smjjames

Now, the question is whether Australia gave in like the Ukranian President did. Got a editwhiletyping: Was gonna ask for a non paywalled/private view blocked NYT link, but now The Guardian liveblog has it up: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/sep/30/donald-trump-news-today-live-impeachment-ukraine-whistleblower-latest-updates?page=with:block-5d92651a8f084ab84173014f#block-5d92651a8f084ab84173014f It's not quite the same thing as the Ukraine stuff, but it still shows the trend towards using diplomacy for personal interests. I wonder if AG Barr knew about this one as well because he didn't know about his being involved in the Ukraine one.

If you want to be like the GOP and ignore the evidence, yes.

Seems more like a combination of the need to win, making a deal with the devil, and fear (lots of fear), than narcissistic collusion on the part of the GOP

Mostly they just want the lies to stop getting aired. The guy makes a fool of himself almost every time he goes on TV though, despite Trump and co. thinking that the strategy is working.

And yet they have the Chief Justice preside. Though someone has to preside and having the VP (who would normally preside for important votes and all that) preside would likely be an even worse idea. Not sure whether you meant that the Chief Justice at the time was being political, but from what I've read of Roberts, he's been trying to avoid the appearance of politicizing SCOTUS, so, he'd likely try his best to stay neutral. As for a response to executive excess, most of that would involve Congress taking back it's powers and it's hard to see what sort of constitutional amendment remedy would help, or rather, I'm not sure what it would be.

Not sure how demagoguery and autocrat are 'seemingly opposite qualities', one doesn't exclude the other. Sure, there may be some demagogues who aren't autocrats and vice versa, but they're traits that are commonly found together. In addition to what GD said, Johnson wasn't charged with the same kind of things that Trump is being accused of. Sure, they may have striking similarities in personality, but the similarity stops there. See my earlier point about the argument against looking to history as a guide for impeachment because it only works up to a point.

I was responding to the 'SCOTUS plays role of Pontius Pilate' part, since Pontius Pilate is the one who sentenced Jesus (or at least ordered the cruxification anyway), I was like 'I don't think SCOTUS actually has quite that much involvement. Not to mention how broken Congress is when one party blindly* (or more accurately, fearfully) accepts the adminstrations excesses. *Yes, I know both parties tend to do that when a President of their party is in power, but the Republicans behavior here is particularly egregious. Also, as far as looking to history, there's an argument against looking to history as a guide since each one is unique to their time and there is just no precedent for the level that Trump goes to.

Isn't the SCOTUS (the head Justice usually anyway, I think) involvement mostly just a formality? Pretty sure all they do is act as mediator and make sure proper procedure is followed and whatever. As a distraction from the US stuff, have some Brexit drama: There's speculation that a no confidence vote could be called next week sometime. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/28/20888815/nra-russia-senate-report-tax-exempt-investigation-irs-new-york-dc-james-attorney-general Does anybody find the argument that the NRA would basically dissolve if they were no longer tax exempt kind of bogus? Not that I like the NRA, just that they'd have revenue sources like membership fees. Sure, they'll lose some members and have to downsize, but that's different from closing down entirely.

Yea, it just screams 'Lobbyist!' if anything, though without the actual lobbyist middleman. Of course though, he's asking a political organization to help, so, there's going to be some political requirements. Plus it's LaPierre who's already embroiled in money scandals, but the political captive is probably worth any blowback. As I said, it does open Trump to the accusation of being beholden to big money (which he so obviously is).

That's..... definetly in the legally dubious realm. It seems to fit, but I'm not sure. Isn't legal defense stuff kinda on the edge of that? I mean, I can see how it's definetly shady, but it seems almost borderline..... editwhiletyping: I could also see a massive opening for the Dems to point to it as him being beholden to big money. Maybe gromnir would be able to make better sense of whether it fits that legally.....

Could they discreetly buy Israeli designs? There’s also the Iron Dome stuff, which was US built if I recall, or at least US funded. Though good point on being untested against drones and cruise missiles.

Was it ever said how big the drones were? Something aircraft sized should be able to be shot down with a missile, but for smaller stuff it would probably be easier to take it down by electronic warfare methods than throwing a missile at it. I know there are electronic warfare stuff, but I don't know of any missiles specialized in taking out drones. No clue about cruise missiles, other cruise missiles?

The thing though is that there are pros and cons to that, on one side, you wouldn't have people being in safe seats for decades on end, on the other, you'd struggle to gain the kind of experience that comes with decades in office and you don't want too much turnover either. Term limits would be nice, but while 'how long is too long? is easier to define, 'how short is too short' isn't so easy because you have to strike a balance between accruing legislative experience and turnover. The GOP does have self-imposed term limits on committee chairs though, which isn't quite the same as written in stone term limits.

While Trump would obviously be excluded in such a system, having Trump and Clinton as co-Presidents is definetly a funny mental image. Also, you made a typo, 538 members of Congress, not 535.

Inb4 the sun turning into a red giant five billion years early. He's trying pretty hard to construct his own reality isn't he?

To whoever fixed up the link earlier, thanks.

Looks like the WH is feeling the pressure, they’re now preparing to release the whistleblower complaint. edit:no desire to fix that link on mobile (iPad) since highlighting blocks of text is so clunky.

@Skarpen I don't see 'fight pollution with pollution' in that washington examiner link, but again, and drivel screaming about socialism on the link aside, I get your point about hypocrisy,

Fair enough. Though we are at the point where some of the solutions really have to be radical and dramatic. Also, I haven't heard of any proposals to fight pollution by littering more, so I'm confused by that part. Are you referring to the plastic straw ban stuff? I think those are the counterprotestors? Though I do get your point about hypocrisy.

It wasn't that the Helsinki transcript was altered, it's that there wasn't one. Wouldn't be surprised either if they altered or simply omitted bits of the Zelensky transcript.

Is there any Climate Warming hawk you wouldn't consider deranged? (that's kind of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, mind) In similar news to what's going on, the whistleblower apparently wants to talk to both the Senate and House intel committees, possibly as early as this week. I suppose that there could be a chance of the whistleblowers identity being revealed because cameras are going to be swarming, but I'm pretty sure that they have procedures in place to shield that kind of thing.

Ah, Neoliberalism then, the European variant anyway.

Not being entirely familiar with the term, what does Blairism mean exactly? It does seem to connotate kissing ass to the US since Tony Blair was pretty much called Bushs poodle or something along the lines of that.

Re the Ukrainian government supporting Clinton: Yes, but there’s no evidence that the government was actively pushing to interfere in any coordinated effort like Russia did. Also, they were far from the only country who openly preferred Clinton over Trump with varying levels of subtlety.

I thought that was just Steele pulling strings and using sources from his time in M16 or however it works? It looks more like it was an outgrowth of something about Manafort, plus as manifestediso quoted, it's one of scale and theres no evidence that the Ukranian government was directly involved, as it was for Russia. Funny how it keeps coming around and hitting Ukraine.