Here we go again... - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Here we go again... (/thread-20289.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Here we go again... (/thread-20289.html)
RE: lex24 - Goose - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 12:08 AM)teejers1 Wrote: C'mon now . . . Clinton's budget surpluses were almost entirely the result of the Internet bubble (remember that it took states a while to try and tap into that then-new economy) and not his tax increases. [But I do agree that the surpluses chimeric "surpluses" would lead to tax cuts].I am pretty sure you can throw in a whole lot of "peace dividend" into the Clinton budget surpluses. Military spending started dowb under Bush and fell like a stone under Clinton. It made sense. The Cold War was over, we didn't need to spend as much. The beauty of it from a political point of view was that you could just spend the money on other things. It was already being collected.
Quote:For sure. One could argue that Hoover is also in the unlucky category.
Some presidents are extremely lucky (Bill Clinton); others are extremely unlucky (Jimmy Carter). Some presidents appear teflonesque (Reagan); others don't even get anything thrown at them (Obama). Many benefits that inure to benefit of a particular occupant have little to do with the occupant.
RE: lex24 - DocSavage87 - 08-21-2020
(08-20-2020, 09:15 PM)lex24 Wrote: Actually, he was impeached. And he certainly has not been immune from investigations. I don’t believe any President has been as investigated as Trump.
Sure, I should've chosen my words more carefully. So let me try again.
He can be impeached but without the Senate, even some of them saying the case was proven but it didn't matter, he cannot be removed. They didn't even want Bolton to testify despite his relevance.
There have been multiple instances of severe limitations of what investigations can investigate that are roadblocks solely because he is POTUS. Example: his financial records that required going up to Supreme Court and even now are being fought over.
You are conflating the number of investigations on Trump with the ability of an investigation to be started and conducted. The two are not the same. A number of investigations could and should have been started and/or not prematurely ended (e.g., State Dept IG investigation into British Open before he was fired). And need I remind you that the official stance of the DoJ is that POTUS cannot be indicted and AG Barr adds that because he cannot be indicted, he should not be investigated because it would be unfair despite contrary opinions from Mueller's team. So clearly within the DoJ they consider him off limits.
RE: lex24 - Genuine Realist - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 04:38 AM)Goose Wrote:My own thought is that the budget surpluses of the late 90's are due mostly to the efficiencies created by the information explosion of the 80's boom. I don't believe the dot.com bubble produced that much in the way of revenue at that time.(08-21-2020, 12:08 AM)teejers1 Wrote: C'mon now . . . Clinton's budget surpluses were almost entirely the result of the Internet bubble (remember that it took states a while to try and tap into that then-new economy) and not his tax increases. [But I do agree that the surpluses chimeric "surpluses" would lead to tax cuts].I am pretty sure you can throw in a whole lot of "peace dividend" into the Clinton budget surpluses. Military spending started dowb under Bush and fell like a stone under Clinton. It made sense. The Cold War was over, we didn't need to spend as much. The beauty of it from a political point of view was that you could just spend the money on other things. It was already being collected.
Quote:For sure. One could argue that Hoover is also in the unlucky category.
Some presidents are extremely lucky (Bill Clinton); others are extremely unlucky (Jimmy Carter). Some presidents appear teflonesque (Reagan); others don't even get anything thrown at them (Obama). Many benefits that inure to benefit of a particular occupant have little to do with the occupant.
We continue to reap benefits to this day, and beyond. Covid-19 would be close to unmanageable without them. It's another benefit of the Reagan years, as much as there are those who would rather die than admit that.
RE: Here we go again... - Goose - 08-21-2020
(08-20-2020, 08:33 PM)DocSavage87 Wrote: Sure the structure can be changed to help mitigate this type of situation. The CEO analogy is very flawed because no CEO controls the police, the prosecutor's office, the SEC, etc. Companies are constrained because the checks on it are external and cannot be corrupted by a corrupt CEO -- well, unless he's a super-villain.The CEO analogy has flaws, I agree, but not in the area of oversight. The House of Representatives functions as the police force for the president. The Senate functions as a court of law during an impeachment trial. The checks on the POTUS are external and real. Unfortunately the Senate was "corrupted" by this POTUS. It didn't take much, so I don't give him super-villain credit. Even if you make the IG jobs lifetime appointments, nothing prevents the POTUS from directing his people not to cooperate. Given that the usual purpose of the IG is to investigate "down" towards people who are below the POTUS, the idea that they are much of a threat to the POTUS is already questionable. The current POTUS should have simply ignored them, not fired them. This POTUS has such poor impulse control he couldn't resist a "Your Fired" response. If the POTUS does not fear impeachment if he stonewalls the IG, the IG is powerless. Do you think the Senate would remove the president over moving a golf tournament to a Trump course? I think they should, but I am pretty sure that they wouldn't. If what went on regarding the Ukraine, which had direct implications to the USA, wasn't enough, improperly attempting to move a golf tournament certainly isn't.
