In the medium term, I agree 100%. In the short term, I’m on team Republicani delenda est. The “breaking fever” metaphor doesn’t work for me anymore. We’re at the “lumpectomy” stage.
Yeah, we have external problems, internal problems, and problems with how we deal internally with the external problems.
The Republican voters need to operate on with fact-based view. Yes, I know things like abortion cannot be argued on a fully fact based plain, but some of it can. And things like man-made climate change are also the same. Dems are not void of this, but by and large, Republicans need to rid themselves of those who deny facts and scientific thinking. Off the top of my head, there are some real valid arguments on how to handle farms/farmers/farming in flood planes in the corn and wheat belts, but Republicans are so far down the road in denying science and scientific thinking that it is hard to come to any compromise.
Not likely. Owning the Libs is really all they're about. Conservative judges, tax cuts, polar bears now wearing Speedos, kids in cages. Libs hate that stuff.
Yes, there are issues that come down to science, but more often than not we are really looking to balance between important values that are not always fully compatible. We want to live in a free society, a fair society, a just society, a safe society, a compassionate society etc., and while these are all worthy values, we all tend to value some of them more than the others, and sometimes too much of one takes away too much of the other, and that is where we need to find compromise.
It won't though because the people needed to keep the sides honest have abandoned that responsibility. Independents are being lazy with their analysis or choosing third party when that is what Republicans want because it keeps them in power. McConnell blocked a supreme court nominee and faced no punishment because people wanted to have some purity test or not take voting seriously. I like you come here from a country that has scene its politics destroy a nation so we take voting seriously in the family, but here people have taken it granted.
NO! I said "science and scientific thinking." I mean being able to logically think through an argument with facts. I mean work through an argument that is fact-based. I don't disagree with this, but it is hard for one side which uses scientific thinking that is rational and logical versus the other side which largely does not. For example, in small town America, you can have a vote to improve the road to the small town church or the small town school. I would say the school every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. But if the argument is that more people in that small town attend that church than the school, that is a logical argument. If the argument is that God is more important or that everybody needs Jesus or something like that, that is not a logical argument. That question is not that some value some things more than others, it is why we value some things more than others. We will always value some things over other, but we don't do any introspection to understand why we have those values, then we have lost the ability to argue rationally, which means we have lost the ability to compromise.
That is not the real story, that is a deflection. The real story is: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/02/senate-panel-ukraine-election-interference-074796 With the impeachment inquiry charging forward, President Donald Trump’s allies have defended his demand for political investigations from Ukraine by claiming that the government in Kyiv tried to sabotage his candidacy and boost Hillary Clinton in 2016. “Russia was very aggressive and they're much more sophisticated, but the fact that Russia was so aggressive does not exclude the fact that President Poroshenko actively worked for Secretary Clinton,” Republican Sen. John Kennedy claimed on Sunday in an interview with NBC, referring to the former Ukrainian president. But the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee thoroughly investigated that theory, according to people with direct knowledge of the inquiry, and found no evidence that Ukraine waged a top-down interference campaign akin to the Kremlin’s efforts to help Trump win in 2016. That is the story, that the conspiracy with Individual One believes is false. Per a Republican led investigation.
I'd be totally fine if any journalist would just ask the GOP if they're that desperate to own the libs.
Interesting lineup for today's hearings: Witnesses for Wednesday House Judiciary impeachment hearing: Noah Feldman Harvard Law Pamela S. Karlan Stanford Law Michael Gerhardt University of NC School of LawJonathan TurleyGWU Law School— Tim Mak (@timkmak) December 2, 2019
Why is that interesting? I thought it was well known there would be legal Constitutional experts testifying today (first day of the Judiciary hearings).
It will be, among other things: - Very educational for people not totally familiar with constitutional law. - Very entertaining to hear the Republican members of the committee asking questions (are Gohmert and Gaetz allowed to ask questions? Please say yes) - Very disturbing to see the coverage in Faux News. - Very fascinating to see the WH trying to claim that the constitutional experts don't know about the constitution.
But do they know anything about the only important constitution? http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm
If I'm the Republicans, I'm not sure I'd ask any questions, tbh. These witnesses aren't going to add anything to the investigation into whether Trump tried to bribe/extort/quid the Ukrainians and aren't likely to say whether Trump should be impeached or not. I would imagine, the Republicans are going to spend most of their time repeating the talking points generated by the report they released yesterday.
Has Trump contradicted the report yet? He always manages to undercut what ever "strategy" the Republicans in congress come up with.