News Us politics - read first post before comment

[Justmehere]

That's a much more discussable way to make the point. Thank you for clarifying. And yes, they do. I don't think the virus topic is especially relevant to the US southern border, though.

It's a matter of time before Mexico starts having cases, and it being used as an argument to beef up the border, and as an argument to bring the walls down to help more people running from it and/or sick. Just like they have with measles: Measles outbreak adds to argument to secure U.S. border, former Rep. Hayworth says

It's also a serious issue for the healthcare workers at the border: Coronavirus scare has border health officials from both sides in constant communication

Coronavirus is spooky to me. The public panic could be more deadly than the virus. I'm beginning to think it's a matter of time before a lot of cases hit the US (and no wall could stop it.) They are already considering a China travel ban outright. Americans evacuated from city at center of coronavirus outbreak land in California That risks tanking the global economy and setting off mass panic, which is probably why they have not done it yet.

This is recent drone footage of Wuhan, a major city of 11 million people that has turned into a ghost town:

 

[Sideways]

I'm sorry you feel attacked. I did expressly ask you not to single me out unless you had something to say about the argument I was making in my posts.

I was responding to a statement you, yourself made about "Trump being above the law".

An impeachment trial, as has now been stated over and over, is not a criminal trial. I was at pains in my posts to express the view that if the Democrats have made a case out that the President has committed a criminal offence, then it should be tried in a court of law, per the doctrine of the rule of law (or, 'innocent until proven guilty' as you put it).

Despite me asking you not to, you persisted in singling me out for attacks. Which was completely unreasonable. We don't seem to be disagreeing.

And your cynical attitude toward.the impeachment trial. But you yourself admit you havn't watched it.

My cynicism about the process seems to be the only thing that you take exception to. And yet, your posts are full of cynicism.

I won't be bullied, simply because I'm not a Republican. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, and the argument I was making about damage to democratic ideals, is being argued by Trump's own lawyers in the Senate.

So, in this respect, I'm actually agreeing with Trump's lawyers. Because the things I was discussing (rule of law, natural justice, and the principles of democracy) tend to every bit as Republican as they are Democrat.

And no, I don't believe I have to be tuned in to the Senate proceedings to be entitled to an opinion on what's going on. It is, after all, taking place while I'm asleep.

When I ask you not to single me out for attacks unless you have something to say about what I was arguing, what I mean is - please leave me alone, unless you want to discuss the issues I was discussing. I will not be drawn into "is he guilty or not" arguments. And I don't like being bullied, which is what you did by persisting to target me when I specifically asked you not to.

 

[The Albatross]

@The Albatross - you seem to be be happy to make this thread your personal soapbox, and an opportunity to keep us all educated about what's going on in Washington and what it all means. Good for you.

But this:

Please - don't bother quoting me, when I've clearly spent time setting out a considered personal opinion, to simply tell me my ideas are 'ludicrous'.

Borders on bullying, as nothing more than name-calling for the sake of it. That's dysregulated behaviour right there.

This is an open thread. I am a member and I have an opinion. If I want to participate in the thread and my participation is uncomfortable then that is for you to manage. If I remark on the rest of your comment... strawman though it is and gaslighting by the way... I would be a bully. So I'll leave it to your imagination as to what I am thinking about the rest of your comment.

As soon as Trump got elected all of a sudden the Russians were good guys to you folks ... because they got your guy into the White House.

Russia Today, @The Albatross? Really? Russia Today. Apparently half the country thinks it's a legit source. More legit than the Post or the Times!

Source for "as soon as Trump got elected all of a sudden the Russians were good guys to you folks" (nothing presumptuous or biased about that statement huh? More than the Times, not the NY Post.

 

[somerandomguy]

not the NY Post

I was referring to the Washington Post. Interesting how your mind went directly to that Murdoch-owned rag.

 

[The Albatross]

So... Highlights/Lowlights from yesterday.

