RNC has money haul over DNC.

Thanks for that. If I understand correctly, Republicans control both houses in 31 states, Democrats in 18 states, and Minnesota is split. That is a good omen for the U.S. Senate. Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes, that's where my roughly 30-20 number came from originally, which is indeed a good omen for Reps.

It can obviously change, but the point is that the US is polarizing into a large number of states with smaller populations leaning Rep and a smaller number of states with larger populations leaning Dem. The Senate favors the Reps, The House remains up in the air as congressional districts vary, and the POTUS is also up in the air based on the EC which in essence derives from the Congressional districts, but has different rules for winner take all by state these days.

2020 is going be interesting. Senate probably Reps. Doubtful Reps retake the House, but I think Dem lead is dimished. And POTUS still totally up for grabs with the political circus going on right now, but I edge to a Trump re-election based on everything right now.

Yes, that's where my roughly 30-20 number came from originally, which is indeed a good omen for Reps.

It can obviously change, but the point is that the US is polarizing into a large number of states with smaller populations leaning Rep and a smaller number of states with larger populations leaning Dem. The Senate favors the Reps, The House remains up in the air as congressional districts vary, and the POTUS is also up in the air based on the EC which in essence derives from the Congressional districts, but has different rules for winner take all by state these days.

2020 is going be interesting. Senate probably Reps. Doubtful Reps retake the House, but I think Dem lead is dimished. And POTUS still totally up for grabs with the political circus going on right now, but I edge to a Trump re-election based on everything right now. Originally Posted by eccielover

There's an upside to split government. Maybe the politicians will get less done and not spend as much as they would otherwise.

There's an upside to split government. Maybe the politicians will get less done and not spend as much as they would otherwise. Originally Posted by Tiny

that's ancient thinking in 2019. Government is as divided as ever, yet spending is higher than ever. and do-nothingism is at all-time highs. give me one-sided government, at least Congress might earn a chunk of their salaries.

that's ancient thinking in 2019. Government is as divided as ever, yet spending is higher than ever. and do-nothingism is at all-time highs. give me one-sided government, at least Congress might earn a chunk of their salaries. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Ahh the good old days. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill. I guess Reagan and O'Neill didn't scrimp on the spending, but in the long run they saved us money. The Soviets couldn't keep up with us on defense and the Iron Curtain crumbled, setting us up for lower defense expenditures going forward.

I love do nothingism. The federal government does nothing but get worse.

. give me one-sided government, at least Congress might earn a chunk of their salaries. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

That is the very worst for spending....they both just spend on their pet projects!

Yes, that's where my roughly 30-20 number came from originally, which is indeed a good omen for Reps.

It can obviously change, but the point is that the US is polarizing into a large number of states with smaller populations leaning Rep and a smaller number of states with larger populations leaning Dem. The Senate favors the Reps, The House remains up in the air as congressional districts vary, and the POTUS is also up in the air based on the EC which in essence derives from the Congressional districts, but has different rules for winner take all by state these days.

2020 is going be interesting. Senate probably Reps. Doubtful Reps retake the House, but I think Dem lead is dimished. And POTUS still totally up for grabs with the political circus going on right now, but I edge to a Trump re-election based on everything right now. Originally Posted by eccielover

I would tend to agree. I still put the POTUS election at 50-50 since there are so many unknowns.

Speedy, what Burisma did was beneficial to HUNTER. To the tune of 3 million dollars. And the Ukraine fired the prosecutor set to interview HUNTER after Joe Pro Quo demanded it. Biden is on tape saying it. Open you’re eyes and ears. Originally Posted by bambino

There is no proof that anything Joe Biden did was to help his son.

"Few here doubt that Hunter Biden was offered a lucrative position on the board of Burisma Holdings, a natural gas company controlled by a controversial businessman, because of his father’s prominence.

It’s common in Eastern Europe, and much of the world, to hire a celebrity or relative of a senior official to burnish a company’s image, and to help shield it from official or unofficial shakedowns.

But the optics gave ammunition to Trump and his lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani. They have falsely claimed that Biden pressed Poroshenko’s government to sack its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to prevent him from investigating Burisma."

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...under-scrutiny

In your opinion...behind closed doors with no transparency...don't even know who the accuser is and this is how impeachment proceedings are conducted.
Only in your TDS world would you not see that this is a complete sham...why no vote in the house on this "by the book" process as in slick willy's impeachment?
Only you and all the TDS crowd would consider this anything but a political hit job.
Like I said before SPEED with this radical front runners Medicare-for-all socialist garbage...and all you say is "she hasn't explained how she is going to pay for it".
Wake the fuck up there isn't enough money to pay for it...if this bitch is the nominee it will be a Trump landslide.
The vast majority of people in America do not go for this socialist nonsense.
Is socialism still a bad word to you SPEED?? I wouldn't want to hurt your "FEELINGS"
In regards to her Medicare-for-all plan most ALL the people in America KNOW it sucks(even DEMS)...you just haven't gotten over your COMPLETE TDS!! Originally Posted by bb1961

Your lack of knowledge on political issues, and the political leanings of others, is incredible.

