U.S. Rep. Randy Weber’s commentary ("Dems conducting impeachment in search of a crime," The Daily News, Nov. 16) made one thing very clear indeed — he, like his Republican colleagues, has chosen to ingratiate himself to the most corrupt, inept, unstable, unethical, compromised, bigoted and dangerous president in modern history, a president slid into the Oval Office by the archaic and counter-democratic Electoral College, rather than to defend and protect our Constitution, our democracy and the reputation of the United States.

Politicians from all parties are guilty of putting their own interests ahead of the good of the country at times. But given how blatantly and consistently this president and his administration disregard the rule of law, cheat, lie and gaslight the people, the Republican legislators have set an all-time high in self-interest and an all-time low in integrity.

Impeachment is demonstrably appropriate and necessary but, unfortunately, not sufficient. Even should the Senate miraculously remove Trump, his most ardent enablers will still be in office. They're complicit with Trump’s poisoning the well. On Nov. 3, 2020, we the people can administer the only effective antivenin to counteract the damage being done to our country — vote them out of office.

James Templer

League City

Locations

Recommended for you

(75) comments

Cary Semar

I agree. Trump is not the cause of our woes, he is the symptom.

Carlos Ponce

Cary, there is a cure for your TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Through knowledge and enlightenment you can overcome your affliction.

George Caros

There is a cure for your PLS (Putin Love Syndrome) it's called getting head out %$ %#!

Carlos Ponce

Poor Georgie! He's delusional!

Carlos Ponce

Newsweek quotes Putin as saying, "I liked Communist and socialist ideas very much and I like them still." Let's see: Today's Democrats like socialism,. too. So Democrats in this this country believe the same as Putin!

https://www.newsweek.com/russias-putin-says-he-always-liked-communist-socialist-ideas-419289

Cary Semar

Which Fox news program should I watch regularly to gain this promised enlightment?

Carlos Ponce

It's up to you whether to watch FOX or not. If you watch CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC they all sound like they read from the same script provided by the DNC.

Cary Semar

Carlos, I mainly watch MSNBC, and sometimes CNN. I also read Washington Post, The New York Times, The Galveston Daily News, and the Houston Chronicle. However, I want to be a good citizen and be better informed. I am willing to commit to watching one Fox news show regularly if you will only tell me which is the best one.

Carlos Ponce

Watch the news shows.

Cary Semar

I'll start with Chris Wallace.

Emile Pope

Actually they sound alike because the truth is always the same...

Carlos Ponce

Same EXACT words, same EXACT phrases at the SAME airtime? Only a fool would not think they're not being fed these from the same source.

Carlos Ponce

Chris Wallace is fine because he hits both sides with real questions and will not pull punches for either side. He's probably Liberal but will question them with equal force. He's a good journalist.

Emile Pope

They are...it's called the facts...

Carlos Ponce

No, Emile. Liberal news stations present propaganda.

Jennifer Lance

Patently absurd!

Claudia Burnam

Too much coolade Mr. Kempler?

E G Wiley

Claudia Burnam

Templer. Sorry about that! E G Wiley

Mike Zeller

James Templer [thumbup] The Blue Wave began in 2018. To be continued .........

Carlos Ponce

"Blue Wave" - No Democrat won in Galveston County in the 2018 midterms. No Democrat won a statewide office in the State of Texas in 2018. That's why Democrats have the "blues". GO BIG RED!

Ron Shelby

Carlos. Many Democrats in Galveston County did get elected in the 2018 mid terms, they are just running under the GOP banner now. Previously they ran as Dems.

Carlos Ponce

Beware the RINO!

Randy Chapman

[tongue_smile]

Carlos Ponce

Sorry, James Templer. Trump will still be President until 2025. You are giving too much credence to unsubstantiated Leftist propaganda.

Cindy Milina

"the archaic and un-democratic system?" Clearly you know nothing about the Electoral College, or why it was put into place. It is a system designed to give every state a voice, and a vote, in electing our Presidents. Popular vote would insure that CA and NY, the two most populous states, would pick our next President and the rest of the states could just stay home because their votes wouldn't matter. Every time you, or anyone, denigrates this system of fairness for the entire country, ignorance of its function shines.

Jim Forsythe

Why is a vote in Texas worth less than in a majority of the other states?

The electoral college makes a mockery of the idea of one man, one vote. The way electoral votes are distributed, the votes cast by people who just happen to live in lower-population states are worth way more than the votes cast by people who live in high-population states. As a result, a vote in California is worth less than a third of what a vote in Wyoming is.

