Do you remember anything else about the last 8 years? Like any of the factors that might lead to such flippant remarks? Like, my memory isn’t the best, but I’m 99% sure that there’s a reason why Obama made those statements. It wasn’t just that the democrats, from day one, assumed that absolutely no bipartisanship whatsoever would be possible on just about any issue.
(What you may be thinking about are the current republicans, who designed their new health care bill to be passed without a single democratic amendment or vote, nuked the filibuster on judicial nominees, and pushed through a slate of unqualified assholes to the cabinet along party lines, giving exactly zero shits about what the other side of the aisle had to say on the matter.)
You have a gift for stating extremes to try to make opposing points look ridiculous. That’s your solution, not mine. So unless I say it, don’t try to pin that bullshit onto me.
You certainly said that there was an undesirable outcome related to “A certain portion of the public that appears to be almost willfully ignorant.” What solution were you proposing?
Then use the same metric: What CRIMES has Trump been accused of by a recognized authority?
Stating a fact does not imply a solution. YOU implied the solution. And, in fact, there probably isn’t one. You can’t reason someone out of blind faith.
I suggest you go back and read Comey’s testimony. Obstruction of justice.
I suggest you do. Comey did not accuse Trump of obstruction of justice, either explicitly or by describing a set of acts that would legally constitute obstruction of justice. This point has been repeatedly hammered out here in various threads.
Lots of amendments were attempted. Only two succeeded: the Pell grant provisions in Sec. 2101(a)(2)(C) and Sec. 2101(a)(2)(D). And those two succeeded because of a violation of reconciliation rules.
Can you specifically name any other Republican amendments that survived into the final bill? Much less name 22 of them? (The minimum number to make “dozens” a true statement?)
Given that the amendments were described as “mostly technical and non-controvertial,” I’d guess, most of them? I’m not interested in looking it up, frankly. Go play No True Scotsman with someone else, and address the more important point that the legislation was basically designed by Republicans.
What I love is the fallback argument…“Impeach him.” Knowing full well that there’s about as much chance of this House doing so as I have of transforming into a rhinoceros tomorrow.
Not to mention that if it had been President Hillary pulling this shit, impeachment hearings would have been scheduled by now.
Which party is your guesswork an exemplar of?
I’ll admit that it was 1:00 am when I posted that last night and I was tired, I was thinking much more of the votes than the amendments, but I find the idea “the legislation was basically designed by Republicans” intriguing. What’s your source? Because here is the sort of shit I remember going on:
Was this before or after every single republican pledged to vote against it, despite the basic framework being from the Heritage Foundation? And before or after the bill incorporated well over a hundred republican amendments?
Seriously, you say this like it has some weighty significance. But from the perspective of Constitutional operation, a Congress sympathetic to the President is conceded to be far less likely to impeach than one hostile to the President.