Just to make it clear -- I have at no time supported Medicare for All. I, and most other open-minded people, would like to see Warren explicitly explain how her plan would be paid for -- something she has not done. The Republicans have offered the people of this country NOTHING when it comes to solving the health care crisis in this country, and it is the #1 issue on the minds of voters. In all probability Warren's plan is not economically feasible but I'd still like to hear it.

As for the "sham" impeachment proceedings. I, too, would like to see the whistle-blower named. The majority of the people in this country support the inquiry.

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

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...-new-high-poll

I find one thing strange -- the majority of Trump supporters on this forum are solidly against the impeachment inquiry yet at the same time they believe if the Democrats move forward on impeachment it would benefit Republicans.

SR - thanks for your opinions on Warren and her financially untenable Medicare for all Plan
She specifically avoids any mention of the reality that her plan means huge increased taxes - or runaway government spending and attendant hyperinflation.

She wants to sneak her socialistic / totalitarian policies by an uninformed electorate to take control of the country - ala the "Soylent Green new Deal"!
She is a socialist snake oil salesperson.

She will not be truthful about her socialist intentions.

Your lack of knowledge on political issues, and the political leanings of others, is incredible.

Just to make it clear -- I have at no time supported Medicare for All. I, and most other open-minded people, would like to see Warren explicitly explain how her plan would be paid for -- something she has not done. The Republicans have offered the people of this country NOTHING when it comes to solving the health care crisis in this country, and it is the #1 issue on the minds of voters. In all probability Warren's plan is not economically feasible but I'd still like to hear it.

As for the "sham" impeachment proceedings. I, too, would like to see the whistle-blower named. The majority of the people in this country support the inquiry.

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

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...-new-high-poll

I find one thing strange -- the majority of Trump supporters on this forum are solidly against the impeachment inquiry yet at the same time they believe if the Democrats move forward on impeachment it would benefit Republicans. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

What impeachment inquiry.
I asked you in my previous post how is it that they are not following impeachment protocol...you conveniently ignored that question. That is classic of you SPEED...when no answer...deflect and ignore.

Your play stealthy with your political leanings...everyone else has no problem stating theirs.

Since "socialism" is a bad word to you then it's hard to "know" your thoughts on socialism vs conservatism...you're right SPEED I don't have any idea about your political leanings.

You think you shrewd with your condescending talk but you never address direct questions that you conveniently ignore like elaborating on the process that is being used in this impeachment circus and you definitely won't.

You don't fool anyone SPEED about not knowing your political leanings...your cheerleading for the left and that terrible ideology is sickening...hence your word's "socialism"is a progoritive.

WTF SPEED when you hit a nerve it hurts...although we don't know your political leanings...yeah right!!
You always say Trump hasn't come up with anything in regard to healthcare...the Gumment just fucks up healthcare like everything else it touches.

Like I said before you are too smart for the people like myself that throw your bullshit right back at you and your pious attitude emerges...no time for riff raff.

You won't address any of this as always...because you're getting called out on it!!
FUCKING GET OVER YOURSELF

What impeachment inquiry.
I asked you in my previous post how is it that they are not following impeachment protocol...you conveniently ignored that question. That is classic of you SPEED...when no answer...deflect and ignore.

Your play stealthy with your political leanings...everyone else has no problem stating theirs.

Since "socialism" is a bad word to you then it's hard to "know" your thoughts on socialism vs conservatism...you're right SPEED I don't have any idea about your political leanings.

You think you shrewd with your condescending talk but you never address direct questions that you conveniently ignore like elaborating on the process that is being used in this impeachment circus and you definitely won't.

You don't fool anyone SPEED about not knowing your political leanings...your cheerleading for the left and that terrible ideology is sickening...hence your word's "socialism"is a progoritive.

WTF SPEED when you hit a nerve it hurts...although we don't know your political leanings...yeah right!!
You always say Trump hasn't come up with anything in regard to healthcare...the Gumment just fucks up healthcare like everything else it touches.

Like I said before you are too smart for the people like myself that throw your bullshit right back at you and your pious attitude emerges...no time for riff raff.

You won't address any of this as always...because you're getting called out on it!!
FUCKING GET OVER YOURSELF Originally Posted by bb1961

There is no formal "impeachment protocol". There is no requirement that a House vote be taken to open an impeachment inquiry. There is no requirement that the impeachment inquiry be open to the public. Try to learn.

How Congress Sets the Rules for Impeachment

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.

Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.

