I ask, once again, what happens if the Senate fails to even rule that Trump shouldn't be eligible to run for office again, one of their two choices upon conviction? HCR has expressed some optimism that eventually we'll do the right thing. Personally, I think that assumes facts not in evidence.
I ask, once again, what happens if the Senate fails to even rule that Trump shouldn't be eligible to run for office again, one of their two choices upon conviction? HCR has expressed some optimism that eventually we'll do the right thing. Personally, I think that assumes facts not in evidence.
Somewhere along the line we've lost the desire or courage to hold public officials to account for transgressions, large and small. Despite publicly recorded video, audio, documentary, and/or photographic evidence, time after time we've seen politicians (and others) deny their intent, involvement, or responsibility for what they've done. When such an event comes to light we usually get the crisis PR chestnut of "I'm sorry if I've offended / hurt / insulted / pick your verb anyone. I've learned from my mistake and will endeavour to do better in the future."
We now have 90% of GOP Senators saying they won't convict Trump on his second Impeachment charge. No surprise here, because to try and convict Trump would lay bare their own culpability not disavowing Trump's objections to the election's results, let alone their previous support and enablement of the former president's antidemocratic efforts.
They've called the Impeachment politically motivated or divisive or in conflict with president Biden's calls for unity. They day that, because Trump's out of office, it would be unconstitutional. This allows them to have a trial but still be seen as not turning on Trump, which is now feared more than the "wrath of God" even for so many "Christians." Also, his hastily cobbled defense team said that even if impeachment was to be Constitutional, Trump was only exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech, and that his words of January 6 didn't incite a crowd to crash the Capitol Building in order to stop Congress's counting of the certified election results. They've conveniently failed to account for the body of tweets and comments prior to and after the November 3rd election that set the stage and tone to actively interfere with the 1/6/21 Congressional activities.
And yet - many have improbably objected to an election in which Trump was defeated but they themselves may have won. They go on the Sunday morning circuit and refuse to acknowledge there legality of Biden's victory. They're beginning to say that they disagreed with Trump the whole time, or that's what's past is past and shouldn't be revisited. And after these nearly impossible logical contortions much of the public refuses to call them out.
We continue to elect and reelect representatives who may have low approval ratings at home, who have actively supported policies that are, at best, cruel and prejudiced, and Stu worst, are immoral, unethical, and possibly illegal. We continue to elect representatives who have no compunctions about b fudging the facts, if not outrightly lying to those who voted them into office. We commuting to elect representatives whose primary objective is to perpetuate their job and allow their party to retain power instead of fighting for their constituents regardless of how many tweets are slung at then. To borrow a phrase, "this is not who we are" Rather, it say "this is not who we should be." Our loyalty shouldn't lie with politicians, but with our neighbors and communities. We heard before that most soldiers will say they're not motivated by the political argument for why they're at war, but to support and protect their teammates. Should our elected officials fail to pursue and establish accountability, they will have set the stage for any and all future erosion of our system of government.
Biden wasn't my choice but he was my only choice. I'm glad he's there and, at first glance, trying to unwind some of the worst of Trump's decisions, but I have to question whether I feel that way only because Trump was so objectively awful, or because Biden knows how to better work three levers of collaboration. He has a lot on his plate - the coronavirus, av economy decimated by said virus, repairing alliances, and restoring domestic and international conference in America's principles and capabilities. But we have this crisis of accountability as well. I know Biden's loathe to interfere with the workings of Congress or the Justice Department, prefering to operate within the guidelines of Article 1. The Republicans will, without irony,?try to frame him and the Democrats as the source of our troubles instead of assuming any responsibility themselves or even attempting to redeem themselves by collaborating in good faith for the greater good, not their own interests. We can't allow three GOP to lay this all at Biden's feet. If we, the citizens of the USA, aren't willing to demand better, it's hardly fair to lay that failure off on Biden.
