J.C.MacSwell

Wasn't Lincoln in the theatre? What? ...too soon?

Good idea for a thread Zap. Now, where to begin? Some attributes are clearly Left/Right, where others are simply those aligned with those currently supporting those on the Left/Right. I guess it all started in France (the Left/Right terminology, not the divisions) and was based on where they sat in the National Assembly and then grown and morphed from there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_political_spectrum It would be interesting to see some reasonable test for Left/Right. I think most would agree and disagree with various attributes across the spectrum despite Party affiliation/alignment, though many might not admit it. For the record...not a gun owner... though I thought I owned hunting shot guns/rifles at one point (Family members gave away why grandfather's and father's hunting rifles/shot guns assuming I had no interest in them as I had not used them in some time) So MigL's guess was correct...

I thought that...I was only kidding...but I did google it prior to posting LOL...so you had me going I agree about Reagan. Certainly elements of truth to that... but I think the "vise-like grip" for his core (and to a lesser extent others) is his getting in the face of the establishment, or those perceived as looking down on others. This is exactly opposite of what one would expect (what I would have expected...please don't ask me to back it up) toward those with what I think most would hold as principled behaviour, but I think I have come to understand it to some small degree (still feels Twilight Zone level...Trump is POTUS, and still acting like an ass, and still with a chance of a second term)

We have a cat. It has quite a personality. It really enjoys being a nuisance including walking on my keyboard when I'm typing. ...and here she is!

Identified as male?

I'm hoping Cynic's suggesting a counter example to Trump...though I think Airbrush already covered that with Arnold S.

The only time he discussed it with Trump, and he claimed Trump answered "no". I expect there are at least two "interpretations" of each of Sondland's statements, one Democrat, and I will leave it to see if you can guess the other.

I'm guessing even if you just include Trump supporters...most lament much of his behaviour.

Are you claiming the report has no Democrat bias? The interpretation of the testimony falls fairly clearly along partisan lines...and I doubt any Republicans took part in making up the report. But I stand to be corrected...

I think that's the point where the theoretical equations break down, so we can't go further back based on our best model.

My argument is based on my belief that the Dems hoped to include "Bribery", but given the preponderance of evidence, even though they may truly believe it was bribery, realize it can be interpreted otherwise...thus "not clear" in the context of what I posted. I never claimed it was "guesswork" though they clearly think they know what Trump had as his intentions...intentions I have always thought quite plausible, but I can recognize other plausibilities as well. Agree it may be smart to have left bribery out...given the fact that they were unable to get harder evidence than what they'd hoped for. I don't believe I will change your mind, or that you'll change mine...but I'm open to it if I hear something more convincing than a partisan report claiming bribery took place...while leaving it out of articles of impeachment, and especially after they had settled on that as the best line of attack. Again from a "left" source: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/stephen-lynch-bribery-quid-pro-quo-cnntv/index.html I've been looking for a Selke level right winger to shadow him for when he's lined up against me! (sorry...hockey reference...I think MigL advised me not to use them...)

He wasn't really sure. So he winged it...

i honestly don't think the House Judiciary Committee considers it clear. You say "Welp, so much for that" like you found proof. I allowed that your interpretation was possible. I just don't agree with it. I think they are concerned it might muddy the waters...as they don't actually believe it's cut and dried. Do I have proof of that?No. Do you have proof that it's otherwise? No. You provided evidence that fits either way. I'm not going to suggest you are intellectually dishonest. I just disagree with you. Here's an interpretation of why Bribery is not included from the "Left" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/12/why-articles-impeachment-dont-include-bribery-charge/ "The likely strategy is to avoid lawyerly squabbles over whether the precise elements of the federal bribery statute have been satisfied.:" Which supports my argument. I don't think we need to look at an interpretation from the "Right"...

Welp...the report alleges... You can of course interpret that as "clear"...others might interpret it as "the House Judiciary Committee would like to think...but not confidently enough to include it in the articles of impeachment"

I've said this before but I think downvotes, by their very nature, attack the poster not just the post. To the degree that's true, that goes against the spirit of the rules we are expected to follow when posting, and is especially unfair to new posters, and especially when they see upvotes for rudeness directed at them or their posts. I know I didn't know the definition of a non-lethal weapon. I thought it meant it wouldn't, or at least shouldn't under normal use, kill people.

That may be true.

No INow. Your question was about McConnell declaring coordination with the WH, not "everything the Democrats do". I stated a while back the Dems should have gone for censure...which would take pressure off some of the more vulnerable Dems and put pressure on many Republicans...ones that find it much more easy to vote against impeachment. Had they done that I think it would have been a smart move...but they wanted more... I could point out more things I believe the Republicans are doing wrong on this Forum, but they are generally already overstated here (my opinion of course, but when's the last time you took exception to anything stated to the extreme about Trump or the Republicans?). I tend to hold middle positions on most things compared to many here who tend to hold to the left, especially in their talking points. If only that was true...if it was that clear...it might not feel as necessary to overstate the case?

No. I hope it's Yang, and I hope he wins, but I think the impeachment may make it harder for the Democrat nominee to win regardless of who it is. I think Yang has a fair amount of support across the political spectrum, so that should help.

Not defending it whatsoever...except tactically...given that they were bound to be doing this it's smart to put it right out front. Compare with Schiff claiming he doesn't know the name of the whistleblower...and then it turns out his office was coordinating directly with them (him?).

My understanding is that if subpoenas can be contested, and it requires the courts to decide for them to be enforced. This of course takes time, and the Democrats were unwilling to wait. Presumably that's on them.

Opinion. I don't doubt you believe it. But it is hardly proven.

It would invalidate Trump's election to POTUS.

I know you may find this hard to believe, but I wouldn't know. What falsehood am I presenting? I'm presenting my opinion, which is that the Democrats current course on this is misguided and wrong.

If not so otherwise, that's simply a result of you democratic process. Maybe the focus should be on winning the next election instead of overturning the results of the last one...by offering something more compelling to voters. How can you be sure not to make the same type of mistake on these specific articles of impeachment? Precedent matters, and the election is less than a year away. Obviously opinion. You, or anyone else seriously claim to not share it? It would have been a serious blunder otherwise. (IMO of course)

Because if it was a crime that would make it pointedly worse. What has Trump done since inauguration that is pointedly worse than many things he did prior to being elected? How do you know this? No evidence was given with regard to this example when dimreepr suggested it. Do you go by the evidence? Or because it is Trump/Trump like example? If it was clear that Trump had committed legal bribery, it absolutely would have been included. The argument that it doesn't have to be a crime is pertinent, but without the crime it leaves it more open to judgement and politics. If that argument holds for the House it applies to the Senate. And it becomes weaker when it comes to the election. My opinion of course but would anyone disagree with that? I think the fact that he seems to react without thinking things through..."what about the Bidens...why are they picking on me and my electoral college landslide?" (LOL)... muddies the waters and makes intent to affect the 2020 election, as his sole purpose, more debatable. I think so...assuming you had been in the habit of doing this type of thing for other reasons, bizarre or otherwise...you would have an argument against the intent part of your apparent crime. I have no idea what might have compelled you...where Trump at least can point to other quite conceivable motives.