Quote:POTUS has too much power. He shouldn't be able to fire IGs or other instruments of oversight. He shouldn't be above the law or as argued by his lawyers -- immune even from investigation. There is a real worry that if hospital data flows not to CDC but to some orchestrated system, the data won't be used legitimately but for political spin much as one of the quants working on Florida's COVID-19 website had accused that state's executives.The POTUS isn't above the law. He can be, has been, and is being investigated. The problem is that if the Senate won't convict him no matter what he does, none of the reports from the IG or a Special Prosecutor or a Congressional hearing will ever matter. The same situation applies to the House, who can refuse to impeach him. I agree the POTUS has too much power. He has it because Congress simply refuses to do it's job. This is true not only in matters of presidential misconduct, but also in simple matters of governance, IMHO.
RE: Here we go again... - Genuine Realist - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 09:14 AM)Goose Wrote:The bona fides of the impeachment were undercut by the fact that (a) the grounds were absurdly slight, and (b) a solid plurality of Democrats would have voted to impeach Trump on the day of his inauguration, i.e., good faith is extremely doubtful.(08-20-2020, 08:33 PM)DocSavage87 Wrote: Sure the structure can be changed to help mitigate this type of situation. The CEO analogy is very flawed because no CEO controls the police, the prosecutor's office, the SEC, etc. Companies are constrained because the checks on it are external and cannot be corrupted by a corrupt CEO -- well, unless he's a super-villain.The CEO analogy has flaws, I agree, but not in the area of oversight. The House of Representatives functions as the police force for the president. The Senate functions as a court of law during an impeachment trial. The checks on the POTUS are external and real. Unfortunately the Senate was "corrupted" by this POTUS. It didn't take much, so I don't give him super-villain credit. Even if you make the IG jobs lifetime appointments, nothing prevents the POTUS from directing his people not to cooperate. Given that the usual purpose of the IG is to investigate "down" towards people who are below the POTUS, the idea that they are much of a threat to the POTUS is already questionable. The current POTUS should have simply ignored them, not fired them. This POTUS has such poor impulse control he couldn't resist a "Your Fired" response. If the POTUS does not fear impeachment if he stonewalls the IG, the IG is powerless. Do you think the Senate would remove the president over moving a golf tournament to a Trump course? I think they should, but I am pretty sure that they wouldn't. If what went on regarding the Ukraine, which had direct implications to the USA, wasn't enough, improperly attempting to move a golf tournament certainly isn't.
Quote:POTUS has too much power. He shouldn't be able to fire IGs or other instruments of oversight. He shouldn't be above the law or as argued by his lawyers -- immune even from investigation. There is a real worry that if hospital data flows not to CDC but to some orchestrated system, the data won't be used legitimately but for political spin much as one of the quants working on Florida's COVID-19 website had accused that state's executives.The POTUS isn't above the law. He can be, has been, and is being investigated. The problem is that if the Senate won't convict him no matter what he does, none of the reports from the IG or a Special Prosecutor or a Congressional hearing will ever matter. The same situation applies to the House, who can refuse to impeach him. I agree the POTUS has too much power. He has it because Congress simply refuses to do it's job. This is true not only in matters of presidential misconduct, but also in simple matters of governance, IMHO.
We have a normal electoral process for ending Presidential power every four years. I hope it succeeds and Trump is gone. The zeal of the Democratic Party to remove an figurehead that caused it great emotional distress - in the absence of any real cause - sits very poorly.