Prior to the rioti said to my wife that I thought Pence and other Republicans must be exhausted by Trump and would welcome a return to somewhat less chaos. So far, 2021 has proven me wrong. Under the circumstances it's hard to believe that our form of government stands any chance of lasting through another assault by someone much smarter and knowledgeable than Donald Trump.
It's instructive to read the full impeachment brief (https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/house_trial_brief_final.pdf). They respond to each and every objection about trying Trump, i.e., is it constitutional (yes) and was he "just" exercising "free speech" (no). They don't just quote the Constitution; they also describe in-depth the mind of the Founders when they wrote the impeachment clause through what they wrote in the Federalist Papers, the historical precedents, and what we inherited from English common law. They thoroughly debunk anything and everything Trump's lawyers have come up with.
This is a superb suggestion. It asks us to look at (if not read thoroughly) the primary source: The Article of Impeachment. Reading the Article, I feel like I am reading history as it is made. It is beautifully crafted. It encourages us to "look to the helpers."
We continue to elect these representatives as a result of the extreme Gerrymandering that creates a situation where there is never any viable opposition, and no need to maintain a more centrist approach.
Ally, you're right, but that doesn't explain why their constituents find their behavior to be up to snuff, at least for me. Cruz and Hawley may have been distasteful for lots of reasons but they weren't quite so polarizing or extreme until recently (well, Cruz may have been). The MTGs and Madison Cawthorn have absolutely no agenda other than rabble-rousing. They're unfit for office for numerous reasons. I'm thinking some sort of sanity check needs to be imposed on candidates, at least for Federal office.
Maybe it's time to ignore the labels people attach to Democrats and just get on with it. Who cares if the Republicans think our motives are "political"?
Stuart, I'll be happy to start. I've been thinking on this for some time. You could start with a basic civics test. I suspect more than a few current Congresspeople wouldn't pass it.
Add in a few simply questions about geography, history and how the world functioned and you would most certainly lose many of them, possibly most The repost would be that you are "elitist" and not democratic! You have to laugh as such stupidity hurts too much.
Stuart, since some of these folks shop for districts or states to represent, the geography questions should be a land mine. All about an address or a coffee shop or something specific enough that a long term resident would know. Maybe something about the natural resources of their state, local foods, etc. All of this would be fun, but I'm quite serious about suitability b screenings. Psychological tests were pretty common at one point. Certainly today, employers will rustle through a prospective employee's social media, credit history, etc. You can't waive them as conditions of employment. Is it really so much to ask that a Congressperson meet at least the same screening requirements as a junior sales person or admin staffer? It doesn't seem as if the FBI or whomever does the background checks has done that great a job at identifying character concerns or conflicts of interest.
At least put them through the Myers, Briggs so they gain a little understand of themselves and how others function...a mega gain in maturity for them and we can see better what we're voting for!
That's a great idea. Last time I took it, the top career suggestion was to be a forest ranger. I should've listened. If course, that didn't prevent the firm from hiring me for a role far removed from the forest!!
Unfortunately, using the MBTI in the recruitment process is totally opposed to what it can do. It helps understand how you function and your compatibility with other team members. A basic tenet is that we can all do anything we like, some things will tire us more than others. It never directly predicts what trade you will be good at. To have a career recommendation the test was doubtless combined with something else which was "talent" oriented.
I understand it's not predictive, but it feels like most low level employees get more employment screening than some of these people. You have to consent to credit, background, and social media checks for many jobs. When I worked for a large consulting firm you had to disclose investment holdings and divest of any holdings related to the firm's clients. How is it that Wilbur Ross and Jared Kushner manage to "forget" about multimillion dollar Investments?
I'm not a conspiracy theory kind of guy but I frequently read about some of Kavanaugh's debts being paid off before his nomination but not by him. I don't know if that's true or not, bit given how the follow-up FBI investigation was so sharply proscribed, it seems possible that the checks were less than thorough.
I ask, once again, what happens if the Senate fails to even rule that Trump shouldn't be eligible to run for office again, one of their two choices upon conviction? HCR has expressed some optimism that eventually we'll do the right thing. Personally, I think that assumes facts not in evidence.
