#6 | POSTED BY MSGT

Under the last two Dem presidents, the debt has trended down as they got further into their term. It is under conservative presidents that the debt trends up.

But don't let reality get in the way of your narrative. You wouldn't be such an easily manipulated (by the conservative elite) sheep if you actually paid attention to facts.

#9 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Yeah... its not like y'all got all hysterical and impeached a President over lying about a BJ or anything.

It appears its an impeachable offense.

#10 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

I have said freely that I would be HAPPY to have the justice department open an investigation into the Bidens. Or for the Senate to have one of their committees investigate. Yet, neither had happened. Why? If the Bidens did something illegal, why would Republicans be unwilling to investigate and see that justice is served?

The PROBLEM is that Trump did not follow the rules. You know... the rules that ensure constitutional rights are respected (I know... you are a conservative so don't believe in constitutional rights for anyone but other white conservatives). At this point it doesn't even MATTER if Hunter did something illegal. Conservatives have so screwed up any possible legal investigation that REGARDLESS of what Hunter did he would get off on a technicality (that his rights weren't respected, warrants weren't sought, etc) and justice would not be served.

But, that doesn't matter to you. Because you don't care about justice being served. You just care about manufacturing dirt to influence the next election.

Take it up with Uncle Sam. He wrote the contract I signed that guaranteed me my GI bill, home loans, and health care. I didn't. I just signed it. If you think my expecting what is contractually guaranteed to me makes me a ------ person, oh well.

#10 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

I'm curious now... what guarantees did they give you when you signed up? Can you upload a copy of the contract? Did it guarantee that the GI bill would never be repealed? Did it guarantee a minimum level of care for healthcare from the VA? Did it guarantee you a pension? Or are you just ASSUME that these things were "guaranteed" because they were current law at the time that you signed up?

Ever hear of Richard Nixon?
LOL!!!

#53 | POSTED BY ANGRYDAD

No he hasn't. He is a conservative. They ignore history that they find inconvenient.

Some of them might object to that classification.

#29 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Poor little snowflakes might get their feelings hurt.

And then vote for Trump again out of spite.

Again... this is the exact reason people say that conservatives are irredeemable. Because they are little children holding a toy above their head saying "give me what I want, or I will break it and BOTH of us will lose". The problem is the 44% of the country has the maturity of a five year old.

Luckily they are mostly boomers, so we just have to wait for them to die out and then we won't have to deal with their childish tantrums anymore.

#28 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

And, like a typical conservative, his only concern is that his tribe is "winning" and the future and direction of the country does not cross his radar. Just like this impeachment. Conservatives don't even bother talking about "right" and "wrong" any more. Or "the truth". It is all tribal. They say that Trump should get off because of their perceived flaws in how Dems impeached him. It doesn't matter to them what precedents Trump is setting with this behavior, or how adversely those precedents will affect the future of this country.

Lol... you righties are such gullible idiots.

#45 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

Lol... I appreciate the respectful disagreement. And I will apologize for the "stupid" comment. Not because I don't feel it is an accurate description of a system that you support and help perpetrate, but because I do not actually intend it to be a personal attack.

It is how I feel. Probably the biggest thing that I disagreed with in Obamacare was their attempt at having "long term care" insurance. And luckily that was one of the first things that got axed. And I disagree with it not because I don't think it is needed. But because I don't think that government can administrate it effectively. They can administrate regular insurance just fine (as I touched on in #46) because it in theory can "zero out" every year. But things like life insurance or pensions that require a long term planning horizon and investment I believe are doomed to fail with the way our political system has been shown to operate.

So, I dont want the government administrating pensions (SS is a pension). And I have a couple conservative views as well in that I believe that the government should be encouraging people to take personal responsibility and plan for their own retirement, instead of forcing them into a one-size-fits-all program. I would much prefer that we cut both benefits and the SS tax, and just have it as a safety net, so that if you fail to plan properly for your retirement you still get something to survive on. But it is not an amount intended to live comfortably on. And, if you do save properly for your retirement, then you don't get it because you don't need it.

And like other insurance programs, the premiums being paid by TODAY's policy holders are used to pay the benefits of those who are collecting TODAY. When you buy a life insurance policy, do you honestly think that it's your money that is being put into some bank account which will be held there for your heirs until you die? What if you died three months after taking out the policy, don't you think that your heirs will get 100% of the face value of the policy? Of course they will. But is that fair to the other policy holders who didn't die and are still paying their premiums? Yes, because that's the way insurance works.

