And Trump and the White House stonewalling when it came to releasing documents and honoring subpoenas had nothing to do with this, eh?
OCU
#10 | POSTED BY OCUSER

It's a -------- argument for anyone interested in the truth. There is presedence for NEW witnesses in a Senate trial. McGahn subpoena is still going through the courts! Which means any other witnesses subpoenaed might have meant this trial taking place after the election. That's simply not logical nor would it be a positive for Trump, making the election compromised. Nobody wants that, hence the argument in question is not in good faith for multiple reasons.

71% of Republicans think witnesses should be included in the Senate trial. That also includes Trump.

Daddy Mitch knows what's right for the coun...ahem...party. Best listen and not complain or you'll be gettin' the switch! That includes you, Donnie.

Kindly point out where I've ever opposed witnesses being called in the Senate trial.
#49 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I'm asking your interpretation of the Republican Senators attitude, which is what you were commenting on.

With a lack of strong public support for removal, impeachment isn't going to get any Senate Republican votes and may likely even see a Senate Dem defector or three. It sucks but that's reality.
#40 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

So the public support as it relates to removal matters, but the public support (i.e., thread topic) as it relates to hearing witnesses does not?

How does that square up?

My guess is no. People see polls like this, they develop false hope.
#14 | POSTED BY EBERLY

It's meant to be emblematic of what those surveyed want through this process.

Nothing more, nothing less; your injection of meaning notwithstanding.

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

So that's where you're at with this?

JFC.

Democrats are hoping John Bolton will bring down Trump. Good luck with that.
www.washingtonpost.com
#11 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

For the record, I'm not a democrat nor a lib.

Hunter Biden for John Bolton.

Deal?

many here also did not know that, but would never admit it.
#47 | POSTED BY MSGT

Nobody here is POTUS or running for POTUS.

There in lies the difference.

JEFF -

In what way did it not work? IIRC, this push helped remove soda machines from many high school campuses. I was in HS when they first brought soda machines on campus and was ecstatic! My parents were livid. Bottom line, the soda machines weren't just for the "benefit" of the students, there was money involved. For every soda machine placed on campus, Coke/Pepsi would donate money to that specific school. Our education system was selling us out. And there were PLENTY of us who desperately did not need those ------ extra calories. Obama's rethinking of on-campus food may not have been the overhaul that she had envisioned, but it was in no way a failure either, IMO.

Solitaire.
#44 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

JFC. I can't even imagine.

He just sits there and plays Minecraft all day.
#34 | POSTED BY NERFHERDER

At least he found that! Can't imagine what options he would have back in the '70s or '80s. Nice to see the older crowd, especially those as gruff as veterans, acquiesce to the benefits of gaming.

I thought I smelled burning trash...
#14 | POSTED BY JPW

Hot garbage.

Maybe they are funning out of bands/people that are legitimate rockers to honor?
#11 | POSTED BY TKNEES

If you haven't noticed, rock and roll has been dying out since the '90s. Hence, corporations like the R&R HOF must adapt to stay relevant. In this case, expanding eligibility for entrance into the HOF. It's about money, not rock and roll.

Can't take the heat.
#82 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

The heat of ignorance? Umm, ok.

So, IOW, it was a crime. Too bad this wasn't included in the impeachment articles. Because, from the sounds of it, no Republicans are interested in hearing any evidence beyond what was provided in the House impeachment inquiry. You know, the cherry picked and obstructed version of the truth.

The cover up infects the Senate.

#22 | POSTED BY PETROUS

That can be swallowed and dealt with in house.

Foreigners though? There's no legitimate comparison.

#17 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Tell that to Mitt Romney.

I guess I equate snow fall depth with winter.
#45 | POSTED BY JPW

I was born and raised in San Diego, CA. I've wintered in the Sierras in my time, but had no idea what winter really meant in the northern mid-west where my girlfriend's family lives.

Finally got to experience negative degree temperatures a couple of Christmases back. Bottomed out at -15, but girlfriend's dad had me shoveling the driveway at -10. I was actually relatively comfortable out there, breaking a sweat in a snowmobile getup. But didn't properly protect my cheeks; ended up with rosy cheeks for about a month. Was that early onset of frostbite? Granted, I was only out there for maybe 20 minutes (the snow was so powdery, was easy shoveling).

Why don't they kick out the mushroom farmers and use the ring dug around Waxahachie from the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) that Clinton shut down after being half built? Seems it could save some money.
#7 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

First rule in government spending: Why build one when you can have two for twice the price?

Ray Kurzweil's prediction that the first human being to live to the age of a thousand years is getting closer to fruition than not, it seems.

So, there is that.
#37 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Fccking hypocrite leftists. /s

I'm pointing out the abject hypocrisy of the left on the subject.
#35 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

While simultaneously ignoring all those on the left that chastised B. Hussein for those drone strikes.

Further, you lazily do not identify who on the left here in the DR you're referring to as hypocrites. Hence, all you're doing is outing the random leftists that infect your head as hypocrites. What in the hell is the point of that?

The process hasn't even reached a point to where witnesses even come into play.
#5 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

From what ROC was saying, McConnell is going to follow the same model as the Clinton impeachment. That includes a motion to dismiss prior to a motion to call witnesses. How are they going to call witnesses AFTER they (undoubtedly) dismiss the case entirely?

why can't Trump do it.
#16 | POSTED BY SNIPER

It comes down to intent; see bold text in #9.