Do you really want Congress to determine who is our President and Vice President? A 269-269 tie would trigger a chain of events that most would not like!

With the electoral college, the candidate with the most support is not always the winner. It is possible to win the electoral vote or win when the decision goes to Congress without getting the most popular votes.

If no candidate has a majority of the electoral votes, the election is then decided by Congress — but in the most bizarre way possible. Only the president is selected by the House of Representatives, but each states’ delegation gets only one vote. Since there are an even number of states, we could theoretically run into another deadlock, which would result in the VP-elect acting as president until it is resolved. In addition, the vice president would be selected by the Senate. If no candidate got a majority of electoral votes this election, it would likely produce a President of one party and a Vice President the other.

Carlos Ponce

The only problem I have with the Electoral College in Texas is that an Elector can cast his or her vote for whomever they wish, even if that person was not on the ballot. That's how Ron Paul and John Kasich each received one Texas Electoral vote from what are termed "Faithless Electors".

Bailey Jones

The electoral college was established precisely to thwart the intentions of ordinary citizens. That's the "representative" part of our representative democracy. Originally, in many states, electors (as well as senators) were chosen by state legislatures, not citizen voters.

Many of the founders, having studied Plato, were distrustful of democracy. 200 years ago most Americans were simple farmers, poorly educated, and with limited access to information and the "liberal arts". And Europe was ruled by "God ordained" absolute tyrants. The idea that some smooth talking demagogue or military hero - appealing to the worst instincts of the rural population - might be elected and become king wasn't at all far fetched.

"The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots." - Elbridge Gerry

So they constructed a republic where "gentlemen" (men who were well educated and wealthy enough to devote themselves to personal and civic improvement) would act as the ultimate arbiters of the willy-nilly antics of the mob, guiding their less wise constituents as a parent guides a child. And the children eventually got enough of it. (I would argue that our gentleman class has been replaced by our billionaire corporate class, but that's another discussion.)

So now, with direct election of almost every official and referendums on a wide variety of measures, we have something that's much more of a democracy Do we have the wisdom to keep it?

But to your comment - I think the simple solution is to have states award their electors proportionate to the popular vote in each state. That can be done with state law and doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

Carlos Ponce

Remember the Electoral College was established because we are the United STATES of America. Without the Electoral College, political power would be limited to the big cities leaving out what they term "fly over country".

Bailey Jones

The electoral college does a good job of preserving the power of low population states against higher population states - and that's fine - but within each state it disenfranchises the minority. If 51% of voters in your state live in the cities, and vote Democrat, for instance, then your state goes blue and the 49% of rural red voters effectively have no voice. I say they have no voice because it doesn't matter whether they vote or not, the result is exactly the same. Surely that's not democratic. If electors are apportioned proportionately both sides are represented in the national count and have a say in its outcome. Alternatively, if 52% of your voters are red shirts - regardless of where they live, and 43% are blue shirts living side by side with them, the blues have absolutely no voice in the election of their president, which was the case in Texas in 2016. Oh wait.... now I see.

Carlos Ponce

Texas' Electoral votes went to McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Were we "disenfranchised" because Obama won each election? C'est le vote.

Gary Miller

Jim> You and other popular vote advocates seem to forget or ignore something. Presidents are elected by popular vote. The electors of each state are elected by popular vote of the states voters. Without the Electoral College votes in Alaska, Montana or Kansas would have no value at all. With the Electoral College Every vote has the same value because each states share of electors is determined by population of the state.

Randy Chapman

Ignorance is bliss.

Gary Miller

Cindy> NY isn't the second most populated state. Texas is and gaining fast on California.

Bailey Jones

To my mind, our political problems stem from the political greed of our political parties. Districts have been gerrymandered to create safe spaces for one side or the other. This eliminates debate and dissent, and limits the field of possible representatives. The goal is no longer to be the best representative for all the people, but the most ideologically pure Republican or Democrat. As our representatives have gravitated away from the center and toward the poles, the ideas we fight over have become likewise polarized. Principle has been replaced by polling.

Money is the second problem. Big money owns our politicians. Big money tends to favor conservatives because billionaires tend to be conservative (Koch, Adelson, Mercer, etc.), which explains why you hear so little from the right about reducing its influence. But the left has its own list of influencers - Soros, Simons, Sussman, etc. I don't care for any of them - I'm actually capable of thinking for myself. Then there's the dark money - "privacy" laws make sure we never know who it comes from. And with Citizens United opening the spigot for corporations, we're now subject to foreign influence - since the "American subsidiary" of any foreign corporation can donate to as many candidates and PACs as its board of directors desires.