Somewhere along the line we've lost the desire or courage to hold public officials to account for transgressions, large and small. Despite publicly recorded video, audio, documentary, and/or photographic evidence, time after time we've seen politicians (and others) deny their intent, involvement, or responsibility for what they've done. When such an event comes to light we usually get the crisis PR chestnut of "I'm sorry if I've offended / hurt / insulted / pick your verb anyone. I've learned from my mistake and will endeavour to do better in the future."
We now have 90% of GOP Senators saying they won't convict Trump on his second Impeachment charge. No surprise here, because to try and convict Trump would lay bare their own culpability not disavowing Trump's objections to the election's results, let alone their previous support and enablement of the former president's antidemocratic efforts.
They've called the Impeachment politically motivated or divisive or in conflict with president Biden's calls for unity. They day that, because Trump's out of office, it would be unconstitutional. This allows them to have a trial but still be seen as not turning on Trump, which is now feared more than the "wrath of God" even for so many "Christians." Also, his hastily cobbled defense team said that even if impeachment was to be Constitutional, Trump was only exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech, and that his words of January 6 didn't incite a crowd to crash the Capitol Building in order to stop Congress's counting of the certified election results. They've conveniently failed to account for the body of tweets and comments prior to and after the November 3rd election that set the stage and tone to actively interfere with the 1/6/21 Congressional activities.
And yet - many have improbably objected to an election in which Trump was defeated but they themselves may have won. They go on the Sunday morning circuit and refuse to acknowledge there legality of Biden's victory. They're beginning to say that they disagreed with Trump the whole time, or that's what's past is past and shouldn't be revisited. And after these nearly impossible logical contortions much of the public refuses to call them out.
We continue to elect and reelect representatives who may have low approval ratings at home, who have actively supported policies that are, at best, cruel and prejudiced, and Stu worst, are immoral, unethical, and possibly illegal. We continue to elect representatives who have no compunctions about b fudging the facts, if not outrightly lying to those who voted them into office. We commuting to elect representatives whose primary objective is to perpetuate their job and allow their party to retain power instead of fighting for their constituents regardless of how many tweets are slung at then. To borrow a phrase, "this is not who we are" Rather, it say "this is not who we should be." Our loyalty shouldn't lie with politicians, but with our neighbors and communities. We heard before that most soldiers will say they're not motivated by the political argument for why they're at war, but to support and protect their teammates. Should our elected officials fail to pursue and establish accountability, they will have set the stage for any and all future erosion of our system of government.
Biden wasn't my choice but he was my only choice. I'm glad he's there and, at first glance, trying to unwind some of the worst of Trump's decisions, but I have to question whether I feel that way only because Trump was so objectively awful, or because Biden knows how to better work three levers of collaboration. He has a lot on his plate - the coronavirus, av economy decimated by said virus, repairing alliances, and restoring domestic and international conference in America's principles and capabilities. But we have this crisis of accountability as well. I know Biden's loathe to interfere with the workings of Congress or the Justice Department, prefering to operate within the guidelines of Article 1. The Republicans will, without irony,?try to frame him and the Democrats as the source of our troubles instead of assuming any responsibility themselves or even attempting to redeem themselves by collaborating in good faith for the greater good, not their own interests. We can't allow three GOP to lay this all at Biden's feet. If we, the citizens of the USA, aren't willing to demand better, it's hardly fair to lay that failure off on Biden.
Prior to the rioti said to my wife that I thought Pence and other Republicans must be exhausted by Trump and would welcome a return to somewhat less chaos. So far, 2021 has proven me wrong. Under the circumstances it's hard to believe that our form of government stands any chance of lasting through another assault by someone much smarter and knowledgeable than Donald Trump.