#35 | POSTED BY OCUSER

You are taking a very simplistic view of insurance. And to answer your question... Yes, they do have big bank accounts that money is put in and invested. Not tied to individual people, but tied to risk pools.

If you were talking about homeowner's or car insurance, then you would be correct. The actuarial risk to insurance companies for those industries is in theory constant year to year (the chance of your house getting hit by a tree this year is in theory the same as the chance it will get hit by a tree next year). But, that is not how life insurance works. As you get older, there is a higher likelihood of the insurance company having to pay out, but the premium stays the same. So, there is no way that it could work unless they can guarantee that they can get an even distribution of people across every age group. And if they were unable to get young people to buy life insurance, then the whole system would collapse and the people who had already paid in would not get their benefits (like SS would if young people stopped paying in).

Instead, life insurance companies rely on investing premiums. If they have all young people, then they build up money at the beginning. And they invest it. And then as people get older, more money goes out than comes in, and those investments get drawn down.

That is kinda like what happened with social security. They had a surplus, so they "invested" it, knowing . But, the investment was in IOUs (Treasury bonds) and the boomers spent the actual money on tax cuts and wars.

#25 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

#26 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

Who forced you? Oh yes... the government. The one you voted for. YOUR politicians that you CHOSE are "forcing" you to pay for the older generation's retirement. If you had a problem with that, you should have voted them out, and put someone in who would not "force" you.

Again... because you were stupid enough to think that you had to pay for the last generation's retirement, you think that you are "entitled" to have me pay for yours.

Those piles of "IOU's" are US Treasury Bonds, the single most safe investment in the world.
Banks own tons of them as they provide a stable return along with security of principal.
What would you rather they invest the money in? Bitcoin? Gold?

#36 | POSTED BY NIXON

And what is a "Treasury Bond"? It is a loan you give to the US government. So, the US government is "loaning money" to itself and calling it a "trust fund". What happens when that "trust fund" needs to be tapped? Where does the money come from to pay for it? I will tell you. The government either has to issue more Treasury bonds (to the general public) or raise taxes to get the money. Because the money does not exist. Because it is just an IOU.

Think of it like the "trust fund" is a 401(k). But, instead of investing it in stocks or something, you invest in "yourself" by instead lending all the money that you put into your 401(k) back to yourself. So, when you retire, you have this account "worth" $200k, but you are also $200k in debt to your 401(k). So how big is your retirement account? In reality it is worthless because it is just an IOU to yourself. You will still have to work to pay back the "loans" that will allow you to withdraw money from your 401(k). Now doesn't that sound stupid? Because that is what the "trust fund" is.

And I don't want them to invest the money. It is stupid for the government to invest money (for a future monetary return). It never works. If you want to have a safety net (insurance), then make it one. Cut the benefits. Means test it so that you only get it if you absolutely need it. Because right now it is not "insurance", it is a pension. And government is terrible at administrating pensions. As shown by the boomers, if you give the government the option to put something off into the future (like paying for a pension, or paying off debt) they WILL do it.

Social Security is not an entitlement...I pay into it.

#23 | POSTED BY NIXON

Meh... the money does not exist. There is no "trust fund", just a pile of IOUs.

You were nice enough to pay for the retirement of the generation before you. With the excess going into the general fund of the US government. And because of that, you think you are "entitled" to have ME pay for YOUR retirement. I am not sure that I feel the same way.

I see the flaws in Social Security, and am not planning on relying on it when I retire (though, if it is available, I will of course take it). Those flaws have not changed. Honestly, it just sounds like you weren't smart enough, or did not care enough, to see them. You are begging for my charity, but saying you are "entitled" to it. That does not tend to make me feel very charitable.

So... how long do you think it will be before we get "No one knew that Social Security and Medicare were so complicated"?

#20 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You know, and I consider Jeff to be one of the smarter conservatives on this site. Yet he time and again breathlessly falls for GOP lies, fake news, and propaganda. Seriously... he lived through it, tracking the election day by day. And he can't even remember that basic fact?

I guess when you are the smartest kid on the short bus, it still doesn't say much.

That is a direct result of a lack of strong public support for removal. Spare me any conspiracy crap about Senate Republicans backing Trump no matter what. If the public strongly wanted Trump removed the Senate would act accordingly, and not out of principle, but because the 11th Commandment is: Thou shall be re-elected.

