. Mueller was constrained to Russia; the House can look at anything Trump did. Depending on what we find, we might even peel off a few Republicans in the Senate, who might not want to defend Trump’s lawlessness anymore.

So basically a pie in the face.

I’m not a fan. There are better ways to make your point than destroying someone’s suit.

Not much different from keying someone’s car or tagging their house.

I’ll grant that the target is ripe. What an asshat.

I think fear and hatred of the "other" are at the heart of racism.

That often manifests in abuses of any power or superior position that is available, but I see the power component as an effect rather than a defining characteristic.

I attended one of the schools that was closed for years after the Brown decision. I was a white kid in a school that was about 80% black. For a few hours a day, I experienced what it was like to be a minority — though with a reprieve at the end of the day that I realize my classmates never got.

My classmates were children of parents who were not able to complete their education, and they often struggled. I was put in a situation where I faced a lot of lingering resentment and even malice for things I did not do, simply for who I was. There was always a sense that you could not stick up for yourself due to the overwhelming numbers opposed, so you learned to get along and let racial taunts slide, and avoid people and situations that physically threatened you.

One could argue that this was a special case where numbers gave social power to people who did not have it in society at large, and so the racism-as-power definition would hold. But to say I never experienced racism because whites have power in the larger society is to deny what I went through every day. Any advantage, even height and strength, can be leveraged by any person, regardless of color. That is why I say everyone is capable of racially motivated actions regardless of whether they have power in larger society, and everyone should examine themselves in this regard.

We have a ton of great candidates.

And I could be enthusiastic for almost any of them. I have always loved Warren, so many good ideas. I like Bernie’s message. Harris is likeable and effective. I was very impressed with Beto in his Senate campaign, so inspiring. This cycle, I started out a Biden supporter because I know he can win, and his elevation would signal our allies that we’re still with them. Then I saw Inslee on Maddow and was blown away. He’d be a great advocate for any of our causes. A skilled persuader.

When I first heard about Buttigieg, I thought he was just a spoiler, no way could a gay man win in this hate-filled country. But he speaks to our values as a nation better than just about anyone since Obama, and is a Rhodes Scholar like Bill.

Pete will tell you that as mayor, he has more executive experience than Trump. That may be a better barometer of capability than holding a higher office, because local government has to be more visible and responsive to constituents in a crisis. He has more military experience than any president since GHWB. He speaks eight languages, learning Arabic during deployment, and Norwegian just because he liked an author.

There is something about his brilliance that sets him apart from the other great candidates. He has the skills to turn questions about his experience into a positive. He can win back a sizeable chunk of the religious vote, speaking easily about how his faith informs his values of taking care of the poor, the sick and the stranger. I realize that will make atheists cringe, but he is “one of the good ones” — not trying to deny your rights but expand them, not trying to proselytize you, but just showing decency by example. He has a good riff on Pence too.

To listen to Pete for any length of time is to understand what he believes, and eventually you realize you agree with him and maybe always have. That’s why he has come out of nowhere to suddenly be tied for third in the polls, and I think will rise to the top and be an outstanding, unifying president.

(Edited to say 8 languages, not 5, and president rather than candidate. Thanks, everyone!)

I think that is a fair asessment. Your point will probably get lost here

or perhaps buried in the outrage.

People want to exaggerate any cricism of HRC’s messaging into somehow being an attack on her candidacy. That’s not what it was for; Pete wants us to improve our messaging, and is saying that particular message sounds like glossing over of America’s problems. What we need more than everyone jumping on a bandwagon is people questioning how that bandwagon is steered.

America both is and is not great. Fantastic in some ways, but mired with longstanding problems like cyclical economic depressions and a history of deep racial division to put it mildly.

The voter hears we’re supposed to say America is Already Great and thinks: but what about my shitty wages? Why can’t I afford healthcare? Why are cops shooting our kids?

To gloss over all that with a soundbite that is in the end a reaction to Trump’s rhetoric is a misstep and tone deaf. Pete is right to call it out.

And yes, it’s first name Pete and first name Hillary. Everyone knows who we’re talking about and it’s not a sign of disrespect, so people should chill about that. And listen to all the candidates explain themselves rather than write people off based on other DUers’ spin about who is worthy.

She flew to Syria without telling anyone, to show support for Assad

while trashing our allies in the region, upending U.S. foreign policy, shortly after Trump took office:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats

Russia wants Syria as an oil pipeline route to the sea and views Assad as an ally.

Recall that Gabbard quit the DNC in a public spat with DWS at a critical juncture in the Sanders/Clinton battle, playing up the favoritism the DNC appeared to show Clinton. That drove a wedge between two factions of Democrats and prolonged the bitterness and distrust, helping to depress enthusiasm for Democrats in the general, which again happens to be what Putin wanted.

Now couple that with Russia boosting Gabbard, like they did with Jill Stein, and a picture starts to emerge.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

Gabbard has a fine background and appearance but acts as though she were an asset of Russia. Certainly the Russians defend her like one.

Thsnks for this.

I am of two minds on this issue. It makes economic sense to free up capital that is more or less stagnated in less active investments, provided the benefits go to low- and middle-income people. They in turn will spend and thus stimulate the economy more directly, creating demand and fueling growth.

Politically, this will be a tougher sell. This will be seen as goverment “taking” or “confiscating” wealth — which it is — and spun as “punishing success.” We will have to counter that the move is intended to punish hoarding wealth and provide balance to a system that disproportionately benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who are currently getting exploited.

Good on Warren for having the courage to take a bold stand. If anyone can articulate the merits of this proposal and counter the objections, it’s her.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »