Here is an odd word that only seems to be applied by Democrats to Republicans. Wikipedia defines it this way.
McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. The term refers to U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) and has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting from the late 1940s through the 1950s. It was characterized by heightened political repression and a campaign spreading fear of communist influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents. (continued here)
My favorite online dictionary has a broader definition.
Definition of McCarthyism
: a mid-20th century political attitude characterized chiefly by opposition to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges
broadly : defamation of character or reputation through such tactics
Still, I was kind of amazed when I saw this.
In unusually forceful, angry, and personal terms, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday countered what he called “baseless smears” from left-wing media and vowed not to be “intimidated,” in the wake of a Washington Post op-ed that declared McConnell a “Russian asset.”
That op-ed was written by columnist Dana Milbank, whom McConnell bluntly suggested was one of several “hyperventilating hacks” who conveniently had ignored former President Obama’s “feckless” Russia policies. (from here)
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell? Firing back with guns blazing? The turtle? WOW!
But what does that have to do with McCarthyism? Consider what McConnell said.
“I don’t normally take the time to respond to critics in the media when they have no clue what they’re talking about,” McConnell said. ” But, this modern-day McCarthyism is toxic, and damaging, because of the way it warps our entire public discourse.
“Facts matter,” McConnell said sternly. “Details matter. History matters, and if our nation is losing our ability to debate public policy without screaming about treason, that really matters. In the middle of the 20th century, the original McCarthyism hurt America’s strength and diminished our standing in the Cold War by dividing us against ourselves.” (from here)
Because they have reached the point where they will level baseless, defamatory accusations at almost anyone just for disagreeing with them, fewer and fewer people take accusations from Liberal Democrats and their allies in news media very seriously anymore.
Who do we have to thank for this new found and increasing courage? Well, stop and think about it. There have been people out there rebutting remorseless assaults on their character from the news media for decades. Because they set the pretext for what followed, we owe these people a great debt of gratitude. Nevertheless, our current president, Donald Trump, is just about the first to counterattack and successfully charge major news organizations with the proliferation of fake news.
Trump has endured what very few of us could, all the standard assaults by the news media on his character.
- Treasonous behavior. That is essentially what the charge of Russian collusion was about.
- Sexual harassment. The most famous example of that was that ten-year old tape that came out as an October surprise.
- Lying. The news media constantly takes whatever Trump says out of context and presents it as lying.
- Racism. This is an old standby for the Democrats. Originally, Democrats charged their opponents with not being white supremacists. Now they charge their opponents with being white supremacists. Meanwhile, Democrats still cannot figure out how to judge people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin.
Anyway, at this point we cannot take it for granted that the news media tells us the truth. We have to sort through their biases. We even have to be wary of our neighbors’ biases.
You want to know the truth about something important? Then get use to digging for it.
- You want to know the truth about our leaders? Then consider different news sources. Make sure you really know what they have said and done.
- You want to know how our government is supposed to work? Then read what the framers of the Constitution wrote.
- You want to know what the Bible says? Read the Bible for yourself.
It is a fact of life. Because very few of us love our neighbors, we should not trust each other any more than we must.
See OF TWISTED WORDS => FEMINISM – Citizen Tom for a list of the previous posts in this series.
Citizen Tom 
Tom
The FCC Grant’s licences to news sources on TV and radio.
I dont understand why Mitch does not complain to The FCC when a news source cannot prove their accusations.
In other words no truth. no license.
Regards and goodwill blogging
@Scatterwisdom
No legislation would support such a thing. The Democrats would go ape. The courts wouldn’t support it. McConnell is a public figure. He can’t sue for defamation. Free speech now includes outright lies.
What is really the problem? When so many.people are lying, lies become accepted conduct.
“We” readily accept the outright lies of the President.. so who cares?
Perhaps Trump should tweet about the FCC. When he tweets on issues, it seems to bring attention to a lot of issues that fearful politicians won’t do or say anything about.
See my reply to Doug.
Regards and goodwill blogging
@Scatterwisdom
There isn’t an easy solution. Too many people are willing to lie and believe lies, but the discussion might be interesting.
Tom,
The FCC is supposed to regulate the airwaves from using airwaves in a harmful being u manner against the USA.
@Scatterwisdom
We have to make rules we can live with when the “other side” wins.
