Impeachment

Justin Amash on Impeachment: Republicans Are Betraying the 'Principles and Values They Once Claimed To Cherish'

The libertarian congressman announced on the House floor that he will vote in favor of impeachment.

|

As House lawmakers on Wednesday debated the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, the back-and-forth fell into a familiar rhythm: Democrats argued that checking Trump's actions should transcend partisan politics, while Republicans repeatedly said the proceedings amounted to nothing more than partisan political theatre. But Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.), who now identifies with neither party, sought to remind his colleagues that the political nature of the moment is not a valid reason to dismiss the allegations against the president. 

"I rise today in support of these articles of impeachment," he said on the House floor. "Not as a Democrat, not as a Republican, but as an American, who cares deeply about the Constitution, the rule of law, and the rights of the people." The five-term congressman noted that the impeachment process should not be about "policy disagreements," "ineffective governance," or "criminality based on statutes that did not exist at the time our Constitution was written." Instead, he said, it "is about maintaining the integrity of the office of the presidency and ensuring that executive power is directed toward proper ends in accordance with the law."

Amash left the Republican party in July after declaring in May that he believed Trump committed impeachable offenses. "Today, I am declaring my independence and leaving the Republican Party," he wrote in The Washington Post. "No matter your circumstance, I'm asking you to join me in rejecting the partisan loyalties and rhetoric that divide and dehumanize us….The two-party system has evolved into an existential threat to American principles and institutions."

The congressman has since accused Republicans of crying partisanship in order to disguise their own political motivations. He has also criticized members of the GOP for misrepresenting elements of the impeachment process, which he attempted to clear up on the floor today, as well as for some stating outright that they will not serve as impartial jurors during a trial:

"This should be unanimous, not partisan," Amash said earlier this month. "Impeachment in the House is not a conviction. The trial happens in the Senate. All the House does is charge impeachable conduct. All we need is probable cause. That threshold is easily met with the existing evidence." 

Republicans have continuously denounced the evidence against Trump, discounting the testimony of multiple witnesses and characterizing it as flimsy hearsay. The president is facing impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress following accusations that he violated his oath of office in order to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political foes.

"Conservatives will someday face the horrible truth that the Republican Party fought so hard to justify and excuse an amoral and self-serving president," Amash tweeted last night, "and what he gave them in return was bigger government and erosion of the principles and values they once claimed to cherish."

Advertisement

NEXT: Bipartisan 'Bucket of Garbage' Budget Bill Contains $50 Billion in Special Interest Tax Breaks

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “I’m not owned! I’m not owned!”

    He wallowed as he faded into irrelevancy

    1. He was a clown today. Not sure Reasons hard on for him other than is is similar to a fake urban libertarian that is really a democrat but doesnt want to be called one.

      1. Spot on.

      2. You’re offering pointers on libertarianism, JesseAz?

        1. Yes. But I dont waste then on the ignorant such as yourself.

        2. Fuck you, Klingon.

          1. Open wider, Geraje. Better Americans have plenty more progress to shove down your whining, whimpering, obsequious throat.

            1. Arty, do you say ‘open wider’ because that’s what your uncle always said to you before he fucked you as a teenager?

            2. I’m going to take another stab at decoding the Reverend.

              He’s an ethnically ambiguous looking mulatto who has never been able to adequately reconcile his black mother’s inner city rambunctiousness with the restive libertarian morals of his absentee white father. He always wanted to date a white woman, but settled for a coquettish Asian one in college, only to lose her shortly thereafter to a “real” black guy. He graduated from Oberlin with a degree in female sexuality, and has a tramp stamp tattoo of a dove with an olive branch inside of a snow globe covered in blood. He has read Mein Kampf, but only the French translation because he feels that the language of a culture ground into submission by the dogs of war is the only lens through which to truly absorb the rapturous victory of a supremacist hero like Hitler. He had an elective circumcision at the age of 27, but then discovered he was infertile. He talks of replacement only with the most unbearable spasms erupting in his throat and gut. His eyes water when he sneezes, and stay that way for an hour after. He refers to alcohol as the “white man’s fire water” unironically. His screeds are virulent, but he has never voted in his life. His politics are as muddled as his skin tone but his rage is as real as the cancer he suspects is growing in his lungs.

              I give you, the Reverend.

              1. No, like a lot of our leftist commenters, he’s a hicklib. He’s admitted to growing up in a lower-class white community, and he’s still trying to compensate for it by pasting the same comments over and over and pretending that shows intelligence. That’s what makes him a slack-jawed, slope-foreheaded, 85-IQ hicklib.

                1. ANOTHER MASSIVE SETBACK FOR TRUMP’S IMPEACHMENT DEFENSE

                  REPORTED BY EVERY MAJOR NEWS OUTLET .,… BUT SUPPRESSED AT FAUX NEWS — Fox published LIES about the Durham Report, by legal analyst Gregg Jarret on Martha McCullun … roughly 20 hours after the content was reported by all REAL major news outlets,

                  YUGE pies now dripping off the faces of
                  Bill Barr,
                  Kevin Nunes,
                  Jim Jordan,
                  Sean Hannity (who promised a bombshell – smirk),
                  Laura Ingraham,
                  Tucker Carlson,
                  Judge Jeanine,
                  Donald J Trump
                  Barr’s handpicked prosecutor tells inspector general he can’t back right-wing theory that Russia case was U.S. intelligence setup

                  The prosecutor handpicked by Attorney General William P. Barr to scrutinize how U.S. agencies investigated President Trump’s 2016 campaign said he could not offer evidence to the Justice Department’s inspector general to support the suspicions of some conservatives that the case was a setup by American intelligence …

          2. Geraje,

            Fuck you Klingon

            That would be
            y’nt yalagochukof

      3. Was unaware that the whole “A DA could indict a ham sandwich with a grand jury” was actually a libertarian GOAL. Assumed it was a critique of the system.

        1. Amash doesnt even know what the actual role of the House was intended to be. It was not intended to act as a prosecutor.

          1. How is “Impeachment in the House is not a conviction. The trial happens in the Senate. All the House does is charge impeachable conduct” his saying that the House is intended to act as a prosecutor?

            1. The House is meant to be akin to a grand jury. A grand jury wouldn’t indict on the mound of absolute bullshit and the complete lack of substantive evidence the Dems presented.

              If Amash thinks the House did their job after that travesty, then Amash is either the biggest piece of shit ever to pretend to be a libertarian, or the dumbest libertarian ever to walk the face of the Earth. Either way, fuck him…I hope the tariffs stay in place on China just long enough for his family’s shitty business to go under.

              1. The House is somewhat like a grand jury, but that’s not to be taken too literally. For one thing, as we have seen, the House did not have the power to compel testimony by key witnesses.

                1. Such a shame. A grand jury should have the power to compel the accused to testify before it.

                2. Besides which, the house didn’t hope to have the integrity of a used-car salesman.

              2. They might have had more evidence if Trump let his people speak instead of hiding them like bitches. Let’s see what they say, either way. Why hide them?

                1. So you don’t believe in executive privilege and believe the House is actually in charge of the executive branch. Got it, prog.

                  1. So you don’t believe in executive privilege

                    You don;’t know Executive Privilege. (Not your fault)

                    It has NO constitutional basis, except Separation of Powers — the same doctrine which empowers Congress to impeach!

                    The power to impeach is constitutionally granted to Congress. This includes the power to investigate wrongdoing … and the power to subpoena …. or may Congress use only fortune tellers and Ouija boards

                    Some say impeachment cannot be used to “overturn the will of the voters.”.

                    So, UCrawford, please tell us why you believe Trump, that Presidents can onlybe impeached … before they’ve been elected! 🙂

                    The Judiciary rejecting the very first attempt by a President … in 1793 .. George Washington.

                    When Nixon was required to honor a congressional subpoena, it more firmly established that the privilege could NOT be used as a cover up to illegal or improper activities. The Founder were not stupid … having declared, and won, a war against The Divine Right of Kings

                    Obviously … Trump’s lawyers are knowingly and intentionally telling him to lie. To flatter his ego? To stall past the 2020 election? They know he will lose in the courts, on multi-established precedents … But those lawyers can make millions … by telling Trump what he already beleebs … just like Giuliani and so many others. They get millions. You get … whay?

                    And … no surprise … Emperor Trump has personally amended the Constitution … repealing all aspects of
                    Balance of Power
                    Three COEQUAL Branches
                    Each a Check against another ..
                    which is what balance means!

                    This link has a detailed history of every ruling on Executive Privilege

                    There have been many … 18 pages. But a summary begins on page 21 … only two dense pages. (Do NOT tell Trump, else his lackeys have you assassinated.)

                    Your choice, Trump’s values, or Americas. Libertarians will defend your right to choose either. Despite today’s partisan hate-fest, you are not the villain …. just another of his victims.

                2. “They might have had more evidence if Trump let his people speak instead of hiding them like bitches. Let’s see what they say, either way. Why hide them?”

                  joeyb here admits that if the cops ask to search his house, he ALWAYS lets them. No reason needed. He has NOTHING to hide, right?

                  1. Ummmm, FALSEHOOD … police need a warrant
                    Congress needs a subpoena … which Nixon was ordered to obey … which is why he resigned. Those are Trump’s only options. Submit or leave.

                    We did stage an armed revolt against … The Divine Right of Kings.
                    We won. And we’ll win again.

            2. The job Of the house is fact finding, not adversarial prosecution dumbfuck.

              1. Attention STOOPID DUMBFUCK TRUMPTARDS. WHEN (AND IF) YOU MAKE IT TO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, YOU WILL LEARN

                1) PROSECUTORS SEEK INDICTMENTS BY A GRAND JURY. FOR A TRIAL, BEFORE THE JUDICIARY, WHERE A JURY VOTES TO CONVICT OR ABSOLVE.

                2) FOR IMPEACHMENT, THE TRIAL IS IN THE SENATE, PRESIDED OVER BY THE JUDICIARY (CHIEF JUSTICE), WITH SENATORS AS THE JURY.

                3) IMPEACHMENT IS AN INDICTMEN. THE PROSECUTOR IS THE JUDICIARY COMMITEE. IN THIS CASE, INVOLVING NATIONAL SECURITY, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ACTED AS A KEY WITNESS. THE GRAND JURY WAS ALL HOUSE MEMBERS …. WHO VOTED TO INDICTMENT,

                4)NO AMOUNT OF SCREECHING, NO AMOUNT OF “FUCK YOUS” AND “DUMBFUCKS”, BY FACSIST THUGS, CAN AMEND OUR BELOVED CONSTITUTION. …. OR MAKE THE SUN GO AROUND THE EARTH.

                LIKEWISE DEMOCRATS FUCKED UP THEIR ROLE ,… AND REPUBLICANS WERE … FASCISTS … LIKE YOU

                THAT LEFT NOBODY DEFENDING CONSERVATIVE VALUES …. UNTIL ONE OF AMERICA’S MOST RESPECTED CONSERVATIVE OPINION JOURNALISTS, HIS ARE THE ARGUMENTS THAT WILL CAUSE TRUMP TO BE REMOVED … AND EXPOSES YOUR OWN DISGRACEFUL “ABDICATION OF PRINCIPLES FOR POWER.”

                THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT — AND REMOVAL
                ‘The most heinous act in which a democratic government can engage is to use its law enforcement machinery for political ends

                This should be win another Pulitzer for Brett Stephens, one of America’s most highly regarded CONSERVATIVE opinion journalists. He built his name as a columnist and editor at the Wall Street Journal, and was Editor in Chief of the Jerusalem Post..

                In 2017, he was hired away, to be a strong conservative voice, on the Opinion Pages of the …. New York Times … causing many alt-right goobers to SCREAM that he’d become a full-blown COMMUNIST. With a shrine to Lenin in his bedroom …. Oh yeah, and a Hillary voter in 2016

                Republicans like Devin Nunes were more right about the conduct of the investigation than many of its supporters, including me, care to admit, … And Carter Page is owed an apology by anyone, including me, who cares for the presumption of innocence and objects to trial by media.

                ***But now to impeachment:

                If conservatives are right to object to the abuse of power by F.B.I. agents, shouldn’t they be far more alarmed at the abuse of investigatory and other powers for political ends by the president of the United States?

                According to the public transcript of Donald Trump’s July 25 call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, Trump said: “The server, they say Ukraine has it …. I would like to have the attorney general call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.”
                Trump also said: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.”

                The president is unambiguously proposing to employ his chief law-enforcement officer to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory that Trump hopes will burnish his political legitimacy. And he also proposes to use the attorney general in an attempt to investigate a political opponent for undeniably political ends.

                ***That Trump didn’t get away with it is a relief, not an exoneration.

                *** That he continues to insist the call was “perfect,” as he did Tuesday in his letter to Nancy Pelosi, means that he is likely to do it again.

                ***That he attempted to subvert the will of Congress by impounding congressional funds for his political ends threatens the separation of powers in ways that will haunt a future Republican Congress.

                ***That he was prepared to endanger an ally and benefit an enemy is not treason, as the Constitution defines treason, but it is a travesty, as any American ought to understand travesty.