Where does that leave the American voter? 98% of incumbents are re-elected. Does anyone honestly believe that's based on merit? That they are best and brightest? The creme de la creme of American intellect, moral courage and political philosophy? Then why the heck are they in office?

I've been heartened by some on the left who have pledged not to take big money, corporate money, or PAC money. They'll be answerable to the millions of ordinary citizen donors who give less than a few hundred dollars each. My hope is that they will push for election reform. In my perfect world, gerrymandering is illegal - districts are determined through bipartisan committees using mathematical algorithms that emphasize community over party. And elections are funded by each representative's individual constituents - not out of state billionaires, mysterious dark money, or corporations.

These seem to me like the sort of nonpartisan ideas that everyone can support. But they go against the political greed of both parties and their corporate overlords, so while I still have hope, I don't have much.

Gary Miller

Bailey> I think we might agree on two changes to our election laws. #1 would be eliminating Gerrymandering by using computer generated district bounders. Requiring the minimum length of district borders. #2 would limit contributions by donnors to a $2 or $3 thousand limit for each election cycle. Donations could be divided for several candidates but limited to total for an election cycle. Some of our wealthy are making limit donations to hundreds of candidates.Buying elections.

Bailey Jones

[thumbup]

Ron Shelby

An impeachment Of a President doesn’t mean that they can’t be elected again in the next election cycle. Essentially it would be a voter “over ride” of a congressional action. The constitution does not prevent that.

Charles Douglas

Noo, we are not going to destroy the constitution and give up rights our forerunners set up perfectly suited for this nation, because of a bunch of sore losers, who did not get their way in 2016! They had a similar disagreement back during slavery, which had to be settled a certain way. It might come to that method again. Now, I'M not saying,...but I'M just saying. I'm tired of all the crying, cheating, stealing, surveiling illegally and stuff, standing on the floor of Congress, making up lies to discredit an elected President! Having female witnesses to cry and sniffle in front of Fake News cameras for maximum effect to the public! No, forget about killing the Electoral College! In Southeast Asia, we had a saying that went like this when we vehemently disliked a proposal or suggestion,..."NEVER HAPPEN!"[beam]

Charles Douglas

I know it was hard to take when that BADDDDDD MANNNN won the election! This I knooooow! I know that, and I sympathize with folks suffering from that HATE SPAZM SYNDROME, bought on by Trump beating CROOKED HILLIARY, like a drum! Do like I did when Obama kicked Romney's behind during his second run, I got some Therapy from my Chinese Sensei![rolleyes]

Paula Flinn

Don’t include me in your “hate” talk. I don’t hate anyone. Frankly, I was disappointed when Hillary didn’t win, but she is not as “crooked” as your President is. You fell for calling her “crooked” because Trump and Fox News called her that and you wanted to believe it.. They lied to win.

I tried to give President Trump a chance to be a good President for everyone, but he is too void of morals and integrity, empathy, and intelligence. Trump is not a good man. He is not a good leader. He is a mess. Someone needs to read the Constitution to him and explain it, so he will quit violating its articles by Obstructing Justice and betraying his Oath of Office. Trump also should quit inviting other countries to interfere in our elections. All Republicans and Democrats should be for that. No one should be given an unfair advantage or disadvantage. No one should try to cheat. Trump tried to cheat and got caught. So, he tried to lie his way out of it. That’s the act of a coward.

The men and women who testified against Trump were brave patriots. They didn’t whine or cry, like you said. We all know there was a quid pro quo, now called bribery, proffered and the only reason Trump released the military arms and aid is that he got caught. Mike Mulvaney admitted it on TV. After lying about it, President Trump admitted it, too. You are on the wrong side of history if you back a coward and a liar like Trump against the truthful men and women who testified against him. No matter the outcome, they are the real heroes in this.

Carlos Ponce

"Hillary didn’t win, but she is not as “crooked” as your President is." Wait to see what the three investigations reveal. Even Paula will admit after all is revealed she had things backwards. Just see what happens.

"[T]he only reason Trump released the military arms and aid is that he got caught." You will discover that Senators Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Dick Durbin, R-Ill., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Ron Johnson, R-Wis. were responsible for the release of funds. Trump did not want US tax dollars sent to a corrupt regime. That is why he was reluctant until he had proof this current Ukrainian government was not corrupt:

"The Trump administration last week asked U.S. officials to review the funding to make sure it is being used in the best interest of the United States."