RE: lex24 - Mick - 08-21-2020
(08-20-2020, 09:15 PM)lex24 Wrote: IMO the problem isn’t so much the power of the Executive, it is the fecklessness of Congress. Driven by uber partisanship. 2016 should have been a wake up call. It wasn’t. Congress, in its inability to compromise, has as a result ceded much of its power to the Executive. Leading, among other things, to the rise of Executive Orders. Consider this Reagan’s ‘ 86 tax reform bill was sponsored in the House by Dan Rostenkowsi. It passed with bipartisan support. Both Obama (ACA) and Trumps (tax reform) biggest legislative victories passed purely on party lines. Which of course means when you have a change of party in the White House they simply try to undo the legislation. Trump and the Republicans have tried it with the ACA and if Biden wins he and the Democrats will try the same thing with tax reform.
Current congressional approval rating per Gallup is 21% approval.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
RE: lex24 - BostonCard - 08-21-2020
(08-20-2020, 09:54 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(08-20-2020, 09:15 PM)lex24 Wrote: Actually, he was impeached. And he certainly has not been immune from investigations. I don’t believe any President has been as investigated as Trump.
IMO the problem isn’t so much the power of the Executive, it is the fecklessness of Congress. Driven by uber partisanship. 2016 should have been a wake up call. It wasn’t. Congress, in its inability to compromise, has as a result ceded much of its power to the Executive. Leading, among other things, to the rise of Executive Orders. Consider this Reagan’s ‘ 86 tax reform bill was sponsored in the House by Dan Rostenkowsi. It passed with bipartisan support. Both Obama (ACA) and Trumps (tax reform) biggest legislative victories passed purely on party lines. Which of course means when you have a change of party in the White House they simply try to undo the legislation. Trump and the Republicans have tried it with the ACA and if Biden wins he and the Democrats will try the same thing with tax reform.
Of all the things Trump has done his Presidency, passing a tax cut is about the most "normal" thing he's done (at least as a Republican). I guarantee you that a President Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or John Kasich would have done something quite similar.
And, given that the government's varying fiscal situation, taxes go up and taxes go down. I'll remind you that after the Reagan tax cut, it was George HW Bush (and later Bill Clinton) who raised taxes when it became clear that that tax cuts did not, in fact, pay for themselves and deficits continued to rise. When Clinton's tax increases produced surpluses, it was a surprise to exactly no one that his successor would take advantage of the favorable fiscal situation to cut them again.
BC
A mea culpa here. The above post probably does not conform to the Terry Rule, since there is no link to COVID-19, and it seems to have launched a tangent on the causes of budget surpluses in the late 90's, which was not my intention. Sorry all.
BC
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 11:05 AM)BostonCard Wrote: A mea culpa here. The above post probably does not conform to the Terry Rule, since there is no link to COVID-19, and it seems to have launched a tangent on the causes of budget surpluses in the late 90's, which was not my intention. Sorry all.
BC
This won't come as a surprise: no worries!
RE: Here we go again... - DocSavage87 - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 10:44 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: The bona fides of the impeachment were undercut by the fact that (a) the grounds were absurdly slight, and (b) a solid plurality of Democrats would have voted to impeach Trump on the day of his inauguration, i.e., good faith is extremely doubtful.
Wow, I couldn't disagree with this statement more, particularly with (a). The good faith argument is laughable when they won't even allow direct witnesses with relevance to the charge. It's the problem with Goose's comment that the Senate is the court. Courts don't usually have extreme conflicts-of-interest where their votes can be influenced by whether they retain their position. It should be about the facts and the analysis, not political considerations.
lex24 - lex24 - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 11:05 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(08-20-2020, 09:54 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(08-20-2020, 09:15 PM)lex24 Wrote: Actually, he was impeached. And he certainly has not been immune from investigations. I don’t believe any President has been as investigated as Trump.
IMO the problem isn’t so much the power of the Executive, it is the fecklessness of Congress. Driven by uber partisanship. 2016 should have been a wake up call. It wasn’t. Congress, in its inability to compromise, has as a result ceded much of its power to the Executive. Leading, among other things, to the rise of Executive Orders. Consider this Reagan’s ‘ 86 tax reform bill was sponsored in the House by Dan Rostenkowsi. It passed with bipartisan support. Both Obama (ACA) and Trumps (tax reform) biggest legislative victories passed purely on party lines. Which of course means when you have a change of party in the White House they simply try to undo the legislation. Trump and the Republicans have tried it with the ACA and if Biden wins he and the Democrats will try the same thing with tax reform.
