Azalin

Very well said.

Prayers for a full and speedy recovery.

While I agree that primitive warp engines might prove feasible someday, we're so far away from developing one - let alone one that can power manned spacecraft - that I believe it will be generations, possibly many, many generations before we even begin to approach making that a reality. It's fun to imagine the possibility though. The big wet blanket in these conversations is the incredible distance between us and even the nearest stars, and the fact that until Einstein is either proven wrong or warp technology really does become a thing, it would take a really, really long time just to get to Proxima Centauri. Back on topic, alternative energy sources are well worth investing in and developing further, but the big hurtle is going to be coming up with an alternative way to power jet aircraft. Whoever comes up with that is going to change everything.

Could you elaborate on that?

Agree to disagree, with the concession that term limits is pretty much a pipe dream anyway, considering that it would be the very people affected by the term limits that would be passing the legislation. The fact that they don't seem to want to pass it tells me that it would be bad for them and good for us.

It's Dirty Sanchez!

We've probably come about as far as we can on the subject, since we both seem to be to the point where we're stating opinion more than anything else. Still, it's nice to have a cordial back & forth for a change.

I guess I'm failing to understand what power a staffer, career or otherwise actually has. They can't vote on bills, they aren't lobbied, and they can easily be fired. I don't understand what kind of relationship, or bond of trust, a congressional staffer has toward the electorate at large, so maybe I'm missing something there. My personal take on congressional reps offering campaign support to senators is simply that if that's the way their constituents want them to spend their time, then fine. Otherwise, two years ain't a whole lot of time to do the work that they were sent to Washington to do.

I don't necessarily disagree, but speaking strictly for myself, I believe that most of our elected public servants are in it to feed their egos and to enrich themselves, to the point where many of them work hand-in-glove behind the scenes regardless of party affiliation at our expense (the swamp/uniparty/etc). Limiting the time they can serve might go a long way in aiding this administration's attempt to rid us of "the establishment" by limiting their access to power. Even if I'm totally wrong in my presumption, how many Senators and Congressmen truly deserve to continue holding office as long as they do? Sure, limiting their terms of office will mean some good ones are forced to step down, but there are far fewer honest, effective ones in office than there are crooks, bitter partisans, and self-serving egomaniacs. I think that would be a net positive trade-off.

Well, if there are multiple doctors, it only stands to reason that there would be at least one of color.

Then again, it would reduce power held by government officials who are there to enrich themselves through connections made and lobbyist dollars received. I strongly support term limits, especially for the house, and I'm glad as hell that the president only gets two terms.

I must not have been making myself clear, because this is more or less exactly how I believe it works.

I don't believe so. I liken the House's role as being akin to that of a grand jury - hearings to determine if a trial is warranted. I'm not certain about specifics, but the actual trial occurs in the Senate. That's where the president would defend himself against specific charges.

Which seems to bring us full-circle. If the charges are political and not criminal, then the impeachment is toothless, right?

It would be interesting to see if any of our attorney-posters could elaborate. I read the 6th amendment and several references before posting, and not one made a differentiation for trials in the senate.

In your example you used bribery to make your point, which is fine - I get what you're saying. However, bribery is a crime. If Trump is actually charged with anything criminal, then not only is impeachment just, but his rights as an American citizen would afford him all the same rights that anyone else would have, one of which is his 6th amendment right to directly confront his accuser. The whistle-blower would be compelled to appear at the trial. Whether being tried in the senate or in criminal court, all American citizens are entitled to their constitutional rights, be they president, regular schmoe, and everything in between. The fact that there have been no criminal charges against Trump is proof that the impeachment vote in the House was 100% purely political. I'd wager that many, if not most right-leaning posters here will admit that the Clinton impeachment was BS ( in that it began with Whitewater and went on and on until they finally caught him lying to a grand jury under oath in a sexual harassment case ), but at least with Clinton they actually had him dead to rights on a legitimate criminal charge. Not so with Trump. I believe one mistake that's being made is the assumption on the part of anti-Trumpers that opposition to this impeachment is due to a cult-like devotion to this president. Speaking for myself ( and likely more than a few others ), my opposition to impeachment is like Harry Reid did when he did away with the filibuster, House democrats have lowered the bar for impeachment and have set a precedent for weaponizing the entire process. Who wins in a situation like that?

That's all well and good, but in order to impeach and remove a president, they must have been found guilty of committing high crimes and misdemeanors. By definition, those are criminal charges, which means that the accused is still protected by the 6th amendment, which guarantees in all criminal cases that the accused has the right to face their accuser in court. How do you square anonymity for the whistle-blower under those circumstances? It seems to me that the only way they can keep the whistle-blower's identity secret is if Trump committed no crime.

They don't need any attention from me. They get plenty of that from you guys. I was just having a little fun at Bob's expense.

Al Gore and Bob in Michigan?

I believe I once compared her charisma to that of wet celery, and was subsequently chastised for insulting celery.

All the corruption of Hillary with less than half the charisma - a guaranteed front-runner in 2024.

The last time I had any real respect for Romney was during that first debate against Obama. After that, he just sort of fizzled out. Once it looked like Trump was going to win the nomination, Romney went full McCain against Trump, proving to me that he was just another uniparty douche. As far as I'm concerned, Romney can go ***** himself.

I'm more interested in getting to the bottom of your prejudice. You paint with a very broad brush and attempt to justify it by calling it opinion.

Have you actually discussed this with any Trump supporters to the point where your opinion deems it necessary to label them cultists? It seems to me that your use of the word "rationalization" describes your thought process perfectly.