The Ukrainian government has indicted the head of Burisma Nikolai Zlochevsky for money laundering. Funds were sent to the Ukraine then "redistributed" to certain people on the Burisma board in return for continued influence to secure more US funds. Billions granted to the Ukraine have disappeared.

Paula Flinn

“Trump did not want U.S. tax dollars sent to a corrupt regime.” Trump never mentioned the word corruption in his phone calls, but he did mention the investigation he wanted, over and over again. Another lame excuse! You know that Trump is corrupt! He could care less about corruption in the Ukraine. That part is all made up BS after the fact. The U.S. has a deal with Ukraine to protect them by supplying them with military assistance and money. Trump had no right to “hold up” the aid to them that Congress appropriated, especially for “a (personal) favor, though.” How many Ukrainian soldiers were killed those days that Trump held up the aid?

I don’t care whether they investigate the owner and board of Burisma or not. I don’t care what Hunter Biden does or did. Hunter Biden is a private citizen , and he is not running for President. Trump sure is a scoundrel trying to get dirt on an opponent’s son to smear his father, and Trump, himself, won’t give up his own taxes! Ironic, huh?

Gee, everyone’s getting indicted, even Netanyahu by his own party! I support Israel, but I don’t like Netanyahu.

President Trump’s trials in NY State are waiting for him when his term as President is over. So are his accusers.

Charles Douglas

Mr. Flinn, you do know that when these reports come out DEBUNKING all of the things you are getting from the Fake News, ...it will be hard to live down all you have stated here tonight,...right? I will certainly request a little bitty apology from you. Not a big one, ...but Just a little one.[wink]

Emile Pope

Why waste your time speaking to someone who simply makes things up in order for you to spend time disproving them? He has no facts, simply makes things up, and never provides proof to support his arguments. And if he cites anything, it only disproves what he wrote. Your time is better spent with others who believe in logical discussion...

Carlos Ponce

Why waste your time reading Emile's posts, who simply makes things up in order for you to spend time disproving them? He has no facts, simply makes things up, and never provides proof to support his arguments. And if he cites anything, it only disproves what he wrote.

I read Emile because he's funny![beam]

Craig Mason

[thumbup][thumbup]

Jim Forsythe

Charles, is this what you been waiting on?

October 20th, 2019

The results from the investigation were disclosed in a letter last week to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) from Bureau of Legislative Affairs Assistant Secretary Mary Elizabeth Taylor.

The FBI’s decision to not charge Clinton with a felony has come under intense scrutiny after it was revealed that anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok “edited a key phrase that removed possible legal implications,”

The investigation, which was finished along with the report in early September, found that 38 individuals were culpable for 91 security violations along with 497 additional security violations that were found where no individual was found to bear culpability.

“For current and former officials, culpability means the violations will be noted in their files and will be considered when they apply for or renew security clearances,” the Associated Press reported. “For current officials, there could also be disciplinary action, though it’s unclear how they could potentially be reprimanded.”

Charles Douglas

My sentiments exactly Mr. PONCE, and is the reason I don't waste time on, nor lend any credibility to anything Mr. POPE posts. Somebody obviously has hurt him in the past, so he seems to be mad at the world, and seems to believe "right".. belongs to him exclusively. I glance over his posts and keep going to the next one. I have to say though of all the years I've monitored this forum, I have never encountered an individual who did not display the proper etiquette, respect, and decorum meant to be used in communicating with others on this forum, until now. So sad.

Charles Douglas

Jim, no sir, I'm waiting on the IG & the Durham reports on the results of the investigations into the 2016 election scandal. They will be coming out soon. My thoughts are Mr. Struzok, Mr. Page, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr. McCabe, and Mr. Walking-in-the-woods, Jim Comey will find themselves in hot water.

Bailey Jones

I wasn't a fan of HRC, but was forced to hold my nose and vote against Trump - since he is the antithesis of all I believe and hold dear. (Not that it mattered who I voted for, the electoral college saw to that.) I look forward to the day when I can vote for someone again, instead of just against. As I've said elsewhere - and it bears repeating - the professionals we saw testify these last two weeks were a breath of fresh air and restore my faith that ordinary Americans can still tell the difference between right and wrong. I agree - they are the real heroes here.

