Impeachment already happened for a second time. You mean the trial.

It is pretty definitely constitutional because he was impeached while still the sitting president.

One reason for it is, in a criminal trial, they have to prove he intended to start a violent insurrection, a very difficult bar to clear especially considering his contradictory instructions in his speech and his mental state....in an impeachment trial they only have to show that his words incited it, not his intent. That’s a no brainer.

The only way it hurts Democrats in 2022 is it would hinder his creating a new party that would split “conservative” votes and guarantee victory for democrats across the board. Thinking conservatives should be itching for conviction and a ban from office to save the Republican party in 2022, if he’s let off conservatives are domed....republicans can’t win without Trumpists, Trump can’t win without Republicans. Conversely, letting him off with no consequences would hurt the democrat vote badly...why elect them if they let Republicans get away with everything including violent and deadly insurrection and attempted assassination.

Your fear of libs coming for your guns makes me sad. You drank the fear flavored koolaid, they just aren’t unless you go violently nuts, stalk someone, or beat your wife up, or if you need to buy them illegally because you’re a felon. Note, the NRA went bankrupt under Trump and McConnel, not Biden.

If Republicans want to fight everything because a murderous and treasonous coup is prosecuted as if it were disturbing the peace with no prison time possible, they should be tossed as traitors to the constitution that they swore to uphold that requires a punishment for inciting insurrection and attempting a government overthrow. Really, they want an excuse for fighting everything, it’s a foregone conclusion that they will no matter what, they have zero interest in compromise or bipartisanship. They insisted Trump had a mandate and should ignore Democrats completely because he won the electoral college, but now that Biden won it and the popular vote and the house and senate they insist he has no mandate and must let the minority call the shots. It’s not consistent because they aren’t honest about anything anymore.

No one that thinks prosecuting directing an attempted coup is wrong would be voting democrat anyway. Prosecuting incitement of murderous insurrection is not vengeance, it’s barely a thin slice of justice, but it’s the best that can be reasonably hoped for in today’s hyper partisan climate.

I don't live in a snowy climate, but this kind of makes me wish I did JUST so I could try the same thing. 😜

Aaaaahahaha!!!!!!

No Bob, a Trumptard is not a republican. A climate change/science denier is not a Republican. A war hawk is not an old school republican. A draft dodger who calls those who serve America losers and suckers is not a Republican. You are a ReTrumpican, not a Republican.

Fiscal conservatism is the core of Republicanism, and the antithesis of big spender Trump, the nation's biggest loser, who made zero money at all 10 out of the last 15 years (taxes leaked, so sad), and less than my wife and I did at least two of the remaining five, paying at most $750 in income tax...unless he's a total tax cheat too....and it's looking like he's actually hundreds of millions in debt, some to mobsters, some, like $100 million, to Uncle Sam. THAT is not a Republican, Bob, it's a failed business man, convicted fraud and con man, and soon to be boat anchor in the Black sea.

Trump has blamed State governors for fires on federal land for 3 1/2 years+ but has done nothing to solve the problems on land he controls.

The failure has been in the making longer than that, try since the industrial revolution. I live in a rain forest starting it's third decade of drought. It's a major climate shift. The science is settled, not in question for decades.

No, he needs to listen to the professional forest managers already there instead of ignoring them because he knows more about everything than anyone. See his recent meeting with California's forest managers for examples of his stupidity, his plan is just like for Covid, do nothing, blame others, deny there's a problem, claim it will just go away, blame others again, pat himself on the back for a job perfectly done.

His idea, rake the forests, is just dumb and impossible. Only a complete moron believes you can rake up 33 million acres of mountainous forests, including removing all forest litter which is necessary habitat for many forest creatures and downed trees like redwoods that are useless as lumber. Only a stupid ignoramus believes that's a solution.

Let's say it costs about $1000 per acre, a vast underestimation, that's an extra $330 billion per year for raking California's forests alone. Is Trump offering to fund that, or is he cutting funding instead? (Hint, he cut funding)

Much of the mismanagement is from fighting fires. For decades the plan was don't let any fire burn, that's left forests with 2-5 times the fuel it would naturally have. The last decade that's been realised and when possible fires are allowed to burn. It's too little too late.

Trump's idea of draining the swamp has been plugging the outlets and pumping millions of gallons of sewage into it. That means removing career civil servants and selling positions to friends and contributors with no experience and massive conflicts of interests. Trump's is the most criminal administration ever, with more convictions than any other including Nixon. Politics are incredibly more swampy than before Trump, and the state of the union is crumbling and poised to dissolve into another civil war.

🤦‍♂️

So I'll tell you again, no, and it's not arsonists in Oregon either, antifa or not, maybe a few, but not a statistically significant number. It's lighting and wind and accidents in California and Oregon and Washington. A massive lightning storm hit the west in mid August sparking fires everywhere, and unprecedented dryness and high temperatures has kept those and other fires alive since.
The newest right wing claim is that climate change has nothing to do with the fires, they're all antifa arson. Of course I assumed that's what you were referencing when you erroneously claimed many of the Oregon fires were arson.

Read it this time, the answers are there...
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/13/912449209/oregon-officials-warn-untrue-antifa-rumors-waste-precious-resources-for-fires

No, Bob. The "antifa is setting wildfires" claim is pure bullshit with zero evidence. I bet Trump is repeating it. The fires in Oregon were started by lightning. Edit: and downed power lines, and dragging trailer chains, ....