                ***That Republican leaders are cheering him only serves to define deviancy down and debase our political norms in ways that will surely haunt a future Republican Congress.

                *** *** *** That conservative pundits claim to be outraged at the F.B.I.’s investigation of the Trump campaign — or the smearing of Carter Page — while being indifferent to Trump’s attempt to investigate Joe Biden — and the smearing of Hunter Biden — marks a fresh low in rhetorical sophistry.

                ***There are people who believe that law, morality, traditions and institutions are at least as important to the preservation of freedom as the will of the people. Such people are called conservative.

                ***What Republicans are now doing with their lock step opposition to impeachment — and with their indifference to the behavior that brought impeachment about — is not conservative. It is the abdication of principle to power.

                ***I might think differently about impeachment if Trump had shown any sense of contrition. Or if Republicans had shown any inclination to censure him. But Trump hasn’t, and they haven’t.

                ***Whatever the political ramifications of impeachment now, history will judge members of this Congress harshly if they fail to state their revulsion at the president’s behavior in the strongest terms they can. Impeach and convict.

                Nixon resigned when a REAL CONSERVATIVE, Barry Goldwater, told him to .. because REPUBLICANS had turned against him, and would vote to remove.,

                Brett just told the Republican Senate THEIR future … by weaponizing Democrats (who have blown it) … the only way to save REAL conservatism, from the cancer of Trumpism. There’s a name for Brett does here …. uhhh … err …. moral courage.

                Reagan once said that libertarianism is the core of conservatism — meaning classical liberalism. It was Reagan who personally crushed the nationwide anti-gay Anita Bryant Crusade, just before announcing his winning 1980 campaign. It was Goldwater and Reagan aggressively defending homosexuals (especially in our military and as teachers) … in the 1970s … two decades before Clinton shamelessly signed DOMA and DADT … and nearly four decades before Obama “evolved.” Compare these ICONS to the Bellowing Blowhard Gomers, in this commentariat

                Classical liberalism exists as a faction, on both the left and the right. And when libertarianism was pro-people … not anti-government, now even sneering Consent of the Governed, as authoritarians have always been wont to do.

                BACK TO THE SCREECHING CHIMPS OF THE AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT

                1. wait the sun doesn’t go around the earth?

                  1. It’s also round.

      4. Our President should be decided by the American people!

        Evil democrats in Congress refuse to accept the Will of the American people who elected President Trump in 2016!

        I’ll never vote for another Democrat!

        Thank God for President Trump!

        America First!

        1. >Our President should be decided by the American people!
          “The American people” chose Hillary Clinton 66M to 63M. Any other ideas?

          1. Oh that same old superficial loser argument.

            1. Not an argument. A statement of fact.

              1. It’s also a statement of fact that Hillary is not President.

                1. Of course. I was responding to the person who said “Our President should be decided by the American people!” That person is presumably now upset that Hillary is not president for that reason.

                  1. I’m certainly not upset that Hillary is not President, so it balances out.

                  2. Progressives aren’t people, so that 66 million figure is way off

                  3. Oh, so you’re one of those progs who believes the Electoral College and hence the Constitution is irrelevant.

                    Maybe you should try a different country if you’re unhappy with this one.

                    1. First, UCrawford’s massive misinformation on Executive Privilege Do NOT blame him. Blame his tribal leaders)

                      NOW, HERE … Those leaders have him saying the Electoral College and Constitution are sacred script … never to be changed ….
                      HELL NO on consent of the governed
                      DEFEND the States Rights of southern racists, the KKK, Ron Paul and Donald Trump… over individual rights and equality

                      LESSONS ON THE CONSTITUTION: Electors: CA vs WY
                      WARNING: requires the math skills of an average fifth grader

                      The extremes, to prove the (lack of) principle

                      One man, one vote
                      1.0 Wyoming resident = the power of 3.8 California residents

                      GOP (WY: Each Elector speaks for 190,000 residents
                      DEM (CA): Each Elector speaks for 724,000 residents
                      But inside the Electoral College. EACH elector has equal weight. YES! 3.8 does equal 1!! …. to UCrawford’s tribal elites … who are LITERALLY desperate (keep reading.

                      SENATE ONLY ELECTORS (2 per state)

                      One man, one vote, Senate
                      1.0 Wyoming resident = the power of 6.7 California residents

                      GOP (WY): needs only 285,000 residents to get one Senator
                      DEM (CA) needs 1,900,000 residents to get one Senator

                      (Data
                      California 55 EC delegates for 39.8 million
                      Wyoming 3 EC delegates for 57,000
                      YES! … 6.7 DOES = 1. … When power lust replaces childhood math
                      Was this beyond 5th grade arithmetic?

                      and hence the Constitution is irrelevant. (to progs) Was Dred Scott RELEVANT? Do only progs want to amend the Constitution! REALLY??
                      It’s progs wanting these amendments

                      * Ban abortion at conception!
                      * Balance the budget!
                      * Ban same-sex marriage!
                      * Criminalize flag burning!
                      * Repeal the federal income tax!
                      * 2/3 of states could repeal any law or regulation. (AGAIN placing states rights over individual rights!

                      NOW THE HISTORY LESSON
                      THIS is way beyond a 5th grader.
                      Must pass high school history with a “B-“ or better (varies by school)

                      The Electoral College, AND 2-per-state Senators… were ONE SIDE of “the deal” to earn ratification by smaller states. WHY?

                      The Constitutional Convention was one vote per state … called under the Articles of Confederation!… ONE SIDE GOT STATES RIGHTS OVER INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. … THE OTHER SIDE GOT (MOSTLY) THE 3/5 COMPROMISE (FOR SLAVES)

                      The 3/5 compromise was NOT about slaves. It was about limiting the small-state special favor in the Senate … limiting that special power in the House.

                      Do NOT blame UCrawford for defending policies that favor racists and Republicans. He’s been programmed that way …. just as his “progs” are ACTUALLY programmed to believe the rich don’t pay their “fair share” of the income tax (progressive tax rates subsidize an ever-growing subsidy of the middle class, now nearly half their entire share)

                      FOR BALANCE, UCrawford, NOT picking on yoiu. THE RIGHT IS EQUALLY MANIPULATED BY ELITES

                      Amash understates the problem. Says both parties are a death spiral, in Congress. Political elites have always gained and held power by
                      a) Lying to their followers
                      The sky is falling, and only we can save you. Just give me your money and voting power.
                      b) But the lies are now even worse … both parties have backed us into a corner, with no clue how to get us out. Hating the other tribe is all EITHER PARTY has. Because desperation.
                      c) The hatred has now gone… psycho. Decades ago, Barbra Streisand was a shitty actress and singer. Jane Fonda no actress either. Clint Eastwood was a conservative gun nut. And Chuck Norris was (literally) Satan
                      d) Today, it’s not enough to oppose Donald or Hillary. Today, one must hate every fiber of their being … hate anyone does not hate them … hate anyone who agrees with even one of their positions … Disagree with Donald, on anythingproof you’re a “lefty”
                      Many times on every comment page on the topic pf Trump.
                      e) It began on the right … The “Loyalty Oaths” of McCarthyism are now the Loyalty Demands of Trumpism … just as censorship began on the right, centuries ago.

                      Political Tolerants are the new majority … but a Voiceless Majority … for over decade … when establishment libertarians went rogue … literally abandoning our own voting majority, preaching to a tiny choir …. And sinking deeper into the fringes, by reversing “always pro-people, never anti-government” …

                      Libertopia is now the opposite of a free society, “only for people like me, sniff” Like the Davidians, the Moonie and Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple … but libs not entirely a cult,

                      Our elites have abandoned our best connection to lead all society. GONE “I will defend your right to live your life any way you choose, as long as you do the same for me … and everyone.”

                      Liberty is a mutual aid society. Not a member-only country club for sneering snobs.

                      People want 95% of why government provides, because people originally provided most of it, voluntary, on our own. Destroying government power CANNOT return that power to … the people.

                      All it takes is showing a people a better way to provide what they want. Years ago, I managed Sales Training for a major corporate division. One large banner was at the front in every room. (We sold B2B, in our prospects; offices) This libertarian orgasmed when he found it!

                      ”You’re not there to prove your prospect wrong. You’re there to agree with your prospect .., to show how your product or service can best provide … what he or she already wants.

                      My staff and I trained hundreds of rookie salespeople, as young as 20, to have more persuasion smarts than the elites that many trust to guide us.

                      If you have nothing better for what they want … shut up and sit down … or shift to something you can sell today … or move on to the next prospect … stop beating dead horses, with a plastic straw.

                      Not that long ago, we had candidates campaign on repealing the income tax … for city council!!,

                      Which is why I’m here. Establishment libertarians … our voice to the world … spend too much time telling prospects how wrong they are …. But, for at least a decade, cannot show a better way to do anything … not a damn thing … not on taxes … not on healthcare … no government reforms … nothing.

                      We’re preaching to our own choir …. While masturbating in an Ivory Tower … Which is WHY Trump was elected.

                      He was the only one selling a dream. (dumb, but a dream)

                      MAGA is his “shining city on a hill” … his “Hope and Change” … even FDR’s “Happy days are here again.”

                      He had the only fleshed out solutions on key voter issues. (Dumb but no competitors)

                      ***His winning margin came from he same source as Reagan’s … he HEARD the long-ignored Rust Belt … his solutions are wrong: a wall, immigration, imports, and the wrong cut in corporate taxes … just as wrong as the fiscal conservatives who blame automation (WTF) …, after decades of ridiculing the 19th century Luddites … who caused major riots. Because AUTOMATION (the cotton gin) would destroy livelihoods!.

                      *** It’s libertarians who once knew what a kindergarten kid could grasp … a society cannot own more stuff per person … unless they create more stuff per person… AUTOMATION (or horsewhipping workers) duh …
                      CREATIVE DESTRUCTION duh
                      .
                      **Even worse, our industrial base was crippled IN THE TAX CODE …. While libertarians chant , “Taxation is theft,” which even Ayn Rand ridiculed. And it’s establishment libertarians also falsely blame automation

                      ** Or a “flat tax on income” when progressive tax rates subsidize nearly half the entire share of middle-class taxes … which you learned from me … not the Cato scholars, nor Reason, nor Mercatus.

                      ** Or a “consumption tax” … an even more massive middle-class tax INCREASE.” … The rich consume a tiny share of the income … the middle-class consumes almost all of theirs (including installment and credit-card debt purchases) (does not include mortgages)

                      **DUMBEST OF ALL – MEDICARE VOUCHERS. They sound like privatization to the tribe, and they would increase competition …. IN THE WRONG MARKET! Health insurance is not health care! We used to ridicule progressives for confusing the two. The correct Medicare market — providers – has always had competition, in both hospitals and physicians/nurses …. but … wait for it …. Seniors have no “skin in the game.” AAARRRGGGH

                      **So today’s libertarian elites …THE champions of free-market economics … have the wrong market … and “forgot” over a century of arging “skin in the game”?

                      *BAT-SHIT CRAZY! Draw a diagram or ask any accountant. Medicare vouchers would add a costly and useless middle-man, between the trust fund and seniors.

                      *Do YOU know the original Obamacare had a bipartisan element to get GOP votes? A private alternative to the “public option” that would have killed single-payer forever– endorsed at the far-left Daily Kos ( private non-profits, member controlled, with competitors, no mandate) Mitch McConnell rejected it … his mission to deny Obama a second term …thus HE empowered the far left’s agenda of mandates and more … did Obama win a second term? Is single payer still alive?…YUGE FAIL?

                      (Kennedy’s tax cuts were hated by his far left, but he never needed them. They had a tiny fraction of the votes he got from Republicans! Layer, Reagan’s tax cuts were identical, Ted Kennedy voted for his brother’s concept, bringing other Dems).

                      Why does this matter (Obamacare)? When both parties seek enough seats to pass major legislation by a handful of votes, that’s POWER-LUST, guaranteed to be sharply divisive among THE PEOPLE, and eventually repealed or stripped. Obamacare passed by 7 votes in the House. Trump is pissed that Trumpcare failed to win by one.

                      In my proposed comprehensive platform to Gary Johnson, one of my favorite planks, he would promise to veto all major bills that failed to pass by 2/3 in both House. “At this point, he’d say, only an “independent President can make them work together. For you.”

                      Propose an amendment to make it permanent.

                      You decide, might some sort of anti-government tribalism have kept Gary from even seeing it? (Also had one of Gary’s favorites, total repeal of the corporate income tax. Simple. Revenue neutral in a way that nobody pays a higher rate or loses any deductions) If one understands the tax code, using behavioral economics

                      This is all just part of why libertarianISM is rejected by 91% of … libertarIANS. Libertarian politics rejected by 91% of the people who self-identify with libertarian values …. Values held by over 60% of Americans, per a survey commissioned by Cato, conducted by a top independent pollster. (Let’s call them Nolan libertarians, for now.)

