« first day (883 days earlier)      last day (37 days later) » 

 
11 hours later…
1:03 PM
> Rachel Sclarsky found her Hyundai in the turning lane in the middle of Washington Avenue after it had been "courtesy towed."
🤔
 
1:18 PM
Bill Hader looks like Jim Carrey
Out of curiosity, have any of you thought about supporting which candidate in 2020?
Do majority of the people here have different or same favorite?
Not necesarily can vote or will vote
Or is it some something that is private and sensitive?
 
2:11 PM
@StackExchangeforAll Oh, we've talked a decent amount about that here. I'm on team Warren, myself, but will support any candidate against Trump
Anyone watch the Senate arguments to the end?
All but one of the Amendment votes was 53-47, there was one that was 52-48
(all, except the last one, were votes to table (reject) Democratic amendments to the proposed plan)
 
@BradC And what was the last one?
 
@Nzall the vote to approve the (original) GOP plan/schedule for the trial
 
So they're all cued up to start the actual "opening arguments" today at 1pm Eastern
One take on yesterday's proceedings:
 
@BradC But they're still doing it over 3 8 hour days rather than 2 12 hour ones, right?
 
2:17 PM
@Nzall Correct. That was a last minute alteration by the GOP themselves, not as a result of a Democratic amendment, I don't believe
but I didn't watch all 13 hours, so I could be wrong.
 
@BradC if I read your article correctly, they were proposals asked for the Democrats, because not even the GOP liked having 12 hour days
 
@BradC I feel inspired by the bern
Maybe no one else here feel the same
 
@BradC It would be unfortunate if, say, the President's son in law were also a WhatsApp contact of the Saudi Prince
 
@Nzall yeah, the last-minute penned-in changes. Still not sure if that was due to floor debate, or last minute behind the scenes scrambling
> "If there’s any unfairness in these proceedings, it’s the astounding mismatch between the high skill and preparation of the House managers and the rambling, dissembling and gaslighting of @realDonaldTrump’s counsel," George Conway, a conservative lawyer and prominent Trump critic, wrote on Twitter. "It’s like the New York Yankees versus the Bad News Bears."
 
Oopsie whoopsie
 
2:25 PM
I couldn't believe the CNN poll today
Tom Steyer looks like a nice person too
 
@StackExchangeforAll so what did the CNN poll show?
 
> “Crazy (fill in candidate name here) would be terrible for America. Can someone help me out here? Don’t worry, my pardon power is absolute.”
didn't this actually happen in England once?
like i recall a story about someone complaining about a bishop and joked about wanting him dead so one of the knights actually did kill the bishop because they thought it was an order
 
@Memor-X yep, that's a pretty famous quote. "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
 
2:35 PM
@BradC yeh a priest, that was it
 
And it wasn't a joke, it was a deliberate but veiled threat
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" (sometimes expressed as "troublesome" or "meddlesome priest") is a question attributed to Henry II of England, which led to the death of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170. While it was not expressed as an order, it caused four knights to travel from Normandy to Canterbury, where they killed Becket. The phrase is now used to express the idea that a ruler's wish can be interpreted as a command by his or her subordinates. == Origin == Henry's outburst came at Christmas 1170 at his castle at Bures, Normandy, at the height of the Becket...
 
@Memor-X There is a related term that you might have heard, "Stochastic terrorism".
Think of the Florida Trumper who mailed (poorly made) bombs to like a dozen Democratic politicians and candidates. He was motivated, in part, by all the inflamatory rhetoric by Trump against all those same people
It's not quite as direct as "will anyone rid me of these meddlesome Democrats", but its pretty darn close
 
@TimStone and yet the GOP will remind blind
@BradC well calling the media who don't agree with Trump "the enemy of the people" is worse
 
2:52 PM
That priest quote was actually part of the first Blackadder show
Where Blackadder becomes the Archbishop of Canterbury and King Richard IV recalls that quote right when 2 crusaders came back
 
3:07 PM
@TimStone That lawsuit has got to just be for show. Reading Clinton's entire quote in context makes it very clear what she was and was not saying about Gabbard
 
3:22 PM
Biden's not my top choice, but his campaign released a very well made add about Trump and Ukraine
Or the direct Youtube link:
 
@StackExchangeforAll I generally distrust the office of the presidency and those who seek it, but I do tend to trust bernie sanders
 
3:44 PM
> Polling since the debate has been a little weird and contradictory and this probably one of those times when you just want to plug everything into the average even though it's more fun to make up narrative
 
Nate doesn't know anything about making up narrative lately
nope
definitely just data over at five thirty eight dot com
 
