Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse



Pause a moment over the senator’s logic. She seems to be saying that because the House’s product was hasty and deficient and partisan, the Senate should punish the body by proceeding in a fashion that is hastier, more deficient, and every bit as partisan. She will vote to prevent the Senate from hearing evidence, to blind herself to information relevant to her own obligation to decide the president’s case, she says, because “I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything.” It won’t change anything, that is, except whether she and her colleagues have access to more, rather than less, probative evidence on the question before them. If the House decision was hasty and partisan and left a record that is incomplete, that would seem to argue for the Senate proceeding in a fashion that was careful and deliberative, and it would seem to argue for senators to behave in a nonpartisan fashion.

Sen. Rob Portman was a trifle more coherent in his https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-statement-witnesses-senate-impeachment-trial (explanation) of this point. He offered that “it sets a dangerous precedent—all but guaranteeing a proliferation of highly partisan, poorly investigated impeachments in the future—if we allow the House of Representatives to force the Senate to compel witness testimony that they never secured for themselves.”

Portman did not, unfortunately, reflect on what precedent it sets for the Senate to impose a no-new-evidence rule on the House, disabling the House from presenting at trial any evidence it did not acquire itself before impeachment. This will of course incentivize presidents (and judges) to withhold material as long as possible during impeachment investigations, thus either delaying impeachment or creating an argument for the evidence’s inadmissibility if impeachment proceeds without it.

Since the Senate did not hear testimony from any of the witnesses who did testify before the House investigation, the rule Portman endorses is really a no-witnesses-at-all rule. If a witness has testified before the House, after all, her testimony is not needed in the Senate. If not, Portman would preclude it because the House did not secure it earlier. Portman’s rule would turn the Senate into an appellate body. The Constitution, by contrast, gives the Senate the role of trying impeachments.

The icing on this ridiculous cake is the notion that hearing witnesses would take too long. Sen. Portman frets that “processing additional witnesses will take weeks if not months, and it’s time for the House and Senate to get back to addressing the issues the American people are most concerned about—lowering prescription drug costs, rebuilding our roads and bridges, and strengthening our economy.” Leave aside for a moment that the Senate hasn’t been doing a lot of lowering drug prices or dealing with infrastructure of late. Portman’s argument might have been a good one to make at the Constitutional Convention against giving the impeachment trial function to the Senate in the first instance. It may be a good argument for, as the Senate trial rules contemplate, assigning the evidence-taking function to a committee (see Rule XI). It is a singularly lousy argument for interpreting the Senate’s clear constitutional responsibility to try impeachments as including the option of not trying impeachments.

When smart people, capable people, advance arguments so resoundingly and pervasively terrible—when they advance a proposal for a trial that offends the very idea of a trial—you have to ask what role the argument is playing other than seeking to persuade people. That these arguments persuade nobody is clear from the poll data, in which support for hearing from witnesses reached https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/29/yes-75-percent-americans-support-calling-witnesses-maybe-not-same-witnesses/ (as high as 75 percent) and did not decline over the period in which the president’s lawyers made their case.

But persuasion, I think, is not the point. The point, rather, is tribal affiliation. This is a credo of sorts, a public affirmation of the party line designed to ensure that one is not Romneyed—that the leader’s tyrannical rage is directed elsewhere, that his self-appointed enforcers do not deprive one of the benefits of being in the herd.

Yes, inside the herd, life is abusive. But outside, it is very very cold and one is very exposed.
 
ANOTHER WINDMILL VICTIM
Another Windmill Victim

I’m not a religious person or very spiritual at all. I’m definitely not a “new age” person. But I like to believe in karma. Even if it doesn’t really exist, it’s a good way to live your life. Basically, what you do to others will be returned to you, whether what you’ve done is good or bad. Basically, pay it forward and do unto others, blah blah blah.

Karma is probably not to blame for Rush Limbaugh’s advanced lung cancer. Rush has a long career of doing asshole shit unto others. The twice-divorced-family-values proponent, draft-dodging warmonger has spread hatred, racism, sexism, and misinformation for decades. And, it’s made him worth around $500 million. But, hatred, racism, and saying stupid shit doesn’t have any support from the science community for causing cancer. Smoking cigars for decades does.

People who have self-destructive habits tend to downplay the negative effects, even to the point of lying. Eddie Van Halen believes the cause for his tongue cancer is from his habit of holding copper guitar picks in his mouth while he was doing his double-tap method on the fretboard. I guess that’s possible but I think a larger culprit is Pall Malls or whatever brand he smoked since before he was even a teenager. My father, a lifelong alcoholic who drank a case of beer a day which would usually start around 6:00 a.m. was very defensive of his habits and swore he could quit at any time. He never did.