                      We also asked a new question. We asked half the sample, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” …

                      Fully 59 percent of the respondents said “yes” … by 59 to 27 percent, poll respondents said they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” (((Mikes is just as excited that only 27% flat refused)))

                      …We found that only 9 percent of voters with libertarian views identify themselves that way.” -David Boaz and David Kirby

                      100 – 9 = 91% rejection. I assume over 60%, because of the recent explosion in acceptance of gay marriage – is by conservatives (presumably still so, fiscally. Liberals have always been there

                      We asked the other half of the respondents, ”Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian?” (((my italics)))
                      What surprised us was how low the drop-off was. A robust 44 percent of respondents answered “yes” to that question, accepting a self-description as “libertarian.”

                      What it shows me is that nobody got the message.

                      Our elites have since essentially submerged fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Even Gary’s better version, “Fiscally responsible and socially tolerant” Those values enrage the alt-right who dominate his commentariat – and the Paulistas, who are mostly extreme social conservatives. We now have no hope of connecting with the values we once defended (via David Nolan who converted anarchists into a small, but then still deserving minority)

                      That was a Brand Management poll, used by marketers to compare consumer acceptance of the brand and of the product, which can find major image problems. Liberty is our product. Libertarian is our brand. Ask any professional marketer in brand management (I’m one) 91% brand rejection is literally toxic; that’s the term. For me the brand is dead (cheaper to launch a new one.) Feel free to disagree on that. But can we agree it’s impossible to restore the brand image by the 2020 election … or before the window slams shut, on voters open to even radical change?

                      Forget all the polls on consumer confidence and all. The only relevant poll, for us, is that (it varies), 60-65% of Americans believe the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction, not seen since the later Carter years.

                      We blew it in 2016, bigly, and I see nothing on the horizon.

                      Voters aren’t just angry. They’re scared, insecure, for their future, and/or their kids future. A highly cherished life goals is threatened. Are you a parent? Will you leave a better life for those kids you’ve devoted so much of your life to? Whether yes or no, have you lost of whatever level of control you once had?

                      This rarely happens in politics. But I saw it often in coaching business owners on turnarounds. If the the threat is visible, the employees are scared, insecure, for the future. THAT is the opportunity for change. They are now open for even radical change .. anything to feel secure again.

                      A revolution is available, but we cannot now fire even a single shot.
                      ================

                      Okay, UCRawforf may be pissed. But I was not picking on him … nor was I coming from the left … as Red Rocks says of anyone who disagrees with the agenda of his authoritarian right, with his rage and hatred now infecting much of our society ….

              2. It is a statement of fact, but it ignores the very important fact that a majority of Americans chose Not Hillary, and a different majority of Americans chose Not the Donald. “The American people” said, “Why did you stick us with this horrible choice?”

                And regarding the 66M to 63M, we don’t know which of the two the majority of Americans actually preferred. Many third party voters had a preference between them, but were in ‘safe’ states so they voted for a candidate they preferred over either.

                1. A larger majority chose “not Donald” than “not Hillary”. More Americans chose “Hillary” than “Donald”. So no matter your standard, if you’re going by “our President should be decided by the American people”, then it’s clear.

                  1. “A larger majority chose “not Donald” than “not Hillary”.”

                    Need a hand with those goal-posts? There’s another fucking lefty ignoramus around here with Pd as a handle’ Get him to give you a hand; he’s well practiced at it, as you seem to be.

                    1. Your displeasure is directed at WoodChipperBob, who set those goalposts, not me.

                  2. A larger majority chose “not Donald” than “not Hillary

                    TRUMP got the largest number on “anti” votes since they’ve been measure (the 1960’s) votes against Hillary NOT for him.

                    I research this stuff heavily, have not seen and “anti” numbers for Hillary, and have no idea why they’d track the loser. Please supply a source?

                2. This was me. No way Hillary was winning Montana so I voted for Johnson knowing I could vote my conscious without any real impact. I was also hoping that Johnson would win enough votes to make the LP a little more viable.

          2. Hey faggot, you’re forgetting about the millions of illegals, dead people, minors, felons, and cartoon characters lumped onto that number. Also, it doesn’t matter.

            1. Your GOP is filled with rednecks, bigots, Bible-beaters and Aborto-Freaks.

              And an occasional Log Cabin Republican like yourself.

              1. “Your GOP is filled with bigots”

                And then Buttplug proceeds to be a bigot over the working class, Christians and people who aren’t keen on baby killing.

              2. “Aborto-Freaks”

                Survivors of attempted abortions?
                Like Tim Tebow?
                Dude won a Heisman, national championship, and is a millionaire.

            2. No I didn’t. Those are fantasies of your imagination. It matters because one of your brethren said “Our President should be decided by the American people!” I was just pointing out who the American people decided on. If you disagree with what he said, take it up with him, not me.

              1. “Those are fantasies of your imagination.”

                Yes.
                Just like the Chicago Machine, Tammany Hall, the Jim Crow laws and other historic DNC vote-fiddling arrangements were fantasies. Oh wait…

                1. Not sure what your point was trying to be, but Trump appointed a commission to investigate voter fraud in 2016 and it found nothing. Do you think they were lying?

                  1. Of course the commission wasn’t lying. Unless a person is shooting their mouth off about how they voted illegally, or about how they helped other people vote illegally, voter fraud is almost impossible to detect after the fact (with the exception of identifying registered voters who are citizens, and then determining that they voted). Detecting it while it’s happening is also difficult, without doing things that certain people would regard as voter suppression.

                    1. Very convenient that the only way to prevent something that can’t be detected is by reducing the ability of people to vote.

                    2. Not coherent.

                    3. @no_longer_CZMacure

                      If it actually *was* voter suppression, you’d be right. But something is only voter suppression if it keeps legal voters from voting. Checking to see whether students are registered in both their home state and the state where they go to school only reduces their ability to vote *illegally* – which anyone who is interested in fair elections would consider a good thing. I don’t actually suspect that dual-registered or dual-voting fraud exists in any significant numbers (but nobody can prove either way, because nobody is looking). But what I do think exists in significant numbers are students who register to vote where they are in school, but aren’t actually legal residents in that state. And scrutinizing student registrations *would* turn that up. Certainly students *can* be legal residents and vote where they go to school. But many aren’t, because it would be a hassle to register their car, get a new driver’s license, etc., that one must do if one becomes a legal resident. As such, I think there are quite a few students who either are committing voter fraud because they *know* they aren’t legal residents of the state and don’t intend to be, or are breaking whatever state laws that impose certain requirements on new residents (which could be either inadvertent or intentional) .

                      It really is a tough nut to crack, because you can’t detect it if you don’t look for it, and looking for it will result in discourage some legal voters because of the scrutiny. You can’t even survey people after they vote, because no matter how much you assure people that you just want information, anybody who knows they are voting illegally isn’t going to admit it, and anybody who thinks they’re voting legally but actually aren’t, won’t be able to admit it. And anybody who isn’t sure whether they’re voting illegally might be discouraged from showing up the next time because they’re worried about getting caught – which is a good thing if they *were* voting illegally, and a bad thing if they weren’t (I’ve heard people argue that it actually isn’t actually a bad thing even if they aren’t voting illegally, because anyone who isn’t smart enough to be sure probably isn’t competent to cast a ballot intelligently – I reject that argument, because they aren’t any less competent to cast a ballot intelligently than many people who *are* sure that they aren’t voting illegally).

                    4. @ R Mac
                      You’re right, that parenthetical isn’t coherent. I should probably re-read before I post, to ensure that edits I’ve made haven’t removed important information, or merged two sentences but did it badly enough to change the meaning or render it incoherent.

                      Let me rephrase to make it coherent:
                      (with the exception of determining if people who voted are non- citizens)
                      Of course, even that will be claimed (with some accuracy) by Democrats to be voter suppression, because some naturalized citizens could be discouraged from future voting by such scrutiny.

          3. ““The American people” chose Hillary Clinton 66M to 63M. Any other ideas?”

            Easy; you’re a fucking lefty ignoramus.
            Read the constitution; we don’t count her winnings in ‘most horrible cunt’ contest in high school

            1. HEY FALSE CONSERVATIVE THUG, SEVO
              HERE’S WHAT A REAL CONSERVATIVE LOOK LIKE … MORAL VALUES …. NOT A RAGING 16-YEAR-OLD, TRASHMOUTH, PUNK,

              THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT — AND REMOVAL
              ‘The most heinous act in which a democratic government can engage is to use its law enforcement machinery for political ends

              This should be win another Pulitzer for Brett Stephens, one of America’s most highly regarded CONSERVATIVE opinion journalists. He built his name as a columnist and editor at the Wall Street Journal, and was Editor in Chief of the Jerusalem Post..

              In 2017, he was hired away, to be a strong conservative voice, on the Opinion Pages of the …. New York Times … causing many alt-right goobers to SCREAM that he’d become a full-blown COMMUNIST. With a shrine to Lenin in his bedroom …. Oh yeah, and a Hillary voter in 2016

              Republicans like Devin Nunes were more right about the conduct of the investigation than many of its supporters, including me, care to admit, … And Carter Page is owed an apology by anyone, including me, who cares for the presumption of innocence and objects to trial by media.

              ***But now to impeachment:

              If conservatives are right to object to the abuse of power by F.B.I. agents, shouldn’t they be far more alarmed at the abuse of investigatory and other powers for political ends by the president of the United States?

              According to the public transcript of Donald Trump’s July 25 call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, Trump said: “The server, they say Ukraine has it …. I would like to have the attorney general call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.”
              Trump also said: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.”

              The president is unambiguously proposing to employ his chief law-enforcement officer to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory that Trump hopes will burnish his political legitimacy. And he also proposes to use the attorney general in an attempt to investigate a political opponent for undeniably political ends.

              ***That Trump didn’t get away with it is a relief, not an exoneration.

              *** That he continues to insist the call was “perfect,” as he did Tuesday in his letter to Nancy Pelosi, means that he is likely to do it again.

              ***That he attempted to subvert the will of Congress by impounding congressional funds for his political ends threatens the separation of powers in ways that will haunt a future Republican Congress.

              ***That he was prepared to endanger an ally and benefit an enemy is not treason, as the Constitution defines treason, but it is a travesty, as any American ought to understand travesty.

              ***That Republican leaders are cheering him only serves to define deviancy down and debase our political norms in ways that will surely haunt a future Republican Congress.

              *** *** *** That conservative pundits claim to be outraged at the F.B.I.’s investigation of the Trump campaign — or the smearing of Carter Page — while being indifferent to Trump’s attempt to investigate Joe Biden — and the smearing of Hunter Biden — marks a fresh low in rhetorical sophistry.

              ***There are people who believe that law, morality, traditions and institutions are at least as important to the preservation of freedom as the will of the people. Such people are called conservative.

              ***What Republicans are now doing with their lock step opposition to impeachment — and with their indifference to the behavior that brought impeachment about — is not conservative. It is the abdication of principle to power.

              ***I might think differently about impeachment if Trump had shown any sense of contrition. Or if Republicans had shown any inclination to censure him. But Trump hasn’t, and they haven’t.

              ***Whatever the political ramifications of impeachment now, history will judge members of this Congress harshly if they fail to state their revulsion at the president’s behavior in the strongest terms they can. Impeach and convict.

              Nixon resigned when a REAL CONSERVATIVE, Barry Goldwater, told him to .. because REPUBLICANS had turned against him, and would vote to remove.,

              Brett just told the Republican Senate THEIR future … by weaponizing Democrats (who have blown it) … the only way to save REAL conservatism, from the cancer of Trumpism. There’s a name for Brett does here …. uhhh … err …. moral courage.

              Reagan once said that libertarianism is the core of conservatism — meaning classical liberalism. It was Reagan who personally crushed the nationwide anti-gay Anita Bryant Crusade, just before announcing his winning 1980 campaign. It was Goldwater and Reagan aggressively defending homosexuals (especially in our military and as teachers) … in the 1970s … two decades before Clinton shamelessly signed DOMA and DADT … and nearly four decades before Obama “evolved.” Compare these ICONS to the Bellowing Blowhard Gomers, in this commentariat

              Classical liberalism exists as a faction, on both the left and the right. And when libertarianism was pro-people … not anti-government, now even sneering Consent of the Governed, as authoritarians have always been wont to do.

              Copyright 1994-2019 by LibertyIssues.com and Michael J Hihn. All rights reserved and defended.

              ——————————————-
              Thanks, Mike. Only the very best of both libertarians, conservatives and liberals are left to defend American values from … authoritarian thugs, both left and right. I am PROUD to copy an spread Brett’s op-ed.

              BACK TO THE SCREECHING CHIMPS OF THE AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT

          4. Oof. That stupid canard again?

            1. Don’t ask me. Ask the person I was responding to, who said “Our President should be decided by the American people!”

              1. I think when you post this same shit for the 20th time someone will care. You’re at about 7 I’d guess? I wasn’t counting until I noticed you keep posting the exact same thing, JeffMike.

                1. When people keep purposely misrepresenting what I said, I correct them.

          5. There were 50 state elections for President. Trump won 31 of them.

            1. By 39,000 voters … in three states combined. 🙂
              And that was 2016. If the 2020 election was held today, from one of America’s most conservative pollsters:

              EVEN MICHELLE OBAMA WOULD BEAT TRUMP!

              Along with all five top Dem candidates (other pollsters)

              And you have no fucking clue what the Electoral College is!
              EACH STATE DOES NOT GET JUST ONE VOTE

              Now, now, stop your crying.

