Bill Clinton: ‘Fair chance’ U.S. could ‘completely lose’ its democratic system in coming years

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Its not a trial.

Sounds like that is exactly how they are treating it though, eh?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Edit to add, Im not surprised they didn't allow Jim Jordan there, he would have highlighted the absurd farce this latest witch hunt is in 2 minutes,and made Schiff, Pelosi and co a laughing stock just like he did with them in the impeachment fiascos.

 

Somehow, I don't find it surprising that a congressional committee tasked with investigating Trump's attempt to steal/overturn the 2020 election results and prevent Biden from taking office would NOT want to have one of Trump's co-conspirators sitting on that same panel.

 

insurrection fallout

 

GOP lawmakers were deeply involved in Trump plans to overturn election, new evidence suggests

 

Deposition excerpts filed by the Jan 6. select committee underscore the expansive cast of elected Republicans who had enlisted themselves in Trump’s effort to cling to power

 

...

"Deposition excerpts filed by the Jan 6. select committee — part of an effort to force former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to appear for an interview — suggest that some of Trump’s top allies in Congress were frequently present in meetings where a handful of strategies to prevent then-President-elect Joe Biden from taking office were discussed, including efforts to replace the leadership of the Justice Department with figures who would sow doubts about the legitimacy of the election.

 

Lawmakers who attended meetings, in person or by phone, included Reps. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and numerous members of the House Freedom Caucus, according to Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to Meadows who provided key testimony about the conversations and meetings Meadows had in December 2020."

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/22/gop-lawmakers-deeply-involved-in-trump-plans-to-overturn-election-new-evidence-suggests-00027340

 

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[mikeymike100]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I'm already out of shape! Looked at links but neither matches what I understood which was that the Republicans wanted to nominate their own people, plus broaden the scope of the report. No agreement about this, so Pelosi Inc formed their own committee with 7 Dems and 2 RINOS. The big problem with that is that there will be no cross-examination and witness/testimony selection to give any kind of balance.  

You are correct and therein lies the problem.

You have a one sided committee, whose members all hate Trump. There are no checks and balances, they bring in their witnesses and evidence and there is no one to object or cross examine the evidence or witnesses! Unbelievable!!

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Sounds like that is exactly how they are treating it though, eh?

Nope.

Hopefully those are coming later at the DOJ and state of Georgia.

Edited June 18, 2022 by Jingthing

[ozimoron]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

If this is to be a true hearing, rather than an outright  prosecution, for a semblance if balance if course.

 

Pelosi & Co are certainly not Trump fans are they?

How many times do you need to be told that McCarthy refused to nominate participants after their initial 2 nominees were rejected because they were accused of participating in the coup?

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Functioned under Trump? Highest number of COVID deaths in the world, 1 million now. One of the highest death rates. Trump touted bleach, held spreader rallies, sidelined the best health advisers.

A trade war with China which cost America just as much. A wall that never got built. Dismantled the health system, put SFA in its place.

If you call that functioning, I pity anyone who buys a second hand car from you.

Oops, 58% of that one million have died during the present administration, even after it inherited the vaccines that did not start to become available until November 2020.   

[nauseus]

16 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Somehow, I don't find it surprising that a congressional committee tasked with investigating Trump's attempt to steal/overturn the 2020 election results and prevent Biden from taking office would NOT want to have one of Trump's co-conspirators sitting on that same panel.

 

insurrection fallout

 

GOP lawmakers were deeply involved in Trump plans to overturn election, new evidence suggests

 

Deposition excerpts filed by the Jan 6. select committee underscore the expansive cast of elected Republicans who had enlisted themselves in Trump’s effort to cling to power

 

...

"Deposition excerpts filed by the Jan 6. select committee — part of an effort to force former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to appear for an interview — suggest that some of Trump’s top allies in Congress were frequently present in meetings where a handful of strategies to prevent then-President-elect Joe Biden from taking office were discussed, including efforts to replace the leadership of the Justice Department with figures who would sow doubts about the legitimacy of the election.

 

Lawmakers who attended meetings, in person or by phone, included Reps. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and numerous members of the House Freedom Caucus, according to Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to Meadows who provided key testimony about the conversations and meetings Meadows had in December 2020."

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/22/gop-lawmakers-deeply-involved-in-trump-plans-to-overturn-election-new-evidence-suggests-00027340

 

 

Could I "suggest" that suggestions don't work well.

