Hit the road Tulsi, and don't you come back, no more, no more, no more, no more
lord_pabulum said:
Joking right? It is about time you leave your mum's basement and talk with real people
This explains everything.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
STANV said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Except, the inquiry is NOT being held in secret. Facts matter, Paulie !
The legal objection is "Assumes facts not in evidence".
Except THESE facts are clearly in evidence, by the very, documented, fact that all Republican members of the 3 committees are welcome to participate..
And what about the rest of Congress and the public, which is being dutifully informed by the media about the hearings by selective leaks?
Red_Barchetta said:
My neighbor and I are having a bit of a tiff because his landscaper regularly blows leaves over onto my lawn. I'm not going to work it out with him because the Kurds are being massacred. Why bother if world peace is not the goal?
Just don't go all "Rand Paul's neighbor" on him, okay?
In a five-hour deposition Monday, Sen. Rand Paul’s neighbor described his thinking on the day he tackled the congressman in November of last year over what he says was a dispute over yard waste.
“When I saw him once again, he was off of his mower, taking branches from that one pile and putting them on the property line to intentionally aggravate me. I lost it and became irate,” Rene Boucher said.
Boucher then charged toward Paul and knocked him to the ground, leaving him with six broken ribs and an injured lung.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
And with respect to Tulsi's argument that impeachment is too divisive or will "unite the Republicans",
Tulsi supports the impeachment inquiry.
How Paul describes Tulsi's views has nothing to do with, and doesn't contradict, my post that the quoted snippet comes from.
paulsurovell said:
And what about the rest of Congress and the public, which is being dutifully informed by the media about the hearings by selective leaks?
As with any grand jury style investigation, the general public gets to see it when the trial begins. In FACT, the Repubs are getting far more access to the info than they would if it was an actual grand jury. If you're so worried about the Dems leaking, where are the Repubs leaks...crickets ! Fight fire with fire, 'cept they ain't got no fire, so they blow smoke instead, just like you.
Steve said:
paulsurovell said:
I'm supporting Tulsi who has the most anti-Trump platform of any candidate. I think I've been less critical of other candidates than most of the "Politics" people on MOL.
But since you are concerned about attacks on Democratic candidates, where have you been during the onslaught of smears and lies about Tulsi Gabbard? And where were you when Big Mouth said he would stay home if Bernie got the nomination?
You are way too hung up on this impeachment inquiry which isn't going to get any Democrat elected, and when it all plays out will probably end up helping Trump. It's sure as hell uniting the Republicans:
You have no idea what, if anything, I'm "hung up on."
Your last two posts make it pretty clear
As for the I'll stay home if Bernie is the nominee attitude, I may have commented that such an attitude is stupid (it's a long time ago now and I wouldn't have repeated myself). It's no better than the actions of others who say my candidate or Jill Stein (for example). I actually believe that sbenois was speaking hyperbolically when he said that and would actually come around at election time.
You didn't speak up. And now you're apologizing for him. Have you voiced criticism of the attacks against Tulsi? I doubt it. Your criticism of attacks on candidates is highly selective.
Again, if you want to argue Tulsi is better than X, do so by arguing for her and not against the other Dems. They are all better than Trump and that is the baseline. Point out why Trump and the GOP are so bad (not exactly a challenge) and explain why you believe Tulsi is best equipped to fix things.
My arguments have been against Tulsi-haters on this board who have been obsessively smearing her daily on various threads, especially this one (see link below), which is an anti-Trump thread based on a speech by Tulsi that Trump was protecting Al Qaeda -- a far tougher position against Trump than any other Democratic candidate:
Arguing that the other Dems are corrupt is not helpful. Even if you believe that they are corrupt, compared to the other choice, they are, relatively speaking, pure as the driven snow. That's what we are up against. United we win, divided we fall.
I've never argued that the other Dems are corrupt, and neither has Tulsi. She has said that the Party has been corrupted by its warmongering leadership. And she's right.
Red_Barchetta said:
paulsurovell said:
I don't conform to stupid policies that are dishonest and counterproductive. I prefer to speak out when I see that happening. Always have, always will. Sorry, but I think the INF Treaty, First-Strike Policy, the Paris Accord, genocidal sanctions against Venezuela and the obscene military budget are more important than whether enough hearsay can be gathered to prove that Trump extorted the Ukraine President, so the House can do something that the Senate will throw out.
