Huskerzoo

19 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Come on...your kids and their kids will all have great jobs after they go to Pretend University where the tuition is free...then they can get a sweet job where they pay outrageous taxes to help pay for their "free" college and for the "free" college that this girl is going to get...  

 

Or it would help people like me who got their PhD, are ~200,000 in debt, did so under the understanding that there was public loan forgiveness, have had that loan forgiveness potentially taken away from me, work hard at a job but still have to pay an extra mortgage for my education. 

Yes, there are people who do dumb things, but some of those pretend universities are run by the POTUS. And no, the money is not free money. It's coming out of a tax levied on Wall street that is projected to make .2 trillion dollars more than forgiveness of loans would cost. 

This is without a doubt wealth redistribution of sorts. And there are a chunk of people who would be hit hardest by it who support it: https://www.businessinsider.com/billionaires-asking-for-wealth-tax-americans-disney-soros-buffett-dalio

This isn't pretend free college. 

33 minutes ago, FrankWheeler said:

 

Yes, first you give employees minimum wage and then provide them an stake in the success of the company?  

Whats next? A living wage? Food for the starving? The right to clean water? Oh the humanity!

19 minutes ago, QMany said:

Two quick thoughts:

1. Romney's vote is momentous, the first ever bipartisan removal vote. Trump's legacy will always carry this scarlet letter.
2. I'm actually surprised he voted to acquit Article 2 Obstruction, setting precedent that the President can claim "absolute immunity" and block all documents and testimony without a viable executive privilege claim.

I agree on both points, but I think point 2 is a symptom of the effectiveness of the obstruction. The Republican strategy was to force a limitation/flaw/error and then point out how that limitation means the processes was flawed and political. This allowed for a ton of legal wiggle room. Because this was a mechanism of the senate and could by and large be done behind closed doors, it didn't come from the president. In essence if I told you in a private conversation to harm someone and you did it and never told on me, it's never going to come back to me. The senate can't obstruct a senate trial when the majority agrees that what they're doing is fine, as such by the letter of the law they're likely right for crossing the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt. 

It's absurd, but I can get it. 

Just now, BIGREDIOWAN said:

I took part in my first caucus last night. I realize that's kinda insane considering I'm almost 40, but I felt like this time it was extremely important for me to. Having said that this whole thing is a disaster at this point. I feel terrible for the candidates because they've worked their a$$es off to only have their hardwork basically mean nothing due to these delayed results. Even when the winner is announced everyone is immediately going to question the validity of those results and all the other candidates will say "but did they really win or what" and the winners thunder is immediately stolen. The DNC has some serious egg on their face from this debacle. 

Just a shout out. Thanks for participating in the election. Cluster F or not, I'm glad you're engaged. 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

Honestly having a couple of extremely white, non-representative states like IA and NH go first has never made any sense, particularly when one of them uses a caucus.

 

They're not gonna like it but the order of primaries should be shuffled at this point to better represent the country.

It does reflect the country right now. It ignores all logic and disproportionately benefits some people. What more could you ask for?

1 minute ago, commando said:

so....next democratic debate....1 of the candidates  says "china...if you're listening....we can make a trade deal as soon as i become president if you give us dirt on trump"   the republicans would STFU because it's all good.   

 

 

Not quite. It's only if you win the election that this works. I don't understand the nuances of why, but I am clear that this is the logic. So, if a person did that and didn't win the election, it would be illegal. If they did it and won, then it would be something that every president has done that doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. 

2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

And I gotta admit.....I kinda agree. 

 

That's why I would have made Ukraine exhibit #5 in a long list of Trump actions and behaviors that suggest he is mentally unfit and a national security risk. #1 would be standing next to Vladimir Putin and telling the world he trusts Putin's word over the unanimous consensus of America's 17 intelligence agencies. Seriously. Think about that. And everything that came before and after it. It's actually stunning. I can't believe we moved on from there.

 

A good impeachment case would have allowed room to run through some of the 16,000 categorical lies the President has told. You could have cited the unprecedented number of Trump appointees who have since fled, either fired, sent to jail, or refusing to work for a man who revealed himself to be "a f#&%ing moron."  That last quote, of course, from a highly respected military general. Bolton figures in there: a pro-Trump mega hawk who thought Trump and Guliani totally went off the rails.

 

No liberal witch hunt. Just the sober viewpoint of people who have worked closely with the man,

 

There would have been no wiggle room. 