Remember the fairness rule that required broadcast stations to give equal time to opposing views. If that rule was still in existence, talk shows like Rush Limbaugh’s would not exist.
Democrats consider both your speech and my speech harmful. They would shut up Trump in a heartbeat. Meanwhile, if they could shut us down, they would make themselves sound sickening sweet with their compassion and empathy. Frankly, I prefer that their rhetoric sound as it is, filled with hate.
Good point, but sad because too many people believe what they hear that are miscrued opinions instead of news based on facts.
Regards and goodwill blogging
@Scatterwisdom
The news media has always been partisan. Objective journalism is a myth. Find me someone who is objective, and I will show you either a liar or a prideful fool. Only God is objective because He actually knows the Truth. He does not have any opinions, and He does not lie.
Tom,
Notice that Mitch stated “facts matter” and that is what objective news is supposed to be reported by news media in order qualify as non partisan or objective.
Doug is concerned about truth. Cant have truth without facts. Accusations based on opinions are nothing more that a form of gossip by rag newsourses
Regards and goodwill blogging.
@Scatterwisdom
Facts are data. We form opinions or theories to explain the data. Scientists/philosophers created the scientific method to eliminate bias and confusion. Journalists depend upon freedom of the press and debate. Our legal system depends upon due process, judges and juries. All depend upon the integrity of their neighbors.
When we lack integrity, we can make nothing work.
Good choice of lacking word description of news gossip, integrity.
Regards and goodwill blogging
You want a government regulative agency to determine what is truth?? Tom might have something to say about that.
Doug
Might give them something meaningful to do other than grant licences to whomever contributes the most money to their favorite politician?
Ever wonder what the qualifications are to be granted an FCC approval to obtain an exclusive use to an airwave band?
Perhaps you might want to explore the subject in your sparetime.o determine if a license givse an entity exclusive rights to lie to the public or spread rumors like the Russians supposedly did to help Trump in the last election. … except that CNN did it for Hillary and that is somehow different?
Regards and goodwill blogging
I’m a licensed ham radio operator, a GMRS licensee, and I am familiar with broadcast licensing. This IS a reason the FCC does exist, believe it or not. But I am sure conspiracies abound.
What always seems a bit interesting to me is how the people who claim the media lies, seem to have some special knowledge of what’s the truth. Where do these people get the “truth” in order to determine who lies? Where do YOU get your truth, Rudy, and how does your source prove itself as being the most truthful? In fact, I’ve often wondered where Tom finds HIS “truth”.
Doug
Interesting and ironic in my opinion that what the Russions leaked to the public was the truth of the email conversations of the Democratic National Commitee leaders.
In other words, the truth.
Ironic in relation to your comment, in my opinion.
Leaked emails by the Russians is truth?
Yep, it revealed the truth about the DNC. Seems a lot of people decided to vote for your favorite President once the fact based truth was revealed and that made the Dems mad. So instead of reacting ik objective adults little kids who become mad when someone steals their candy, in my opinion.
Regards and goodwill blogging
Calling McConnell “Moscow Mitch” is “McCarthyism”? Ha, that’s priceless.
McConnell Is up for reelection and he’s been blocking bipartisan bills to prevent the Russians (and others) from interfering in our election. McConnell takes pride in previous monikers like “the Grim Reaper” for being the death anything productive, but the mysterious “deep state” hit a little too close to home with this one? Is there really some actual honor to be abused in that cynical soul that killed Obama’s Supreme Court pick on the excuse that it was too close to the election, but then laughingly said he will confirm a Trump pick no matter how close to the election?
Meanwhile, McConnell’s Senate just agreed with the Democrats to a deal that puts deficit spending on a climbing trend that would terrify a fighter pilot. Nothing about that because McConnell only hates deficits when Dems are in charge, so instead you’re invoking a bazaar ghost of McCarthy to defend McConnell? Besides, I thought you liked McCarthy? Didn’t you write a revisionist post trying to revive his reputation? If someone wrote this political theater in a okay, no one could suspend reality long enough to believe it.