              1. The national popular vote doesn’t determine the President. The electoral votes from state election outcomes do.

                If you don’t understand that, you’re literally too stupid to have an opinion on the topic. Not that this will keep you offline, Hihn.

                1. Ummm, Trump’s 39,000 win was the Electoral College. .He did not “win” the popular vote.

                  If you don’t understand that, you’re literally too stupid to have an opinion on the topic

                  Are you seriously unaware the Constitution can be amended?

                  (Elsewhere on this page, you say the Constitution cannot (or should not) be amended … and only progs would try.)

                  To clarify, I am not blaming or attacking you. I blame your leadership for keeping you so uninformed … for their own self-interest, as also proven here.

                  Detailed proof of the current severe violation of equal rights is. This example shows the conclusion.

                  Each elector needs this many votes
                  California, 724,000 residents for each elector.
                  Wyoming, only 190,000

                  5th grade math: Wyoming voters have 3.8 times the power of California voters. How can your leadership defend so egregious a violation of equal rights? Might it be because Wyoming is a GOP state, and California is not?

                  First: why does the Electoral College exist?

                  The Constitutional Convention was called per the Articles of Confederation … so each state had one vote each. That gave smaller states the same advantage they have now. They used that power to force a deal.
                  STATES RIGHTS OVER INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
                  WITH A 3/5 COMPROMISE ON NEGRO SLAVES

                  Here’s the “deal”
                  The Electoral College, AND 2-Senators per state were the price demanded for ratification … exploiting their special powers under the Article of Confederation.

                  But they did agree to PAY a price. The 3/5 compromise was not entirely an insult to Negroes. It LIMITED the degree of special powers demanded by smaller states.

                  Later, those special rights were exploited by the State’s Rights of the KKK and southern racists, to create the Jim Crow era … which lasted until 1957, when Eisenhower sent armed troops, to counter an activated state militia, and defend the equal rights of nine black kids, at Little Rock’s Central High.

                  States Rights were not used for discrimination at ratification … but are now, to justify the denial of equal rights for (mostly) homosexuals and transgenders. See Ron Paul sponsoring a bill to forbid SCOTUS from even hearing any challenges to DOMA, the first denial of constitutional rights to an entire class of people since slavery. When DOMA was overturned, Ron attacked “rogue judges” … for performing their constitutional function … the same excuse Orval Faubus used to justify activating an armed state militia against 9 school kids … both men in violation of the 9th and 14th amendments.

                  Do NOT blame UCrawford for defending policies that favor racists and Republicans. He’s been programmed that way …. just as “progs” are programmed to believe the rich don’t pay their “fair share” of the income tax (progressive tax rates subsidize an ever-growing subsidy of the middle class, now nearly half their entire share)

                  I blame do blame right-wing leadership for defending the States Rights of southern racists, the KKK, Ron Paul and Donald Trump!

                  NOW, PROOF OF THE MASSIVE DENIAL OF EQUAL RIGHTS, BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
                  WARNING: This requires the advanced arithmetic skills of a 5th grade school child

                  Wyoming (GOP): 1 Elector votes for 190,000 residents
                  California (DEM): 1 Elector votes for 724,000 residents

                  One man, one vote
                  1.0 Wyoming “man” = 3.8 California “men”

                  SENATE ONLY ELECTORS (2 per state)

                  Wyoming: 285,000 residents to get one Senator
                  California: 1,900,000 residents to get one Senator

                  One man, one vote, Senate
                  1.0 Wyoming “man” = 6.7 California “men”

                  REPUBLICANS USE THIS ABUSE POWER, EVEN FOR SUCH CRITICAL MATTERS AS … IMPEACHMENT TRIALS

                  (Data
                  California 55 EC delegates for 9.8 million
                  Wyoming 3 EC delegates for 57,000

                  5th grade arithmetic?

                  You’re literally too stupid to have an opinion on the topic

                  You literally made my day!

                  “You can calculate the worth of a man by the number of his enemies…”
                  -Gustave Flaubert

                  I count being hated by them as a central achievement to this libertarian’s lifetime battle against authoritarian rights abuse, in both the public and private sectors.

        2. Hey, Carolinaheel, brainwashed goober, puppet on a string. (all the same)

          WHY DO YOU trumpTARDS THINK A PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED … WITHOUT BEING ELECTED FIRST. HOW EAGER WERE YOU TO HAVE TRUMP SUCK THE BRAINS OUT OF YOUR SKULL?

          THE PURPOSE OF IMPEACHMENT IS TO REMOVE AN ELECTED PRESIDENT!!!
          DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT A PRESIDENT IS? SENATOR? HOUSE MEMBER? THAT THE EARTH IS ROUND, AND GOES AROUND THE SUN?

          Did Trump also cause you to BELEEB Obama was born in Kenya?

      5. He was a clown today. Not sure Reasons hard on for him other than is is similar to a fake urban libertarian that is really a democrat but doesnt want to be called one.

        That’s a growing trend all over. Libertarian forums have become cesspools of Crypto-Liberals posing as libertarians. Prick them and they bleed a sickly shade of purple.

        1. Proggs, not liberal. Crypto or otherwise.

          1. Yes, Liberal.

            Liberals *are* Progressives.

        2. “Crypto-Liberals posing as libertarians”

          Tony, Chemleft, et al. are unabashed Marxists.

          1. Says the unabashed Hitleranan
            GROW UP DUDE.
            YOU’RE NOT THE SCHOOL BUS BULLY ANYMORE (Are you?)

      6. Yep- obviously a democrat because he doesn’t pledge fealty to your cult leader.

        He’s the only respectable one up there- the rest are craven cowards beholden to a man over the constitution they swore to protect.

        1. Now that’s a bitter confession!

        2. Remind me again which President had grade school kids singing songs of praise for him? Which President was awarded a Noble Peace Prize with no accomplishments? Etc. Now tell me who was more cult like.

      7. Constitution? Ask Mr. Amash where to find the crime of obstruction of congress and how that rises to the level of high crimes as the constitutional threshold for impeachment?
        He doesn’t like Trump and sold out his ethics, resigned his committee and is less relevant than ever.

        1. Educate yourself. Obstruction of Congress is a targeted version for obstruction of justice.

          Trump’s has been severe. The most obvious is NO RIGHT TO DENY A CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA … ruled unconstitutional when Nixon tried it, which launched the path to his resignation.

          So LAME to assume “they” don’t like Trump — or that he can ask SCOTUS to declare his impeachment unconstitutional … despite a 1993 ruling that the founders had no intent of them denying a Constitutionally delegated power,

          Surely his lawyers KNOW most of his stuff is unconstitutional, but they’r making millions telling him what he wants to hear. Seems to be hoping to stall it all until after the 2020 election, which his lawyers also know is wrong, but ….

    2. Evil Democrats in Congress have spent three years cramming “impeachment” down our throats in hopes of overturning the votes of 63 million voters in 2016!

      Dems have trashed our Constitution. They believe only they can decide who our president should be!

      They only care about gaining more power control and wealth!

      Thank God for President Trump!

      America First!

      1. We already have a LovesTrumpsTinyMushroomDick1789.

        1. We also have Sarah Palin’s Buttplug Loves Kiddie Porn and Doesn’t Pay Bets He Loses.

        2. “We already have a LovesTrumpsTinyMushroomDick1789.”

          And we have the return of kiddie-porn king, hag ass-sucker.

      2. >in hopes of overturning the votes of 63 million voters in 2016!

        But 66 million voters voted for Hillary. Are you not concerned with overturning their votes?

        1. What about the 69 million people who didn’t vote for Hillary?

          1. If you can identify the one person those 69 million voted for, I would support your argument that that person should have won.

            1. “not Hillary”–so those 69 million voters won.

        2. “But 66 million voters voted for Hillary. Are you not concerned with overturning their votes?”

          Their votes weren’t overturned, they just lost.

        3. Her’s were not overturned. Much like a football team that ran up the score in California and NY but lost otherwise.

      3. >Dems have trashed our Constitution. They believe only they can decide who our president should be!

        So you think they’re choosing Mike Pence?

        1. “So you think they’re choosing Mike Pence?”

          Did your mommy say that was clever?
          She lied; it’s pathetic, as expected.

      4. That 63 million also elected a vice-president. Conviction and removal of Trump would not overturn the election result.

      5. Lol. Trumptards have a hard time remembering the 90s.

      6. Evil Democrats in Congress have spent three years cramming “impeachment” down our throats in hopes of overturning the votes of 63 million voters in 2016

        Do you realize that most people are laughing at you …for swallowing the daffy lie that a President cannot be impeached unless it’s before he’s been elected.

        But, if he hasn’t been elected ….

    3. “Republicans Are Betraying the ‘Principles and Values They Once Claimed To Cherish'”
      Tell me Mr. Amash would those be the same values you spat on as you turned your back on the Republicans that voted you into office prior to your tearing up the covenant you had made with the voters of your district when you ran as a Republican?
      Your values would appear to be the same as any other RHINO spoiled rich kid throwing a tantrum.

      1. TO FEW AR DEFENDING CONSERVATIVE VALUES …. GEORGE WILL FROM THE START … NOW ANOTHER REVERED CONSERVATIVE OPINION JOURNALIST DROPS MANY HEAVY HAMMERs. DEMOCRATS HAVE BLOWN THIS. THESE ARGUMENTS WILL GIVE DEMOCRATS THE WEAPONS TO GET TRUMP REMOVED.

        WHY WOULD A CONSERVATIVE HELP DEMOCRATS? … IT’S NOW THE ONLY WAY HE CAN DEFEND CONSERVATISM … FROM SENATE REPUBLICANS

        THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT — AND REMOVAL
        ‘The most heinous act in which a democratic government can engage is to use its law enforcement machinery for political ends

        This should be win another Pulitzer for Brett Stephens, one of America’s most highly regarded CONSERVATIVE opinion journalists. He built his name as a columnist and editor at the Wall Street Journal, and was Editor in Chief of the Jerusalem Post..

        In 2017, he was hired away, to be a strong conservative voice, on the Opinion Pages of the …. New York Times … causing many alt-right goobers to SCREAM that he’d become a full-blown COMMUNIST. With a shrine to Lenin in his bedroom …. Oh yeah, and a Hillary voter in 2016

        SEE THE BALANCE HERE.

        Republicans like Devin Nunes were more right about the conduct of the investigation than many of its supporters, including me, care to admit, … And Carter Page is owed an apology by anyone, including me, who cares for the presumption of innocence and objects to trial by media.

        ***But now to impeachment:

        If conservatives are right to object to the abuse of power by F.B.I. agents, shouldn’t they be far more alarmed at the abuse of investigatory and other powers for political ends by the president of the United States?

        According to the public transcript of Donald Trump’s July 25 call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, Trump said: “The server, they say Ukraine has it …. I would like to have the attorney general call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.”

        Trump also said: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.”

        The president is unambiguously proposing to employ his chief law-enforcement officer to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory that Trump hopes will burnish his political legitimacy. And he also proposes to use the attorney general in an attempt to investigate a political opponent for undeniably political ends.

        ***That Trump didn’t get away with it is a relief, not an exoneration.

        *** That he continues to insist the call was “perfect,” as he did Tuesday in his letter to Nancy Pelosi, means that he is likely to do it again.

        ***That he attempted to subvert the will of Congress by impounding congressional funds for his political ends threatens the separation of powers in ways that will haunt a future Republican Congress.

        ***That he was prepared to endanger an ally and benefit an enemy is not treason, as the Constitution defines treason, but it is a travesty, as any American ought to understand travesty.

        ***That Republican leaders are cheering him only serves to define deviancy down and debase our political norms in ways that will surely haunt a future Republican Congress.

        *** *** *** That conservative pundits claim to be outraged at the F.B.I.’s investigation of the Trump campaign — or the smearing of Carter Page — while being indifferent to Trump’s attempt to investigate Joe Biden — and the smearing of Hunter Biden — marks a fresh low in rhetorical sophistry.

        ***There are people who believe that law, morality, traditions and institutions are at least as important to the preservation of freedom as the will of the people. Such people are called conservative.

        ***What Republicans are now doing with their lock step opposition to impeachment — and with their indifference to the behavior that brought impeachment about — is not conservative. It is the abdication of principle to power.

        **********I might think differently about impeachment if Trump had shown any sense of contrition. Or if Republicans had shown any inclination to censure him. But Trump hasn’t, and they haven’t.

        ***Whatever the political ramifications of impeachment now, history will judge members of this Congress harshly if they fail to state their revulsion at the president’s behavior in the strongest terms they can. Impeach and convict.

        Nixon resigned when a REAL CONSERVATIVE, Barry Goldwater, told him to .. because REPUBLICANS had turned against him, and would vote to remove.,

        Brett just told the Republican Senate THEIR future … by weaponizing Democrats ) … the only way he can save REAL conservatism, from the cancer of Trumpism. There’s a name for Brett does here …. uhhh … err …. moral courage.