The cop who posted that bullshit lie with no evidence whatsoever has been suspended for spreading lies designed to instigate violence.

The fires are started by lightning mostly.

The wildfires are not caused by antifa or spontaneously exploding trees. They are caused by excessive dryness and decades of drought caused by anthropogenic climate change and dry summer thunderstorms that are increasing in number as our climate changes.

One was started by morons doing an explosive baby reveal.....yes, another one.


They are made worse by the criminal mismanagement of federal forest lands, which make up about 57% of the state's forests. Trump likes to blame California government for mismanagement of the forest, but is too ignorant to grasp that California only owns 3% of it's forests, and they're managed far better than the federal lands.

If you watched anything that wasn't pure propaganda, you would know this. Only right wing bat shit crazy propaganda hides those facts and pretends the fires are from liberals....Only fools believe the same people who've lied to them constantly for years.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/13/912449209/oregon-officials-warn-untrue-antifa-rumors-waste-precious-resources-for-fires

Pseudo science quackery.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/

If you're talking climate change/ global warming shouldn't you be talking global temperatures?

As to why it happened https://www.climatescience.org.au/content/868-warm-oceans-caused-hottest-dust-bowl-years

SF has this problem so bad because it's such a successful city. Cost of living is at least double the national average, you're lucky to find a small one bedroom for $3500 a month there.
Because the weather is mild year round, transients never move on to warmer climates, but more show up in spring.
Housing problems there are largely caused by rising housing costs, unaffordable to some working 3 jobs. Many are lured in because you get more panhandling money when the average income is >$100000. I recall a few being investigated in the 90's who seemed to make well over $100000 a year by begging, one was estimated at $250000+. Thousands are working homeless, living in their cars because they don't earn enough to even share an apartment. Most make more than the national average. Keep in mind, $190000 is middle class in San Francisco.

This has been an issue in San Francisco and the bay in general at least since the early 80's when i lived there....but it has gotten worse as the population and rent increased but low income housing didn't.
Now Trump has said there will be no low income housing (which he thinks means all blacks) in suburbs, directing infinitely more homeless and low income citizens to cities in search of a possible roof over their heads...and in the same breath he blames Democrats for the homeless problems in cities.

As mentioned above, there is no republican plan to deal with homeless. None. They seem to think if you deny them services and food they evaporate. It doesn't work that way.

Pelosi doesn't control San Francisco, she represents it in the house. Derp.

What a dishonest tool. 1/2 the nation's homeless?! Bullshit. San Francisco has around 10000, America has around 500000. It's just more bullshit and *lies @bobknight33, not philosophy, news, or talks, and the only thing to learn from it is massive levels of misinformation.

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data is one of the more complete and user friendly sites ive come across regarding climate

and...

Being the fastest growing city isn't directly related to the number of deaths or the temperature in the city. He's the one who made that assumption not bloomburg. I believe that's called a straw-man argument.

As far as deaths from extreme temps are concerned, it's telling that he didnt take the time to isolate extreme temperatures from the natural disasters chart. Here, let me isolate it for you using the same source. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters?time=1936..2018&country=~Extreme%20temperature


Or, again using that same source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/natural-disasters-by-type focus on ONLY the extreme temperatures and it's clear that the natural disasters of that type are on an upward trend.

No....with a "but".

I was disturbed in the 70's about how people were changing the planet, but didn't yet understand the climate portion of that issue would be the most disastrous. (In my defense I was under 10).

I became concerned in the 90's-2000's when the scientific conclusions became overwhelmingly certain that CO² and other greenhouse gasses were destroying the atmosphere we relied on.

My concern quickly turned to anger at the realisation that people as a group were more inclined to argue over minutiae and ignorant theories and money rather than tackle the apocalyptic problem.

Soon that was mixed with depression at the realisation that it was too late even if we gave up CO² and methane today because the climate is slow to react and we had passed the point of no return and were actually still accelerating towards the cliff and arguing over the correct radio station for flying.

Today I'm at acceptance that humans will destroy the biosphere and likely themselves in the process, and have to be content with the knowledge that I didn't make it much worse (or at least made an educated effort to not make it worse), I likely won't live to see mass famine and water wars where I live, and didn't put anyone else in the horrific position of having to live through the worst. (No kids).

Feel better? ;-)

I'm immensely concerned about climate change, and can absolutely see being upset about the video. At the same time, were I present for nature exhibiting its power in a manner like this, I'm sure I'd be woo-hooing along with all the other yokels. Pretty sure witnessing something this (literally) awesome would short-circuit all of the more intellectual parts of my brain for a little while.

YAY! Humanity is fucked. Thanks, climate denier.

I like Bernie, but his answer to "how do we pay for your plans?" seems to always be "We tax the rich more." That seems naive imo.
I agree, the extremely rich should pay way more, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that higher tax rates for the top 5% can pay to revamp our entire society. We are too deep in debt, and too shallow in our commitments towards the public, whether those commitments come in the form of investments in education, health, infrastructure, the legal system, prison reforms, ecology, climate change, .....the list of things we put on the back burner and ignore is long and fraught with perils far more pressing than, let's say a fence, or golf outings, trade wars, or another aircraft carrier.

As to the Castro ridiculousness, get a grip people. I can give you an example of something Hitler did that everyone, including holocaust survivors, can agree was a great thing he did.....he killed Hitler. If your ideological blinders and hatred are so thick you can't admit bad people/systems might also do some good things sometimes, you have a serious problem accepting reality and you need therapy.