So the question then becomes, why is there a law against accepting foreign aid? Is this only about money? In my opinion, it's the changing definitions that become problematic. 

The corruption here is absurd, it should be open, shut, and obvious. However, they had to do the equivalent of choosing the starting point on a circle. At some point they had to choose where to start and the Ukraine issue was the first thing that happened that was obvious beyond a reasonable doubt AND that had enough public support behind it. 

1 minute ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Actually that makes more sense. So the R’s are saying, yes Trump tied aid to helping him in his re-election, but there is nothing wrong with that, he’s guilty of what the D’s are saying, but it’s a non issue.
 

Another question - are these things not black and white? To my (HS Civics level) knowledge, it seems encouraging foreign interference and and tying American dollars to assisting a politician in an American election would break a law? I could say, hey I shoplifted but I’m short on cash and needed a meal, so it’s a non issue - but at the end of the day the law is black and white and  despite my intentions I crossed a line I cannot cross.

Glad I could help. 

What you brought up in really the crux of the issue here. People who are pro impeachment and removal are baffled by this. I think the vast majority of people posting in this topic fall into this camp. It feels very clear that a clear line was crossed and that this is bad and dangerous. You have to think about your own values and come to your conclusion about if this breaks a law as well as how serious it is. Further, you have to identify if you think the president can break laws. One of the assertions is that it's not possible for the president to do this. Unfortunately, the goal posts here have shifted over time. I won't go into too much detail about that, but there's concerns that people keep introducing new finish lines, democrats cross it, then they're moved. 

I know where I fall on this. Where do you fall? What are you concerned about one way or another? What are you going to do about it? 

11 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

I'm still trying to understand the argument against allowing witnesses to testify. All I see is, D's in the house should have done the leg work to get those witnesses to testify but they didn't. But as someone not married to either party and not balls deep in reading up on politics every day - I want to know what happened. Maybe I'm an idiot and don't understand how these things work - but if this we're a murder trail, and we had 5 dudes who witnessed the alleged murder - shouldn't we hear what they have to say before we decide if laws were broke and what laws were broke? I wasn't old enough to follow the Clinton Impeachment, so maybe this is just how things work? Help me understand why anyone wouldn't want more information on how this went down?

The current argument (and there have been many) is this: He did what the democrats say he did. It's not good, It's just not so bad that removing him from office is worth it. 

3 minutes ago, QMany said:

With these lies, we must ask: has anyone ever seen Ted Cruz and @Notre Dame Joe in the same place?

 

Wait, are you trying to imply that Joe is the Zodiac Killer? 

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I... I don't know what to say about this. There are several videos of Joe telling people to go vote for someone else.

 

Has he seen the polls? He isn't exactly running away with the nomination. He keeps putting "go vote for someone else" on film, and people will.

 

 

Not a good look at 36 seconds. I would get extremely upset if someone grabbed me by the jacket like that. It was fairly gentle, but I would be very close to walking away. Also, not a great way to garner votes for the primary or general. 

16 minutes ago, QMany said:

Remember when Republican Senators acted aghast that Schiff mentioned CBS' "head on a pike" comment.

More and more I get the impression that hands are dirty all over the place. I've got to believe on some level that some of the Republicans care deeply about the country and what's happening and that would compel them to break with the party. However, if breaking with the party means going to prison or having their own shady dealings brought to light that changes how people would play it. 

28 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

The problem is, the Republicans I know, don't find that a problem because they firmly believe that Joe and Hunter Biden were involved in some horrible corrupt scheme so, Trump wanting them, specifically, to be investigated is just another example of Trump fighting corruption and draining the swamp.  When I ask, "OK...why didn't he have his own intelligence agencies investigate it?", they come back with, "Yeah right...they are all part of the deep state."

 

It's amazing what he has done to destroy faith in our own government.

BUT....God forbid....if a black person dare protest law enforcement officials corruption by simply kneeling during the national anthem.

The logic is just going to go in circles, It's a he says (Bolton) he says (Trump) with Trump saying there's a transcript that supports his side, but, to my knowledge, no full transcript having been released yet, so we go back to he says he says. 

7 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

I mean WTF can be done about something like that? It is insane really and if nothing is done sets the stage for further abuse in the future. 

