Thought for the Day

I read that the President and his team regard the impeachment process as both a sham and unconstitutional, and for that reason only two of the thirteen subpoenaed to give evidence have bothered to comply. Yet, just as the identity of whistleblowers is protected by the law (but will the Department of Justice arrest Sebastian Gorka for revealing the whistleblower's identity, if true?), so an impeachment process is legal and constitutional.

it seems to me that the process taking place is designed to discredit the House of Represenatives and crucially, to detach it from the organisation of American government, and if the Senate rejects impeachment with McConnell and Graham insisting they won't even bother to read any of the testimony against their President, then Congress itself will no longer be a branch of government. The President, and any President, can do what he or she wants, and Congress can do nothing about it.

The choice is now simple: support the Constitutional separation of powers, or end it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Thought of the day: Peejaye downvote the rest of them. You only got about 3,420 more to go! I'm glad you're reading....much better than blocking people you disagree with.

---

What does peejaye make of his hero Farage the Fraud now?

Would be nice to get an actual answer rather than just the inevitable down vote but I'm not holding my breath...

It's been a long time since peejaye expressed anything like an opinion, even though he seems to come here just about every day just in case one of us has posted a comment he can down-vote. That really is dedicated grudge-bearing.

I notice that he changed his profile recently. He's no longer in a pub in 'god's own country'; he's now with a bunch of young latino/as in 'hot latina land'. Maybe he's emigrated. Columbian webcam models seem to have been his sole interest here, apart from grudge-bearing.

I assume you are referring to Farage's non-compete deal with the Conservative party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I notice that he changed his profile recently. He's no longer in a pub in 'god's own country'; he's now with a bunch of young latino/as in 'hot latina land'. Maybe he's emigrated. Columbian webcam models seem to have been his sole interest here, apart from grudge-bearing.

---

From some of his posts I got the sense he tried to get comments censored or people banned from the site. What is strange is that what he objects to is never the really unconscionable things that have been posted on this side of the forum but that someone has criticized a hero of his or said Brexit was a bad idea.

I remember him expressing a few ideas years ago but I don't remember an outpouring of substance. Something like, every candidate who is not George Galloway or Ken Livingstone is a Blairite, an establishment candidate, or something or other. He also never seemed to remember the interactions he had with people, which is not a hallmark of a lucid thinker.

If he is traveling the world, more power to him, though of course it sounds a bit bourgeois. What the hell, I figure he can only downvote every single post I've made one time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

From some of his posts I got the sense he tried to get comments censored or people banned from the site. What is strange is that what he objects to is never the really unconscionable things that have been posted on this side of the forum but that someone has criticized a hero of his or said Brexit was a bad idea.

---

I always thought it was hilarious (and a sign of his lack of self-awareness) that peejaye was always agitating for people to be banned when the most likely candidate was him - as happened eventually last year. I suspect he stopped participating in discussion because he knows he can't sustain arguments without resorting to personal abuse, which would get him banned again - so he resorts to more underhand methods instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laphroaig

What does peejaye make of his hero Farage the Fraud now?

Would be nice to get an actual answer rather than just the inevitable down vote but I'm not holding my breath...

---

By not downvoting your post and downvoting Filghy's and mine he's offering you a truce. At some point in the future if you say something he doesn't like, he'll be back to it when his caseload is more manageable. An observation:)

cant load photo dont know how to delete a post

I've watched a few Andrew Neil interviews and while I'd say they are a step up from the interviews we have here, I do have a criticism.

In the U.S. we make the mistake of allowing politicians to filibuster and our interviewers often aren't prepared enough to step in and challenge falsehoods. It's also fair play if the interviewer comes prepared with inconsistencies in your statements or contradictions to challenge you with.

But I've seen a tactic that seems a bit confrontational and unfair. When you ask a politician to answer a question with a simple yes or a simple no, you're not giving them a chance to tailor their answer. I think at some point you have to let the audience decide whether the answer is an evasion and not keep demanding the politician frame the answer the way you want them to.

I know it's not much for a thought of the day...challenge people, point out inconsistencies, but pull back on the confrontation and don't demand they fit their answers into a set of binaries.

To be fair to Andrew Neil, he is the most incisive interviewer we have, and does not always ask for a 'yes or no' answer and allows his guests to talk freely -often at their own risk, as was shown when Neil interviewed Boris Johnson on the eve of the vote for the leadership of the Conservative Party when Johnson exposed himself as the unprepared fool that he is. Indeed, the interview with Johnson will be the one worth watching. I would love to see Andrew Neil interview your corrupt President, if only to see the odious little creep storm out of the interview when Neil asks hard questions.
Corbyn has always had a problem answering questions that require a simple answer. He has always been less than honest when answering questions on his support for the Palestinians because he never makes explicit his own commitment to 'revolutionary' movements which has been part of his political life since the days when he -and I too, marched against the USA's war in Vietnam. It is fundamental to the explanation for the uncritical relationship Corbyn has with the PLO and HAMAS where 'relationship' is one of solidarity rather than marriage, just as his support for Provisional Sinn Fein was -and probably still is- based on the claim that they are a socialist party, and socialists don't dump their solidarity with socialist parties -the greatest irony being that on this basis, Corbyn ought to be close friends with the Israel Labour Party, which unlike the PLO/Fateh/HAMAS is a member of the Socialist International, as is the party of Juan Guaido in Venezuela that Corbyn is not fond of.
I am not a fan of Cornbyn as I have said before, for all sorts of reasons, and he will not be Prime Minister when this election result is announced, and Labour will be looking or a new leader by the end of January.
One only hopes when Johnson tells Neil his Brexit deal is 'Oven Ready' Neil will dig deep into his dour Scottish lexicon to persuade Johnson there are better ways of describing a negotiation that has not even started and is therefore raw, rather than cooked.

Good luck watching the Johnson/Neil interview...He's ducked out of it.


I am not a fan of Corbyn as I have said before, for all sorts of reasons, and he will not be Prime Minister when this election result is announced, and Labour will be looking or a new leader by the end of January.

I think we all know where I stand on that! ;-)Whether you agree or not, this country needs a Jeremy Corbyn.

As a middle class, middle aged, white single male, apart from giving me a warm fuzzy feeling inside, Corbyn/Labour aint going to be doing much for me. But for the less fortunate, He's their last chance, the last hope they have left. Not to get all v for vendetta about it, but a symbol, a symbol of hope.

Or perhaps you think the Greens or libdems, are going to lift those people out of poverty, house them, eradicate the need for foodbanks and properly fund the nhs?