Jump to content
BANGKOK

heybruce

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    11,331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14,284 Excellent

About heybruce

  • Rank
    Star Member

Recent Profile Visitors

15,138 profile views
  1. So you agree that Fox news pundits are not credible sources. Good for you. Why don't you name specific reporters and news organizations they work for that you consider credible.
  2. In your opinion Pelosi held up sending impeachment charges to the Senate in the hope of hurting the campaign of every Senator running for President and with full knowledge that Moscow Mitch would decide when the Senate trial would begin and how it would be conducted, so she wasn't in control. That doesn't make sense. A more logical conspiracy theory is that Moscow Mitch made a point of ensuring the Senate trial would be in full swing before and during the Iowa caucus, thus disrupting the campaigns of Biden and others. However I'm sure you have a reason why that can't be true.
  3. So you presume you know why Pelosi held up the articles of impeachment? Did you consider the reason she gave? " “We cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side,” she said, referring to the House “managers” who present the case for removal to the Senate. “So far we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us. So hopefully it will be fair. And when we see what that is, we’ll send our managers.” "https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-house-democrats-push-pelosi-to-withhold-impeachment-articles-delaying-senate-trial/2019/12/18/6e25814a-21c5-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html If you don't like that news source, there's also this one: " Pelosi spoke to reporters after Democrats passed two articles of impeachment against President Trump in a Wednesday evening vote. She indicated the House would eventually send the articles over to the upper chamber but insisted it is up to the Senate to determine how the process develops going forward. " https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-delay-impeachment-mcconnell Her explanation sounds much more reasonable than paranoid conspiracy theories about interfering in the Iowa caucus.
  4. Actually it was Moscow Mitch McConnell who determined when the trial would start and how long it would last.
  5. You just confirmed my post. Kelsall posted " Pelosi's plan to tank Sanders by dragging out the impeachment ..." and you posted "But remember it was the dems that said it needed to be done immediately." Trump supporters are simultaneously accusing Pelosi of dragging things out and rushing things. Funny that you accuse me of trying to have it both ways.
  6. Policies matter. So does a record of getting things done. Bernie is strong of the first, weak on the last.
  7. So Pelosi is now accused of dragging out the impeachment. During the Senate trial she was accused of rushing impeachment instead of taking the time to adequately investigate.
  8. The only tie I found between Judge Amy Jackson and the Fast and Furious case was this: " A federal judge rejected Tuesday the Obama administration's claim of executive privilege to block a congressional committee from obtaining records relating to a bungled gun trafficking investigation. " " The very information that the administration sought to deny investigators with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform had been made public in 2012 by the Justice Department's inspector general's review of a Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives operation known as "Fast and Furious,'' U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote in a 32-page opinion. " https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/19/judge-fast-and-furious-atf/79012328/ I can see why Republicans would object to a Federal District Court Judge that overturns a claim of executive privilege; Trump lives behind a wall of executive privilege. However I don't see how this she "slow walked" or did anything to impede the case.
  9. You may have got some money in the tax cut, but that big deficit is running up the balance on what is effectively a credit card that taxpayers will have to eventually pay off. Either you or your children are on the hook for it.
  10. Let's see: Most or all of the candidates think the income disparity in the US is wrong. Most Americans agree. I'm not aware of any candidate directly or indirectly calling for the destruction of wealth, whatever you mean by that. Klobuchar might be the candidate to win the battleground states, or Buttigieg, or Biden, or Bloomberg. I think all those states can be taken by a centrist. Name a candidate that didn't have big plans. Did Trump win with modest promises? Please provide some analysis to support your claim about the Democrat's tax plans. Democrats are going to start printing money? Really? Glenn Beck on Fox News was saying the same thing after Obama got elected. One of his sponsors sold overpriced gold to the viewers who fell for it. So long as the Federal Reserve stays independent and the US deficit is kept under control the dollar will not crash. Trump is a threat to both those conditions.
  11. Only Sanders and Warren are promising big spending increases, and both are proposing taxes to pay for the increases. I realize that Republicans think taxes are worse than Satanism, but a first world economy needs a first world infrastructure and enough of a safety net so citizens feel secure enough to change jobs, start businesses, start a family, etc. These things cost money.
  12. Pretty much the entire election process is badly out of whack: Too much time, too much money, too much influence for those with money, 24 hour news giving too much air time to candidates based on their entertainment/ratings value, and an indefensible tradition of giving Iowa and New Hampshire too much power to shape the elections. And these are just the problems that come immediately to mind. The Bernie idea I like most is the one to reform campaign finance. I just don't think he can get it done. He'd need strong support from the House and Senate, and a left-wing candidate will give both the House and Senate to the Republicans.
  13. Checks and balances are being destroyed. The Justice Department is being politicized. The President's defense team presented the legal argument that anything a President does to get re-elected is not impeachable. The environment is being degraded. Allies are being lost or betrayed, dictators are being flattered and their global position strengthened. The Federal Deficit, which is supposed to go down during a good economy, has been shooting up. That last part will be key when the next recession hits. Economics dictates that deficit spending should be increased to bolster a faltering economy, not a strong one. The large and unnecessary increase in the deficit under Trump will really hurt when the next downturn comes, and it may be before November.
  14. When a house is on fire and has other problems, putting out the fire is the top priority.
  15. That's not the same as being locked up for airing legitimate grievances against your government, is it? BTW, I've been temporarily suspended for posting legitimate opinions about coups and military rule (I tried to barely stay within the rules, but sometimes....). I didn't like it, but understand that a forum that exists in a country with censorship has to be careful.
×
×
  • Create New...