Rob's House

Funny how the Dems were cool with Russia when they were communists. Now that they're merely a moderately authoritarian republic they are the enemy.

I'm not going to buy my Superbowl tickets yet, but stranger things have happened. In the last 20 years, 11 of the teams to win the Superbowl held the opposition to 17 points or less. The Bills defense has been solid all year, and over the past 7 weeks, since the Eagles game, have been as good as anyone in the league, giving up less than 14 pts. Per game. While the offense has not dominated, they've only been held under 17 points once in the last 7 weeks (16 pts against CLE where Haushka missed an XP & a 34 yd FG (and a 53 yd FG)). They can run the ball and consistently move the chains. If the defense keeps on Pace, and the offense can protect the football, anything could happen.

For the life of me I can't figure out what the Democrat's plan is. However ridiculous they may be, these are highly intelligent people who are very adept at strategy and manipulation. But from my vantage point it appears they're doing everything in their power to help President Trump. My conscious mind thinks there must be another act to this play because it all seems to good to be true, but even as a highly intelligent and erudite poster that you're all very lucky to have, I can't figure out what their end game is. My logic can be clouded with bias, but my gut usually tells me the truth, and my gut feels really good right now. I'm starting to think they're just completely outmatched and it's thrown them off their game. They've had it easy with a supporting media and castrated Republican party for so long that they don't know how counter this. They're like the Patriots whose strategy has worked against conventional offenses all year until a wild card like Lamar Jackson comes to town and they don't know how to make adjustments. I think a big part of this may be due to an observation Jonathan Haidt made from his research - Conservatives can predict liberal behavior far better than liberals can predict conservative behavior. That may extend to an inability to predict the middle as their base has moved into the far left Twitter bubble. In my estimation, the only thing that could have been worse for them than a sham impeachment is validating all those who called it a partisan sham by making the partisan move to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate, which undercuts their entire narrative that President Trump is too great a danger to wait a few months to let the electorate decide. It's clear they relied on the media to give them cover, which it most certainly has, but they miscalculated and pushed so far that even that can't save them. It appears that President Trump has just set them up for another checkmate.

I'm not suggesting what his personal motivation was. I don't think it's terribly important. I'm just saying there was a legitimate basis for the inquiry. If a cop is triggered by my "Kill Whitey" bumper sticker and because of that decides to stop me for a busted tail light, he still had a legitimate reason to pull me over. It seems fairly obvious that something was amiss in Ukraine. It seems equally obvious that Biden used the power of his office to extort the President of Ukraine with the threat of withholding aid for the purpose of protecting his son. There was also information that Ukraine had a server linked to the Russian collusion story. Whether President Trump decided to look into it because he wanted to get to the root of the Russian collusion story, expose Ukrainian corruption, expose the corruption of the previous administration, expose Biden to tank his candidacy, or was just concerned about wasting foreign aid doesn't really matter. There was still a legitimate basis for inquiring. Just to clarify, even if it was a pure fishing expedition, asking Zelensky to look into a potential scandal isn't illegal, and it certainly isn't a high crime or misdemeanor.

It's an interesting thought, but I don't know that it's legal. The court does not give advisory opinions, and the authority to try a President for impeachment is vested solely with the Senate.

I don't know that I'd say this impeachment will all by itself end government as we know it, but it's a massive step toward the complete destabilization of the balance of power that is the foundation of our government. The Clinton impeachment was one of the most egregious abuses of constitutional authority of the last half century. This blows that out of the water. At least with Clinton there was proof that he had committed a felony while in office. It was still ridiculous because there's no law that disqualifies a felon from holding office, and perjury about a #### ### is not treason, it's not bribery, & it's not a high crime or misdemeanor. But at least it was a crime. President Trump is being impeached for doing something that isn't a crime, and certainly appears to have had a legitimate basis, but they think might well have been unseemly if he had a particular mindset at the time. That and for refusing to submit to the authority of a branch that did not possess said authority in the first place. It's made worse by the fact that it comes after a 3 year impeachment campaign, that predates the supposed transgressions by 2.5 years. Not to mention those 3 years were consumed with constant, thorough, and invasive investigations, initiated by fraud, and this is all they could come up with. Any way you slice it, this is a new low in American politics.