Rush once said to a caller on his show, “There’s no even major sickness component associated with secondhand smoke. It may irritate you, and you may not like it, but it will not make you sick, and it will not kill you.” He also claimed, “Firsthand smoke takes 50 years to kill people, if it does.Not everybody that smokes gets cancer. Now, it’s true that everybody who smokes dies, but so does everyone who eats carrots.”

Rush’s defense of smoking is almost as ridiculous as Donald Trump’s claim that the noise from windmills cause cancer.

Limbaugh was a huge defender of smokers and complained about the nation’s changing attitudes toward smoking. Even our major tobacco states, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Virginia, have banned indoor smoking in restaurants. Rush wailed, “I’m telling you, there ought to be some measure of appreciation for people who buy tobacco products, despite the forces arrayed against them, It’s getting harder and harder to use tobacco products, unless you want to call marijuana tobacco, and you can do that anywhere, for the most part. But the fact of the matter is they have to endure a lot, the public hates them, they’re despised, they can’t smoke in places of comfort anymore, can’t even smoke outside in a park! And yet their actions and their taxes and their purchases are funding children’s health care programs. I’m just saying there ought to be a little appreciation shown for them, instead of having them hated and reviled.” Then he said, “I would like a medal for smoking cigars.”

Rush should have eaten more carrots.

Here’s the thing I get tired of hearing from smokers and granted, I don’t hear it a lot because it’s stupid: You are not a victim of smoker persecution. You choose to smoke and spread your filth onto others. You don’t have a constitutional right to smoke anywhere you please. We all have the right not to inhale someone else’s destructive, nasty habit. And I say this being a former smoker (we’re the worst when it comes to hating smoke).

Since I believe in karma, I don’t want to go too heavy on Rush. I’m not rejoicing in his illness and I wish him a full recovery. Cancer isn’t something any of us should wish on anyone, even a troglodyte like Rush Limbaugh. Hey, when they go low, we go high, right? But, my hope from this is that Rush gets a better perspective. Somehow, I doubt he does.

This is a guy who was a strong proponent of the war on drugs and as you see above, complained about marijuana. Yet, he himself was a drug addict. He was against taxpayer-funded support for drug addicts, yet being rich, he was able to get help. When he had a health scare while on vacation, he claimed his access to high-quality medical attention was proof we didn’t need a national healthcare plan. Rush never understood it was more about access. Maybe now, he’ll think about preexisting conditions. Rush should ponder what would happen with his healthcare if he wasn’t rich and there wasn’t Obamacare. He’d probably use Obamacare while continuing to attack it. That’s what they do.

Rush once said he’d move to Costa Rica if Obamacare was implemented. Fortunately for Costa Ricans, he never made the move. And if he had, he may have been horrified to discover they have a national health plan…

…until he got advanced lung cancer.

cjones02092020.jpg
 


Of course, already laying the groundwork to de-legitimize the 50/50 possibility of a 2020 loss. If Trump loses, he will claim (without proof) that millions of illegal votes were cast. It'll get fucking scary. He'll call his base to the streets (heavily armed of course) to protest the 'illegal results.' Saying shit like "the left has been trying to out me from day one with the phony Russian witch hunt, perfect Ukraine Conversation, etc." Why would he go through all this and not simply return to billionaire life you may ask, simple: once Trump leaves office he will 100% be indicted. He'll try to bring the country down with him. A tiny part of me hopes Trump wins in a landslide (not bloody likely) in order to avoid the certain chaos from a loss.
 
Of course, already laying the groundwork to de-legitimize the 50/50 possibility of a 2020 loss. If Trump loses, he will claim (without proof) that millions of illegal votes were cast. It'll get fucking scary. He'll call his base to the streets (heavily armed of course) to protest the 'illegal results.' Saying shit like "the left has been trying to out me from day one with the phony Russian witch hunt, perfect Ukraine Conversation, etc." Why would he go through all this and not simply return to billionaire life you may ask, simple: once Trump leaves office he will 100% be indicted. He'll try to bring the country down with him. A tiny part of me hopes Trump wins in a landslide (not bloody likely) in order to avoid the certain chaos from a loss.

Make that an infinitesimal part, none. He is not a billionaire. He is in hock/debt over his head, thus the refusal to provide tax returns. Indicted hopefully, but might be a long shot. Just like the bankers that should have been indicted.
 
Make that an infinitesimal part, none. He is not a billionaire. He is in hock/debt over his head, thus the refusal to provide tax returns. Indicted hopefully, but might be a long shot. Just like the bankers that should have been indicted.

Correct, he's no doubt up to his eyeballs in debt, thus not an actual billionaire. (Side note: thus explaining how Bloomberg (actual billionaire) has Trump's #) Funny part is, if he had invested all of his inheritance that we know about ($411M+) in the S&P 500, he'd be worth around 3 billion.
 
Back
Top