Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 526985)

Except it has not been proven that Trump’s people were coordinating regarding election interference with Russia.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 526982)

Agree. The fact that anyone with half a brain gives fuel to the "Trump derangement" theme is an absolute travesty. People just don't like him so they are acting irrationally when it comes to him? GTFOH. Everything he's done (and Less' ridiculous carveouts should be completely ignored) has been an outright lie, self-serving, corrupt, objectively stupid, criminal, racist, sexist, irrationally xenophobic, spiteful, lazy, and/or completely ignorant.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 526985)

To answer another post here, I think the issue with Schiff comes down to the fact that, as an ex-prosecutor, he’s a hammer ever in search of a nail. Trump is a shitball, so he takes it upon himself to chase everything, with an admitted intent to take Trump down. That is exhausting. It also has a huge stink of opportunism about it (the guy is on TV talk shows more than some hosts). So Schiff is clearly, partly, political. NTTAWWT. But it puts him in the box with other political people who’ve sought to take out presidents, like Gingrich, Scaife, Starr.

He has a much better case than Starr and Gingrich, of course. But even he knows, censure of Trump followed by his loss in an election is a more likely successful approach. But again, he’s a hammer, and he’s a lawyer, so He Knows Best.

Maybe Schiff has no choice. But he looks a lot more like Ahab than Robert Welch at the moment. Whether a man is guilty or not is not the sole decision in whether to prosecute. The feds don’t indict the terminally ill. A censure, which would rob Trump of the right to say he’s been acquitted and vindicated, may render him effectively terminally ill in terms of re-election. Maybe it’s better to just wait the ten months for his disease to take him out?*

But Schiff always knows best. He is a trial lawyer, a TV darling, and like Gingrich and Starr, he believes this president must be removed, and this is his big moment. In which he risks, and may succeed, in getting Trump re-elected.
___
* The argument he needs to be impeached to avoid him stealing the next election is facile. Trump is in a reverse panopticon. If people are concerned about that, they should be impeaching Zuckerberg.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 526988)

Unless someone is paying you to make a Moby Dick analogy, this post makes no sense on any level.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 526989)

I paid him to do it. I fucking love that book, but I'm not confident enough that I can engage in that kind of literary metaphor myself without sounding like I'm just spewing meaningless cliches.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 526981)

Trump's people were coordinating with Russia long before he took office. Perhaps we have all forgotten that Jarod Kushner asked the Russian ambassador about using Russian embassy channels to communicate with Moscow before the inauguration. Trump's campaign was run by Manafort. Roger Stone is a criminal. Trump's National Security Advisor lied to the FBI, which is what really got Comey and Mueller going.



All three are the product of what the conservative movement and the Republican Party have become, fueled by demographic changes in the country, the end of the Cold War and technological changes in media. Gingrich was the avatar, though.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 526989)

I paid him to do it. I fucking love that book, but I'm not confident enough that I can engage in that kind of literary metaphor myself without sounding like I'm just spewing meaningless cliches.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 526992)

I've got the opposite problem. I don't mind saying stuff but I'm not well read:confused: So I don't get how the founder of the John Birch Society played into the post?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 526987)

Trump is a symptom. Conservatism is the problem.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 526994)

Populism (which includes Trump) is a symptom. Late Capitalism (largely “rentier” as Picketty would assert) is the problem.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 526956)

Ah, yes, "reasonable:".
...
Turning away women at random to solve a non-problem. Completely "reasonable."

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 526998)

"Until now, traveling to the U.S. to give birth has been entirely legal, as long as women did not lie about their intentions on their visa application. The lack of restrictions helped fuel a lucrative “birth tourism” business, in which U.S.-based brokers—including several*operating out of Trump properties—charged women tens of thousands of dollars for lodging during their pregnancy and birth."

From some Daily Beast article.