        Reagan once said that libertarianism is the core of conservatism — meaning classical liberalism. It was Reagan who personally crushed the nationwide anti-gay Anita Bryant Crusade,, just before announcing his winning 1980 campaign. It was Goldwater and Reagan aggressively defending homosexuals (especially in our military and as teachers) … in the 1970s … two decades before Clinton shamelessly signed DOMA and DADT … and nearly four decades before Obama “evolved.” Compare these conservative ICONS to Trump the Bellowing Blowhard.

    4. Yup. He’s a faggot.

  2. “Conservatives will someday face the horrible truth that the Republican Party fought so hard to justify and excuse an amoral and self-serving president”

    Self serving? Like impeaching an elected official because you’re afraid to face him in the voting booth?

    1. You can’t wait a fucking year and let the country settle this in an election? This asshole would overturn an election and deprive the country of a say in the outcome. Amash is just a complete lowlife.

      1. > This asshole would overturn an election

        No it would not. That’s not what impeachment is. At worst, it would mean Pence, a Republican, would become president. It upholds the election because the person elected to be Vice President would become President.

        In the overwhelming probable case, the Republican controlled Senate would not vote to remove from office. Meaning Trump gets to remain President.

        This is political, and the purpose of it is to hang a cloud over the election. The most pragmatic thing the Republicans could do is act rational and move it forward so that it’s DONE and OVER with before the election season gets started in earnest. But as it stands now it seems like the GOP wants this dragged as long as possible in the most clownish way possible. That might be good for Trump but it’s not good for the party. And last I checked Trump was NOT the party. Hell, he was Hillary contributor just a few short years ago!

        1. Rep. Amash seems to have riled the half-educated bigots, disaffected clingers, superstitious slack-jaws, and backwater-inhabiting right-wing losers.

          1. Why do I picture you as a fat, blue-haired lesbian leaking out her jorts?

            1. He’s definitely a man. The reason he’s so bitter and angry is because he was consistently beaten up as a child by bigger, stronger boys.

              I actually feel a bit sorry for the pathetic little man sometimes.

              1. “Man” is a relative term where Rev. Hicklib is concerned.

              2. I think his uncle fucked him a lot. As Arty held onto the couch r whatever, his uncle screaming “open wider clinger!”

              3. “Arthur Kirkland” is a anime character from a pseudo-yaoi series called Hetalia.

                The Rev. is either an angry twink, or a fat fujoshi “ally” who masturbates to gay porn.

                1. “Arthur Kirkland” is a anime character from a pseudo-yaoi series called Hetalia.

                  So Artie’s actually Kurt Eichenwald?

            2. You can google him. If you ever heard of the “red-green show” he looks like red and Harold’s love child.

          2. And this educated backwater right-winger predicts two things:
            1. Amash is NOT re-elected in 2020;
            2. Trump is re-elected in 2020.

            But hey, Rev., tell us again how if the Dems get in they will enlarge the Supreme Court so that it is essentially a plebiscite; will get rid of the electoral college (without a constitutional amendment), will ignore both 1A, 2A, etc., will give voting rights to felons, illegal aliens (but I repeat myself and 16 year olds), and will expect anyone with over a million in the bank to give it up to the government so they can spend it the way it was intended to be spent…And then tell us how smart you are! I think you are right on the edge of persuading a few of us.

            1. I’m not interested in persuading you. I’m interested in defeating you in the culture war, then replacing you. That project has been successful and enjoyable.

              1. You suffered quite a defeat in the UK.

                You know who herded the educated royalty and kings to the guillotines in the French Revolution?

              2. “I’m interested in defeating you in the culture war, then replacing you. That project has been successful and enjoyable.”

                So Trump getting elected was part of your success and enjoyable? Ok, whatever.

              3. I would bet the world, the whole of it, even the shitholes, that there is at least one shag area rug in your studio that is covered in hardened socks, muffin crumbs, and Magic cards.

              4. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
                December.18.2019 at 6:50 pm
                “I’m not interested in persuading you.”
                Good; you lose anyhow.

                ” I’m interested in defeating you in the culture war, then replacing you.”
                You lose there, too.

                “That project has been successful and enjoyable.”
                Yeah, we noticed 1989 and all your fave pals:
                1) Lincoln Stephens
                2) Walter Duranty
                3) Joseph Davies
                4) Julian Huxley
                5) Upton Sinclair
                6) John Dewey
                7) Jean Paul Sarte
                8) Henry Wallace
                9) Alger Hiss
                10) Malcom Cowley
                11) Edmund Wilson
                12) G. B. Shaw
                13) Lillian Hellman
                14) C. Wright Mills
                15-20)Donald MacLean, Kim Philby, and the remainder of the Cambridge useful idiots
                21) Harold Lasky
                22) Jacques Derrida
                23) Harrison Salisbury
                24) Norman Mailer
                25) Graham Greene
                26) Harry Bridges
                Real winners, there, just like you, asshole bigot.

        2. Military coups also dont overturn elections by your reasoning.

          1. Even in the stretched analogy of a military coup, the reasoning is solid: a military coup occurring three years after an election would not be overturning that election. It would be overturning an established government administration.

            1. Were you born an irrelevant pedant, or did it take long years of idiocy to get there?

        3. There’s a reason the GOP is called the Stupid Party, and yes, Trump is the party now. Come 2025, Trump will be gone and where will the GOP find another with balls and a spine and a willingness to tell the Democrats to go to hell? The fact that they’re rallying around Trump proves that they don’t really have any principles and they don’t have any smarts. As I’ve said before, Trump is a pit bull leading a pack of chihuahuas. Once Trump’s gone, they’ll be right back to looking for leadership from the likes of Lindsey Graham and Mitt Romney and Jeb Fucking Bush. Much as I’d like to see them punished for what worthless pieces of shit they’ve been over the last 30 years or so, the alternative is the genuinely evil Blame America Firster’s and when they seize power we’re either going to have to start the shooting part of the Civil War or accept becoming a People’s Democratic Republic.

          1. Lol. Some of you are just sad. Coffee shop warriors!

          2. //Come 2025, Trump will be gone and where will the GOP find another with balls and a spine and a willingness to tell the Democrats to go to hell? //

            Don Jr. will take over.

            If the past thirty years have taught us anything, it’s that political dynasties are real.

            1. Oh, boy. Donald Trump, Jr. vs. Chelsea Clinton.

            2. Don jr is getting better, but he’s still a bit fredo.
              Eric is capable

              1. Is it don jr.’s wife whose on Fox a lot? Her and Ivanka on the ticket in ’24 would get my vote.

                1. I think it’s Eric’s.
                  Anyway, I’m more of a Tiffany fan.
                  Less robotic

                  1. Ivanka has delicious tits.

                  2. Tiffany rocks.

      2. >You can’t wait a fucking year and let the country settle this in an election?

        When someone is accused of trying to steal an election, it’s not rational to rely on the election to decide the issue.

        1. You are correct insane accusations with no substance are a great reason to supplant elections.

            1. “Trump seems to think so.”
              You.
              Are.
              Full.
              Of.
              Shit.

              1. If all you have are obscenities and insults, please stop. The grown-ups are talking.

                1. You’re not a grown up. You throw out vague unsupported accusations against our president. You are also likely a sock of some shitweasel here.

                  Either way, I wouldn’t be casting aspersions on others if I were you. Thankfully I am not you. I am far better.

        2. “When someone is accused of trying to steal an election, it’s not rational to rely on the election to decide the issue.”

          When fucking lefty ignoramuses believe this, it’s time to disenfranchise them.

    2. >Self serving? Like impeaching an elected official because you’re afraid to face him in the voting booth?

      No. Self-serving like getting a foreign country to announce unsupported investigations into your political rival because you’re afraid to face him in the voting booth.

      1. How is Biden a political rival?

        1. First consult a dictionary. Then feel free to ask any additional questions that you have.

          1. A dictionary isn’t going to have the definition of “political rival.”

            So how is Biden a political rival?

            1. Look up “political”. Then look up “rival”. Put them together.

              1. You’re pretty slow, weren’t you? The point being that Biden, a half senile, crooked gaffe machine, with a sketchy political record a mile long, who also has no energy for an extended campaign, and can’t even get the endorsement of the man he was vice president under, is no match for Donald Trump.

                You’re probably not capable of understanding that.

                1. From one of America’s most conservative pollsters: If the 2020 election was held today

                  EVEN MICHELLE OBAMA WOULD BEAT TRUMP!

                  Along with all five top Dem candidates (other pollsters)

              2. So you don’t actually know how Biden is a political rival.

              3. “”Look up “political”. Then look up “rival”. Put them together.””

                Still doesn’t apply to Hunter.

          2. “First consult a dictionary….”

            So you don’t have a clue; not surprising for a fucking lefty ignoramus.

            1. I will be happy to explain complex concepts to you. However, I expect you to understand simple definitions of words.

              1. So, you’re a fan of the stroked out, terminal-alzheimers pepophile?

              2. I have no expectation that you are capable of,understanding much of anything.

        2. How is Biden, who led all Democratic polls in July when Trump asked for him to be investigated, not a political rival?

          1. I don’t try to prove negatives.

      2. you mean because Biden is on video bragging how he got an investigator fired for investigating corruption around his son, the expert oil board member of a Russian gas company?

        1. Where is the evidence that any investigation of Burisma was active when Joe Biden asked for the removal of a corrupt prosecutor? Is that one of those Big Lies that feeds on incessant repetition?

        2. Actually, he’s on video bragging about how he, representing the official position of the United States and its allies, got a corrupt investigator fired for NOT investigating corruption.

          1. Yes, that’s the retcon.

      3. No. Self-serving like getting a foreign country to announce unsupported investigations into your political rival because you’re afraid to face him in the voting booth.

        So what you’re saying is that Trump’s call for an investigation of Hunter Biden was unjustified because he didn’t have, say, a dossier from GPS Fusion supporting the allegations?

  3. “This should be unanimous, not partisan,” Amash said earlier this month. “Impeachment in the House is not a conviction. The trial happens in the Senate. All the House does is charge impeachable conduct. All we need is probable cause. That threshold is easily met with the existing evidence.”

    That is complete horseshit. If Amash thinks Trump did whatever the hell he is supposed to have done, then he should say so and support a conviction. If he doesn’t, then he should vote against impeachment. The standard isn’t probable cause. Amash thinks it is okay to waste the country’s time trying to overturn an election on probable cause?

    What a fucking coward. In the end, Amash doesn’t even have the courage to accuse Trump of anything. No, he is going to use legalese to vote for impeachment without actually taking a stand on guilt or innocence. It is amazing how the people who scream the most about Trump’s alleged ‘bad character’ inevitably end up having the worst character themselves. What a slimy, dishonest piece of shit.

    1. He should also be careful with the “existing evidence”.

      The FBI fabricated evidence to get a FISA warrant. If they’re willing to fabricate evidence in that circumstance, why should anyone believe in any “evidence” they’ve collected elsewhere?

      At this point whether or not Trump did anything wrong is immaterial, the investigation was such a clusterfuck that you can’t possibly act on it in good conscience.

      1. No you can’t. And we are a year away from an election. Just let the voters decide. There is absolutely no valid reason to do this.

      2. He should also be aware that the constitution does not give the role of prosecutor to the house, but that of fact finding. They should act as both prosecutor and defense in their investigation. they did not do so.

      3. And who could have provided more solid testimony? Oh, yeah, the witnesses that refused to testify.

        1. Yeah, like Eric ciarmella.

          1. Hypothetically, if he had been compelled to testify, what would his testimony have added to the case?

            1. Thanks for admitting his complaint had no basis in reality.

            2. What case?

        2. Subpoena them then. You’re upset that they didn’t volunteer?

          That you couldn’t get a subpoena should tell you something.

          It’s moot anyways, those people retain the right to not incriminate themselves. If they were involved in any wrongdoing they’d just plead the 5th, if they weren’t involved there’s point in having them testify.

    2. He is right. It should be unanimous that hearsay and opinion are not evidence. That political disagreements are not crimes. That you are allowed to investigate corrupt politicians. But amash has no morals.

    3. The bar for impeachment isn’t even as high as probable cause. It can be as low as the office holder exhibiting a general pattern of incompetence or corruption.

      You can argue that you personally want the bar to be higher and the Democratic Party won’t get your votes because they don’t set a higher bar. But that isn’t the standard set by the Constitution.

      1. “The bar for impeachment isn’t even as high as probable cause. It can be as low as the office holder exhibiting a general pattern of incompetence or corruption.”

        I’m sure you pumped for Obo to be tossed on his ass for using the IRS as a political weapon, right?
        Right?

        1. Deflect by bringing up a whataboutism when you have no counter-argument.

          1. you’re pathetic neutral mike.

          2. You mean questioning you integrity and consistency? Yeah, we are.

            And for the record, whenever some shitweasel like you uses the term ‘whataboutism’, it is instant proof that you have no argument, integrity, or credibility.

    4. “It is amazing how the people who scream the most about Trump’s alleged ‘bad character’ inevitably end up having the worst character themselves”

      Correct.
      See: Mike Laursen

      1. Shit, you’re onto me. Those office supplies were going to be thrown out, anyway.

        1. “Shit, you’re onto me.”

          everybody’s on to you.