Of all the things Trump has done his Presidency, passing a tax cut is about the most "normal" thing he's done (at least as a Republican). I guarantee you that a President Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or John Kasich would have done something quite similar.
And, given that the government's varying fiscal situation, taxes go up and taxes go down. I'll remind you that after the Reagan tax cut, it was George HW Bush (and later Bill Clinton) who raised taxes when it became clear that that tax cuts did not, in fact, pay for themselves and deficits continued to rise. When Clinton's tax increases produced surpluses, it was a surprise to exactly no one that his successor would take advantage of the favorable fiscal situation to cut them again.
BC
A mea culpa here. The above post probably does not conform to the Terry Rule, since there is no link to COVID-19, and it seems to have launched a tangent on the causes of budget surpluses in the late 90's, which was not my intention. Sorry all.
BC
BC-
My comment regarding the Reagan tax cuts vis-à-vis the Obama and Trump legislative “victories“ had nothing to do with the the policies themselves as to whether they were “right” or “wrong” or “good” or “bad”. . It had everything to do with the difference between a time basis (1986) when it was possible to pass major legislation he n a bi-partisan basis and what is happening now – which is strict party line votes. That’s all I was trying to convey in my comment.
(08-21-2020, 11:51 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote:(08-21-2020, 10:44 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: The bona fides of the impeachment were undercut by the fact that (a) the grounds were absurdly slight, and (b) a solid plurality of Democrats would have voted to impeach Trump on the day of his inauguration, i.e., good faith is extremely doubtful.
Wow, I couldn't disagree with this statement more, particularly with (a). The good faith argument is laughable when they won't even allow direct witnesses with relevance to the charge. It's the problem with Goose's comment that the Senate is the court. Courts don't usually have extreme conflicts-of-interest where their votes can be influenced by whether they retain their position. It should be about the facts and the analysis, not political considerations.
Impeachment is a purely political instrument.
RE: Here we go again... - OutsiderFan - 08-21-2020
(08-20-2020, 12:54 PM)Mick Wrote: It's like saying "stop biting" to a two month old Labrador puppy. And yes, I have one. I know whereof I speak... ;)
Mick is about to live the movie Marley & Me. I have experienced these incidents with my Labs over the years. Not all the same one:
- Tore holes in leather couch
- Chewed off the finish on wall floor trim
- Perforated shelf under table with teeth marks
- Ripped door frame off a bathroom door
- Pulled off side of a dresser drawer
- Surgery to remove eaten sock
- Ran into horse enclosure and ate horse poop
- Ate plastic Torro ant poison dispenser
- Removed stuffing from several squeaky toys
- Caught Rabbit in backyard (twice)
- Dug holes in backyard lawn
- Let off leash at Bair Island and ran right into the mud/muck when I didn't have a towel
- Rolled in cat shit
- Ate cat shit
- Drools like a faucet around food
Best. Dogs. Ever.
RE: lex24 - oregontim - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 12:11 PM)lex24 Wrote: Impeachment is a purely political instrument.
Do you think that's a fair understanding of what it's supposed to be? I think it becomes political when enough legislators choose party over country to make it political. I think it was used politically against Clinton, for example; and I understand that some people think it was political against Trump. I don't agree with that, myself, but I can see how you can think that.
The real effectiveness of impeachment against criminal actions was bipartisan in 1973/74 when a majority Republican congress used the real threat of impeachment to force Nixon to resign. He resigned because he knew he would be impeached if he didn't. And it was a group of Republican senators who delivered that ultimatum to him. It was about the crime, not the party. That's how it's supposed to work, IMO.
And unfortunately for all of us during the Covid pandemic, the debasement of impeachment this time around led to this president's disregard for the law and sense of empowerment that left him unchecked on his actions related to national response to crisis.
RE: lex24 - Goose - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 01:12 PM)oregontim Wrote:This is my last comment on this subject, because I think we are for sure in Terry rule area. I absolutely believe Clinton should have been removed from office. I absolutely believe Trump should have been removed from office. I evaluate their actions as at least misdemeanors worthy of removal. They were retained in office for political reasons, nothing more. The grounds for removal were substantial and not political. The act of retaining them in office clearly was. The bar for presidential behavior should be very high. Getting rid of a president who lies to the American people for his own political/personal reasons is imperative in all cases, period. We can do much better than that.(08-21-2020, 12:11 PM)lex24 Wrote: Impeachment is a purely political instrument.
