iNow

Actually, no. Probably not. Much more likely is confirmation bias.

Ignorant, not stupid. If you’re going to come here as a new member and start bitching about the way people use words, it would be helpful if you at least properly understood their definitions.

As with all things, details matter here. We can not determine answers unless we know method of transportation, of slaughter, of sanitation, of disposal of waste, etc. It’s not whether or not it’s fine near a city that matters. It’s how it’s done that matters.

Genetic closeness is one, as are issues with the lack of true ability to consent. There’s an extremely skewed power dynamic between father and child and it’s difficult to accept that a child can consent to the union in a free and properly informed manner.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-voters-increasingly-back-the-gops-move-to-block-impeachment-witnesses/ And similar results for desire to hear from additional witnesses:

I'm the one who told that (now banned?) user to STFU about the Time magazine article he'd brought up about 792 times... since he kept reintroducing it every 2 minutes in that thread and others... even after nearly every poster explained why that global cooling claim from the 70s was not, in fact, the scientific consensus at the time and how it was nonsense... little more than a red herring.

Strange is exactly right. The technical solutions are already available. This is no longer a technical problem, but a political one. Further, I feel you've framed the question in a way that suggests only one right answer. There are countless good ideas out there, and anything we do will surely be a collection of various parts of each of them. There is more than one path to get from point A to point B. Since this is your thread, why don't you tell us what you think about achieving the outcome you describe?

McConnell don't care #MerrickGarland

What percentage of posts do this? Do you have a percentage from your analysis?

When you arrive at a strangers house for a social gathering, somewhere you’ve never been before but where people are coming together for an event or discussion, do you also comment on all of their decorations, family photos, video collection, and the whole time you’re there you just keep talking about how crappy the place is relative to all of the other houses you’ve visited?

Most every US Democratic primary candidate has plans posted on their websites. You might also see what Jay Inslee proposed prior to dropping out of the race.

It’s hard to comment if you don’t refer to specific posts or quote specific people. You’re just generalizing the whole thread, but seemingly forgetting that these interactions don’t happen in a vacuum. Sometimes posters have a history of bad faith arguments. Sometimes posters get tired of repeating themselves on this topic for decades. Sometimes those who love science and enjoy discussing it online are also humans first... You were surprised. So what, and thanks for sharing. 🤷‍♂️

Thanks for your opinion. Do you have anything relevant to say?

Ok

I'm going to run over with my car the next mofo who mentions the GD car analogy

Not really. She didn't send them b/c McConnell promised anything. He promised nothing, actually, except a giant GFY with raised middle finger. Instead, Pelosi was getting pressured from her own Democrats, both in House and Senate, so she put it to a vote and her members voted to send them over. Done. In reality, her delay allowed extra time to pressure the GOP Senators to get pressured from constituents on allowing testimony and it also allowed more information to come out (Parnas, GAO report that Trumps actions were technically illegal, etc.). It may not have been enough to overcome GOP recalcitrance in the Senate, but it's a mistake to assume she was waiting on McConnell to promise stuff and got "had." This last one is big. It's about putting them on the record. 70-80% of citizens regardless of party feel that documents should be provided and witnesses allowed to be called. The fact that they voted both options down yesterday on party line vote... over and over and over again... suggests a complicity and cover up. There was the Schiff "master" amendment to allow witnesses and documents. Voted down 53-47. There was the amendment to allow subpoena of Chief of Staff Mcalvaney. Voted down 53-47. There was the amendment to allow subpoena of documents from the OMB (Office of Management and Budget). Voted down 53-47. There was the amendment to allow subpoena of documents from DOD (Department of Defense). Voted down 53-47. There was the amendment to allow subpoena of documents from the Pentagon. Voted down 53-47. There were a few others yesterday just like this. They had to say no more than once... Sure, they still have the numbers to win this and acquit, but they also now have a taint on them that will be hard to wash off. Why not allow witnesses and evidence if you're so innocent? Why not allow it unless you're complicit in covering it up? Party before country... Pelosi resisted calls for impeachment for over 2 years, and only reluctantly decided to proceed when the evidence came out that he was trying to extort foreign nations to cheat in the upcoming election. Perhaps you define "rushed" differently than I do?

Neither of you. Males and females not as different as you both seem to think

Those other people aren’t in charge of the Justice Department (which is charged with enforcing the rules against doing those things). It’s a who watches the watchers situation. Congress watches the President. The voters watch the congress. The Russian (and Saudi and Chinese and Iranian and...) trolls watch the voters.

I’m sorry now I mentioned cars at all

It’s a bit like forcing someone to purchase the car before allowing them to take a test drive.

Who the hell knows. We’re in uncharted territories and the senate majority leader is breaking every precedent he can.

One of the ideas I intended to convey is how in every single court case ever, including past impeachments, the evidence and witnesses are brought in first then the positions argue and introduce the evidence and witnesses as they do. Here, however, the ask is to conclude the arguments completely and only then consider MAYBE having evidence and witnesses allowed... when they’re done. It’s bass ackwards. It’s not how the Clinton impeachment went. It’s not how any impeachment went. It’s not how any trial in our courts has went. Just hopeful that Senators really were better than the letter in front of their name. In the House? Sure. They’re a bunch of rubes and yokels, but the Senate? They’re supposed to be statesmen. There’s no such thing as false hope. There is only hope. One kind.

In the Clinton case, he didn’t prevent all witnesses from testifying in the House. He provided documents that were subpoenaed. That evidence was allowed into the Senate record before the trial began and they agreed to allow more witnesses in Senate also before the trial began. But sure, other than that it was pretty much EXACTLY the same. Lol

Well, this all but renders it final: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates-senate-rejects-democrats/story?id=68410003 So much for country over party. They MAY allow a vote to POTENTIALLY allow witnesses and documents AFTER both sides have argued their cases (basically, the exact opposite of every other court case ever)

Senate trial starts today. Past 3-4 weeks we’ve been in a holding pattern waiting on the House to send the articles over to the Senate, for the Senate to align on their rules, and whether or not witnesses will be allowed. Thursday they swore in the Chief Justice who in turn swore in the Senators, this was a holiday weekend, and it wasn’t until last night that McConnell released anything whatsoever about the rules. Nothing has been happening. Perhaps we first consider the lack of change or new information in the story as a more accurate reason for the lack of comments here before assuming we’ve all become apathetic due to gaslighting.