Democrats absolutely loathe the Constitution and the principles it is founded upon, such as rule of law. "Rule of law" is a term of art that refers to constitutional limitations on the power of government. This is a distinction from the principle of "rule of man" by which the government can make laws as it sees fit, unconstrained by any greater authority. The only constraint Democrats want on the power of the Federal government is the popular vote (I suspect they would do away with that if they had the power to do so). Throughout the 20th century they eroded the Constitution to the point that "constitutional law" scarcely resembles the document itself. The FDR years were a strong shift in that direction. In 1942 the Supreme Court, effectively ruled that the relatively narrow enumerated power to regulate commerce between the states empowered the government virtually unlimited authority to pass any legislation it saw fit, as long as it did not run directly afoul of another constitutional provision. The case was Wickard v. Filburn. It upheld FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. 8 of the 9 justices were Roosevelt appointees. There are plenty of other examples over the decades that I won't get into here. Suffice to say, their only use for the Constitution is as a weapon to further erode state sovereignty and enact legislation they cannot accomplish through the legislative process. In doing so they do not promote adherence to the Constitution, but rather the effective repeal of it, as they argue that the Constitution requires & prohibits things that cannot be reasonably inferred from the document itself. They reject all standard canons of statutory interpretation in favor of a "living, breathing document" that is not constrained by the plain meanings of the text, nor the intent, but is to be "interpreted" by the "spirit" of the Constitution. The "spirit" being defined as promoting the liberal agenda. In essence, they argue (in opposition to John Marshall) that the duty of the court is to rule according to what the law should be, rather than what it is. They reject the incontrovertible fact that the spirit of the Constitution was to strictly limit the power of the Federal government, granting it only specific enumerated powers. Today they are still on the warpath to eradicate constitutional protections. They want to abolish the electoral college, repeal the 2nd amendment, and gut the 1st amendment so they can ban "hate speech" (which likely includes Fox News, et al.). They claim the Constitution supports removal of the President by Congress based on an undefined charge of "abuse of power," the standard of which is to be subjectivity determined ex post facto. Prior to that they claimed the 25th allowed Congress to remove the President on the subjective criteria that they do not believe that he is "fit" for office. They now want to impose an unconstitutional wealth tax. They've even employed left-wing activists masquerading as legal scholars to argue the patently absurd notion that a tax on one's net worth is not a direct tax. The bottom line is, the Democrats have utter contempt for the rule of law. They envision themselves as the rightful bearers of power and see any hindrances to their exercise of that power as illegitimate. These are not liberals, progressives, or even socialists. They're closet Soviet style communists who want to control and monitor their subjects, and would readily imprison, torture, and kill dissidents if given the power to do so.

He needs to forget about politics and work on his game. Politics will still be there when he retires.

Do any of you know of any good books or other resources to learn more about the inner workings of what we refer to as the deep state? I understand what it is, but I'd like to know more nuanced details about how it works, and I'd like to do so without sifting through mountains of bull#### to get to the truth.

Did y'all know Sean Astin is Patty Duke's son?

Tucker Carlson is fan-*****-tastic

Not sure if this has been posted but, Snopes fact-checks the Babylon Bee

Someone ask Jim Mora if we can talk about playoffs now.

Duck Dodgers is feeling the heat.

It wouldn't matter. At this point they could have video of him in blackface at a white supremacist rally trading nukes to Kim Jong Un for underage sex slaves and no one without their pronouns in their profile would even tune in. Nobody believes there's a wolf anymore.

The part of your post I agreed with was the part I quoted. Specifically, that it isn't good vs. evil. (Although that needs further qualification). The rest of your post I thought was a subversive exercise in false equivocation. And the short answer is no, you can't fix this problem without "blaming" a party anymore than you can treat the patient without "blaming" (i.e. diagnosing) the disease. I explained why that is in great detail in my previous post. And no, I don't think you could write this about the other side. Not with any degree of honesty or accuracy.