These are Tulsi's priorities which is why I support her.
But go ahead, if it makes you feel safer, join the other lemmings who are following the corporate Democratic leadership to the sea.
My neighbor and I are having a bit of a tiff because his landscaper regularly blows leaves over onto my lawn. I'm not going to work it out with him because the Kurds are being massacred. Why bother if world peace is not the goal?
Actually the Kurds have decided to work with Assad to stop the killing. Are the Kurds now "Assad apologists?" And they could have done this before the attacks by Turkish-supported jihadists (that we formerly praised) but they were blocked by the Trump administration.
paulsurovell said:
I don't conform to stupid policies that are dishonest and counterproductive. I prefer to speak out when I see that happening. Always have, always will. Sorry, but I think the INF Treaty, First-Strike Policy, the Paris Accord, genocidal sanctions against Venezuela and the obscene military budget are more important than whether enough hearsay can be gathered to prove that Trump extorted the Ukraine President, so the House can do something that the Senate will throw out.
You may call it hearsay.
However, if all we had was Trump's phone call with no corroboration from others like the ambassador, we still consider it a quid pro quo attempt.
You'd have to be extremely stupid believe with aid being held up and then Trump requesting his "favor" that it was not a quid pro quo attempt.
So, congratulations on consistently following RT, Putin and Russian social media attempt agendas. Of doing Russia’s work to undermine us with your sad attempts of disrupting our national self confidence, increasing social unrest and stimulating disunity. Ripening Russia's influence and domination.
Are you getting paid for this or are you simply their useful tool?
Dennis_Seelbach said:
paulsurovell said:
And what about the rest of Congress and the public, which is being dutifully informed by the media about the hearings by selective leaks?
As with any grand jury style investigation, the general public gets to see it when the trial begins. In FACT, the Repubs are getting far more access to the info than they would if it was an actual grand jury. If you're so worried about the Dems leaking, where are the Repubs leaks...crickets ! Fight fire with fire, 'cept they ain't got no fire, so they blow smoke instead, just like you.
Gee, that's funny. I thought I remembered seeing the Rodino impeachment investigation hearings on television.
You mean they were supposed to be meeting in secret like a Grand Jury and then just issue an indictment for the Senate?
Actually, @paulsurovell, I rarely comment (because I dislike getting into this nonsense with people who are, in their own minds, never wrong) and don't recall whether or not I commented on sbenois' statement. Again, you do nothing but tear down. For someone who claims to be about peace, a positive word from you (about anything other than yourself) once in a while would be nice.
paulsurovell said:
Gee, that's funny. I thought I remembered seeing the Rodino impeachment investigation hearings on television.
You mean they were supposed to be meeting in secret like a Grand Jury and then just issue an indictment for the Senate?
The public portion of the hearings. What about during the initial investigatory phase when staffers asked questions in closed rooms? Do you remember that?
paulsurovell said:
Gee, that's funny. I thought I remembered seeing the Rodino impeachment investigation hearings on television.
You mean they were supposed to be meeting in secret like a Grand Jury and then just issue an indictment for the Senate?
And I remember a Special Counsel and a Senate Committee, which included interviews before the public testimony, before the House Judiciary Committee hearings.
So I'm not a good audience for Trump's dishonest arguments.
Also this -
Republicans are saying they are being barred from the “secret” hearings. But here’s a list of every Republican who is allowed into the hearings: pic.twitter.com/YsYp4owpKt
paulsurovell said:
Actually the Kurds have decided to work with Assad to stop the killing. Are the Kurds now "Assad apologists?"
No.
See every flippin' factual report of what's actually going on, for the details.
BG9 said:
paulsurovell said:
I don't conform to stupid policies that are dishonest and counterproductive. I prefer to speak out when I see that happening. Always have, always will. Sorry, but I think the INF Treaty, First-Strike Policy, the Paris Accord, genocidal sanctions against Venezuela and the obscene military budget are more important than whether enough hearsay can be gathered to prove that Trump extorted the Ukraine President, so the House can do something that the Senate will throw out.
You may call it hearsay.
What do you call it?
However, if all we had was Trump's phone call with no corroboration from others like the ambassador, we still consider it a quid pro quo attempt.
So vote for impeachment and send it to the Senate
You'd have to be extremely stupid believe with aid being held up and then Trump requesting his "favor" that it was not a quid pro quo attempt.