Do you think that's a fair understanding of what it's supposed to be? I think it becomes political when enough legislators choose party over country to make it political. I think it was used politically against Clinton, for example; and I understand that some people think it was political against Trump. I don't agree with that, myself, but I can see how you can think that.
The real effectiveness of impeachment against criminal actions was bipartisan in 1973/74 when a majority Republican congress used the real threat of impeachment to force Nixon to resign. He resigned because he knew he would be impeached if he didn't. And it was a group of Republican senators who delivered that ultimatum to him. It was about the crime, not the party. That's how it's supposed to work, IMO.
And unfortunately for all of us during the Covid pandemic, the debasement of impeachment this time around led to this president's disregard for the law and sense of empowerment that left him unchecked on his actions related to national response to crisis.
In today's Senate, Nixon probably would have survived. There aren't enough Republicans willing to hold honor above party. There used to be. To be sure, the Democrats today are no better. Be aware that Nixon was willing to take it to trial if he thought he could win. The Republicans who told him he couldn't win because they would vote to remove him stood up for what was good for the nation, not what was good for the party. Under these conditions, Trump is correct. He could shoot somebody in broad daylight on 5th Avenue and get away with it. We as a nation are completely screwed as long as we keep electing politicians of no character. It almost doesn't matter what your political philosophy is as long as you put party above upright behavior. No matter how you organize a government and no matter what the laws are, it can't be well run by people with no character.
RE: lex24 - oregontim - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 02:23 PM)Goose Wrote:(08-21-2020, 01:12 PM)oregontim Wrote: And unfortunately for all of us during the Covid pandemic, the debasement of impeachment this time around led to this president's disregard for the law and sense of empowerment that left him unchecked on his actions related to national response to crisis.
This is my last comment on this subject, because I think we are for sure in Terry rule area.
- I absolutely believe Clinton should have been removed from office. I absolutely believe Trump should have been removed from office. I evaluate their actions as at least misdemeanors worthy of removal. They were retained in office for political reasons, nothing more. The grounds for removal were substantial and not political. The act of retaining them in office clearly was. The bar for presidential behavior should be very high. Getting rid of a president who lies to the American people for his own political/personal reasons is imperative in all cases, period. We can do much better than that.
- In today's Senate, Nixon probably would have survived. There aren't enough Republicans willing to hold honor above party. There used to be. Be aware that Nixon was willing to take it to trial if he thought he could win. The Republicans who told him he couldn't win because they would vote to remove him stood up for what was good for the nation, not what was good for the party.
- Under these conditions, Trump is correct. He could shoot somebody in broad daylight on 5th Avenue and get away with it.
- We as a nation are completely screwed as long as we keep electing politicians of no character. It almost doesn't matter what your political philosophy is as long as you put party above upright behavior. No matter how you organize a government and no matter what the laws are, it can't be well run by people with no character.
Apologies for adding formatting ... the long paragraphs are hard to parse.
I totally agree with all of the above. Well said. However, I took out the part that says the Democrats are as bad.
For the record, I never thought I'd agree with the impeachment of Clinton, but with the way you've rolled it into this argument, I do agree. For the first time in 20+ years. Straight-faced unequivocal lying to the people ought to mean impeachment. And the presidency should be reserved for people of character, just as you suggest.
And I too apologize for pure politics. I couldn't resist agreeing.
lex24 - lex24 - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 01:12 PM)oregontim Wrote:(08-21-2020, 12:11 PM)lex24 Wrote: Impeachment is a purely political instrument.
Do you think that's a fair understanding of what it's supposed to be? I think it becomes political when enough legislators choose party over country to make it political. I think it was used politically against Clinton, for example; and I understand that some people think it was political against Trump. I don't agree with that, myself, but I can see how you can think that.
The real effectiveness of impeachment against criminal actions was bipartisan in 1973/74 when a majority Republican congress used the real threat of impeachment to force Nixon to resign. He resigned because he knew he would be impeached if he didn't. And it was a group of Republican senators who delivered that ultimatum to him. It was about the crime, not the party. That's how it's supposed to work, IMO.