@tsalmon
Like McCarthy? Are you talking about this post? => https://citizentom.com/2016/08/01/demagoguery-and-black-lives-matter/
Never have looked into McCarthy sufficiently to form a firm opinion about the man. Given the nature of the news media, it wouldn’t be easy to ascertain how frivolous McCarthy was in making his charges. People are so biased it is scary. The New York Times, for example, did not seem to have much interest in exposing Stalin’s genocidal activity. Our government and the news media knew Hitler was murdering lots of people in concentration camps, but that story did not come out until our troops liberated the camps, and Eisenhower got the story out.
Am I a fan of McConnell? No. Since politicians gain power by spending money, when we vote for politicians who promise us other people’s money, we get spend happy politicians like McConnell, not something any Democrat is in a position to complain about. Yet the logical incongruity of a Democrat complaining about someone else’s hypocrisy…..
The notion McConnell is a Russian asset because he did not support a Democrat bill is just hyperventilating silliness.
At least McConnell is confirming Trump’s picks. I am perfectly happy with the fact he did not confirm Obama’s last pick. No rule said he had to, and we both know what Democrats would do in the same situation.
Anyway, let me know when you actually want to debate issues instead of people.
“At least McConnell is confirming Trump’s picks. I am perfectly happy with the fact he did not confirm Obama’s last pick. No rule said he had to, and we both know what Democrats would do in the same situation.”
So if the Constitution has no firm rule against it, then it’s constitutional? Funny that you don’t mind that Moscow Mitch’s excuse for your newly discovered philosophy of constitutional elasticity was a bold faced fraud? We’ll see if you still feel that way if and when it happens to a Republican.
“Anyway, let me know when you actually want to debate issues instead of people.”
You brought it up Tom. Character IS the issue. Your acceptance of corruption newly drips with cynicism, but mainly because most lately your Republicans (especially your Dear Leader) make no pretense at character. We need to make the issue character because corruption is our existential threat right now.
No, I’m not talking about a criticism of character that is “holier than thou”. I’m talking about the aspirational angels of character that says we can all be better than this, we all must be better than this, or else no other issue matters.
@tsalmon
If disagreeing with a Liberal Democrat is tantamount to corruption, then I am corrupt. However, I don’t think that is what the word “corrupt” means. Just because you have such a twisted notion doesn’t mean I have any obligation to accept it.
The Senate has the responsibility for confirming the president nominations, not rubberstamping them.
“The Senate has the responsibility for confirming the president nominations ….”
Yes, they do, and they did not meet their constitutional duty based on sheerest of lies. They did not even try to advise and consent because of a fraud upon the country. Such blatant, sneering corruption of the system does not bother you as long as you feel your ideology is winning? If your ideology is based on a lie, what is your ideology really worth then? If you can only win by following scoundrels who lie and cheat better than your lying and cheating enemies, then you become your enemy.
@tsalmon
Here we are once again dealing with real issues, NOT! And why? Disagreeing with a Democrat is a sin.
Please explain what you are calling a lie. Show what it has to do with the Constitution.
Supposedly corrupt lying and thieving Democrats seem
to be the only issue that you want to talk about unless it is the lying media. Apparently, sins are only issues to you when Democrats sin, but when Republicans blatantly sin and smile about it, that’s not an issue? How about we make the unabashed promotion of lying and cheating an issue, in fact THE issue, no matter who is doing it?
@tsalmon
You are just making one unsupported accusation after another. I asked you a direct question. You deflected.
You voted for a guy who tells us the seas are rising because of global warming. Democrat politicians supposedly fear global warming will irreversibly damage the 🌎. So what does the great Obama do? How does he spend his political capital? On a power grab called Obamacare. It seems that saving the planet can wait.
I don’t take the truths peddled by politicians very seriously. Not Democrats or Republicans. That’s why I vote for limited government.
You are a smart and relatively good person. Still, you still vote for the most crooked people. Knowing how dumb I think you vote and how awful I think I can be, what logical reason do I have for voting for more government?
Considering that Trump won and you despise him, why are you still voting for more government? I just think government a necessity, limited government a blessing only so long as it stays limited.
I don’t understand your motivation, but I do wish you could give straight answers to straight questions. But you either cannot or will not.
“Please explain what you are calling a lie. Show what it has to do with the Constitution.”
Are you really this incredulous, or are you just pretending to be?