Charles Douglas

Mr. Jones, you are just saying that. I cannot believe that you are thinking Shifty Schiff is telling the truth about anything! I just don't believe you believe that.

Bailey Jones

In a court case you don't believe the prosecutor or the defense attorney - you just look at the evidence. So, I don't have to believe Schiff, or Nunes, I have the eyewitness testimony of the professionals who were there. And I believe them. Have you have read their testimony? Will you?

Carlos Ponce

" I have the eyewitness testimony" Who?

With the exception of Sondland, there were no eyewitnesses, only hearsay was offered as testimony. I have read their released testimony and found it lacking in provenance. I heard Bailey did some bad things - that's the type of testimony we got. Should anyone believe hearsay that is tantamount to gossip?

Charles Douglas

Okay Mr. Jones. I have to retrack what I said previously about you not believing. I think you do believe the professional testimonies of the people who presented them, we just did not hear the same things concerning what SCHIFF allowed us to hear. ( some of their testimonies were suppressed. They all testified as to what they thought, surmised, or supposed, and NOT to what they knew to be the facts or truth. So here is what I will do, I will apologize for not believing that you believed them, BUT...BUT...when TRUMP is acquitted, ...I will expect that you sir ..will ahhh, do the right thing too.One more time, I did not believe them and I did not believe Struzok, Comey, and Most of what McCabe testified to.

Bailey Jones

Charles, I fully expect Trump will be acquitted. Being acquitted by a Republican Senate is just as inevitable as being impeached by a Democratic House - because they are both partisan political processes. And I'm actually OK with a Senate acquittal. I've never wanted him to be removed from office. He was, after all, elected by almost a majority of the country, and I want Republicans to enjoy the full measure of a Trump presidency. I personally believe he is destroying the party, and I'm cool with that.

Carlos Ponce

1. The "witnesses" Bailey alleges are credible should not be called because they can only relay hearsay which is inadmissible under Federal Law. Democrats can call them but their testimony will be inadmissible.

2. There are Senators running for Democrat presidential nomination who will be sidelined from campaigning if a Senate trial is held at a crucial time.

3. The witness list will include candidate, Joe Biden, son Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff, Eric Ciaramella, Alexandra Chalupa - they were on the Republicans's call list but Schiff denied them. He may object to the witness list but Republicans are in charge.

4. I don't believe in polls but you do. According to 538, support for impeachment has dropped from a high of 55.3% on May 3, 2019 to 46.3% November 25, 2019 - today. Considering the polls are skewed to the Left on purpose......

Do you really think Democrats will go down the path to impeachment considering the consequences if they do?

Bailey Jones

Who are my eyewitnesses, Carlos? Well, let's start with your comment - "With the exception of Sondland, there were no eyewitnesses" - OK, there's one.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s European affairs director, who listened in on Trump's famous "perfect call" makes two.

Jennifer Williams, a special adviser to Vice President Mike Pence on Europe and Russia, also on the call, makes three.

Timothy Morrison, Senior Director for European Affairs, also on the call, makes four.

David Holmes, a counselor for political affairs at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, overheard another phone call outlining the quid pro quo, his testimony verified by Sondland - that's five.

Fiona Hill, senior director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council, attended the two July 10th meetings where Sondland outlined the infamous "quid pro quo" - that's six.

U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, attended meetings with Trump, Giuliani, Sondland, and various Ukrainians - that makes seven.

Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who experienced, first hand, the effects of the Giuliani/Trump orchestrated smear campaign that ended her career in Ukraine. She would be #8.

Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, had direct conversations with Volker and Sondland regarding the quid pro quo, and sat in on the meetings where the suspension of aid (the quid) were discussed, followed by conversations with Sondland where the requirement for the announcement of the investigations (the quo) where discussed. - Nine.

So, that's nine that come to mind without thinking too hard about it. And keep in mind, each of these eyewitnesses testified under oath - their freedom and careers entirely dependent on their truthfulness (except Trump's millionaire toady, Sondland). I'm sure I could come up with more if I went back and reread the transcript of the testimony. Which is exactly what I recommend to anyone who wants to come to their own conclusions.

Like Trump keeps saying (totally unaware of the irony) "Read the transcript. Read the transcript. It's perfect!"