3:58 PM
As much as I'd love to hold on to a vestige of optimism about the Senate trial, I think this Seth Abramson thread pinpoints the reality of the situation:
> 4/ That's the thing to remember: these GOP senators, as much as we might wish it otherwise (for their sake) are smart folks who do know (at least broadly speaking) how bad this is. They know the president is a criminal. Please don't think otherwise and assume their ignorance.
> 5/ They want to keep their jobs. They want to keep the White House and think that if Trump is impeached, they won't. So for their own careers, and to keep the White House, they'll sell America and its constitution to what they well know is a gaggle of petty mobsters and cultists.
> 6/ Those are the facts on the ground. So there can't be a real trial, as the only thing worse than senators selling out their countrymen by voting for the acquittal of a man they know is guilty is letting us hear all the evidence that he's guilty, then voting for acquittal.
So the more evidence/testimony that is presented, the more obvious and craven the GOP looks when they (ultimately) acquit him. Therefore, their goal cannot be a truly fair trial; their goal is to maintain plausible deniability barely enough to minimize the political damage.
 
@Unionhawk I have similar feelings. What is important that I think is the movement that he advocates and many people that are inspired and involved.
 
a better world isn't going to be handed to us from on high, we have to build it ourselves
 
guys, if your options were Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren (as are currently the leaders in pretty much every poll), who would take your preference?
 
wait did pete fall off hard recently
lol
 
oh wait, he's not
I have no idea how to spell that boot edge edge guy
 
4:09 PM
I mean, we'll see I think, he did do a please clap in iowa recently
 
So in the impeachment trial: did they vote to permanently disallow witnesses and additional evidence, or did they vote "let's first hear the arguments from both sides and then vote if we want extra witnesses and/or evidence"?
 
@Nzall Warren, for me, by a mile.
@Nzall Sorta the latter, but it isn't even that clear. More of a "after arguments and questioning, we will hear arguments about whether we should vote on whether to allow witnesses (at all)
Only if that vote passes, then they'd start discussing which witnesses/etc they'd like to hear from
 
4:25 PM
@BradC That vote might actually be closer than you think. AFAIK there are at least 4 senators that want to heard from witnesses according to insiders
And I think the Dems are mulling over a trade: if they can ask Bolton and Guiliani as witnesses, they're willing to allow the GOP to ask the Bidens to testify
 
@Nzall yep, I've heard those, too. Frankly I think Dems should take that trade if offered, even though it doesn't directly go to the case itself.
Not sure how either of the Bidens would be, but if they want to put Alexandra Chalupa on the stand? Ha, they wouldn't know what hit them.
So, did someone already link that Trump admitted to obstruction of Congress this morning??
> "Honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material."
on video
 
@Unionhawk lol
 
> The District of Columbia is suing President Donald Trump's inaugural committee and two companies that control the Trump International Hotel in the nation's capital, accusing them of throwing parties for the Trump family with nonprofit funds, and overpaying for event space at the hotel.
> The district's attorney general, Karl Racine, said the inaugural committee had been “blatantly and unlawfully abusing nonprofit funds to enrich the Trump family.” The lawsuit, announced Wednesday, alleges that the committee abused nonprofit funds and coordinated with the Trump family to “grossly overpay for event space” in the hotel.
 
Nearly one-third of Alberta’s inactive wells belong to just five companies — and those companies seemingly reported pocketing $4.3 billion already in provincial corporate tax giveaways. pressprogress.ca/…
It's hard to believe Alberta found someone worse than Doug Ford
 
5:10 PM
@BradC Yes, I just starred it. (Although your source might be a bit better.)
 
5:24 PM
@Unionhawk I'm not sure if I should be happy that the standards editor is working with the Opinions now or horrified that they weren't doing that.
 
 
2 hours later…
7:18 PM
doh, missed the start of opening the impeachment arguments
Can rewind to the start, at about -1:10 from live: youtube.com/watch?v=ttkY4rQqBPw
 
BBC News - Wuhan: Virus-hit Chinese city to shut public transport
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51215348
> Those living in the city have been advised not to leave, in a week when millions of Chinese are travelling for the upcoming Lunar New Year holiday.
> The airport and train stations will be closed to outgoing passengers.

> Bus, subway, ferry, and long-distance transport networks will shut down from 1000 local time on 23 January.
>The virus originated in a seafood market that "conducted illegal transactions of wild animals", authorities said.
> "Basically, do not go to Wuhan. And those in Wuhan please do not leave the city," said National Health Commission vice-minister Li Bin in one of the first public briefings since the beginning of the outbreak.
 
> When the senators have their opportunity to question the impeachment managers, they’ll be able to say whatever they want. They can lie about the House investigation process. They can lie about the Bidens. They can put forward whatever “alternative facts” they like, and nobody can stop them.
> Wonderful system we have here. A president who lies can be supported by a party that is willing to lie for him, and the only thing the Constitution has to say is that you can’t punish people who are lying while clothed in the power of their offices.
oops, quotes from my link above
 
Wild, but honestly, this is how you do quarantine. This best involve the chinese government offering support for these folks though, in the way of supplies (Food, et cetera) and all that. Money for bills...
 