[Lacessit]

21 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

 

Pelosi & Co are certainly not Trump fans are they?

I doubt anyone with more than two brain cells is.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Could I "suggest" that suggestions don't work well.

Could I suggest that your post makes absolutely no sense with explanation? What's the problem with an extremely often used English construct to describe legal evidence?

[nauseus]

17 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Nope.

Hopefully those are coming later at the DOJ and state of Georgia.

Fine. New topic then.

[Lacessit]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Oops, 58% of that one million have died during the present administration, even after it inherited the vaccines that did not start to become available until November 2020.   

Quite true, that is Trump's legacy to the present administration. Perhaps epidemiology is not your strong suit, it certainly was not his.

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I doubt anyone with more than two brain cells is.

Thanks for that.

[nauseus]

Just now, Lacessit said:

Quite true, that is Trump's legacy to the present administration. Perhaps epidemiology is not your strong suit, it certainly was not his.

Actually it is one of my many strong suits. Do you have any, at all?

[Lacessit]

Just now, nauseus said:

Actually it is one of my many strong suits. Do you have any, at all?

Facts and logic I do quite well.

[candide]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Oops, 58% of that one million have died during the present administration, even after it inherited the vaccines that did not start to become available until November 2020.   

1. Which are the two periods of time you are comparing? Are they comparable in length? When do you assume the effect of Trump's policies was replaced by the effects of Biden's policy (not his first day as president, obviously)?

 

2.In particular in counties that voted Trump, as the rate of antivaccine people Is higher

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/03/03/the-changing-political-geography-of-covid-19-over-the-last-two-years/

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Could I suggest that your post makes absolutely no sense with explanation? What's the problem with an extremely often used English construct to describe legal evidence?

If you actually read the post I was replying to, instead of just rudely interjecting, then you might find the sense that you seek.

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, candide said:

of Trump's policies was repl

 

2 minutes ago, candide said:

1. Which are the two periods of time you are comparing? Are they comparable in length? When do you assume the effect of Trump's policies was replaced by the effects of Biden's policy (not his first day as president, obviously)?

 

2.In particular in counties that voted Trump, as the rate of antivaccine people Is higher

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/03/03/the-changing-political-geography-of-covid-19-over-the-last-two-years/

1. From outbreak to now. Biden in power for 58% of that - same ratio but vax effect only really assisting Americans after Biden got in.

 

2. Irrelevant.

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Facts and logic I do quite well.

What facts - like your Covid ones? ????

 

Illogical captain. 

[Lacessit]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

What facts - like your Covid ones? ????

 

Illogical captain. 

Tell me what your many strong suits are. Don't forget your expertise in senility.

Fair is fair, I like being amused too.

[BritManToo]

The Clintons are the problem, not the solution.

[StayinThailand2much]

On 6/17/2022 at 9:41 AM, mikeymike100 said:

“I actually think there’s a fair chance that we could completely lose our constitutional democracy for a couple of decades if we keep making — if we make bad decisions,” Clinton, 75, said.

Well having had "sex" with an intern and got caught, I guess he should know?? LOL

Maybe he is just bitter that he got caught. This, and the fact that all, people remember about his presidency now, is a Lewinski he enjoyed...

Edited June 18, 2022 by StayinThailand2much

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, StayinThailand2much said:

Maybe he is just bitter that he got caught. This, and the fact that all, people remember about his presidency now, is a Lewinski he enjoyed...

Ya sure that's how he's remembered?

"In his second term, his rating consistently ranged from the high-50s to the high-60s.[1][2] After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton's rating reached its highest point at 73% approval.[3He finished with a Gallup poll approval rating of 65%, higher than that of every other departing president measured since Harry Truman."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton#:~:text=Public approval,-Clinton's job approval&text=He finished with a Gallup,president measured since Harry Truman.

Edited June 18, 2022 by placeholder

[candide]

37 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

1. From outbreak to now. Biden in power for 58% of that - same ratio but vax effect only really assisting Americans after Biden got in.

 

2. Irrelevant.

So it's not a relevant comparison. The policies of a new president are not implemented from day 1 of his presidency. During the first months it's the effect of the previous president's policies. This is not neutral as he was intronised at the peak of Covid-19 deaths, during the third wave.

[ozimoron]

39 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

The Clintons are the problem, not the solution.