My political leanings have been stated SEVERAL times: I consider myself to be slightly left of center on the whole, liberal on some issues. conservative on others. And you are clueless as to where I stand on those specific issues. You consider anyone who disagrees with your POV to be a far left-wing socialist.

You are correct on one issue -- you throw bullshit at others. Total bullshit. No facts.

There is no formal "impeachment protocol". There is no requirement that a House vote be taken to open an impeachment inquiry. There is no requirement that the impeachment inquiry be open to the public. Try to learn. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It's funny that that remains the defense of the left.

However, precedent if not formal "impeachment protocol" has been in effect for quite some time.

After years of "informal" inquiry, Pelosi announces that a forma inquiry is taking place without the usual vote for such.

A lot of it is semantic at this point, but it's looking worse for the Dems each and every day there is more and more information coming out where Reps are being denied access to or attendance of the witch hunt hearings.

On one hand, I personally hope the Dems keep up the exlusion and secrecy as it does nothing but help reps, but on the other hand, I do want a full and proper investigation into everything on both sides, which is also what the Dems are trying to prevent by keeping everything one sided and secret.

It's funny that that remains the defense of the left.

However, precedent if not formal "impeachment protocol" has been in effect for quite some time.

After years of "informal" inquiry, Pelosi announces that a forma inquiry is taking place without the usual vote for such.

A lot of it is semantic at this point, but it's looking worse for the Dems each and every day there is more and more information coming out where Reps are being denied access to or attendance of the witch hunt hearings.

On one hand, I personally hope the Dems keep up the exlusion and secrecy as it does nothing but help reps, but on the other hand, I do want a full and proper investigation into everything on both sides, which is also what the Dems are trying to prevent by keeping everything one sided and secret. Originally Posted by eccielover

Since impeachment is such a rare event, I can't recall the process followed for Clinton. Anyway, Democrats say that this investigation is different and must be done BCD.

Why are Democrats being so secretive?

Because the Ukraine matter has not been investigated by federal authorities or Congress already, Democrats are trying to nail down the facts before they can determine whether to bring articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump, and what such articles should say. Think of it like a grand jury, they have said.

Holding witness interviews in private minimizes political grandstanding by lawmakers and witnesses. It allows professionally trained staff members to ask questions in extended blocks of time, rather than five-minute chunks required in public hearings. And perhaps most important to the investigation, if the testimony remains mostly private, it prevents witnesses from lining up their stories in advance.

The private nature of the proceedings may well also have helped Democrats secure the cooperation of media-shy career government officials who have offered damaging accounts of Mr. Trump’s government.

“We do not want to turn it into a circus,” Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat, said recently in a feisty exchange with his Republican counterpart.

Republicans may be wary of another benefit to this kind of private digging: It allows Democrats to more carefully control the case they are building, avoiding potentially embarrassing public testimony from witnesses that may undercut or deflate elements of the story they hope to tell.

Is there precedent for a closed-door impeachment inquiry?

Keeping the first phase behind closed doors is not just investigative best practice, Democrats assert, but the way federal investigations, whether in Congress or the executive branch, typically take place.

Republicans have frequently noted that the impeachment proceedings against Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton were open to the public, but in those cases, there had already been extensive federal investigations that provided the backbone for the House’s work. (In the Nixon case, House investigators also did significant investigative work in private before making their public case.)

Confidential interviews have also driven many other high-profile investigations, such as the one opened by Republicans during the Obama administration into the attack on American diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. The Republican leading that inquiry mounted a vigorous defense of his private hearings at the time.


Again, if you consider the process being followed by the Democrats to eventually be beneficial to Republicans, why worry about it?

Anyway, Democrats say that this investigation is different and must be done BCD. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Total hypocritical bullshit when they demand utter transparency from Republicans.

Again, if you consider the process being followed by the Democrats to eventually be beneficial to Republicans, why worry about it? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Because showing their hypocrisy now is vital for the precedent being set.

It's like the SCOTUS confirmation process being blamed as being subverted by the Republicans, when it was Reid who set the precedent with the the "nuclear option".

People need informed of the bullshit on both sides, not just a one sided lefty circle jerk in the media.

Total hypocritical bullshit when they demand utter transparency from Republicans.

Because showing their hypocrisy now is vital for the precedent being set.

It's like the SCOTUS confirmation process being blamed as being subverted by the Republicans, when it was Reid who set the precedent with the the "nuclear option".

People need informed of the bullshit on both sides, not just a one sided lefty circle jerk in the media. Originally Posted by eccielover

I really don't care one way or the other. All I'm pointing out is there is no formal protocol that requires an impeachment to follow any set of rules. The House and Senate can make up the rules as they go along. Do you think that the process followed by the Republican Senate will not be biased if Trump is impeached by the House and it moves on to the Senate?