I will posit that one or the other side being better at lack of transparency (fully engendered/perpetuated by strictly partisan media), is that very rot from within, we were warned about.
I disagree with the up above posts that people are too ignorant or lacking of critical skills to make suitable choices for our governors. If you want to argue they are blinded, outright deceived, or simply don’t give a damn - l concur.
Agree 300%.
If they weren’t ignorant or lacking in critical thinking skills, could they be as easily blinded and deceived as they now are?
I have to be honest. @zecarlo…
I struggle with the idea that there are people who think Warren or Bernie would make good Presidents.
Look who we’ve had before them; it’s not like the bar is that high. Warren might not be a better president than GWB was? I know Bernie is seen as a bit of a loon by some but it’s president, not king. Checks and balances. If we complain about how Congress is bought and paid for by special interests, wouldn’t a president who isn’t a corporate shill be a good thing to even things out? Bernie can say free college but he can’t make it so.
Wouldn’t this make more sense if Schiff wasn’t following House procedures written and approved by the House GOP in 2015 (which he is)?
Republicans don’t like the rules they enacted when Democrats use them?
Kinda have to side with Z here. Unless ALL Americans are blinded or outright deceived, it would seem partial blame belongs on ignorant Americans.
You certainly don’t seem blinded or outright deceived. Would you say you’re capable of seeing things some Americans aren’t?
[quote="zecarlo,
If they weren’t ignorant or lacking in critical thinking skills, could they be as easily blinded and deceived as they now are?
[/quote]
I’m speaking to a willfull deception - in order to prevent others from knowing unvarished facts. I think this goes on to prevent even one’s own side from the truth.
Easy example : Warren absolutely refusing to acknowledge all taxes will be raised to pay for medicare for all. Most liberals will howl when the tax bill comes.
I spend more time examining it than the typical. Plus l read quite a bit of the liberal links posted here. You know, so l will be balanced 
Napolitano said that, Boehner has denied it.
I have spent 30 minutes and have yet to see anyone come down on either side, other than cite Napolitano.
Since l also can not source those rule changes, how about a link to the rules.
So would you say the average ignorant (fooled?) American is incapable of doing the same research you did? Are they somehow prohibited from doing that research by the powers that be?
Imo calling the average voter ignorant is giving more credit than is due.
Most liberals probably don’t even pay taxes.
I would guess they have less time.
I am retired, you have a job that allows you to surf, for others - it is their interest.
But not everybody has more time available or desire, so they click on 30 minutes of national news and are barely informed/misinformed.
No different than Mexico will pay for the wall, I have a healthcare plan that will be cheaper and cover everyone, we print out own money so we don’t need to worry about the debt?
Not saying you’re wrong but we just elected a guy who has done this essentially non stop since his candidacy started.
No, Boehner denied that the House changed rules on impeachment proceedings, which is true. But rules were changed on inquiries/investigations, which is all the House Dems are doing now:
Here’s the thing - GOP Congressmen are trying to conflate the inquiry part and the impeachment proceedings, which are two different things. The latter has a different set of rules, which allows more transparency, adversarial examination of witnesses, etc. to allow for a more fair process. That isn’t where Pelosi ans Schiff are - this is factfiding before opening proceedings, and they can do them in secret if they want, with unilateral subpoenas.
Naturally, Trumpkins are trying to deceive people into thinking the rules of impeachment proceedings aren’t being followed. But it isn’t true.
I didn’t make any reference to either side, did l?
So do you have these rules, so that l can read them?
I can’t find them and have an interest.
I picked up on select chairmen having the subpeona power.
And l will go back to my original thought. When you operate under darkness, then you should expect some blowback from the other side for lack of transparency. No one thinks GOP is uninformed, 1/2 the committee is GOP and hearing testimony. Dems by closing meetings, not allowing open viewership of transcripts by entire House, and selectively leaking daily, are not looking aboveboard.
In the same way, Trump trying to get G7 in his own facility, no one in the US not named Trump, looked favorably on such. It smacks of feathering one’s own nest.
You used Elizabeth Warren directly after my quote…
Given this would you say those uninformed people are indeed ignorant?
ig·no·rant
/ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective
I don’t have any more time today to refute parsed statements, while 90% of my statements are ignored, hacked apart to see if syntax was correct, or whatever.
My statement about transparency could not have been any more neutral, and if one of you had written it, the balance of you would have fallen all over each other with attaboys and likes.
I also so not plan to start each post with:
I hate Trump,
Trumplicans are the scum of the earth,
Liberals are so righteous because conservatives…
Yes, this is typical behavior pioneered by the Soviets, although I wouldn’t attribute it to some otherworldly “brilliance”.
It’s a fairly standard procedure from the Kremlin playbook and Steve Bannon and his minions simply studied it at length.
The general idea is, much like more famous “alternative facts”, is to provide a seemingly identical action / procedure / policy to that of your opponents, implying a false sense of equivalency. You’re making an inquiry? Well, we’re making an inquiry as well! The Russians did that most recently with the downing of the MH17 airliner.
This is turn helps your base and single issue voters to rationalize/justify their otherwise unsettling voting choices. I will vote for a spectacularly corrupt candidate that supports my beliefs because all of them are equally spectacularly corrupt (this is where opposing inquiries come into play) etc.
Yes, unilateral power.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44247
Like Trey Gowdy and Benghazi?
Who in DC doesn’t selectively leak?