8:50 PM
So.... do GOP Senators really think they have a point here? They're more delusional than I thought
It's clearly a cover-up, and everyone with eyes and a brain knows it.
 
The good old "how dare you accuse me of that?" defense
 
yep. I mean, I guess that if your remaining choices of clips from day 1 were either "Trump lawyers lie their asses off" or "House managers present devastating case" or "GOP Senators vote to table yet another totally reasonable amendment", then that might be your least-worst option.
 
9:22 PM
> He denounces a president who is "perhaps the most dishonest person to ever sit in the White House." As disgusted as he is by President Donald Trump, Fried is, if possible, even more dismayed by William Barr, Trump's current attorney general, for having stepped up as Trump's chief apologist. Fried says of Barr. "His reputation is gone."
 
@BradC They think as long as they say it louder then they'll be right and they're probably not wrong which is why the only appropriate response is to just say "If Republicans didn't want to be part of a cover-up they shouldn't have done a cover-up"
Repeatedly, put it in ads, whatever
They won't, but
 
@TimStone Yep. Would love to see this shouted from the sky
 
9:53 PM
Trump admin, again buying into far right anti-immigrant paranoid talking points
 
On the one hand, birth tourism is a thing (at least in China). On the other hand, it's not nearly as common as conspiracy theorists would let you think and it's predominantly a thing rich people do (you know, because they can afford international plane tickets while supporting a pregnancy).
 
> Birth tourism is a lucrative business in both the U.S. and abroad. American companies take out advertisements and charge up to $80,000 to facilitate the practice, offering hotel rooms and medical care. Many of the women travel from Russia and China to give birth in the U.S. The U.S. has been cracking down on the practice since before Trump took office.
@Yuuki so yeah, a pretty wealthy luxury. Plus an issue of enforcement
This Saudi Prince thing just keeps looking worse and worse:
 
@BradC Yeah, the kids born as a result of birth tourism aren't going to be draining taxpayer money anytime soon. Unless of course you count them being heirs to Chinese companies that are indirectly related to Trump's tariffs as draining taxpayer money.
 
10:09 PM
@Yuuki Right. And if you're an operation taking $80k to arrange this, surely you can arrange "another legitimate reason" to visit the US.
if that is, in fact, the new restriction that will be in place
 
Such as literally having a bunch of money. IIRC, that's a legal path to citizenship, having tons of money.
 
You recall correctly.
Investment (having tons of money), asylum, family, and I think one other I'm forgetting.
But there's no line that people can just freely get into a waitlist for.
 
Not like "oh you have a bunch of money that you can use to wink wink nudge nudge the State Department", just "I have a lot of money, I am a citizen now".
 
Ash
It's similar here, some sort of "you are going to be veeeeery good for our economy" thing
 
Oh, employer sponsorship.
That was the one I forgot.
@Yuuki I believe you literally have to invest $1M
 
10:12 PM
Isn't there also the green card lottery?
or am I completely getting that wrong?
 
Permanent residency not citizenship.
The lottery isn't a waitlist and eligibility changes from year-to-year, it's not a catch-all.
 
10:29 PM
<shudder>
There's an XKCD for that: Voting Software
As an IT professional, I fully support the message in this comic.
ha
> "There is a firm consensus in the cybersecurity community that mobile voting on a smartphone is a really stupid idea," said Duncan Buell, a computer science professor at the University of South Carolina who specializes in election technology. "I don't know that I have run across cybersecurity experts whose mortgages are not paid by a mobile-voting company who think it's a good idea."
lolol
 
@BradC which i assume is why some wanted to dismiss the charges, because then they don't have to vote at all either way
that or they were the aforementioned mobsters/cultists
@Unionhawk want to star but not "news"
@BradC you know if there is one benefit that came from Trump becoming president, it's that we see more how scummy the Trump Family is with wanting to be more rich
@BradC can't read it because the the page gets black over it and the scroll bar disappears but....is that literately what they are doing and that title isn't click bait. because quite sure Bill Clinton got impeached for lying to Congress and Mitch Mcconnell wanted thing to be like the Clinton Trial so.......can we impeach the GOP aswell now?
@Wipqozn might be too late though since symptoms only appears like 2 weeks later
ok, maybe not fully too late
like you're limiting further spread but with the travailing going on for Chinese New Year and it's transmittable between humans you probably already have a bunch of Carriers out there already
 
11:19 PM
@Memor-X Sorry, you can't impeach people in the House or Senate.
They could be expelled by their body, though, if the votes were there:
> Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." Since 1789, the Senate has expelled only fifteen of its entire membership.
Sorry, WaPo, but I'm going to say naw, dog:
 
Ash
11:45 PM
Dear Brands, wtf even are we doing anymore: syfy.com/syfywire/…
 
11:56 PM
@Ash lol, I just came to post that after the other day
@BradC One free punch
 
Ash
@TimStone its hurts my brain
 

« first day (883 days earlier)      last day (37 days later) »