Muda69

The 'Afghanistan Papers' Confirm Critics' Worst Rears About America's Longest War: https://reason.com/2019/12/20/the-afghanistan-papers-confirm-critics-worst-rears-about-americas-longest-war/ Yep, a true and important travesty is being overshadowed by all Mr. Trump, all the time rhetoric. Shameful.

Yep, both sides of the uni-party are now fighting over whether or not certain witnesses should be called to testify in the Senate trial. That may take weeks of political wrangling to work out.

One can hope. It appears the Republican side of the uni-party in the Senate is going to stonewall their Democratic brethren over the witness issue during the Senate trial. Who knows when the actual articles of impeachment will officially be delivered to the Senate, triggering the trial phase.

Nice to know you support group think so much. Lemmings....................

A side story to the South Bend education discussion: https://www.jconline.com/story/news/2019/12/19/purdue-makes-case-its-third-high-school-despite-local-opposition-south-bend/2697321001/ Many of the school choice haters on this forum have to be seething about Purdue jumping into the mix.

And you and others can't seem to get through your thick skulls the money and resources that could be better allocated to different opportunities, athletic or not. Money doesn't grow on trees.

Herman Boone, Football Coach Of 'Remember The Titans' Fame, Dies: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/19/789784211/herman-boone-football-coach-of-remember-the-titans-fame-dies Truly an American Icon. He will be missed.

All Mr. Trump, all the time. Seems to be what the mostly liberal media wants. Guess it gets them ratings, and in turn advertisers.

Impeachment Overshadows Obamacare Ruling: https://reason.com/2019/12/19/impeachment-overshadows-obamacare-ruling/

As a 25% cut in federal spending for every department/bureau/office/etc. would help to do.

So you enjoyed Arena Football? Really?

But still government waste you are willing to turn a blind eye too. Perhaps some of the pork benefits you or a family member personally?

Not really. But the democrats sure do, and now they can use the "he was successfully impeached!" rhetoric in all their campaign advertising for the 2020 election. But the main issue is the the democrats simply do not yet have a POTUS candidate that can defeat Mr. Trump.

Tulsi Gabbard Votes 'Present' on Trump Impeachment, Slams 'Purely Partisan Process': https://reason.com/2019/12/18/tulsi-gabbard-impeachment-present-vote-trump/ Agreed.

Does the trial even really matter? The democratic side of the uni-party has had their partisan day in the sun by voting to impeach and now the republican side gets their during a show trial in the senate. The political damage has already been done regardless of the outcome, which is all the dems really ever wanted.

Trump Is Getting Impeached Today. Should His Complaints About the Process Be Taken Seriously?: https://reason.com/2019/12/18/trump-is-getting-impeached-today-should-his-complaints-about-the-process-be-taken-seriously/ This parsing of us vs. me proves nothing, since us is ambiguous. It could refer, as Trump says, to the United States, or it could refer to Trump and his allies. Trump illustrated that ambiguity during the call by asking Zelenskiy to work with Giuliani, his personal lawyer, as well as Attorney General William Barr. The essence of the allegation against Trump is precisely that he framed a "favor" for him—a Ukrainian investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender to oppose him in next year's election—as a favor for the U.S. government, which was at that very moment withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine by presidential fiat. Trump's request for that "favor" immediately followed Zelenskiy's expression of gratitude for U.S. aid and his mention of his government's plans to buy anti-tank missiles from the United States. The conjunction of those two issues gives rise to a fair inference that there was a connection between the investigation Trump sought and the assistance that Zelenskiy was counting on. As Turley noted, Trump's conversation with Zelenskiy "was anything but 'perfect' and his reference to the Bidens was highly inappropriate." That Trump still seems oblivious to that point is of a piece with his general lack of self-awareness, disregard for diplomatic norms, and inability to admit when he is wrong. Trump emphasizes that Zelenskiy has said he did not feel "pressure" to comply with Trump's request, which is both highly implausible and completely understandable given Ukraine's dependence on U.S. support. Since Zelenskiy will be dealing with Trump at least until January 2021 and quite possibly for another four years after that, it is perfectly rational for him to worry about the risks of reinforcing the case for impeachment, especially if he views Trump as a mercurial president driven by personal motives. And although Trump claims Zelenskiy "has repeatedly declared that I did nothing wrong," Zelenskiy actually criticized Trump's hold on the military aid, saying, "If you're our strategic partner, then you can't go blocking anything for us. I think that's just about fairness. It's not about a quid pro quo." While Trump may read that as confirmation that he "did nothing wrong," it seems more like a plea from a desperate ally who does not want his country's relationship with the United States to be tangled up in domestic American politics. In Trump's telling, Democrats latched onto his "totally appropriate" interaction with Zelenskiy as the latest excuse for doing something they had long wanted to do: While that history understandably reinforces the suspicion that Democrats are targeting Trump for purely partisan reasons, it is logically irrelevant to the merits of the allegations that actually led to his impeachment. There is a reason why Pelosi and other Democratic leaders resisted impeachment for so long but changed their minds after Trump's conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine came to light. If Trump did in fact abuse his presidential powers for personal gain by pressuring a foreign government to conduct an investigation aimed at discrediting a political rival (and there is compelling evidence that he did), that would be a clear betrayal of the public trust. In defending himself against that charge, Trump complains, "I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process," including "the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses." But those guarantees for defendants in criminal trials do not apply in the context of impeachment, and Trump has in any case rejected opportunities to present his side of the story in the House while refusing, based on a sweeping claim of executive privilege, to provide documents or consent to testimony by current or former administration officials. During his trial in the Senate, Trump could avail himself of all the rights he says he has been denied, depending on the rules that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) settles on. But McConnell, who says his approach will be dictated by what Trump wants, apparently plans to conduct a minimal trial without witnesses, leading to a quick and predetermined acquittal along party lines. McConnell is right that he has no obligation to fill gaps in the case against Trump by calling witnesses, such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, whom the House decided not to subpoena in the hope of avoiding prolonged court battles over whether they could be compelled to testify. And Trump is right that charging him with obstruction of Congress seems premature, since the House did not bother to test his executive privilege claims in court, which could have resulted in orders requiring the testimony of Bolton et al. as well as the production of relevant documents. At the same time, the assumption that such highly placed sources would have incriminating things to say is rather telling. The upshot of a hasty impeachment in the House and a hasty acquittal in the Senate is that the question of whether Trump committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" will never be fully considered.

Oh, I am quite well armed friend. It is you who quite frequently has an empty holster.

No, gonzo. It was you. And your clumsy juggling of my previous statements prove it. Just admit it. It's ok.

By finally imposing a penalty for abusing the powers of the office, Congress might reassert some of its own surrendered authority that it has been giving away for decades, and put clearer boundaries around the behavior of chief executives to come. But again this is the uni-party we are talking about.....................

House marches toward Trump impeachment; he claims ‘assault’: https://apnews.com/d78192d45b176f73ad435ae9fb926ed3 Isn't this mostly a true statement?

I don't use Facebook; you do. And you were the first to forward the premise of equating "life" to the GID with these statements:

Good points. The play calling by Nagy almost all season was very strange. The team also missed Jordan Howard. IMHO Montgomery is not a quality replacement.

No consistently good offensive line play to me was a major factor. You can't win if you can't score. Also Trubisky took a step backward in his development as a QB this season. Also losing Hicks and Trevathan for a significant portion of the season didn't help their defense any.

You are mistaken if you believe I consider the GID as "life". It is not. So to you "life" is all about entertainment?