So vote for impeachment and send it to the Senate
So, congratulations on consistently following RT, Putin and Russian social media attempt agendas. Of doing Russia’s work to undermine us with your sad attempts of disrupting our national self confidence, increasing social unrest and stimulating disunity. Ripening Russia's influence and domination.
You mean 42.3% of Americans are Russian agents?
Are you getting paid for this or are you simply their useful tool?
In most cases, I would take this as a rhetorical question, and ignore it, but since you are obviously a paranoid schizophrenic I think it's important to present reality to you. The answers are No and No. And you don't have to look under your bed or in your closet, because I'm not hiding there and neither are any of the rest of the 42.3% of Americans who share my view.
Try to get some rest.
paulsurovell said:
In most cases, I would take this as a rhetorical question, and ignore it, but since you are obviously a paranoid schizophrenic I think it's important to present reality to you. The answers are No and No. And you don't have to look under your bed or in your closet, because I'm not hiding there and neither are any of the rest of the 42.3% of Americans who share my view.
Try to get some rest.
Does that mean that 57.7 don't agree? I'm no mathematician, but my number appears to be bigger than yours.
Steve said:
paulsurovell said:
In most cases, I would take this as a rhetorical question, and ignore it, but since you are obviously a paranoid schizophrenic I think it's important to present reality to you. The answers are No and No. And you don't have to look under your bed or in your closet, because I'm not hiding there and neither are any of the rest of the 42.3% of Americans who share my view.
Try to get some rest.
Does that mean that 57.7 don't agree? I'm no mathematician, but my number appears to be bigger than yours.
Yes. Does that mean us 42.3% should shut up?
paulsurovell said:
Yes. Does that mean us 42.3% should shut up?
No, but it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Steve said:
paulsurovell said:
Yes. Does that mean us 42.3% should shut up?
No, but it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
For those like me who have lost track, who are the "42.3%" and/or where did that number come from?
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
Gee, that's funny. I thought I remembered seeing the Rodino impeachment investigation hearings on television.
You mean they were supposed to be meeting in secret like a Grand Jury and then just issue an indictment for the Senate?
And I remember a Special Counsel and a Senate Committee, which included interviews before the public testimony, before the House Judiciary Committee hearings.
So I'm not a good audience for Trump's dishonest arguments.
What will Paul be saying once the public proceedings begin?
nohero said:
Steve said:
paulsurovell said:
Yes. Does that mean us 42.3% should shut up?
No, but it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
For those like me who have lost track, who are the "42.3%" and/or where did that number come from?
As much as the decimal-pointed percentage pains me:
Steve said:
paulsurovell said:
Gee, that's funny. I thought I remembered seeing the Rodino impeachment investigation hearings on television.
You mean they were supposed to be meeting in secret like a Grand Jury and then just issue an indictment for the Senate?
The public portion of the hearings. What about during the initial investigatory phase when staffers asked questions in closed rooms? Do you remember that?
I'll concede the point. Yes, closed depositions took place and are allowed under House rules. But they are not required and given the extent of the anonymous leaking today, I think they should be open.
But even in closed depositions, the difference between current and prior impeachment investigations is striking:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house
It is worth noting that in both 1974 and 1998 impeachment proceedings, the House judiciary committee voted to give the president procedural rights in the committee’s deliberations. The president and his counsel were invited to attend all executive session and open committee hearings, and the president’s counsel was entitled to cross-examine witnesses, make objections regarding the pertinence of evidence, respond to the evidence produced and even suggest additional evidence the committee should receive.https://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/10/us/testing-of-a-president-the-proceedings-as-prologue-the-past-looks-like-a-bad-bet.html
In the Nixon inquiry, the Judiciary Committee staff took depositions from dozens of witnesses. Many of those witnesses were then questioned in closed sessions by committee members and by Mr. St. Clair, the President's lawyer.
DaveSchmidt said:
nohero said:
Steve said:
paulsurovell said:
Yes. Does that mean us 42.3% should shut up?
No, but it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
For those like me who have lost track, who are the "42.3%" and/or where did that number come from?
As much as the decimal-pointed percentage pains me:
We want to make sure we count every Russian agent.
jamie said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
Gee, that's funny. I thought I remembered seeing the Rodino impeachment investigation hearings on television.
