Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumMcKim
(2,412 posts)For this retire ESL Bilingual and Migrant Teacher, the Child Concentration Camps are the last straw in the pile leading to impeachment. Democrats must stand up against Nazi like behavior by starting impeachment proceedings.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Own your part in getting the traitor elected.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Thekaspervote
(32,710 posts)chowder66
(9,055 posts)snip
Pelosis sensitivity to public sentiment requires her to keep tabs on three fronts.
The first is the Democratic caucus. She constantly monitors and measures the mood of her colleagues. She rotates through her office the House Democratic leadership, a wider leadership group called the Steering and Policy Committee, the chairs of various legislative committees, and the leaders and members of dozens of disparate caucuses (the Congressional Black Caucus and the conservative Blue Dogs, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the moderate New Democratic Caucus). Then she goes to ground, conferring with members one-on-one. Not everyone knows what everyone else is thinking. She and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer do. Its how they shape consensus.
snip
But this moment in time does not mean all moments in time. Pelosi, remember, believes its possible to shape public sentiment. Thats why shes unleashed her committee chairs to fully exercise their oversight responsibilities by investigating every facet of potentially impeachable offenses: Jerry Nadler of the Judiciary Committee, Adam Schiff on Intel, Maxine Waters on Financial Services, Elijah Cummings on Oversight and Reform. They may find a smoking gunincontrovertible evidence that crystallizes public support for impeachment and maximizes pressure on House Republican incumbents in moderate districts. Then Pelosi will have achieved her goal: a broader public consensus for impeachment and stronger, if not necessarily overwhelming, bipartisan support.
Progressives worry that if Democrats avoid impeachment with this president, they will set a bad precedent. Just how bad must things get? Fair enough. But for Democrats theres a worse outcome: a premature impeachment that acquits and helps result in the reelection of Trump with a loyal Republican majority in Congress, an expanded Republican majority in state legislatures, and a permanently hyper-conservative judiciary.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/nancy-pelosi-public-opinion-and-timing-matter/591385/
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)RandiFan1290
(6,221 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...and in years past it was Clinton, Obama, etc.
I guess when an organization is headed by someone who was an advocate of the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations, pro-life, thought Clarence Thomas was treated unjustly, denied the Armenian genocide, and wasn't a "Democrat" until a few years ago that is to be expected.
BTW, "The Young Turks" was named after the group who perpetrated the Armenian genocide, which says quite a lot about Cenk Uygur.
BTW2, "The Young Turks" is financed by Russia Today and right winger Buddy Roehmer, so don't expect much positive toward Democrats coming from them.
I wonder when they'll be considered "right wing talking points"?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Totally worthless. Beneath contempt.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Here's a question...I thought the Armenians and Turks didn't get on?
George II
(67,782 posts)In 1908, a new government came to power in Turkey. A group of reformers who called themselves the Young Turks overthrew Sultan Abdul Hamid and established a more modern constitutional government.
At first, the Armenians were hopeful that they would have an equal place in this new state, but they soon learned that what the nationalistic Young Turks wanted most of all was to Turkify the empire. According to this way of thinking, non-Turks and especially Christian non-Turks were a grave threat to the new state.
On April 24, 1915, the Armenian genocide began. That day, the Turkish government arrested and executed several hundred Armenian intellectuals.
After that, ordinary Armenians were turned out of their homes and sent on death marches through the Mesopotamian desert without food or water.
Frequently, the marchers were stripped naked and forced to walk under the scorching sun until they dropped dead. People who stopped to rest were shot.
At the same time, the Young Turks created a Special Organization, which in turn organized killing squads or butcher battalions to carry out, as one officer put it, the liquidation of the Christian elements.
These killing squads were often made up of murderers and other ex-convicts. They drowned people in rivers, threw them off cliffs, crucified them and burned them alive. In short order, the Turkish countryside was littered with Armenian corpses.
Records show that during this Turkification campaign, government squads also kidnapped children, converted them to Islam and gave them to Turkish families. In some places, they raped women and forced them to join Turkish harems or serve as slaves. Muslim families moved into the homes of deported Armenians and seized their property.
Though reports vary, most sources agree that there were about 2 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire at the time of the massacre. In 1922, when the genocide was over, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining in the Ottoman Empire.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Is someone of Armenian heritage part of TYT?
Anahit Misak "Ana" Kasparian is an Armenian-American political commentator
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&ei=M9MbXa-tHu6f_QaYiISgCg&q=ana+of+the+young+turks&oq=ana+of+the+young+turks&gs_l=psy-ab.12...1452.9808..12354...0.0..0.124.1760.20j2......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i71j0i131j0j0i67j0i10j0i131i67j0i22i30j33i22i29i30.6kWIoCYzjY4
Perseus
(4,341 posts)From what you are saying, that is the wrong name to take for a team of people who want to defend democracy. Interesting.
LogicFirst
(571 posts)He would get hurt and cry - yugely.
Perseus
(4,341 posts)[link:
|And every time I read the most absurd opinion I cringe, that of:
"The department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."
Well, if the president is a crook, a criminal, the likelihood that he has aligned himself with people like him are great, so I DO want to undermine, I actually want to stop the executive branch from performing anything. Why would I want a crook to continue serving as president? who in the right mind would like that?
I would like to have someone attempt to pass a law that protects in the same way presidents of corporations, I would love to see their reaction to that.