Can you impeach and entire political party?

[The Derp]

So, you made up a bunch of lies to demonstrate your hatred.

What lie? Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III said he never met with Kislyak, then admitted he did, then was called out for meeting with him at least a second time, then pretended his meetings were informal, then he recused himself from the investigation into Trump's team (of which Sessions is and was a part) for talking with the very people Sessions was talking to.

And he just plum "forgot" about it. Should someone with such poor memory problems be Attorney General? Doesn't fill ya with a lot of confidence if this guy can't remember meeting with the friggin' Russian top spy in the US.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You've made a similar argument about tax cuts causing lower savings rates, you might as well continue your confusion between causation and correlation.

I didn't make an argument, I stated facts. Facts show that savings rates plummet when taxes are cut, and household debt skyrockets. So it's not an argument, it's a fact. Now why do savings rates plummet while debt skyrockets if "people are allowed to keep more of what they earn"? Because to make up for the revenue gap (aka deficits) created by the policies, spending is cut which results in higher fees on things like excise taxes, tuition, health care...all of which increased significantly during the Bush Tax Cuts. They did this by taking out an additional mortgage, getting lines of credit from banks, or credit cards. When Bush took office, total Household Debt was at about 70% of GDP. By the time he left office, it was above 100%. Now, how could that be the case if "people were allowed to keep more of what they earned"? We aren't talking about Public Debt, we are talking about Household Debt. Which is consumer debt. Which, according to you would not exist if people were "allowed to keep more of what they earn".

With all their money, you claimed it would be a constant downward ratchet.
Are you admitting your error?

I never said that. This is you creating a straw man.

Ross Perot. Jim Oberweis.

Perot ran as an independent, didn't he?

Facts show that savings rates plummet when taxes are cut, and household debt skyrockets.

Correlation is not proof of causation. You must have dozens of examples where taxes were cut and savings instantly dropped.....or maybe there was a delay....or maybe savings went up?
We'll never know until you provide lots of additional examples.

Because to make up for the revenue gap (aka deficits) created by the policies, spending is cut

Excellent! Show me all the spending cuts Bush enacted.

Which meant families had to get credit in order to send their kid to school.

If government spending on college decreased, you might have a point, but it increased.....at the same time tuition skyrocketed.

Which is consumer debt. Which, according to you would not exist if people were "allowed to keep more of what they earn".

If people keep $1000 more of their income, they aren't allowed to spend an extra $2000? Why not?

I never said that. This is you creating a straw man.

You never said, "rich people get tax cuts and donate to politicians who pass more tax cuts. Rinse and repeat"?

Perot ran as an independent, didn't he?

Independent rich guys can't buy political offices? Why not?

 

[Oldstyle]

Once again...this whole Russian story is your liberal leaders dangling something bright and shiny in front of you so that you won't look at how badly they've FUBARED the Democratic Party! If you had any common sense at all you'd be calling for a complete leadership makeover of the DNC. Instead you've got a bunch of ancient career Washington politicians who have gotten fat and satisfied pretending to care about "your" issues! You think Charlie Rangel was thinking about the underprivileged when he was chilling at his villa down in the Caribbean? You think Nancy Pelosi is any better? Hillary Clinton was simply more corrupt than others. It doesn't mean they aren't corrupt.

Honestly, man, the Democrats sold out 20 years ago and are now plutocrats. I have given up on them to actually fight for working people when all they do is fund-raise from wealthy technocrats and try to "triangulate" by conceding the shift in the Overton Window. So your screeching about the Democratic Party is falling on deaf ears. As unethical as they are, they did not collude with a hostile foreign nation in order to illegally hack the DNC. You say Hillary was/is corrupt...I suppose it depends on what your definition of "corrupt" is. If she's corrupt in the sense that she's owned by big money interests, I agree. After all, she spends all her time around rich people, so her worldview is shaped thusly. We simply cannot just cede all the wealth to the 1% and hope they are benevolent enough to toss us some scraps. We've been doing that since 1981 and we have nothing to show for it.

Let's be honest here, Derp...if Hillary and her minions at the DNC weren't corrupt...there wouldn't have been anything for a hacker to leak! The reason the leaks hurt Clinton and the DNC was that those leaks revealed HOW corrupt Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazille were!

This concept that you progressives seem to hold that there is a finite amount of wealth and because some other guy has a whole bunch of it that means there isn't enough to go around for everyone else is an amusing notion! The Democratic Party has been slowly eroding Middle Class wealth by taxing them into a lower class for the past thirty years yet you wonder why there's a huge income gap? Here's a radical concept...instead of trying to figure out some way to tax the super rich into paying for your liberal Utopia (which they are NEVER going to allow to happen!) how about you concentrate on allowing the Middle Class enough money so that they can grow their own businesses or personal wealth instead of supporting a bloated and inefficient Federal Government?