The Senate’s constitutional duty is to advise and consent. Instead of following that constitutional duty and giving Obama’s pick an up or down vote, Moscow Mitch said it was too close to the election (over a year out?) and that the voters should decide who gets to pick. This proved to be a blatant and (to Moscow Mitch) funny lie. And this isn’t even much of lie in Moscow Mitch’s infamous reign of political cynicism. Trump is much less duplicitous in his corruption, even proud of it.
Limited government?!?!? Do you seriously believe that such blatantly corrupt partisans will ever give up the power that gives profit to their corruption? Do you seriously see evidence of it in Mitch’s budget for example? You are barking up the wrong tree Tom.
@tsalmon
Check out this part of Article 2, Section 2.
The Constitution does not say the Senate has the duty to advise and consent. If the Senate does not consent — and it does not have to — the President does not have the power. That is the crux of it. It is about checks and balances. So get off your high 🐎.
Tom,
Under that theory, if the Commerce Clause doesn’t specifically prohibit a power, to the federal government, then any Commerce power is allowed, no matter how far fetched. If you are going to claim to have an constitutional interpretative philosophy, even if it is uninformed, it could at least be a little more logically consistent.
@tsalmon
You are not making sense. Sleep on it. That is what I am going to do.
Ok, so you don’t understand the differing interpretive philosophies because you have not really studied them so let’s see if this can be simplified?
You get how checks and balances work right? The Executive has the power to nominate and the Senate has power to advise and consent. Obama exercised his constitutional power and the Senate had a check on that power through a vote, either approving or declining Obama’s appointment. However, because Moscow Mitch would not even allow a hearing, much less a vote (in which the nominee most likely would have been approved), Moscow Mitch exercised a power that is not in the Constitution, and he abrogated the entire constitutional system of checks and balances.
No one argued against Garland’s qualifications or his ideology. The Senate never actually exercised its constitutional duty to advise and consent, but just the opposite, it refused to do so. By refusing their constitutional duty the Senate majority usurped a new unconstitutional power that, although is not expressly disallowed by the Constitution, defies the clear intent of the Constitution under any of even the most conservative interpretive philosophies from Original Intent to Strict Interpretation.
It also runs antithetical to all your hyperventilating on limited government because it gives the Senate majority leader a new power that does exist in the Constitution – the power to simply refuse to do his constitutional duty and by so doing, take away an express constitutional power of the executive. This is not a check or a balance – this is something extra-constitutional.
Under this new lawless theory, the President is not limited to the powers expressly stated in the Constitution, but is allowed allowed all things exept what that short document says that the executive cannot do. Under this new theory, the legislature is not limited to the legislative areas which the Constitution expressly empowers, but instead to any power which the Constitution does not expressly prohibit.
You certainly can complain that Executives and Legislatures and Courts have illegitimately gone beyond their limited constitutional powers, but if you adopt this new theory, then your complaint is at best grossly inconsistent and at worst, pure demagoguery. We can all legitimately disagree on the various theories and limitations on government, but if you agree with this then we are beyond honest intellectual debate on institutional limitations and constitutional philosophies, and you instead have simply succumbed to the lure of pure partisan power for its own sake rather than any lofty ideal about anything, much less the benefits of limited government.
And this is just one relatively minor example of the cynical erosion of our democratic institutions and our American highest ideals that is daily manifested in the corruption of Trumpism. This happens daily with Trump while any semblance of Republican honor leaves the building or drugs their souls in a fog of ridiculous conspiracy theories. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are competent enough to conspire their way out of a paper bag. My squirrel distracted cocker spaniel has a better attention span than the supposedly diabolical mainstream media. Pure corruption as old as the Garden has alsways been the the problem and it always will be if we succumb to it.
@tsalmon
The Constitution is a charter. It explains how our government is structured and the powers assigned to each branch. Article 1 gives the president the power nominate people to the courts. Trump could nominate a 10th and 11th judge right now if he wanted to do so, but he couldn’t force the Senate to take his nominees seriously. We both know you would cheer if the Senate ignored Trump’s nominations. Nevertheless, it is only a tradition that defines nine as the appropriate number of judges on the Supreme Court.
The Constitution gives each house in Congress the power to make its own rules. After conferring with his caucus, McConnell decided to Obama had already done enough damage.
Yes, and Moscow Mitch abrogated the clear intent and purpose of the Constitution.