#31 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Lol... We haven't even had the trial yet. Why should there even BE "strong public support for removal"? Shouldn't the people wait for the facts to come out at trial, and listen to Trump's defense before coming to a conclusion about whether he should be removed?

You are claiming, basically, that if people do the moral and ethical thing of RESERVING JUDGEMENT until a trial has been conducted that gives both sides a fair chance to present their case, then that JUSTIFIES the Republicans putting on a sham trial that is tilted towards acquitting Trump.

Based upon the evidence already presented, I think that Trump should be removed. But I realize that all the facts have not been presented yet (though the ones that have look pretty damning). So I want a FULL AND FAIR trial so that I can hear Trump's side of things and am willing to change my opinion based upon what is presented. You are the one advocating NOT having a full and fair trial. And you think your immorality is justified by the actions of others.

I teach my children that they are always supposed to do the right thing, regardless of others' actions. If someone steals your toy, it does not give you the right to steal one of theirs. If they are not sharing, it does not mean that you don't have to share with them. If they hit you, it does not give you the right to hit them back. If conservatives are teaching their children the same morality that conservatives use for politics, then it is no surprise that conservatives think that "values" in the US are going down the toilet. Because conservatives are the ones flushing them.

Jeff... YOU built that.

#25 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

And, here you are again defending extreme partisanship. Saying that two wrongs make a right (or, in this case, a "wrong" you perceive due to your bias, justifies your own wrong, which you ACKNOWLEDGE as a wrong).

As you said, the Dems left a lot on the table. Everyone knows it is there. And, instead of pursuing the truth, Republicans are intentionally IGNORING it. You are knowingly trying to put on a sham trial, which even you will acknowledge is an immoral and unethical thing to do. But you justify your immoral and unethical behavior by saying that it is justified because OTHER PEOPLE are also (in your opinion) immoral and unethical. Conservatives' morals and ethics are all relative. And, for some reason, you think saying it is "politics" justifies immoral and unethical behavior.

The irony is that conservatives claim to be christians. Do the ten commandments say "Thou shalt not steal, unless you think they stole from you first, then steal all you want"? My interpretation of that religion is that it teaches that morality is NOT relative.

That is why I cannot support christianity. Because its most fervent supposed supporters are the ones most disconnected from its supposed basic tenants.

Here's another tough reality pill: When impeachment fails there will not be a military coup. Trump will not be removed by force and be drawn and quartered. Pence won't be quickly removed. Pelosi won't be our next president with Congress being dissolved and a dictatorship with re-eductation camps to follow. None of that is going to happen.
Maybe Democrats should, you know, try and win an election, or something. I know, I know, crazy talk.

#25 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Good lord. What type of crazy strawman are you trying to build here? Projection much?

And maybe Republicans should, you know, try and win an election FAIRLY for once. You know, without soliciting the help of foreign governments. (You know, the whole reason that Donald Trump got impeached?) I know, I know, crazy talk.

Without cheating, how would conservatives ever win???

I know enough all Trump has to do, if it gets that far, is to assert Biden was breaking the law (which he admitted to on video), and its perfectly reasonable for the US Government to ascertain the details of that arrangement.

#12 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Oh... so you are saying that all the "US Government" has to do is "assert" that someone is breaking the law, and then they can do whatever they want? Can they take your guns if they "assert" that you broke the law? Can they search your house if they "assert" that you broke the law? Can they tap your phones and break into your electronics if they "assert" that you broke the law?

Because my understanding is that the "US Government" has to do more than "assert" something to start trampling on your rights. My understanding is that they have to follow a process and open and investigation and get things like warrants before they can start targeting a US citizen.

Can you please point out to me what legal process the "US Government" followed in its pursuit of Hunter Biden? Did they actually open an investigation? Can you give me a link to the warrants that they used (approved by a judge) to give them the authority to pursue this?

Or are you just claiming that Donald Trump IS the government of the US, and that he can do whatever he wants because he is a Republican (and Republicans don't have to follow the law)?

ITs no different than the Mueller investigation (without all the illegalities of Obama administration regarding the FISA warrant) they requested information from other countries. Its hilarious now that the tables get turned the snowflakes melt.

#15 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

You're right. It is important to get proper warrants for these investigations. Though, I am pretty sure that Durham said that there was no evidence of politically influenced improprieties in obtaining the warrants.