  4. I’ve never known a politician to have values that were not for sale.

    1. Amash has no values. So really nothing for sale.

      1. Amash has no values.

        You’re a half-educated bigot and inconsequential malcontent.

        Everybody has problems.

        1. You realize that you joining whatever side of an argument you do, lowers the value of that side for any rational people right?

          1. No, he’s doing fairly well. Amash is clearly a person who has some principles that are not for sale.

            1. Citation needed.

              1. It’s Mike Laursen – of course he’s all in with rev Kirkland

            2. He has no principles. 3 named post offices in 10 years. No progress on any relevant legislation.

              1. In fairness, it’s only because the rest of the world was too stupid to automatically realize the brilliance of his wonderful libertarian ideas and selfishly expected him to persuade them and negotiate with them to get those ideas passed into law.

                But those are the most libertarian post offices you’ll ever walk into. All three are probably shortlisted for closure.

            3. So….. unlike you, right? Mr. ‘Whataboutism’.

              Really, fuck off.

    2. Except Trump. His values are pristine. He is the exception.

      1. Trump’s values aren’t just values . . . they’re Values.

        1. That’s actually funny.
          Congrats Kirkland, you’ve upped your hit rate to .0000000000000000001

      2. It’s weird how you always jump to strawman arguments.

        1. Not sure loveconstitution1789 would agree that “his values are pristine” is a strawman argument.

          1. He was responding to me dumbfuck.

    3. Jimmy Carter. The common beef against him is that he was incompetent, but he most definitely has personal convictions that are not for sale.

      1. “Jimmy Carter”

        No buyers.

        1. Yeah, maybe so. 🙂

      2. His anti Semitism is certainly not up for sale.

  5. http://www.foxnews.com/media/mainstream-media-ignores-fisa-court-slamming-fbi-over-surveillance-applications

    Hey, lets put up another “impeachment is so groovy because Orange Man Bad Article” and ignore the FISA Court calling the entire FBI to the carpet. FISA abuse just isn’t a libertarian issue I guess.

    1. Local news story bro.

    2. Presiding Judge Rosemary M. Collyer gave the FBI until Jan. 10 to come up with solutions,

      which the mainstream media will then shout from the rooftops, right? RIGHT?!

      1. After which, those PROPOSED solutions will receive the same respect shown to agreements by North Korea.
        And no one will get fired, no one will loose their pension, and the song will remain the same.
        And, oh by the way, WHAT will happen if the FBI ignores the judge just like they ignore congress?

      2. The FBI will propose “solutions” which the mainstream media will then pretend are something more meaningful than trying to stop an arterial bleed with a finger tip Band-Aid.

        1. And you’re ignoring anything past the headline

  6. “But Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.), who now identifies with neither party”

    What are his pronouns?

    1. Bitch ass cry baby.

      1. Open wider, bigot. Your betters are not nearly done with you.

        And try to quit whimpering about it. Accept getting stomped with some dignity.

        1. You’re just boring.

        2. It’s encouraging to see you so enthusiastic about impeachment, Art. Because I recall even after Mueller submitted his report proving Russians are controlling our government, you said impeachment wasn’t necessary.

          Glad you realize #TrumpUkraine is even more serious than #TrumpRussia. Welcome to the right side of history.

        3. “Open wider, bigot”

          No one wants to hear about your weird gay domination/revenge fantasies.

        4. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
          December.18.2019 at 5:43 pm
          “Open wider, bigot….”

          You don’t have to; your mouth is already big enough to have Trump jammed down your throat once more, asshole bigot.

      2. Bitch ass cry baby.

        LOLOL

  7. “The libertarian congressman ”

    Independent who claimed that parties like the LP did nor represent all the people
    This guy is libertarian leaning at the very best – and not a libertarian.

    Reason has a habit of supporting republicans for the LP candidacy

    1. “Independent who claimed that parties like the LP did nor (sic) represent all the people”

      And? Does the LP represent progressives?

    2. No they don’t. The last election they couldn’t identify a single Trump supporter on their staff. Most of them were Hillary Clinton supporters, more than Gary Johnson (who effectively ran as a liberal, with a liberal running mate).

      Reason are not closet conservatives, they’re progressive liberals pretending to be libertarian.

      1. Most of them were Hillary Clinton supporters? Can you back up that assertion with any evidence?

          1. First of all, the people in that article are not all Reason staffers. They polled a bunch of people from Reason’s circle of associates. Regardless, I actually counted the votes in the article:

            Gary Johnson: 21
            Donald Trump: 2
            Hillary Clinton: 2

  8. This is what we get when uneducated people are elected. He reminds me of a high school government class.

    1. He is like the overly earnest kid who has ADD and reads just enough about the Constitution to be dangerous.

    2. wikipedia: [Amash] then attended the University of Michigan, graduating in 2002 with a Bachelor of Arts in economics with high honors. Amash stayed at Michigan to attend the University of Michigan Law School, graduating with a Juris Doctor in 2005.

        1. “This is what we get when uneducated people are elected.” If you have a beef against Amash, it’s not against an uneducated person.

          1. B.a. in economics and law school means he knows jack shit.

            1. True. I’ve known lawyers in practice for over twenty years that have little understanding of contract law. And let’s all keep in mind that AOC has an economics degree. So she’s all smart n’ stuff too!

      1. Do you know what you call an undergrad in economics and no other degrees? Uneducated.

  9. “Impeachment in the House is not a conviction. The trial happens in the Senate. All the House does is charge impeachable conduct. All we need is probable cause. That threshold is easily met with the existing evidence.”

    Probably cause? That’s the standard the FISA court is supposedly following. It’s the standard which (without express basis in the actual language of the Bill of Rights) grand juries are told to follow.

    As applied today, it’s the ham-sandwich standard.

    “Yeah, some of the witnesses said the suspect was a tuna on whole wheat, but we’ll file the charge anyway and leave those issues to be hashed out at the trial.”

  10. The five-term congressman noted that the impeachment process should not be about “policy disagreements,” ineffective governance,” or “criminality based on statutes that did not exist at the time our Constitution was written.” Instead, he said, it “is about maintaining the integrity of the office of the presidency and ensuring that executive power is directed toward proper ends in accordance with the law.”

    If it is not supposed to be based on criminal statutes, then how is then based on “proper ends in accordance with the law”? What is the law if not statutes?

    As much as anything. Amash is just stupid. He can’t even make an internally consistent argument.

    1. Amash is walking a tightrope between an acid pool of “my principles” on one side and a spiked floor of “flowery language disguising my irrational hatred for a man that brought my career to an end” but doesn’t have the balls to be honest about his principles, since he has none, or to admit that his feelings are getting the best of his brain.

      He’s basically chemjeff.

    2. There was an article several years about why Amash didn’t have better committee positions and the gist was that he was basically too much of an asshole to get along with anyone. Contrast that to the other libertarian in the House, Thomas Massie, who actually works with others to get legislation done and has accomplished good things for his district.

      Amash is just an incompetent piece of shit throwing a hissy fit because Donald Trump has accomplished more for libertarian policy goals than Amash ever did…despite Trump not even pretending to be libertarian. He’s the poster child for why political libertarianism is a complete dead end filled with losers and frauds.

      1. Again
        See: Mike Laursen, and also Michael Hihn

    3. Amash is accurately describing the high crimes and misdemeanors standard. He is correct that it is a different standard than “has not violated any criminal statutes.”

      1. “Amash is accurately describing the high crimes and misdemeanors standard.”

        This is why I cannot stand this board, lately. You say this like it is a verifiable fact. You know that there are people on both sides of this issue that disagree, but by casting it as a statement of fact, you attempt to cut off the discussion.

        Don’t get me wrong, I see plenty doing it on the right as well, but this was so flagrant that I had to call it out.

        1. You are correct to do so. Mike is a flagrant idiot.

      2. //[Amash] said, it “is about maintaining the integrity of the office of the presidency and ensuring that executive power is directed toward proper ends in accordance with the law.//

        How’s that for a standard? Amash isn’t accurately describing the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard because he’s not describing anything. His “standard” is a word salad without any discernible meaning intended to impress people who don’t understand the meaning of words but who feel the spirit of their principles in every cell of their body.

        I think it is abundantly clear that placement of the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” in a grouping with the terms like “bribery” and “treason” should probably give you a hint that we’re not talking about impeaching people over being boorish and unsportsmanlike.

  11. jealous is not a good color on Justin.

    1. Jealous (or envious) of what?

      1. Being considered a decent person.

      2. Mike Laursen
        December.18.2019 at 6:48 pm
        Jealous (or envious) of what?

        Jealous of people who are respected, a jealousy Mike Laursen shares

      3. the Relevant … they want to be relevant and Justin is no longer

  12. What ever happened to the people with common sense and the ability to have rational thought? At one time it was possible to get at least a large minority in Congress that were capable. All they can do now is campaign.

    1. TDS man. It’s sad. I keep hearing about all this evidence but all I see is hearsay. Uncorroborated hearsay, at that. Combine that with a non-existing Quid Pro Quo, and it’s just full on retard within the Dem party right now.

      Then again, this is the same bunch of maroons that thought Kavannaugh was guilty based upon 30 year old hearsay with zero corroborating evidence. Feelz > logic and reason.

      It’s even more sad and pathetic to see so much of the Reason staff with full-on TDS.

      1. Your problem is that you’re not sufficiently suspending your disbelief. If you focus too hard on the facts, you will lose your grip on the truth.

    2. “What ever happened to the people with common sense and the ability to have rational thought?”

      They can’t get elected.

      “At one time it was possible to get at least a large minority in Congress that were capable.”

      When was that? The 1920s?

  13. Clinton impeachment: Democrats betrayed the ‘Principles and Values They Once Claimed To Cherish’

    Trump impeachment: Republicans Are Betraying the ‘Principles and Values They Once Claimed To Cherish’

    Other than time, please explain the difference between the two parties stand on impeachment of their president?

    1. Clinton actually had a victim- Paula Jones.

      Who is Trump’s victim supposed to be?

      1. The hag; it WAS HER TURN!!!!!!

    2. Clinton committed an actual crime: perjury.

  14. It looks like the Libertarian Party has its 2020 ticket: Amash/Gabbard (with Amash on top, of course.)

    1. Tulsi’s only appeal to libertarians is her stance on continuing to wage war in the Middle East. On most other issues she’s a rank-and-file Democrat and will not appeal to most at the LP convention. She’s also stated she has no intent to run on another ticket. Now she’s working to build her own brand and try to remind people that not all Democrats aren’t insane.

      1. “not all Democrats aren’t insane.”

        Wait…

      2. That and she’s the only candidate that you can really fap to …. and I find that libertarians are instinctively drawn to any women in politics that spends even a second pretending to look them in the eyes …

        1. Gabbard isn’t stupid enough to run as a libertarian

          1. Nor does she have the requisite self-loathing

      3. And her position on wars is the same as Trump’s. So why would anyone vote for her when Trump is running and she’s socialist on pretty much everything else?

    2. I’m not a fan of her policies, but I could get behind her.

      1. You do that, and I will get her to showcase her oral skills. She is quite an orator after all.

  15. For impeachment, the accusers must present a case that what they accuse the president of:
    1. Was done.
    2. Was done for the reasons they say it was.
    3. Is an offense that warrants removal.

    If the accused are not going to go by criminal law as a basis for determining #3, then their burden of evidenxe is higher for convincing their colleagues that what was done warrants removal, not lesser, as Amash seems to argue here.

    He walks them through a pretty path that goes nowhere.

    1. For impeachment, the accusers must present a case that what they accuse the president of:
      1. Was done.
      2. Was done for the reasons they say it was.
      3. Is an offense that warrants removal.

      What are you basing this assertion on?

      1. Common sense.

        Do you have to put effort into being a pedantic cunt or does it just come naturally?

      2. If they want to convince anyone else that they have a case. Like colleagues in GOP or members of the Senate. Just saying that impeachment does not have to be about violating a criminal statute, does not mean everyone has to buy into their accusations warrant removal.

        1. Of course. The bar to convince the Republicans in the Senate to remove Trump from office is much higher than the bar to convince the Democrats in the House to vote for the articles of impeachment.

          Amash is talking about the Constitutional requirements, not the requirements to convince partisans.

          1. “Of course. The bar to convince the Republicans in the Senate to remove Trump from office is much higher than the bar to convince the Democrats in the House to vote for the articles of impeachment.“

            No shit Sherlock

          2. He is also berating anyone who does not agree with that Trump deserves removal from office.

  16. “The two-party system has evolved into an existential threat to American principles and institutions.”

    It’s existential threats all the way down!

  17. Amash has the potential to rival AOC as the best ally Koch / Reason libertarians have in Congress. It’s too bad he left the GOP though. The party needs to be rebuilt by principled members like him, David Frum, and Bill Kristol.

    #LibertariansForABetterGOP

    1. Hahahaha…sick burn. 🙂

    2. Ha…way to bring it.

  18. “Justin Amash on Impeachment: Republicans Are Betraying the ‘Principles and Values They Once Claimed To Cherish’.”

    Amash is right.
    The GOP is betraying the principles and values they cherish by demanding evidence in the president’s show trial.
    Thank God there are democrats who are prudent enough to recognize the joys and wonders of trying someone with no evidence.

