EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!

The E wrote:
If I'm interpreting smr's ramblings correctly, "reparations" in this instance refers to a long-running conversation in US politics about whether or not african americans deserve some form of reparation for damages done during slavery -- The argument, as far as I am aware, hinges on the fact that while slavery was abolished and all slaves supposedly set free, they were never compensated for services rendered.

The E wrote:As a result, freed slaves were at a severe economic disadvantage, having worked for decades and not having anything to show for it, which feeds into the relative poverty of black communities in the present day.

Dilandu wrote: And current generations could not claim that they actually suffered from slavery.

gcomeau wrote:

Dilandu wrote: And current generations could not claim that they actually suffered from slavery.

You *must* be joking here... you seriously need to familiarize yourself with american history both pre and post abolition before saying things this absurd.

Dilandu wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
You *must* be joking here... you seriously need to familiarize yourself with american history both pre and post abolition before saying things this absurd.

Ok, I may use wrong word. Not "actually"; "directly". Do you agree, that neither of modern African-American DIRECTLY suffered from slavery?

P.S. Of course it's absurd. This whole thing is absurd. A most blatant populist attempt to rally blacks after them by promising them more money (it is much simpler & safer that actually solve any of their problems, you know... )

Here are my principal conclusions:
1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
4. Few members of Congress have read the report.

I offer these conclusions only after having read Mueller’s redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis.

In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings.

Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice.

Under our Constitution, the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust.

Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.

In fact, Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.

Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.

...

Daryl wrote:We have it here. While we didn't have out and out slavery, we kept our indigenous people from being citizens with full rights within living memory. There are still Australian Aboriginals living who were deemed to be wards of the state and couldn't leave their missions without a white bureaucrat's written permission.
So their kids and grandkids have to compete with people whose grand parents were property owners. No role models or family wealth and influence to help them.
Just money isn't the answer, it will take time.

gcomeau wrote:I'm going to assume smr is trying to adjust his thinking to find some way of calling Justin Amash... Tea Party Freedom Caucus Republican.... a "raving Demoncrat" so he can continue to refuse to actually deal with the substance of what Trump did, as pretty much all committed Trump worshipers are in the process of doing right now.

smr wrote:Well, the Demoncrats should impeach Trump to shore up their voter base if their Conscience dictates that action. Just one question: What charge are you going to impeach the President of the United States and where is your hard evidence? Remember, I am an old man and I recall that he was cleared of Conspiracy (collusion) allegations.

Pass the Popcorn! Would you like your Margarita refreshed because my Margarita Machine has been running since late last night for the Memorial Weekend Fesitivities.

gcomeau wrote:I'm going to assume smr is trying to adjust his thinking to find some way of calling Justin Amash... Tea Party Freedom Caucus Republican.... a "raving Demoncrat" so he can continue to refuse to actually deal with the substance of what Trump did, as pretty much all committed Trump worshipers are in the process of doing right now.