You argue that social insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security are clearly not within the limited powers granted in the Constitution. However, show me where these programs are expressly forbidden? Under what you applaud here all that is not forbidden is now allowed.
The difference is that what Moscow Mitch did is much more destructive to our inherent systemic constitutional institutions. Every branch had their check and their balance with every increased power that the federal government has taken on with these programs. Moscow Mitch’s inaction, by contrast, took away the express power of the president to appoint, and it created a new, undemocratic Senate Leader “veto” power not described in the Constitution. If the framers had wanted to give the Senate’s Leader a veto power, they would have said so, but they instead said “advise and consent”. Those words have clear meaning and they have a clear historic tradition of precedent. Look them up?
Even you now admit that Moscow Mitch’s pretense that the voters should decide that close to the election was just a lie in a Party that now prefers liars and cheats, as long as they win. Trump can lie and deceive all day long.
@tsalmon
The only pretense here is that the Senate exercised some kind of power that is not in the Constitution. The Senate refused to confirm Garland’s nomination to the court. The fact they did not vote is of no consequence.
@tsalmon
As a practical matter, all you are doing is complaining that Democrats were not in the majority in the Senate. Because Republicans were in the majority, McConnell did his job and did not put Garland’s nomination on the agenda. He also did not arrange to give Garland the misery Democrats give Republican nominees.
So you would twist the constitutional words “advise and consent” into “Senate Majority Leader veto”.
Senate rules have historically governed the Senate’s advise and consent role, but a change to Senate Rules requires a majority vote. Nothing of the kind took place. The arguments in favor of Moscow Mitch’s cheat and its erosion of the Constitution ultimately comes down to propaganda rather than any consistent philosophy, legalistic demagoguery rather than clear structural intent. If the Democrats had done the same, you know as well as I that Republicans would be crying and gnashing teeth at the unconstitutional injustice if it. Someday they probably now will.
I see no consistency in governmental morality proclaimed by Republicans, just a cynical legalism that interprets every obvious lie and every cheat to assuage the anger and their fears of the moment. And that’s Republican Trumpism in a nutshell.
There is no Christian virtue in such tribalism either by the Democrats or the Republicans. The difference is that few secular Democrats sacralize their sins, whereas under Trumpism, Republicans constantly embrace the lie and proclaim it virtue.
@tsalmon
Senate MAJORITY Leader. It does mean something when one has a majority. I recall someone saying elections matter. If the majority of the Senate had wanted to override McConnell’s “veto”, they would have done so. They didn’t.
Again, this is presenting your Party’s worst cowardly vices as it’s greatest virtues. Just because they failed to do the right and honorable thing by their constitutional oaths, it does not somehow make it right. This is Trumpism through and through.
@tsalmon
How did not voting on Obama’s nomination violate anyone’s oath? The Senate advised Obama that Garland’s nomination would not be considered, and it was not.
“How did not voting on Obama’s nomination violate anyone’s oath?”
How did it not? Carefully reread everything I wrote above.
@tsalmon
None of this is relevant to this post. Since Trump was not president, it is not even relevant to him, your usual subject of abuse, but I am curious. What Senate rule?
Anyone who has a grasp on history can certainly understand the application of “McCarthyism” is a tad bit more than just the.. “making false accusations, or accusations without evidence.” The fact is (..and you said facts first…) it was a period of time.. the Second Red Scare… where it didn’t take much for such Communist accusations to be believed. If few believed McCarthy’s accusations/claims then he’d be at best a postscript in history. So given that.. one has to take into consideration.. let’s use the idea that somehow McConnell was truly offended by that WaPo editorial claiming he was a “Russian asset” in the article’s title.
(The complete text is apparently at the moment only available at the WaPo site where the usual popup wants your to register, yada, yada otherwise I would have read it.. so I suppose few others have read it as well).
But let’s take the title for face value… “Mitch McConnell is a Russian Asset”. Is there anyone that reads that honestly believing that McConnell, or any other member of Congress is truly a Russian asset? Seems to me it’s fairly simple to interpret the title as referring to McConnell’s action to not support any of the bills meant to improve/deal with Russian election meddling. So based on that, it’s very fair to assume that the article suggests by his non-support that he has benefited the Russians in a practical sense by holding off our national ability to meet their threat. Easy enough for me to figure that out. It’s called critical thinking. McConnell is a Trump lackey.. not some treasonous (we will get back to that word) Russian sympathizer. I assume he is just as patriotic as me… (but I have no idea what the hell anybody’s patriotism has anything to do with this).