    1. Except the bottom line is that this is not about evidence.

      This is about “we want to impeach Trump and we will use any reason that we can come up with” versus “Trump is on our team and we are not going to let you toss him out of office unless you have a damn good reason”

      The fact that the democrats and their media cohort and even Amash have offered up dozens of different reasons why they think Trump should be impeached – yet all of them failed to garner any support – makes people suspect impure motives when they finally settle on something this flimsy in the 11th hour.

      And I don’t mean “flimsy” as in “they can’t prove what happened”. I mean “flimsy” in the sense of “even if they are 100% right, this is pretty slim pickings for removing someone from office.”

      Hell, Al Gore using the White House phones to make fundraising calls is probably more of an offense than this. In this case we have a very strong pile of probable cause for an investigation into direct corruption by a former US Vice President. That same group of folks may have information that directly relates to what we now know unequivocally was a smear campaign against Trump and his cadre about Russia. The claim here is that attempting to find out about that counts as the destruction of democracy because the person involved could possibly be an election opponent, and because it is a foreign country.

      So what? If it had been in the USA, then he could look into it? I don’t think anyone would have a problem if they had been looking in to some Republican’s finances in Ukraine.

      So yeah… that makes it all pretty much purely political. Particularly when we are still not done with a $3.5 million dollar plus effort by the Clintons, the DNC and their supporters to smear Trump with stories from Russian spies and then use those stories to justify a 3 year investigation and impeachment attempt.

      Stacking that up next to “Hey, could you look into this corruption by a former official?” is pretty weak, and nobody is buying it.

      1. The Lewinsky scandal was a Democrat plot to distract from the Chinese donations to Gore.

  19. Libertarians JOHN McCain: an ass being an ass for the sake of being an ass.

  20. “This should be unanimous, not partisan,” Amash said earlier this month. “Impeachment in the House is not a conviction. The trial happens in the Senate. All the House does is charge impeachable conduct. All we need is probable cause. That threshold is easily met with the existing evidence.”

    This is disingenuous bullshit and reveals the low bar for his own vote. What happens when that unanimous vote reaches the Senate? OMG how can you acquit when the house voted unanimously?

    1. If this is supposed to be unanimous then isn’t the onus on the House to find something that would be acceptable to most, if not all Senators.

      Because, absent that then the problem remains a failure in the House. Either one of judgement, or of substance, maybe both.

      Making that statement while supporting sending articles that do not stand a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting 2/3rds support is an admission of both failure and gross irresponsibility.

  21. We have an adversarial legal system. Why should this process be any different? You don’t discount the arguments of the defense lawyer just because he is getting paid.

  22. Yep, the GOP has always been in favor of fishing expeditions.

  23. I live in Amash’s district and know him personally. I couldn’t care less about the Republican party or Amash’s departure from it. But Amash’s actions with regard to Trump are a real disappointment for this long-time Amash supporter. It smells of TDS.

    The values and principles the Republican party “once claimed to cherish” were actually betrayed and sold out by the Republican party prior to Trump, and the great thing Trump did was to expose this farce.

    1. Funny thing about traditional Republican values…Trump’s a lot closer to them than any Republican president in almost a century with the exception of Reagan (and maybe Eisenhower). His trade platform is very similar to the McKinley-Taft-Coolidge “Full Dinner Pail” platform, which led to a period of great prosperity for America (until Herbert Hoover screwed it all up by reversing course).

      When I hear Bush-era Republicans whine and complain about Trump, it just solidifies my support for him because neo-conservatives are nothing but a bunch of closet leftist frauds.

      1. No Shit. It is self-loathing behavior. They hate Trump so much they are willing to vote against their own interests.

      2. ^ This. Post WWII, the Republicans were taken over by authoritarian war mongers, evil pricks like McCain and Bush. Trump is a flawed candidate in many ways, but he’s a lot closer to what Republicans ought to be than other Republicans.

        But evil and disgusting as McCain and Bush were, they were still somewhere on the US political spectrum. Democrats have jumped off a cliff and are actively trying to destroy US democracy and replace it with socialist single party rule.

  24. Why is Reason still pretending that Amash is not a Democrat hack?

  25. Amash thinks asking a foreign government to investigate corruption prior to giving them millions upon millions of US tax payer dollars is an impeachable offense.

    1. According to the testimony of Sondland Trump only cared about the “announcement of investigations” and that actually makes sense because there is nothing to support those investigations. It’s why Trump had to bribe and extort Ukraine to get that announcement. If there was anything there the FBI and Barr would have investigated it.

      Oh look, Trump just got impeached!!!

      1. Oh look, Trump just got impeached!!!

        Amusingly, none of the articles are for “bribery” or “extortion.”

        1. Ask yourself what purpose did it serve for Trump to have asked a foreign govt to criminally investigate an American citizen? What need was there? The FBI was created for that very purpose. Barr could investigate it. If the FBI or Barr needed cooperation in those investigations they could have then asked the Ukrainians to provide evidence or whatever. The only reason Trump did this is because there was no real basis to investigate Biden or fuckimg Crowdstrike. Trump was trying do an end around and get Ukraine to give his bs investigations first life. His plan was to keep his involvement secret. It’s criminal conspiracy on its own before even mentioning the involvement the mafia financing, the gas company, the illegal campaign financing and the purchase of a Congressman to get an ambassador removed.

          1. “Ask yourself what purpose did it serve for Trump to have asked a foreign govt to criminally investigate an American citizen?”

            Uh, maybe because he heads the executive branch?
            See, Pod, the government is divided into three branches…………
            Oh, the hell with it; willful ignorance is not subject to education.

          2. Ask yourself why the Dems just made a pointless political gesture that lost support as time went on, and didn’t even bother charging him for the “crimes” you’re claiming.

          3. The FBI was created for that very purpose. Barr could investigate it. If the FBI or Barr needed cooperation in those investigations they could have then asked the Ukrainians to provide evidence or whatever.

            That’s, in fact, literally what Trump did:

            The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.

            So, by your own criteria, Trump did what he was supposed to.

            The only thing that your comment shows is that you are starting to get confused about your own lies.

          4. Ask yourself what purpose did it serve for Trump to have asked a foreign govt to criminally investigate an American citizen? What need was there? The FBI was created for that very purpose.

            Yeah. Trump went about it entirely the wrong way. He should have had GPS Fusion and Michael Steele put together a dossier that would have permitted the FBI to investigate Hunter Biden.

    2. “Amash thinks asking a foreign government to investigate corruption prior to giving them millions upon millions of US tax payer dollars is an impeachable offense.”

      Well, the guy who should have been investigated later became a D POTUS wannabe, so that makes him immune to any investigation by an R!

  26. Amash has graduated from “libertarian leaning” to full “libertarian” in the minds of Reason editors. Odd that that happens just as Amash is graduating from irrelevant Republican to authoritarian-leaning progressive.

    And to answer Amash’s confused question: the reason the vote is divided in the House is because the House articles of impeachment are garbage; the amount of evidence to support garbage impeachment articles is irrelevant.

  27. What rule of law did the FBI follow in investigating Trump, Justin?

    You’re essentially supporting a removal of president over style of governance. Because you can actually make the argument that Trump’s weakness as a leader was shown during the phone call. Withholding the aid temporarily was arguably an error in judgment. The voters are free to respond in the upcoming election.

    We didn’t impeach a president who tried to write his own immigration law, executed an American citizen without trial, and funded an entire healthcare without congressional approval. The democrats didn’t remove a president who LIED under oath. Impeachment should be reserved for a particularly egregious conduct, it’s not some tool you can use for any kind of executive overreach.

    You and your impeachment pals set an extremely disturbing precedent. Have you seen how the left quickly branded Tulsi as a Russian agent? With enough numbers, they can spring impeachment and investigation on anyone. And now the Republicans have grounds to say “we can do that now too”.

    1. “We didn’t impeach a president who tried to write his own immigration law, executed an American citizen without trial, and funded an entire healthcare without congressional approval”

      Notably, Amash was in office for the duration of those events, and did not push for impeachment

      1. “…Notably, Amash was in office for the duration of those events, and did not push for impeachment.”

        Wasn’t Trump.

  28. So what is the libertarian position of a politician who “changes party” without resigning immediately and running for election under the “new” party in the next election?
    Voter Fraud? Plain old fraud? RICO violations? Sleazeball politician?

  29. “The libertarian congressman”

    No.

  30. All these “libertarians” here who would choose a demagogue over the constitution, devotion to a fascist prick instead of devotion to the actual rule of law.

    Pathetic.

    Wait, no….PATHETIC. Just like the cowardly teenage girl twittering all day long when he could be doing something useful.

    1. Not nearly as pathetic as you trying to pretend you have balls to drop, manlet.

    2. wearingit
      December.18.2019 at 8:45 pm
      “All these “libertarians” here who would choose a demagogue over the constitution,…”

      No, you stupid shit, she lost.

    3. You’re confused. Trump actually is the (highly imperfect) alternative to the fascist pricks. But being a fascist prick yourself, you just don’t get it.

  31. “[It] is about maintaining the integrity of the office of the presidency and ensuring that executive power is directed toward proper ends in accordance with the law.”

    —-Justin Amash

    Justin Amash wanted to impeach President Trump over the Mueller Report back in June, which is why he quit the House Freedom Caucus. Amash let his personal hatred get so messed up, he “principled” himself right out of politics. If Amash is remembered for anything, it’ll be for being bitter over having committed political suicide. I bet the voters his district voted for Trump in 2016, too.

    He’s so “principled”, he voted to give politicians in the Senate the authority to overrule the voters in his own district–in an election year, no less. It’ll be interesting to see who the voters in his district vote for for president in 2020. If they vote for Donald Trump, the repudiation of Amash’s “principles” will be complete. He’ll be forgotten after this, and if he’s ever remembered for what he did, it’ll be as someone who sold the voters in his own district short.

    1. Have the Republicans chosen someone to run against him since he became an independent? Seems like an easy win for anyone they could set up to take the seat.

      1. I don’t believe he’s running again.

        He’s out.

        They’ll have a primary.

        1. He’s running as an independent. He’s not running in the Republican primary because he’s no longer in the party. At last count, they had three Republicans in that primary, two of whom were polling above Amash before he left the party.

          I don’t see Amash’s political career lasting past this election.

      2. What he’s doing is like someone trashing their home the day before they give the keys back to the bank and let the bank repossess it.

        1. THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT — AND REMOVAL
          ‘The most heinous act in which a democratic government can engage is to use its law enforcement machinery for political ends

          This by one of America’s most highly regarded CONSERVATIVE opinion journalists. Brett Stephens built his with a few decades at the Wall Street Journal.

          Then he was hired away, to be a string conservative voice at …. the New York Times … causing many alt-right goobers to SCREAM that he had become a full-blown COMMUNIST … With a shrine to Lenin in his bedroom …. Oh yeah, and a Hillary voter in 2016 🙂

          Republicans like Devin Nunes were more right about the conduct of the investigation than many of its supporters, including me, care to admit, … And Carter Page is owed an apology by anyone, including me, who cares for the presumption of innocence and objects to trial by media.

          ***But now to impeachment:

          If conservatives are right to object to the abuse of power by F.B.I. agents, shouldn’t they be far more alarmed at the abuse of investigatory and other powers for political ends by the president of the United States?

          According to the public transcript of Donald Trump’s July 25 call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, Trump said: “The server, they say Ukraine has it …. I would like to have the attorney general call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.”
          Trump also said: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.”

          The president is unambiguously proposing to employ his chief law-enforcement officer to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory that Trump hopes will burnish his political legitimacy. And he also proposes to use the attorney general in an attempt to investigate a political opponent for undeniably political ends.

          ***That Trump didn’t get away with it is a relief, not an exoneration.

          *** That he continues to insist the call was “perfect,” as he did Tuesday in his letter to Nancy Pelosi, means that he is likely to do it again.

          ***That he attempted to subvert the will of Congress by impounding congressional funds for his political ends threatens the separation of powers in ways that will haunt a future Republican Congress.

          ***That he was prepared to endanger an ally and benefit an enemy is not treason, as the Constitution defines treason, but it is a travesty, as any American ought to understand travesty.

          ***That Republican leaders are cheering him only serves to define deviancy down and debase our political norms in ways that will surely haunt a future Republican Congress.

          *** *** *** That conservative pundits claim to be outraged at the F.B.I.’s investigation of the Trump campaign — or the smearing of Carter Page — while being indifferent to Trump’s attempt to investigate Joe Biden — and the smearing of Hunter Biden — marks a fresh low in rhetorical sophistry.

          ***There are people who believe that law, morality, traditions and institutions are at least as important to the preservation of freedom as the will of the people. Such people are called conservative.

          ***What Republicans are now doing with their lock step opposition to impeachment — and with their indifference to the behavior that brought impeachment about — is not conservative. It is the abdication of principle to power.

          ***I might think differently about impeachment if Trump had shown any sense of contrition. Or if Republicans had shown any inclination to censure him. But Trump hasn’t, and they haven’t.

          ***Whatever the political ramifications of impeachment now, history will judge members of this Congress harshly if they fail to state their revulsion at the president’s behavior in the strongest terms they can. Impeach and convict.