How do you work that out? The Clinton's are in any office now and haven't been for years.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

1. From outbreak to now. Biden in power for 58% of that - same ratio but vax effect only really assisting Americans after Biden got in.

That is utterly false. We know that because death rates in pro trump regions and anti-trump regions were very close until the advent of vaccines. Then they started to diverge drastically:

 

Pro-Trump counties now have far higher COVID death rates. Misinformation is to blame

NPR looked at deaths per 100,000 people in roughly 3,000 counties across the U.S. from May 2021, the point at which vaccinations widely became available. People living in counties that went 60% or higher for Trump in November 2020 had 2.73 times the death rates of those that went for Biden. Counties with an even higher share of the vote for Trump saw higher COVID-19 mortality rates.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828993/data-vaccine-misinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate

 

But what would any rational person expect given that Republicans were far less likely to get vaccinated than Democrats

 

KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor: The Increasing Importance of Partisanship in Predicting COVID-19 Vaccination Status

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/importance-of-partisanship-predicting-vaccination-status/

 

 

[BritManToo]

26 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

How do you work that out? The Clinton's are in any office now and haven't been for years.

Neither is Trump. 

Edited June 18, 2022 by BritManToo

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Neither is Trump. 

Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee for 2024. Not really equivalent is it?

[nauseus]

31 minutes ago, candide said:

So it's not a relevant comparison. The policies of a new president are not implemented from day 1 of his presidency. During the first months it's the effect of the previous president's policies. This is not neutral as he was intronised at the peak of Covid-19 deaths, during the third wave.

Disagree - I think he was so busy on day one he's been exhausted since then:

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/fact-sheet-president-elect-bidens-day-one-executive-actions-deliver-relief-for-families-across-america-amid-converging-crises/

 

As far as deaths go, I think that the vaccine availability gave Biden a much better chance of keeping the numbers down. Recent waves (4 and 5) were almost as bad as 3 and there is no excuse for those. 

[Phoenix Rising]

3 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

It's a hearing. Yet the accused(who has been harassed, investigated for years by all agencies, falsely accused of all sorts of bs, and not allowed to rule as President without the constant scream that he'll be in prison tomorrow) is not allowed a defense. As such it is an embarrassing farce designed to please people who harbor irrational hatred of Donald J. Trump.

No surprise the viewing figures have gone the same way as CNN. 

 

Edit to add, Im not surprised they didn't allow Jim Jordan there, he would have highlighted the absurd farce this latest witch hunt is in 2 minutes,and made Schiff, Pelosi and co a laughing stock just like he did with them in the impeachment fiascos.

"...irrational hatred of Donald J. Trump."

 

"Edit to add, Im not surprised they didn't allow Jim Jordan there, he would have highlighted the absurd farce......"

 

Actually, they have subpoenaed him but he's too chicken to go. But hey, why let facts get in the way of your little fantasies!

 

Jan. 6 committee tells Jim Jordan what he didn’t want to hear

 

"Shortly before Christmas, the bipartisan panel reached out to the far-right congressman, seeking his voluntary cooperation, but he refused. Three weeks ago, the committee took matters to the next level and subpoenaed the Ohioan. Jordan responded by questioning the “constitutionality and validity” of the subpoena, and making a series of demands he expected to be met before he even considered whether to answer questions."

 

Rep. Jim Jordan avoids Jan. 6th Committee while bashing it

 

 

[nauseus]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

That is utterly false. We know that because death rates in pro trump regions and anti-trump regions were very close until the advent of vaccines. Then they started to diverge drastically:

 

Pro-Trump counties now have far higher COVID death rates. Misinformation is to blame

NPR looked at deaths per 100,000 people in roughly 3,000 counties across the U.S. from May 2021, the point at which vaccinations widely became available. People living in counties that went 60% or higher for Trump in November 2020 had 2.73 times the death rates of those that went for Biden. Counties with an even higher share of the vote for Trump saw higher COVID-19 mortality rates.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828993/data-vaccine-misinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate

 

But what would any rational person expect given that Republicans were far less likely to get vaccinated than Democrats

 

KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor: The Increasing Importance of Partisanship in Predicting COVID-19 Vaccination Status

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/importance-of-partisanship-predicting-vaccination-status/

 

 

The "suggest" word comes up again in both of these "reports" and your linked sites don't explain who they actually are.  

 

But the point is that the vaccines were broadly available during Biden's term but not so for Trump. 

Edited June 18, 2022 by nauseus