But, lets compare them. Can you please provide a link to the warrant that authorized the investigation into the Bidens? Or any evidence that there WAS an actual US investigation into the Bidens at the time of all this controversy?

You keep claiming that the Bidens committed crimes in Ukraine. If that is the case, then the Trump administration would have opened a US investigation into those crimes, right?

#31 | POSTED BY SJHAMILTON

As a conservative I am not surprised that you don't know the definition of coup. Hell, conservatives don't even know (or care) what is in the Constitution. But, impeachment is a LEGAL process that is defined IN THE CONSTITUTION. This process is, by definition, legal because the Constitution DEFINES what is legal in this country. So, if Trump is removed by that process defined in the Constitution, it will not be a "coup".

I don't know why I waste my time responding to these idiots.

Doesn't make it factual.

#8 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Of course it doesn't. It also doesn't make it false. That is why you subpoena records and documents, or other witness testimony, to either confirm or refute his claims. Seriously, this guy is a close associate of the Trump administration. Everyone knows that anyone like that will lie at the drop of a hat. He could be telling the truth, but no one thinks a Trump associate feels any obligation to tell the truth.

But, part of his complaints are that the Justice department is not complying with said document requests. If you think this guy's claims are wrong, why are you not pushing for the Justice department to comply with the request that would provide all the exculpatory (that means you have anything that shows your innocence, for you dumb Trumpers out there) evidence that contradict his claims? If you are right and his claims are not factual, they should go ahead and release the documents so that his claims can be publicly refuted, and this won't be hanging over Trump's head.

#33 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

Conservatives have presented ZERO evidence that Joe Biden did ANYTHING to abuse his power. In fact, multiple Republican Senators SUPPORTED Biden in getting the Ukrainian guy fired. Did Biden also bribe THEM to get them to support him getting this guy fired for (in your opinion) the sole purpose of helping Hunter?

Please... give me links to your evidence. If you have evidence of actual wrongdoing (as there is in the case of Trump), I would be COMPLETELY BEHIND forcing Joe Biden to drop out.

But, we all know you are a conservative Trumper, so of course all you have are your lies. The GOP controls the Senate. If there IS any evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden, why are they not investigating it??? I will tell you why. Because all the GOP Senators ALSO see your lies for what they are, and don't want to actually open an investigation and embarrass themselves. You can spread all the FUD you want, but the Republican ACTIONS speak way louder than your words. And their ACTIONS say that you are full of crap, and that Joe did nothing wrong.

On the other hand, the actions of Democrats are crystal clear that they DO believe that what Trump did was wrong. And are willing to stand behind it with ACTIONS (unlike the ------- who you conservatives elected to hold office).

While I love hyperbole and find it quite useful, nobody has said he's more evil than satan.

#25 | POSTED BY JPW

Well... you gotta build those strawmen up before you can beat them down. It wouldn't be a strawman argument without hyperbole. Right Jeff?

Ho hum. Just another hysterical leftist screed.

#2 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Looks like ad hominems are all you have left.

And you have Makris flagging your ad hominem as "newsworthy". Color me surprised.

You think conservatives would have actually opposed terrorizing populations by bombing cultural sites before? Or even genocide of non-white people? Since 2001, I have heard plenty of conservatives talk about "turning the middle east into a parking lot" while they pop a ----- at the thought.

Now, I don't like the word "evil" because it is very non-specific and open to interpretation. But, specific acts that a lot of people consider "evil" (genocide, concentration camps, terrorism), conservatives have been fully behind for a long time. It is just that their politicians were smart enough to know that these methods were counter-productive and against international law.

But, now conservatives have elected someone "just like them" (just as unintelligent as they are) that is willing to follow through on their emotional impulses. Trump is not the problem here. He is just a reflection of who conservatives really are.

The only problem is that a "real" conservative actually got elected (Trump) instead of a "conservative elite", who are really just people who manipulate the gullible little conservative sheep by talking big and making promises, but never actually following through. Trump is the essence of the average conservative. Emotional, simple-minded, violent, petty, spiteful, selfish. Trump isn't "contagious". He is just a real conservative who broke through the fence that the conservative handlers put around the everyday conservatives.

Trump is just a continuation of what started with the Tea Party. The conservative "elite" are still riding that tiger, and the longer they ride it the bigger it gets. And they are hanging on for dear life because they know if they try to get off they will just get politically mauled and eviscerated (what is Paul Ryan up to these days?).