 

[Oldstyle]

I hate to point out the obvious here, Derp but we don't choose our President based on the "popular vote". We do so using the Electoral College. Donald Trump didn't bother to campaign in deep red States because he was intelligent enough to understand that he didn't have a prayer of winning in a State like California. Conservatives in deep red States are also intelligent enough to grasp that their vote really isn't going to affect the outcome so they have little incentive to turn out to vote.

Even if you throw out the electoral college and hypothetically campaign purely for the popular vote, Trump would not have ever been able to surpass Hillary and the proof is the jungle primary in California. There, anyone can vote for whomever they want, regardless of their party membership. The jungle primary in CA for the open Senate seat vacated by Boxer saw 4.4 million people vote for the top two Democrats. The next closest Republican received only 584,000 votes. Now, how could that be the case if what you say is true? In a totally open, fair primary where voters can vote for whomever they want, the top two Democrats received seven and a half times more votes than the next closest Republican. Senate primaries are not by Congressional district, so you can't use gerrymandering as an excuse. Not that you would anyway, since California has an independent commission that draws Congressional districts to avoid partisan gerrymandering.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say you're looking at things "holistically"! If you want to look at things "realistically"...then you should realize that BOTH candidates would have run a far different race if the election was decided by a popular vote.

Not really. Both would have probably played more to their bases, and the Democratic base is larger than the Republican base. So Trump could run up the score in smaller states, but he would still be at a huge disadvantage in the big states like CA, NY, IL and others...

That message had ZERO to do with "Russian collusion", Derp! It was a traditional liberal voting block that turned it's back on the Democrats and voted for the other guy!

Old, white, working class voters are not a traditional liberal voting bloc.

Blue collar unionists in the Rust Belt aren't a traditional Democratic voting bloc? You're really making that point? That's amusing...really...

 

[oreo]

It is hard for me to believe that the GOP had no idea of the collusion between Trump and Russia. Not when Trump's eventual Chief-of-Staff, Reince Priebus, ran the RNC before taking the job in the White House. How could the RNC and by extension, the RSCC, the RCCC, Pence, McConnell, Ryan, McCarthy, Fox News, right-wing media, all of them not know or be a party to this? I am through giving them the benefit of the doubt. These people are compromised by Russian intelligence until they can prove otherwise. In the meantime, the entire agenda from Trump and the GOP should be put on indefinite hold until we can figure out what the hell is going on!!

Yes, there are many already calling for that. Nothing gets voted on for approval until these 3 Russian investigations are complete and sworn testimony & evidence is heard by the American public.

Analysis | 5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia



Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com





As far as your comment--can an entire party be impeached? Republicans only have two options. Remove Trump and whomever else is involved asap to save their own honor, or go down with him in 2018--2020 and beyond. This is not going away.

If Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi, it's not too hard to imagine what Democrats will do with Treason, Obstruction & Lies when they take over in 2018. They will also hammer away at the Emoluments clause in the Constitution.
The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump | Brookings Institution

Donald Trump is the most powerful weapon ever to be given to Democrats. They are going to ride this one to hell and back--and it's a gift that will keep on giving for decades to come.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Spies are spies... I bet even if they did, they didn't know it because you know, they're spies.

Or they did know it and worked with them, which would explain why they seemed to "forget" about the conversations they had. I've summarized it right here in my one-act play, The Forgetful Attorney General starring Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III

Sessions: I never talked to the Russian Ambassador

Everyone: Ummm...yes you did.

Sessions: I did talk to him, but just once.

Everyone: Ummm...looks like it was at least twice.

Sessions: OK, OK, I did talk to him, but not about anything serious and certainly not about the election.

Everyone: Ummm...but you met with him at the Republican Convention

Sessions: Oh, that wasn't political.

Everyone: Bullshit.

Sessions: I recuse myself from this investigation

<THE END>

Yet you insist Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch were just trading cake recipes on a private plane right before Hillary was not indicted


.

 

[Freewill]

You can get rid of republicans any time you want. Or, you can try.You get right on that.

So you're missing the big picture...or you're being wilfully blind to it. Trump got elected by colluding with foreign spies. Trump was on the Republican ticket. Are we to seriously believe that Russia colluded with only Trump and not the rest of the party that nominated him?