          Nixon resigned when a REAL CONSERVATIVE, Barry Goldwater, told him to .. because REPUBLICANS had turned against him, and would vote to remove.,

          Brett just told the Republican Senate THEIR future … by weaponizing Democrats (who have blown it). There’s a name for this … ummm. …. err …. moral courage,

          Reagan once said that libertarianism is the core of conservatism — meaning classical liberalism. It was Reagan who personally crushed the nationwide anti-gay Anita Bryant Crusade, just before announcing his winning 1980 campaign. It was Goldwater and Reagan aggressively defending homosexuals (especially in our military and as teachers) … in the 1970s … two decades before Clinton shamelessly signed DOMA and DADT … and nearly four decades before Obama “evolved.”

          Classical liberalism exists as a faction, on both the left and the right. And when libertarianism was pro-people … not anti-government, now even sneering Consent of the Governed, as authoritarians have always been wont to do.

  32. Republicans have continuously denounced the evidence against Trump, discounting the testimony of multiple witnesses and characterizing it as flimsy hearsay. The president is facing impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress following accusations that he violated his oath of office in order to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political foes.

    “Conservatives will someday face the horrible truth that the Republican Party fought so hard to justify and excuse an amoral and self-serving president,” Amash tweeted last night, “and what he gave them in return was bigger government and erosion of the principles and values they once claimed to cherish.”

    I’m gonna bet, based on my reading of things and understanding history, this won’t age well.

    This was all a racket and a game designed to set doubt into the electorate in 2020.

    Faux-righteous, false patriots claiming to defend the Constitution, who relied on the lies of the Steele Dossier to pimp an investigation and when that failed, they moved onto Ukraine this time using dubious FBI/FISA shenanigans.

    TRUE principles would focus on the process of all this.

    And it’s ugly enough to leave Beccaria spinning in his grave I reckon.

    Hopefully the Senate closes ranks and the GOP just get back in the huddle, and plan the election. View this like a blown call by the refs and you have to rise above it. There’s no way to defend yourself at this point. FFS Reason mocks a President who dares defend himself against dubious evidence.

    My question to Reason staff is this: Based on the evidence presented, how would YOU feel or react if you were in his shoes?

  33. Amash is NOT a Libertarian.

    Amash like Democrats are desperate to stay relevant as their political legacies fade into the darkness.

    1. How would you know what a libertarian is?

      AMASH does not slurp the gummint teat, YOU DO
      AMASH does not BELEEB he’s ENTITLED, YOU DO.

      AMASH would never call his known father “selfish as shit” for protecting his Social Security … THAT HE PAID FOR ,., while demanding ENTITLED to suck a teat PAID FOR BY HIS OWN CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN ….. YOU DO THAT, MOOCH

      <a href="https://reason.com/2018/02/18/a-cure-for-mass-shootings-doesnt-exist/#comment-7141520

      My retired father loves politics and we often discuss the nature of things.

      I cannot get him to openly discuss social security and medicare reform with cuts. He is just hoping to check out before our debt crushes the USA. Its selfish as shit.

      TROLL says more crushing debt is okay .. if it lines HIS pocket!
      Insults HIS OWN FATHER, “selfish as shit” … DEFENDS his own teat-sucking (OMG)

      WHINES that a multi-trillion debt increase is “giving my own money back ” … FROM WHERE, GOOBER???

      BY STEALING FROM HIS OWN CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN .

      What kind of fiscal conservative DENIES that federal debt steals from our future … from their own children? … WITHOUT THEIR VOTE!

      Brainwashed Republican goobers … as DANGEROUS as … brainwashed Bernie goobers

      HE’D CUT HIS FATHER’S BENEFITS .. AND STEAL FROM HIS OWN KIDS … TO INCREASE HIS CASH, BECAUSE … HE’S “ENTITLED.” …. a self-righteous MOOCH

      The left borrows trillions for free stuff
      The right borrows trillions for free tax cuts
      Two sides of the same statist coin.

      Left – Right = Zero

      Will this “trigger” the precious snowflake again?

  34. A question for Amash and any other “libertarian” in “government”: If I did business in the same manner as government does, and forced strangers to give me money, would you consider me a criminal?

    1. Government doesn’t do that. Consent of the governed.
      Libertarian = always pro-liberty, never anti-government. They can be polar opposites.

  35. This says it all – fake urban libertarian that is really a democrat but doesn’t want to be called one.

    1. Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for over 50 years.
      We’ve always been hated by you authoritarians, both left and right.
      But who gives a booger what your fewer than 10% of the electorate cannot grasp?

      But we do defend your RIGHT to …. bellow on …

  36. (copied from an educatonal post by Michael Hihn)

    Sevo
    December.18.2019 at 12:18 pm
    Pretty good depiction of lefty TDS victim.
    Fuck off and die, Hihn

    Ready? 🙂

    FACTS: Trump’s Collapsing Economy
    GDP growth falling … now worse than he started with.
    *Stupid trade war
    *Wrong tax cuts
    *Massive debt

    He’s running it all on a debt binge … just like a proggie, but different winners
    THE WORST PRESIDENT ON ADDING NEW 8-year DEBT … EVER. In only 3 years, he’s added as much 8-year debt as Obama did AFTER 8 years (CBO 2024 forecast) … FAIL …. ESPECIALLY when he campaigned on PAYING OFF THE ENTIRE DEBT IN 8 YEARS!!! … MEGA-FAIL. … LOSER

    FACT: Obama inherited the 3rd worst economy since the 1930s, and handed Trump the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President. Trump’s GOP pissed it all away.

    1) *** Current GDP growth is LESS than he started with. Growth was faster BEFORE the tax cuts! …. MEGA-FAIL

    2) Trump ridiculed Obama’s Labor Force Participation Rate (workers abandon job search) said Obama’s “real” unemployment rate was … 30-42% (BAT-SHIT CRAZY!) … BUT .,.. hahaha …. Trump FAILED to create eaningful improvement (started at 62.9% …. Now 63.3% …. vs 66+% before the recession) DOES THAT MAKE TRUMP’S “REAL” UNEMPLOYMENT RATE 30%? (lol)

    3) If the economy is “booming,” why have are so many STILL not even seeking a job?

    Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.1 percent in the third quarter of 2019, according to the “second” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 2.0 percent.

    THAT’S LESS THAN THE 2.3% HE STARTED WITH! …. FAIL

    GDP Annual Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.20 percent from 1948 until 2019 … FAIL

    **Blame the tax cuts
    a) EXACTLY OPPOSITE of every successful tax cut since WWII
    b) FUCKED his promise to restore industrial jobs, the promise that elected him.

    There have been only two postwar economic booms …from the two worst postwar economies. A Democrat, Kennedy, launched the first one. A Republican, Reagan, the second. Their tax cuts were identical … “across the board, top-to-bottom, business and corporate”… (Kennedy’s words, not Reagan’s) .

    ***WHY would Trump;’s tax cuts FAIL to repeat the ONLY two successful tax cuts in NEARLY A CENTURY ….. BECAUSE TRUMP’S GOP IS TOO STUPID ON TAXES AND THE ECONOMY … as PROVEN by Presidents from BOTH parties, Kennedy and Reagan

    A GROWING ECONOMY IS LIKE A 3-LEGGED STOOL — CONSUMERS, EMPLOYERS AND INVESTORS MUST ALL HAVE CONFIDENCE
    *Consumers buying
    *Employers hiring
    *Investors providing the needed capital.

    IF ANY LEG LACKS CONFIDENCE, THE STOOL FALLS OVER.
    Reagan’s recovery began with MANUFACTURING INVESTMENT boosting GDP, creating manufacturing jobs and/or higher output on existing factory jobs. Our industry was flat on its back, with the combination of 18-year write-offs on jobs-creating manufacturing equipment …AND DOUBLE-DIGIT INFLATION DESTROYING THE VALUE OF THE LENGTHY WRITE-OFF. Reagan cut that to 7 years, ON TOP OF Kennedy’s 7% BONUS TAX CREDIT on those investments. That was enough! Until Democrats repealed BOTH Kennedy’s and Reagan’s investment incentives — progressives destroying our best-paid union jobs — to “close corporate loopholes,” of course! (Trump AIN’T the ONLY dumbfuck here; merely he nastiest)

    *That’s why BOTH parties are full of shit, debating supply-side vs demand -side economics.
    *ALL sides MUST be boosted
    *In a free society, government takes NO SIDES.
    (Even establishment libertarians are now suckered by supply-side bullshit.)

    Over 60% of Americans think America is HEADING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION ….. UNDER TRUMP …. THEY ARE CORRECT … HIS TAX POLICY CAN NEVER ACHIEVE THE PROMISE THAT GOT HIM ELECTED …. HE CANNOT RESTORE OUR INDUSTRIAL BASE …. THE 3-LEGGED HAS TWO LEGS MISSING.

    *TOTAL TAX BURDENS – US vs CANADA — IGNORED by today’s “fiscally-conservative” establishment (now anti-gummint, NO LONGER pro-people)

    CORPORATE INCOME TAX
    US = 21% (large corporations only, up to 100 shareholders loopholed out))
    CA = 15% (all corporations)

    DEPRECIATION (MFG EQUIPMENT)
    US = 8 years average
    CA = 5 years (all our major trade competitors)

    TAX ON DIVIDENDS
    US = 22%
    CA = Zero, Nada, Zip

    CAPITAL GAINS
    Cannot compare, overall, Each country has many classes, different in each country. We’re generally lower here, except critical venture capital is higher and none of ours.

    ONE OTHER COST COMPARISON destroying jobs for decades – CAN YOU GUESS WHAT IT IS? Answer at the end of this. Hint: not taxes.

    Overall: Increasingly since 1986, job have been systematically destroyed by ALL THOSE TAXES … plus “the other one” (not taxes) … THAT is why Trump is GUARANTEED TO FAIL on restoring industrial jobs … says this son of the Rust Belt, the Rust Belt IGNORED for decades, by politicians of both parties. (It was the Rust Belt that won Trump’s Electoral College squeaker, based on Trump’s UNEDUCATED PROMISE of factory jobs)

    **Even crazier, Trump is trying to offset the PUNITIVE TAXES that destroy industrial jobs, by … ADDING MORE TAXES! OMG (tariffs are paid by manufactures and consumers)

    ***THAT is why Trump fights so hard to reduce immigration and imports, both falsely claimed for our lost industrial jobs, claims made by economic illiterates.

    Can YOU guess the missing, non-tax cost comparison? It FURTHER guarantees Trumps FAILURE on manufacturing jobs, and why Biden, Sanders and Warren would ALSO fail?.
    It’s Health care We not only have the world’s highest health care costs … we’re the only country where EMPLOYERS pay all or most of the cost. (In Canada, employers pay only dental, with all their “medicare” paid by their workers, who pay twice the taxes as Americans ) That, TOO, is why progressives have been kicking our ass for decades… winning by default … unchallenged.

    Sorry, I’m getting emails asking why so lengthy lately. These are drafts, toward publication. When this gets published. … And the video proof of Trump lying to protect violence and murder by his nazi and racist supporter …. And how Trump’s campaign tax cuts included a 60% tax cut for himself … well, remember how Nixon was forced to resign by his own party? Goldwater told him there were enough votes to remove him. This calls out BOTH left and right … as libertarians have TRIED for decades. NOW we win.

    Bet me.

    Then blame Sevo for this, 🙂

    Copyright 1994 by LibertyIssues.com and Michael J Hihn. All rights reserved and defended

    HOW YOU CAN HELP A lot of liberal and conservative propaganda can be easily countered, most of it unknown to our “think tanks.”

    Only US: double-taxation of corporate profits. Most on the left ridicule the notion, being as easily brainwashed as many on the right. This has been both easy and effective for decades..

    ”Imagine you own all the Amazon stock. All the assets are yours. They pay a billion in taxes. What happens to the value of your assets?” (that part’s easy!) “Now Amazon pays a dividend, which is taxable. Who pays the tax on your dividends?” …. “If you were in Canada, the dividends ate tax -free. Does that seem fair? Might that cause less investment and fewer jobs here?”

    Tax wealth to subsidize consumption, which creates jobs. Capital is exploited from labor. . ( was an entrepreneur coach/consultant for nearly 40 years, You might need to phrase it differently.)
    “Let’s say you want to start manufacturing for that new consumption. You pay for a factory, buy or lease, and the manufacturing equipment, all from capital. You need office furniture and equipment, all from capital, and you have yet to hire a single employee. You hire employees and pay for raw materials and shipping containers, all from capital. On Friday, pay the workers, from capital. Next Friday, another payday. The following Monday y How do you pay for the factory, the manufacturing equipment, the office furniture? Capital, right? You buy raw materials, hire workers and start manufacturing On Friday, you pay your workers, from capital r workets get. equipment ou need a factory, buy or lease. You pay for that out of capital. Buy factory, machinery, from capital

  37. From one of America’s most conservative pollsters: If the 2020 election was held today

    EVEN MICHELLE OBAMA WOULD BEAT TRUMP!

    Along with all five top Dem candidates (other pollsters)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.