SCOTUS Roberts disallowed Senator Rand Paul's question because of "naming the whistle blower"... although Schiff himself outed the whistleblower's identity in Taylor's testimony back in November 2019. Roberts also allowed... though not in the rules for the question period Schiff to address/redress questions that were not on the question card for House Managers.

Parnas… as predicted. Wasn't able to enter the Senate gallery because of his ankle bracelet.

A letter was produced attempting to assist in the process for Bolton's manuscript and "allowing his voice to be heard" which busts again the legacy media narrative.

Video surfaced (the internet is forever) for Bolton... a synopsis of the "perfect" call... and one where he said he would lie about national security matters:

Sounds like a peachy witness to me (nope).

Schiff himself in 2018 had plenty to say about Bolton... nothing favorable.

I think after watching all this process the integrity of the House and House manager system (since they are able to be dishonest with impunity/immunity)… I would like to see some changes about that going forward. But how would that happen? Dunno. After 8 hours of watching... the earworm was Schiff and all I could hear was Eurythmics, Would I lie to you? The answer was yes.

Something is inherently broken in both the House and Senate rules if these folks aren't under oath. Just my take.

 

[The Albatross]

Wapo? Uh NOooooo. Rates right up there with Daily Beast, Media Matters, Salon …. ack.

 

[The Albatross]

I was referring to the Washington Post.

Omitting the snark (your comment)but submitted for your edification

Here's a handy dandy chart.
https://static.makeuseof.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/media-site-political-bias-chart.png

 

[The Albatross]

Corona virus needs it's own thread.

With the exception of the plane from China being diverted to March AFB, CA.

Mum... "rule of law" at this point is loaded as it's been dumbed down for public consumption. It's more like the Democratic House is saying, "Laws and rules" for thee but not for me. Which I can't abide by. And, I do not find your posts to be full of cynicism. RE:
"My cynicism about the process seems to be the only thing that you take exception to. And yet, your posts are full of cynicism.

What I do find is that any viewpoint oppositional to one's personal biases is seen as "bullying". Which is ironic as it totally encaptulates the House of Representatives impeachment process.

Forgot the link to the accusation about the "threatening letter from WH" trumpeted by the left: That 'Threatening' Letter WH Sent Bolton Was Actually Offer To Help Him Get Published

Last day of questions starting at 1 pm EST.

 

[joeylittle]

Everyone: The topic isn't here for members to go after each other.

(I mean everyone - this isn't directed at any one member, or any one side of the discussion)

There's a difference between debating points and debating the person. Most of the time, people are making points, and that's not a problem. Disagreement and argument, all fine. Arguing against each others points, also fine, and to be expected.

Don't use the topic as an excuse to snark at each other, that's all.

Back to the thread.

 

[The Albatross]

Sideline but interesting... However much Hillary "has the urge" for 2020... she's been ducking Tulsi Gabbarts $50 M lawsuit for being called a "Russian Operative".

Quid Pro Joe get's handsy with a supporter who says he'll support him in the General and delusional (something's seriously wrong with Joe) corrects him to the Primary. He's floated Michelle Obama as a VP and Obama to SCOTUS. The poor man is even discussing VP picks cuz he's too old.

Lieawatha Warren wants to criminalize free speech that she has an issue with.

Bernie wants to tax people with incomes of 29k... because other people need free stuff.

Saint Pete's campaign is having a diversity meltdown.

It's a free for all.

Enjoy the show.

 

[Mee]

@joeylittle Thank you for the reminder to walk away. I admit to feeling frustrated on this thread and I apologise. I also know I am not contributing when I have useful knowledge because of the atmosphere.

 

[The Albatross]

"Atmosphere" = people present who do not share my views.

In the "Ouch that's gonna leave a mark category":

Carter Page files suit against the DNC: Ex-Trump aide Carter Page files suit against DNC over dossier: ‘This is only the first salvo’

General Flynn changes plea... Feds back down: Probation 'appropriate' sentence for Michael Flynn, feds say

Don Lemon (CNNs) 80 second on air joke fest about Trump supporters get's spun into a Hunger Games themed RNC Ad. Ya can't make this stuff up.