This is the most important piece. Most of the problems we have flow downstream of this. I wish it was as easy as politicians working together, but that's not really the issue. We don't have policy disputes that justify the level of divisiveness we're seeing in our political culture. This is much more primal. The hatred is stoked for the purpose of driving a political wedge, not the other way around. I'd like to be the diplomat who says the problem is on both sides, but it really isn't. The hatred has been steadily flowing from left to right. I don't really know what people on the right can do to fix the problem, because for the most part the aggression is coming from the left. I'm not saying the right is without fault, we're human too, but there is no symmetry. You can always find some fringe outliers to make a counterpoint, but for the most part the right dumps on left-wing politicians and pundits, and that's about it. The left doesn't confine their attacks to Republican politicians and pundits. They go after their supporters as well. But even the attacks on public political figures is asymmetrical. During the Obama years the aggression from the right consisted of accusing Obama of being a socialist (big stretch there), a Muslim (which was still somewhat fringe), and questioning where he was born. The great slights that stirred outrage were things like Joe Wilson saying "you lie" (he did). President Trump has been called a racist, fascist, Nazi, rapist, Russian spy, traitor, orange, bad, etc. And not by fringe elements, but by ranking Democrats, high profile pundits, and national talk show hosts across most national news and entertainment outlets. This is all projected onto his supporters. Now we are said to be "complicit" in bringing about all the evil deeds he's committing in the delusions of the left. People are afraid to wear a Trump hat in public for fear of violence. People are afraid to say they like him for fear of losing their jobs or being ostracized. Trump supporters can't peaceably assemble in much of the country without violent attacks from leftist antifa thugs that run in packs with weapons and pepper spray. Antifa is then defended by the mainstream left. Conservative speech is heavily policed. One must walk a very fine line; voicing an opinion that may be deemed offensive can quickly leas to excommunication from the public square. Stating opinions, or even facts, that run counter to PC dogma can cost a professional commentator his livelihood overnight. His fans lose out as well, and the frosty message is clear - your thoughts are wrong and must not be spoken. People are constantly called bigots simply for being conservatives. Denying the oppressed minority/white privilege view of the world is racist. Wanting a secure border to curb illegal immigration puts you in Nazi territory. And it's okay to punch a Nazi. I don't recall any conservatives condoning, much less encouraging, violence against Obama supporters. Liberals have no reason to fear any of this. Blatant and aggressive racism, threats, and lies are seldom if ever cause for de-monetization or banishment when coming from the left. Hell, doxxing kids is okay as long as they're wearing MAGA hats. Conservatives do not systematically dehumanize leftists based on their political opinions (or race). Conservatives do not physically attack liberals for supporting liberal candidates. Conservatives do not typically impute all those things they detest about Democrats onto their supporters. Conservatives don't call for impeachment of a duly elected President under the guise of righteousness because they don't like him. Well, not since Clinton anyway. I do agree with your overall point. Most Democrats are not evil people. Most people I know who identity as Democrats are not far-left loons, but reasonable people. Sure, we have different ideas about the role and scope of government, but nothing so drastic as to cause hostility. In fact, even the fringe loons I know are decent people. Most, anyway. They're just easily lead, emotional dupes who need something to believe in to give them a feeling of purpose, and have gone too far down the rabbit hole. The problem is the political left needs that hostility and division, and they do everything in their power to stoke the flames. They couldn't do it without their allies in media and tech. No one with any sense truly believes that their constant demonization makes the world a better place. Not do they believe chastising white people for their so-called privilege, or telling minorities that there's a Nazi behind every door trying to keep them down, does a damn thing to mend race relations or help minorities improve their lot in life. But that's the message we are constantly bombarded with. Why? How do we all come together when our political leaders and media outlets create that dissention by any means necessary?

Speaking of Nadler, watch the first 30 seconds of this.

I didn't care for the tweet. Not because Greta is off limits, but because it served no purpose and just gave the left a distraction to cling to in a time of need. Leftists love to exploit children this way. It enables them to push their propaganda without being challenged. When challenged they claim the child is off limits. Sure, they're full of *****, as evidenced by their treatment of children on the "wrong" side of politics, including those who never sought the spotlight (e.g. Covington), but when has insincerity or glaring hypocrisy ever stopped them? And when has the media ever called them on it?

Oh *****! My fault. I thought I was logged in as Gary.

The Real Reason They Want Trump Gone https://townhall.com/columnists/derrickwilburn/2019/11/29/the-real-reason-the-dems-want-trump-gone-n2557211

Are you still down here spinning your wild conspiracy theories? Give it up, pal. Nobody's buying what you're selling, except maybe the rubes who believe Fox News. There was no bias. That's it. End of story. Case closed. Your revolution is over.

Speaking of well-spoken black chicks who score favorably on the *****ability scale, Candace Owens discusses the possibility of the left alienating the black community with the trans movement.