There's a really interesting dynamic in play that I'm not sure will show up or not in a meaningful way. Judge Roberts is supposedly really concerned about his legacy. Given there's a somewhat limited role, I don't know how much he can do. However, given that he is presiding and that this process is making a mockery of any semblance of a fair trial, I wonder if he might be research things to do. There was an interesting article in the Atlantic the other day that may be relevant sooner rather than later: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/impeachment-trial-without-witnesses-would-be-unconstitutional/605332/

This is further backed up by this politico article: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/22/founders-wanted-john-roberts-assert-himself-impeachment-trial-101727

Now here's the thing, Roberts doesn't love activist judges. So it turns into a bit of a question of will he turn activist judge in order to prevent his legacy being that he presided over one of the most absurd instances in American history. Or will he want his legacy to be something else (who knows what). 

If Roberts doesn't get involved, we know the outcome already, Trump will be able to do whatever he wants. If Roberts takes actions, even if it's viewed as a problem, it would likely go to the Supreme Court and come back a 4-3 decision favoring whatever he chooses to do. 

22 minutes ago, funhusker said:

At what point can we call a poster "stupid" without it being a personal attack, but rather an accepted truth???

That's never going to be an option. Talk about their behaviors instead of your interpretation of their behaviors. 

2 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Actually my thought was that  there are some people in the admin, who got to know that Trump is mentally imbalanced - you don't tweet like this wtout being a little    wacko.  They should do their job and bring up Amend 25 Article 4.  Yea, I know it ain't going to happen but as @schriznoeder said, "But a guy can dream, right??"

The problem with this analysis is that for psychologists, you can't make this analysis without an interview of sorts. As someone in the field, even if I think his behavior is bizarre, I would not feel comfortable making any statements about competence or ability to function. Below from the American Psychological Association ethics code. 

"

9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.)

(b) Except as noted in 9.01c, psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions. When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations. (See also Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, and 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results.)

(c) When psychologists conduct a record review or provide consultation or supervision and an individual examination is not warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychologists explain this and the sources of information on which they based their conclusions and recommendations."

You're hearing a lot more about the diagnosis stuff from psychiatrists who have (arguably) less expertise in diagnosis. Their training focuses more on the biological influences of behavior. 

24 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Link?

Sorry, evidence isn't allowed into this conversation. Impeachment rules in this thread. 

12 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I'm flabbergasted that this is allow-- Oh, wait. Moscow Mitch is running this.

 

 

Unfortunately the rules really favor Mitch doing what he wants. I think it would be much more interesting if Roberts got to be like hey, people are leaving, you can't be unbiased if you don't hear all the information in the trial. 

1 minute ago, Frostberg said:

Sean Snyder as an analyst

Agree, there's a little smoke and his career trajectory would make sense. 

Just now, Cdog923 said:

 

What other title can he get? 

We could knight him and he could be Sir Held of Recruitment. 

Honorary Doctor? 

My guess is that they'll add some words to his title such as director of Juco Recruitment that don't mean a ton, but can be used to justify the pay bump. 

1 minute ago, Blackshirt_Simonsen said:

Thanks for looking it up Mav. The 2011 class was the one I thought might have a chance.

2011 was such a weird class. 

3 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

Can someone post a twerking gif for me please? 

I got one I thought you'd like. 

25 minutes ago, commando said:

1 of the people he pardoned was a guy who decapitated his ex girlfriend.    

 

https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article238320918.html

 

It’s not clear if Betty Carnes was killed by asphyxiation or by the eight blows to her head that Delmar Partin delivered with a metal pipe. The coroner couldn’t tell which killed the mother of three first, but it was very clear that her head was then chopped off and placed on her lap in a 55-gallon barrel that was destined for a toxic waste site.

On Monday, departing Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin pardoned and commuted the sentence of Partin, who was convicted of killing her at the factory where they both worked in Barbourville in 1994.

Yeah some interesting moves here. 300+ of them were for drug charges only which I'm in support of, but not sure I need many of the other folks he pardoned back in the community. 

11 minutes ago, Mavric said:

Frost - and probably others - headed to visit him today.

 

The thought was we were going to have him wait until February to sign.  But with Frost visiting today - likely the last in-home before signing day next week - perhaps we've decided to push him to sign next week.

Is the thinking he's number 1 on our board right now?

12 hours ago, krc1995 said:

The one thing Frost has that Riley didn’t is a grace period. 

And an undefeated season.