The truth is that yes a whole party can be impeached, or most of it, as we saw in the last two elections. Hard for a liberal democrat to realize that they are losing when they are so damn sure they are right about everything. Liberals, always so sure and always so wrong.

Russia played NO part in the election. NO one changed their vote because of anything Russia did. There was no tampering with voting machines, there was no flood of absentee ballots there was not a person I have heard say that their vote was changed because of anything the Russians did. All I hear is the left wing chirping trying to come up with an excuse for them losing other then they just suck.

 

[The Derp]

Let's be honest here, Derp...if Hillary and her minions at the DNC weren't corrupt...there wouldn't have been anything for a hacker to leak!

So the ends justify the means? Well, that's a suspect argument. The point isn't what was hacked, the point was that Trump colluded with Russia to hack.

This concept that you progressives seem to hold that there is a finite amount of wealth and because some other guy has a whole bunch of it that means there isn't enough to go around for everyone else is an amusing notion!

So here's the problem with you...you have no economic case to make in favor of this stupid policy. Why? Because the economics contradict your magical thinking. So rather than just call it for what it is, bad policy, you desperately try to make this some kind of emotional argument because emotions are all you have. Not facts. Not evidence. Not proof. Instead, you have excuses.

The Democratic Party has been slowly eroding Middle Class wealth by taxing them into a lower class for the past thirty years yet you wonder why there's a huge income gap?

So here's an example of a Google translator run amok. You see, Oldstyle here is pretending to be an American in order to employ Russian Active Measures in order to undermine confidence in western democracy. This "question" of yours makes no sense, is wrong on its face, and is completely devoid of facts since it was Conservatives who are the ones who have cut taxes. You can't tax someone into a lower class. Your Russian Active Measures need work.

Here's a radical concept...instead of trying to figure out some way to tax the super rich into paying for your liberal Utopia (which they are NEVER going to allow to happen!) how about you concentrate on allowing the Middle Class enough money so that they can grow their own businesses or personal wealth instead of supporting a bloated and inefficient Federal Government?

We cut taxes in 2001. Conservatives promised it would lead to prosperity. It didn't. So the underlying ideology behind the policy is flawed, making the entire policy flawed. And if the entire policy is flawed, what do you have? Nothing. If that policy is flawed, that means it's likely other policies foisted on us by Conservatives are flawed. Come to think of it, there have been no Conservative policy accomplishments from the last 37 years.

 

[The Derp]

Correlation is not proof of causation.

Exactly. So "letting people (really, the rich) keep more of what they earn" does not cause increased economic activity, thereby undermining the central premise of your argument. Boy, that was easy. If the tax cuts are not the cause of the skyrocketing household debt and diminished savings rate, how come both spike dramatically anytime taxes are cut? That's what the data on the chart shows. Now, please proceed with your emotional argument like you're some kind of hysteric who is guided by emotions and not facts.

...or maybe there was a delay....or maybe savings went up?

As I said before; nothing but excuses. The tax cuts were not sold as a time-release benefit that "kicks in" after a certain amount of time. Who ever heard of such a thing? Sounds like a weak sauce excuse to me. When Brownback cut taxes in Kansas he promised they would be "a shot of adrenaline into the Kansas economy". They weren't. I'm no scientist, but even I know adrenaline doesn't take years to start.

And no, savings didn't go up. That is not what the chart of data says. So here's a case of a Conservative refusing to accept reality because it's too important for you to make an emotional argument. Yeeesh. All these emotions! Are you on your period or something?

 

[The Derp]

Blue collar unionists in the Rust Belt aren't a traditional Democratic voting bloc? You're really making that point? That's amusing...really...

No, they aren't and haven't been for a while.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Spies are spies... I bet even if they did, they didn't know it because you know, they're spies.

Or they did know it and worked with them, which would explain why they seemed to "forget" about the conversations they had. I've summarized it right here in my one-act play, The Forgetful Attorney General starring Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III

Sessions: I never talked to the Russian Ambassador

Everyone: Ummm...yes you did.

Sessions: I did talk to him, but just once.

Everyone: Ummm...looks like it was at least twice.

Sessions: OK, OK, I did talk to him, but not about anything serious and certainly not about the election.

Everyone: Ummm...but you met with him at the Republican Convention

Sessions: Oh, that wasn't political.

Everyone: Bullshit.

Sessions: I recuse myself from this investigation

<THE END>

Good grief. You're very immature.

 

[The Derp]

Yes, there are many already calling for that. Nothing gets voted on for approval until these 3 Russian investigations are complete and sworn testimony & evidence is heard by the American public.