And unfortunately for all of us during the Covid pandemic, the debasement of impeachment this time around led to this president's disregard for the law and sense of empowerment that left him unchecked on his actions related to national response to crisis.
Yes, I do. It is a political tool and was meant to be. But it also should be very rare. It has become weaponized. And that, I do not believe, was the Framers intent. Were is so, they would have left “maladministration” in as an impeachable offense.
Nixon involved an actual crime, the break-in. And then the cover-up of that crime. A clear and unambiguous obstruction of justice. Much stronger case for impeachment and removal. And the GOP understood the implications if they did not force him to resign.
Conversely, I think a strong argument may be made that neither Clinton nor Trump should have been impeached. (Both were marked for impeachment from their first days in office. And it certainly was used politically against both. I told anyone that would listen, before Trump even took office, that he’d be impeached. To me, it was when not if.. Also, I think it was appropriate in both instances for a Senator to conclude that they were guilty of the articles charged, but that it didnt rise to being removable. Undoing an election is a major act.
And I say this while agreeing 100% with you on the “character” iBut unfortunately that, like so many other things has become partisan. “Character matters” was a clarion call of the GOP during Clinton’s impeachment. The Dems scoffed at the notion. Come 2016- just flip it.
RE: Here we go again... - fullmetal - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 10:44 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: The zeal of the Democratic Party to remove an figurehead that caused it great emotional distress - in the absence of any real cause - sits very poorly.
It's just too bad the people whose lives have been lost due to presidential willful negligence are dead and unable to vote. But maybe that's the point.
175k deaths and still counting, in the absence of any real effort to stop this pandemic.
lex24 - lex24 - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 06:58 PM)fullmetal Wrote:(08-21-2020, 10:44 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: The zeal of the Democratic Party to remove an figurehead that caused it great emotional distress - in the absence of any real cause - sits very poorly.
It's just too bad the people whose lives have been lost due to presidential willful negligence are dead and unable to vote. But maybe that's the point.
175k deaths and still counting, in the absence of any real effort to stop this pandemic.
Speechless.
RE: lex24 - DocSavage87 - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 04:36 PM)lex24 Wrote: Nixon involved an actual crime, the break-in. And then the cover-up of that crime. A clear and unambiguous obstruction of justice. Much stronger case for impeachment and removal.
So asking McGahn to fire Mueller, and then asking him to lie about having asked him to do it -- that's not obstruction of justice?
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 08-21-2020
(08-21-2020, 08:18 PM)lex24 Wrote:(08-21-2020, 06:58 PM)fullmetal Wrote:(08-21-2020, 10:44 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: The zeal of the Democratic Party to remove an figurehead that caused it great emotional distress - in the absence of any real cause - sits very poorly.
It's just too bad the people whose lives have been lost due to presidential willful negligence are dead and unable to vote. But maybe that's the point.
175k deaths and still counting, in the absence of any real effort to stop this pandemic.
Speechless.
Trump is living in so many heads in these parts it's remarkable. And Covid is their catnip.
Fortunately, there should be a return to some normalcy/equilibrium when Joe takes over.
RE: lex24 - JustAnotherFan - 08-22-2020
(08-21-2020, 11:44 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-21-2020, 08:18 PM)lex24 Wrote:(08-21-2020, 06:58 PM)fullmetal Wrote:(08-21-2020, 10:44 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: The zeal of the Democratic Party to remove an figurehead that caused it great emotional distress - in the absence of any real cause - sits very poorly.
It's just too bad the people whose lives have been lost due to presidential willful negligence are dead and unable to vote. But maybe that's the point.
175k deaths and still counting, in the absence of any real effort to stop this pandemic.
Speechless.
Trump is living in so many heads in these parts it's remarkable. And Covid is their catnip.
Fortunately, there should be a return to some normalcy/equilibrium when Joe takes over.
1. IF Joe takes over. I think it is far from a given that Joe becomes president.
2. Trump will live in the heads of Democrats for years. Just like Obama continues to live in the heads of Republicans.
Of course due to covid Trump may also live in the heads of hundreds of thousands of non-Democrats who lost a loved one to the disease.