Now.. back to the claims of McCarthyism… in order for that to work there has to be a large segment of believers somewhere taking action on those claims.. which is exactly what made McCarthyism so volatile back in the day. McConnell invoked McCarthyism… when it really isn’t. The whole thing is just political noise… yet you are devoting time to comment on this nonsense… and I am devoting time to reply to it.
Treason… treasonous… that word is used all over the place. Using the Constitution to define it… the word never fits because the critical condition of that definition is “enemies”. Russia is not an enemy. China is not an enemy. (I think the only “enemy” is North Korea, although that is an undeclared war.. hence Kim is an “undeclared enemy”?) “Sharing secrets with a foreign power” (espionage), ala Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.. or plotting against the US government is the more correct application.. but not “treason” or “treasonous” as one needs an enemy for that.
I have no energy to respond to the rest of your post as it’s the usual Trumpian defensive stuff and we are both set in our ways there.
@Doug
Russia is not the enemy? China isn’t either. Both just prop up North Korea who is the enemy?
We still have Russian nukes pointed at us, and now we have Chinese nuke. After decades of such sad foolishness, people yawn at the thought, but the fear is still there. We have just buried it.
Why did McConnell so firmly reject the charge of being a Russian asset. The charge appeals to our fears, stifling thoughtful debate and a careful examination of the worthiness of the accused. McConnell decided not to take any chances. He rightly decided to shut down Dana Milbank by coming back full force.
McCarthyism involves appealing to our fears. Accusations of treason, sexual harassment, lying, and racism all appeal to our fears. Trump has fought these charges by coming back hard and accusing his accusers of hypocrisy. So far he is winning.
So far Trump is only “winning” with elements of his own base. Every time I see clips of one of his rallies and his admirers banging away at each inflamed piece of Trump rhetoric I get this image of the first Planet of the Apes where the “crowd” in that outside auditorium just grunts and beats their clubs each time some prejudice is screamed out about humans, as Heston sits in that cage.
Fear seems to affect you.. and is your incentive, motivation, and forms your political thought. We can never fully appreciate how history turns out many time until decades later. The two most important events in past history that kept us from going to nuclear war…
1. We dropped the bomb(s).. thus very graphically illustrating to the world in no uncertain terms the physical results… devastation and human suffering for decades that even we could not have possibly anticipated. Of course Japan surrendered because of it.. but that was just the immediate political result. The long term is that it makes everyone take a step back to understand what will happen is someone wants to get trigger-happy.
2. The Cold War.. was in fact “cold” because of M.A.D. There was a nuclear parity between the only two nations that had these bombs.
I am perfectly happy knowing that us humans had a Cold War and it worked so well. The problem now is that any government who can afford the tech to build a bomb can. The threat now is NOT from some other country hell-bent on conquering the world.. but rather political and religious extremists, acting without some governmental control, who represent some nonsense spiritual belief in some after-life having greater value than real life and opts for martyrdom.
I don’t even fear The Great Leader (the one in North Korea.. not here) because of his intense affinity for self-preservation. His nukes are for show. He knows full well if he uses one that will be the quickest way to meet daddy and grandpa.
And what is this incessant need to show fondness to someone who exerts power against those who are critical? You relish this constant fight.. a blow for blow retribution. One might presume a nature vs. nurture influence in your past. You aren’t in favor of “truth to power” but rather “assert power to impose your truth”.
And for me.. yet again… who gives a flying f*** about four freshman Congresspersons, whether Trump is a racist or not, whether McConnell is being picked on for being a political schmuck, all that matters not and I could care less.
1. We need to focus on anyone hacking into our grids, election process, etc.
2. We need to remove Trump because of his behavioral deficiencies, illegal responses and excesses of his office to handle his problems, moral ineptitudes, and emolument violations… by vote or impeachment.
There’s more noise from Trump to come, you can be sure of that.
@Doug
Why did I like your comment? It illustrates how you are projecting your own behavior onto me.
I don’t run around attacking Democrats personally. I attack their policies, and they take it personally.
“They”.