It's instructive to read the full impeachment brief (https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/house_trial_brief_final.pdf). They respond to each and every objection about trying Trump, i.e., is it constitutional (yes) and was he "just" exercising "free speech" (no). They don't just quote the Constitution; they also describe in-depth the mind of the Founders when they wrote the impeachment clause through what they wrote in the Federalist Papers, the historical precedents, and what we inherited from English common law. They thoroughly debunk anything and everything Trump's lawyers have come up with.
This is a superb suggestion. It asks us to look at (if not read thoroughly) the primary source: The Article of Impeachment. Reading the Article, I feel like I am reading history as it is made. It is beautifully crafted. It encourages us to "look to the helpers."
My heart thrills with hope.
Excellent! May I copy and post your comments with link?
You may.
Thank you
We continue to elect these representatives as a result of the extreme Gerrymandering that creates a situation where there is never any viable opposition, and no need to maintain a more centrist approach.
Ally, you're right, but that doesn't explain why their constituents find their behavior to be up to snuff, at least for me. Cruz and Hawley may have been distasteful for lots of reasons but they weren't quite so polarizing or extreme until recently (well, Cruz may have been). The MTGs and Madison Cawthorn have absolutely no agenda other than rabble-rousing. They're unfit for office for numerous reasons. I'm thinking some sort of sanity check needs to be imposed on candidates, at least for Federal office.
Yes but who is going to write the criteria for this and who will apply it.....and not be called "political".
Maybe it's time to ignore the labels people attach to Democrats and just get on with it. Who cares if the Republicans think our motives are "political"?
Stuart, I'll be happy to start. I've been thinking on this for some time. You could start with a basic civics test. I suspect more than a few current Congresspeople wouldn't pass it.
Add in a few simply questions about geography, history and how the world functioned and you would most certainly lose many of them, possibly most The repost would be that you are "elitist" and not democratic! You have to laugh as such stupidity hurts too much.
Trumpsky still can't admit that Frederick Douglass is deceased.
Or that he ever existed!
Ask this: Who's buried in Grant's tomb?
It's not a trick question, it's a trick answer.
Stuart, since some of these folks shop for districts or states to represent, the geography questions should be a land mine. All about an address or a coffee shop or something specific enough that a long term resident would know. Maybe something about the natural resources of their state, local foods, etc. All of this would be fun, but I'm quite serious about suitability b screenings. Psychological tests were pretty common at one point. Certainly today, employers will rustle through a prospective employee's social media, credit history, etc. You can't waive them as conditions of employment. Is it really so much to ask that a Congressperson meet at least the same screening requirements as a junior sales person or admin staffer? It doesn't seem as if the FBI or whomever does the background checks has done that great a job at identifying character concerns or conflicts of interest.
At least put them through the Myers, Briggs so they gain a little understand of themselves and how others function...a mega gain in maturity for them and we can see better what we're voting for!
That's a great idea. Last time I took it, the top career suggestion was to be a forest ranger. I should've listened. If course, that didn't prevent the firm from hiring me for a role far removed from the forest!!
Unfortunately, using the MBTI in the recruitment process is totally opposed to what it can do. It helps understand how you function and your compatibility with other team members. A basic tenet is that we can all do anything we like, some things will tire us more than others. It never directly predicts what trade you will be good at. To have a career recommendation the test was doubtless combined with something else which was "talent" oriented.
I understand it's not predictive, but it feels like most low level employees get more employment screening than some of these people. You have to consent to credit, background, and social media checks for many jobs. When I worked for a large consulting firm you had to disclose investment holdings and divest of any holdings related to the firm's clients. How is it that Wilbur Ross and Jared Kushner manage to "forget" about multimillion dollar Investments?
I'm not a conspiracy theory kind of guy but I frequently read about some of Kavanaugh's debts being paid off before his nomination but not by him. I don't know if that's true or not, bit given how the follow-up FBI investigation was so sharply proscribed, it seems possible that the checks were less than thorough.
Oh, phooey, the whack-job Kool-Aid Queen now has an acronym, MTG. *sour-face emoji here*
Work to get a tri-partisan Redistricting Commission in every state.like Michigan's.