Atticus
Atticus's JournalI must disagree with some current reporting.
Some are saying the Republicans have "stuck their heads in the sand". That is NOT where they have their heads stuck.
Others are saying McCarthy is going to Mar-A-Lago to "kiss Trump's ring". It is NOT Trump's ring that McCarthy plans to kiss.
Other corrections may follow as necessary.
A couple questions about "censuring" Trump:
1.) Why is it being called an "alternative to the Senate trial"? I thought that once the House passed and transmitted an Article of Impeachment, trial by the Senate was an obligation.
2.) Since Trump cannot be shamed, why would he care if he was censured? Can censure include barring a future run for office?
Thanks for any education you can provide.
I suspect many have heard this. Q: What is a failed unpunished insurrection called?
A: a rehearsal.
Just asking---could Psaki's refusal to discuss Taylor-Greene be because she expects her to
be a criminal defendant in the not-too-distant future? Or is that just my wishful thinking?
So, when do we start acting like we are in control of Congress and the White House? We have given
the Republicans a week to choose unity or division and their intent is now clear. There is much that needs doing and "cleaning house" in Congress should be on that list.
Go big. Do it now.
"If you really want to do something, you will find a way. If you don't, you will find an excuse."
I am sure no one here needs to hear this,------------but maybe some of us need to be sure all of
our friends, neighbors and even---(shudder! ) family members understand it.
Are you ready? Listen carefully: JUST BECAUSE YOU SEE IT OR READ IT ON THE INTERNET, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS TRUE!
This is important, so I will say that again, in a different way: ALL THAT STUFF ON THE INTERNET? AS "SPORTIN' LIFE'" MIGHT SAY---"IT AIN'T NECESSARILY SO!",
Question EVERYTHING! "WHO is posting this?" "WHY are they posting it?" "Are they QUALIFIED to say what they are they are saying?" "Have I ever even HEARD OF this poster?" And, that's just a start.
We know that not everyone on the net is as honest as we are, but sometimes we drop our guard and let terrible people feed us poisonous lies that serve their purpose, but may irrevocably damage our lives.
We wouldn't let our kids eat nice-looking candy we found on a park bench. Why would we swallow even attractive facts we find posted by "who knows?" on an internet site?
Again, I know none of US need that reminder, but---spread the word, ok?
Several days ago, Mitch told his Republican caucus that their vote in Trump's trial would be a
"vote of conscience".
And then, after some mumbling and head scratching, they turned to Mitch and asked "What IS this 'conscience' of which you speak?"
There is no "nuance" to be considered as to the constitutionality of Trump's Senate trial.
There are virtually no respected authorities who doubt that the trial is constitutionally appropriate.
There are no arguments asserting the trial's unconstitutionality that are not transparently silly.
So, let's be clear: the votes of the 45 Republicans who just voted that the trial was unconstitutional were basically the equivalent of 45 shameless votes agreeing that the sky is fluorescent orange. Everyone knows they can't possibly genuinely believe that because they all tie their own shoes and are permitted to go out in public without minders. But, today, unhampered by any semblance of a sense of shame and totally cowed by an obese out-of-shape and petulant man-child with a purchased degree and a big mouth, 45 Republican Senators violated their oaths and common sense to vote as he has commanded.
These are not even "Republicans". They are Trumpies and those who trust them will be almost as responsible as they are for the tragedies their obstruction will cause.
If today does not justify pursuing OUR agenda by whatever means are available to the majority party without regard to how these cowardly slugs feel about it, we may as well prepare for an administration held hostage by its own reluctance to piss off the opposition.
Didn't intend a rant when this started, but why not? I can no longer justify civility when confronting the likes of Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell!
Might Manchin and Sinema be ok with a "modification" of the current version of the filibuster?
I'm thinking of a return to the "Jimmy Stewart" version whereby the filibuster could last only so long as one senator could continuously hold the floor and there was no 60 vote requirement. I am sure we'd see some who were catheterized after a fast, but nature would put a reasonable time limit on minority obstruction while still providing an opportunity to voice their opposition.
Could this or some other "modification" be a way for these two to flex without abandoning their public support for keeping "the filibuster"?
A sure-fire way to bankrupt all the Q-anon geniuses?
Just give their text and email addresses to that famous "Nigerian prince". He'll have their bank and retirement accounts cleaned out before Trump's trial starts.
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 15,124