You mean they were supposed to be meeting in secret like a Grand Jury and then just issue an indictment for the Senate?
And I remember a Special Counsel and a Senate Committee, which included interviews before the public testimony, before the House Judiciary Committee hearings.
So I'm not a good audience for Trump's dishonest arguments.
What will Paul be saying once the public proceedings begin?
"Hell froze over."
DaveSchmidt said:
nohero said:
Steve said:
paulsurovell said:
Yes. Does that mean us 42.3% should shut up?
No, but it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
For those like me who have lost track, who are the "42.3%" and/or where did that number come from?
As much as the decimal-pointed percentage pains me:
Got it. It's the average of recent (which results in the decimal point that pains some).
Since facts are coming out so quickly, and the poll questions do matter, I think an average isn't that useful for this particular issue.
Here's what I think is a good recent question -
| Oct. 17-21 As you may know, the House of Representatives has begun a formal impeachment inquiry to determine whether or not to bring impeachment charges against President Trump. Do you approve or disapprove of this impeachment inquiry? | ||||||
| 1,587 registered voters | 55% | 43% | Yes +12 | |||
| 460 Republicans | 10% | 88% | No +78 | |||
| 540 Democrats | 93% | 7% | Yes +86 | |||
| 444 independents | 58% | 37% | Yes +21 | |||
The Republican responses fuel the "No" side. I have no explanation for the 7% of Democrats who say "No impeachment inquiry"; all I know is, that would be Paul's group.
paulsurovell said:
Gee, that's funny. I thought I remembered seeing the Rodino impeachment investigation hearings on television.
You mean they were supposed to be meeting in secret like a Grand Jury and then just issue an indictment for the Senate?
Paul, I know you're not that stupid. The Rodino hearings FOLLOWED the special prosecutor report, which was the equivalent of the grand jury. The Rodino hearings will be the equivalent of the upcoming PUBLIC hearings that the House will conduct before drafting the articles. You know this, so why keep sounding so imbecilic?
paulsurovell said:
Red_Barchetta said:
paulsurovell said:
I don't conform to stupid policies that are dishonest and counterproductive. I prefer to speak out when I see that happening. Always have, always will. Sorry, but I think the INF Treaty, First-Strike Policy, the Paris Accord, genocidal sanctions against Venezuela and the obscene military budget are more important than whether enough hearsay can be gathered to prove that Trump extorted the Ukraine President, so the House can do something that the Senate will throw out.
These are Tulsi's priorities which is why I support her.
But go ahead, if it makes you feel safer, join the other lemmings who are following the corporate Democratic leadership to the sea.
My neighbor and I are having a bit of a tiff because his landscaper regularly blows leaves over onto my lawn. I'm not going to work it out with him because the Kurds are being massacred. Why bother if world peace is not the goal?
Actually the Kurds have decided to work with Assad to stop the killing. Are the Kurds now "Assad apologists?" And they could have done this before the attacks by Turkish-supported jihadists (that we formerly praised) but they were blocked by the Trump administration.
Really, the Kurds are safe? Yay! Of course it would be nice if transgendered people weren't oppressed all over the world. Thanks for taking up my cause... I'm confident you can get my neighbor and I back on friendly terms.
nohero said:
Here's what I think is a good recent question -
Oct. 17-21 As you may know, the House of Representatives has begun a formal impeachment inquiry to determine whether or not to bring impeachment charges against President Trump. Do you approve or disapprove of this impeachment inquiry? Quinnipiac University 1,587 registered voters 55% 43% Yes +12 460 Republicans 10% 88% No +78 540 Democrats 93% 7% Yes +86 444 independents 58% 37% Yes +21 The Republican responses fuel the "No" side. I have no explanation for the 7% of Democrats who say "No impeachment inquiry"; all I know is, that would be Paul's group.
I guess those are the Democrats you want to attack, smear and slime as pro-Trump, pro-Russian tools, so you can motivate them to be sure they will vote for the Democratic candidate. And of course the carryover effect on Independents and wavering Republicans. Who needs the 7%?
paulsurovell said:
I guess those are the Democrats you want to attack, smear and slime as pro-Trump, pro-Russian tools, so you can motivate them to be sure they will vote for the Democratic candidate. And of course the carryover effect on Independents and wavering Republicans. Who needs the 7%?
Maybe you are that stupid, after all.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Tulsi supports the impeachment inquiry.