Bailey Jones

"4. I don't believe in polls but you do. According to 538, support for impeachment has dropped from a high of 55.3% on May 3, 2019 to 46.3% November 25, 2019 - today. "

lol - Look again, Carlos - the purple line is "DON'T SUPPORT", the orange line is "SUPPORT". The numbers you quote are people OPPOSED to impeachment.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

I think the stress of all this damning evidence is getting to you. You might want to take a couple of days off and rest. I'd hate for you to have to rush off to the hospital for "phase one" of your "annual physical". [ohmy]

Charles Douglas

Okay Mr. Jones! I concur with your last post. Don't mind saying it makes sense to me. Now one more thing, and I hate to ask. However, I must! In this next election, are you RIDING WITH BIDEN, OR...WILL YOU RUMBLE WITH DONALD? [beam][thumbup]

Carlos Ponce

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified that it would be worth encouraging Ukraine to investigate Burisma “in the course of enforcing the rule of law”. When asked if he thought there was anything illegal in the phone call, Vindman replied "I

guess I couldn't say whether it was illegal."

Jennifer Williams said “it looked substantially accurate to me,” about the transcript which contains no quid quo

David Holmes Not an "eyewitness" to the Trump-Zelensky conversation. Doubtful he overheard anything but Sondland on that other phone call. CNN's Chris Cuomo tried to debunk Trump's claim you could not hear both sides - and he failed even with Dana Bash two feet away.

Fiona Hill, never talked to Trump, was not in on the conversation. Not an eyewitness.

U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker - Not an eyewitness to the Trump Zelensky conversation

Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, not an eyewitness. She was long GONE when it happened. Just a disgruntled employee upset she was reassigned after her timed tenure was over.

Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, had direct conversations with Volker and Sondland regarding the quid pro quo. Not from Trump but Sondland's PRESUMPTIONS, BUT NEVER TRUMP. HEARSAY HEARSAY HEARSAY!!!!

Let's take a look at Bailey's 3 witnesses:

Sondland - no quid pro quo

Williams - the transcript was substantially accurate and it shows no quid pro quo

Vindman - nothing illegal in the conversation

Carlos Ponce

Bailey - a nine percent drop since the hearings started - and it's under 50% and continues to fall.

Bailey Jones

"Bailey - a nine percent drop since the hearings started - and it's under 50% and continues to fall." You know. Carlos, I often tease you about your inability to comprehend reality, but when you can't even read a simple graph, even one you posted yourself...

Bailey Jones

Charles, I will never vote for Trump. That would mean voting against everything I believe in, as well as causing a certain amount of spinning in my father's grave. As far as the Dems, I currently like Mayor Pete the best. But my vote doesn't matter since I vote in Texas. All 38 of our electoral votes will go to Trump no matter what - end of story.

Carlos Ponce

Bailey - the 538 is the average of several polls. Of those, the more reliable ones have a MUCH LOWER percent of those polled who favor impeachment. Most are all Democratic Party and Liberal heavier than reality.

When demographically adjusted to reality, the number of those who favor impeachment is MUCH LOWER. DUH!

Carlos Ponce

"All 38 of our electoral votes will go to Trump no matter what - end of story." BAILEY FINALLY GETS IT!!!!!!!!

Carlos Ponce

Bailey, can you explain why your candidate, Mayor Pete Buttigieg lacks support among the African American population?

Bailey Jones

"Bailey, can you explain why your candidate, Mayor Pete Buttigieg lacks support among the African American population?" Sure - he's the lily white mayor of a racist city with a racist police force. (My aunt - the most racist person I've ever personally known, lived in South Bend.) He will have to earn the support of African Americans or he won't be the nominee.

Carlos Ponce

Bailey, that's a simplistic answer that does not address why Blacks in other parts of the country will not back him.

Bailey Jones

"Bailey, that's a simplistic answer that does not address why Blacks in other parts of the country will not back him." It might surprise you to learn that I don't speak for African Americans. Why don't you ask some of your black friends and black neighbors?

Carlos Ponce

I am not aware of your race. That's why I asked you - a Butti Buddy.

Bailey Jones

My mistake. We've discussed it at length in the past - I just assumed you could remember.

Carlos Ponce

But as a Buttigiege Buddy you can tell us........

Carlos Ponce

U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled Don McGahan has to testify. Democrats are dancing in the street. Ketanji Brown Jackson is another Obama appointee. Know what Obama appointed judges have in common? Their decisions usually get OVERTURNED. And yes, the Trump administration has appealed this decision.

Carlos Ponce

For a good laugh read The Washington Post article claiming Barack Obama is Conservative.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/22/barack-obama-conservative/?arc404=true

While he's not as über- left as several of those running for the Democrat nomination he's hardly Conservative.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.