Cenk Uygur running for Congress

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Endorsed! Alan Grayson on steroids, I can't wait!

The difference is that Grayson came from an Orlando district that was in transition, but still had a number of conservative voters, whereas Uygur is running in liberal California.

I don't know what kind of Congressman Ugyur will be.  My view on Grayson was that he was a guy willing to be undiplomatic to tell the truth on healthcare.  I would vote for him regardless of his sometimes unappetizing persona, and despite deep disagreements with him on other issues because he had the guts to call out people over what the issue of being uninsured and its impact on such people is all about.

While I certainly don't support impeachment, and while I am (at this moment) likely to vote for Trump as a protest to this impeachment process, which I consider to be something that undermines our very system of being a Constitutional Republic, I do think that Trump's record on healthcare is awful.  I had hoped he would be the President to fix Obamacare (which, I believe, will collapse of its own weight due to the gutting of its provisions by the SCOTUS), and he could have, but he's now firmly allied with the Jim Jordans of Congress, whose plan is to repeal Obamacare, period.

I would not want a whole Congress of Alan Graysons (or Alan Graysons on steroids, for that matter), but there's a place for a few.  I suppose an argument such as this could be made for The Squad.  They serve a purpose, I suppose.  A majority of that type of person in Congress, or even in the Democratic caucus, would be an utter disaster for America.  If Ugyur gets elected and carries the Grayson message on healthcare, that would make him useful.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

While I certainly don't support impeachment, and while I am (at this moment) likely to vote for Trump as a protest to this impeachment process, which I consider to be something that undermines our very system of being a Constitutional Republic, I do think that Trump's record on healthcare is awful.

Fuzzy, the Constitution itself is checks and balances on the President. With no Constitution at all, a President could change America from a democracy to a dictatorship in no time at all. Bearing that in mind, and understanding tbat the impeachment process is literally part of the constitution, your argument seems to be "checks and balances are something that undermines our very system of checks and balances". How does that make any sense?

The Constitution states that the President may be impeached for Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  There idea that any of these apply to Trump is, at this point, ridiculous.  Tomorrow may bring other news, but as of today, asserting that Trump has committed any of those things takes more Goalpost Moving than is possible.

So I'm not opposed to the idea of impeachment, but there is not a basis to impeach Trump that the Founders would agree with.  There are reasons to not vote for Trump that have come out of all of this, but I don't see an impeachable offense.  And there is a crowd that was bound and determined to see Trump impeached regardless of the facts.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The Constitution states that the President may be impeached for Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  There idea that any of these apply to Trump is, at this point, ridiculous.  Tomorrow may bring other news, but as of today, asserting that Trump has committed any of those things takes more Goalpost Moving than is possible.

I would LOVE for you and Republicans to come out and VERY clearly and precisely define where the goalposts are, so that every time you move them, you will prove yourselves to be hypocrites by your very own words.

If you're referring to Bill Clinton's impeachment, I was not in favor of it.

As for the present Impeachment Show, the Democrats in the House are running the whole thing.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The Constitution states that the President may be impeached for Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  There idea that any of these apply to Trump is, at this point, ridiculous.  Tomorrow may bring other news, but as of today, asserting that Trump has committed any of those things takes more Goalpost Moving than is possible.

I would LOVE for you and Republicans to come out and VERY clearly and precisely define where the goalposts are, so that every time you move them, you will prove yourselves to be hypocrites by your very own words.

If you're referring to Bill Clinton's impeachment, I was not in favor of it.

As for the present Impeachment Show, the Democrats in the House are running the whole thing.

I'm referring to Trump and his behavior, what is "acceptable" versus what is "unacceptable". I would like the blie avatars on here to come out and clearly state where they are drawing their lines on what is "too far" for Trump and what would cause them to turn against him. I've noticed that every time these implied lines are approached and crossed, blue avatars insist "that was not the line and I never explicitly said that was the line", and Trump goes further and further and the majority of blue avatars will refuse to turn against him no matter how far he goes. Based on principles, the line dhould be around around the same spot for any president of either party, but I am POSITIVE tbat Trump has crossed what would be considered the line many times, if Trump was a half-black Democrat. "Party over principles" is a disease that has infected the Republican Party.

The underlined is not the Constitutional standard for impeachment.  Period.  This is an assertion on my part that, I believe, rises to the level of fact.