Agreed. There's actually 4 investigations; House Intel, Senate Intel, FBI, and the New York State Attorney General (who looks to be opening a RICO case)

 

[The Derp]

Yet you insist Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch were just trading cake recipes on a private plane right before Hillary was not indicted.

Hillary isn't the President, Trump is. What Hillary may or may not have done has no bearing on what Trump actually did.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Correlation is not proof of causation.

Exactly. So "letting people (really, the rich) keep more of what they earn" does not cause increased economic activity, thereby undermining the central premise of your argument. Boy, that was easy. If the tax cuts are not the cause of the skyrocketing household debt and diminished savings rate, how come both spike dramatically anytime taxes are cut? That's what the data on the chart shows. Now, please proceed with your emotional argument like you're some kind of hysteric who is guided by emotions and not facts.

...or maybe there was a delay....or maybe savings went up?

As I said before; nothing but excuses. The tax cuts were not sold as a time-release benefit that "kicks in" after a certain amount of time. Who ever heard of such a thing? Sounds like a weak sauce excuse to me. When Brownback cut taxes in Kansas he promised they would be "a shot of adrenaline into the Kansas economy". They weren't. I'm no scientist, but even I know adrenaline doesn't take years to start.

And no, savings didn't go up. That is not what the chart of data says. So here's a case of a Conservative refusing to accept reality because it's too important for you to make an emotional argument. Yeeesh. All these emotions! Are you on your period or something?

Exactly. So "letting people (really, the rich)

Why are you changing the goal posts?

You do know this is a free country right? You also do know the rich hides money offshore.. And they can personally just stop producing, close it down and retire or move right?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yet you insist Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch were just trading cake recipes on a private plane right before Hillary was not indicted.

Hillary isn't the President, Trump is. What Hillary may or may not have done has no bearing on what Trump actually did.

What Hillary did has everything in this case in a court of law..


What you still don't think the circus courts in the US shut down trumps immigration EO by the constitution..

No it was done by Trump's campaign rhetoric.

 

[The Derp]

[Russia played NO part in the election. NO one changed their vote because of anything Russia did. There was no tampering with voting machines, there was no flood of absentee ballots there was not a person I have heard say that their vote was changed because of anything the Russians did. All I hear is the left wing chirping trying to come up with an excuse for them losing other then they just suck.

Wrong. Russia played a very large part in this election by employing KGB Active Measures and flooding the media with trumped-up allegations, misinformation, and most importantly, illegally hacking into the DNC.

Dirty tricks are common in American politics. Colluding with a hostile foreign power to employ dirty tricks is not. That's why this is a big deal. What Trump did was pretty much what Nixon did; have his operatives break into his political opponents in order to find anything that can be used as an Active Measure in the campaign. The difference is that Nixon had American operatives do the break-in, while Trump used Russians. Seems worse, doesn't it?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Blue collar unionists in the Rust Belt aren't a traditional Democratic voting bloc? You're really making that point? That's amusing...really...

No, they aren't and haven't been for a while.

Well you live in an alternative universe because those union guys are one of the ones who pushed Trump to win..

 

[The Derp]

Good grief. You're very immature.

No...I just don't take the right-wing seriously enough to not make fun of them. So help me understand why Sessions initially denied contact with Kislyak, then denied he had multiple contacts, then denied the multiple contacts he had weren't political, then he recused himself?

 

[Wyatt earp]

[Russia played NO part in the election. NO one changed their vote because of anything Russia did. There was no tampering with voting machines, there was no flood of absentee ballots there was not a person I have heard say that their vote was changed because of anything the Russians did. All I hear is the left wing chirping trying to come up with an excuse for them losing other then they just suck.

Wrong. Russia played a very large part in this election by employing KGB Active Measures and flooding the media with trumped-up allegations, misinformation, and most importantly, illegally hacking into the DNC.

Dirty tricks are common in American politics. Colluding with a hostile foreign power to employ dirty tricks is not. That's why this is a big deal. What Trump did was pretty much what Nixon did; have his operatives break into his political opponents in order to find anything that can be used as an Active Measure in the campaign. The difference is that Nixon had American operatives do the break-in, while Trump used Russians. Seems worse, doesn't it?

What Trumped up charges and fake news?

Debbie had to step down from the DNC and Hillary immediately hired her..


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Good grief. You're very immature.

No...I just don't take the right-wing seriously enough to not make fun of them. So help me understand why Sessions initially denied contact with Kislyak, then denied he had multiple contacts, then denied the multiple contacts he had weren't political, then he recused himself?

Again you ignore bill and Lynch meeting on a private airplane..

.