Cowards have no creativity, they are weak and do what they need to do to survive over what is right.

I guess Lincoln was wrong this whole time. I mean, that's what Rubio was saying. That the damage to the country wasn't worthy of doing what is right. So much for the legacy of that Lincoln guy.

That's an ironic statement by somebody who was against the House impeaching Trump because it could help the president in this next election.

Regarding what Rubio said: yeah, it's not possible for me to disagree more stringently with anything. Congratulations Marco, it's because of people like you that I'm leaning more and more strongly towards voting Democrat for the first time in my adult life.

No, I saw no point in impeaching Trump because what we just witnessed is always what was going to happen. What was the upside? A bunch of moderate Republicans would clutch their pearls and vote for Democrats after seeing the gymnastics Senate Republicans went to to excuse Dear Leader?

That's like ROUS. At this point, I don't believe they exist.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm supposed to believe there exists a subset of Republicans who were okay with the last eleven years of Moscow Mitch's behavior in the Senate; who were okay with Merrick Garland not even getting a hearing while Brett Kavanaugh got jammed through after credible rape accusations were dismissed with a dog-and-pony investigation that didn't investigate SHIT; and who were okay with a trillion dollar giveaway to corporations at the same time as the GOP has been trying to burn out every last vestige of the social safety net, but this, THIS was the bridge too far?

Horseshit.

Even the "This Is Fine" dog would have bailed on that tire fire by now.

This is what you said. The damage inflicted on the rule of law wasn't enough for you to support Trump being impeached, in fact it wasn't even a factor at all, but now you're taking Rubio to task because he's unwilling to inflict said damage. If the rule of law matters enough to impeach Trump, it matters whether it's a Republican, Democrat, or a canary we are criticizing at the moment.


You later said impeaching Trump was potentially poisonous to this ability. I'm perfectly willing to disregard that argument if you no longer believe it - but it is what you said (wrote).

By the way, I'm one of those people you don't believe exist. I wouldn't have voted Democrat if they didn't impeach Trump; now I probably will. Polls indicate that most independents wanted witnesses and didn't get them. Half of the public wanted Trump impeached. The number of persuadable people based on these facts is non-zero. It's probably not a huge number, but it doesn't need to be in these polarized days. If it boosts or suppresses turnout on either side by a fraction of a percent, that can make a difference.

1) The rule of law matters. But performative obeisance doesn't actually protect the rule of law. And this is always what was going to happen.

Thus, the only reason to impeach Trump was, and is, public masturbation. "WE DID THE THING NOW PAT US ON THE BACK."

That doesn't mean I didn't support his impeachment, or that I didn't believe he should be removed from office. But absent a mass revolt against the GOP - and make no mistake, when the GOP says "meh, it's okay if the President solicits foreign interference in our elections as long as it's OUR guy," then "mass" is what you need to overcome that interference - what's the outcome? Trump has been "exonerated" (no he hasn't, but that's what he and his sycophants will scream) and he's now, essentially, unleashed. What can he do, going forward, that will both prompt the House to impeach him a second time AND get Senate Republicans to say "okay, fuck this shit"?

To the extent that impeachment ever had a hope of a positive outcome in this environment, it was the threat of impeachment. As long as that was on the table, there were at least some lines Trump might not cross.

What are they now? What behavior do you see coming from Trump in the next seven months - or beyond, if he loses re-election - that will be supportive to the rule of law?

The rule of law matters, but if the Senate ignores it and the Chief Fucking Justice can't be bothered to act in its defense because doing so might seem overly political, then what good has the House's performative obeisance to it done? How has the rule of law been served?

2) Unless there's a more explicit bit that you left out, what I wrote in your second snippet is not that impeaching Trump was poisonous to their ability to keep the House or flip the Senate.

What I said was that their ability to leash him was dependent on that ability. That doesn't mean "impeachment = they lose." It DOES mean that performative impeachment distracts from whatever messaging they might have brought to the public. This is, for better or worse, going to dominate the discourse for the next nine months. Additional shoes are going to fall and the media is going to keep coming back to the impeachment trial as things like Bolton's book come out to support those original charges, and trying to talk about Democratic priorities is going to be like shouting into a hurricane.

Trump loves the SHIT out of this. It makes him the center of attention for the next nine months, and makes it much harder for Democrats to seize the narrative, whether it's the eventual Democratic Presidential nominee, or Congressional Democratic leadership making the case for a Democratic Congress.

And, I mean, maybe public anger really IS festering here and all the Twitterpeeps declaring "I'm a Republican but never again" is going to destroy the GOP this fall. I'd love to see it!

But from where I'm sitting right now, we just went through some kabuki theater where the outcome was telegraphed for months, despite a couple wishy-washy Republicans angsting publicly over whether they should vote to hear from witnesses before saying "well, you know, his conduct warranted removal but that doesn't mean we should have REMOVED him."

This is always what was going to happen, and the outcome has been to make the next nine months about Trump, and not about who might replace him. The rule of law lost this week, and the rule of law will take a red-hot poker up the ass if he wins re-election. And allowing him to have the spotlight to himself for the next nine months is playing right into his hands on that front.

I'm going to guess this is what Rubio was thinking about impeachment. What is the upside if it wasn't going to happen anyway.

And always wanting to weigh both sides, would you also be as accusatory for the Dems that voted against impeachment during Clinton's trial?

Your assumption that a threat of impeachment would have somewhat constrained Trump is questionable. Arguably, for the House to not impeach Trump would have emboldened him even more. I think the threat of a 2-time impeachment club is just as persuasive.

I supported the impeachment process because it was the right thing to do. It also puts our politicians on record which is good.

Its all out there now (calling on Bolton as additional witness for Ukraine is really pointless) and if Trump gets re-elected even with this impeachment, the Dems/Libs will need to take a good hard look in the mirror and assess whether they really are in tuned with the priorities and sentiments of the country as a whole (e.g. not just liberal enclaves in the NE and West).

I think Alexander's answer is better than Rubio's, it gives him more wiggle room to play with. House proved their case but in his opinion it does not rise to level of impeachment.

Why 4 key Republicans split — and the witness vote tanked - POLITICO

Comparing Clinton’s impeachment to trumps is like comparing me smashing someone’s mailbox to murdering everyone in the house.

Using the Presidency to go after a political rival is pretty serious. So is lying under oath.

Sen Ernst said today that if Biden wins they will immediately start impeachment hearings.

So much for will of the voters, too partisan, blah blah blah.

Good thing Sen Ernst is going to lose then

Don't forget. We will be required to have the same opinion on this theoretical Biden impeachment that we did on the Trump and Clinton impeachments. If not, we are hypocrites.

All impeachments are the same. Everything both sides do is the same.

It won't happen, as there's almost no chance of Biden winning and the GOP flipping the House, but it's another in a long line of examples that the GOP makes almost no arguments in good faith.

Eh, the acknowledgement doesn't need to be as frequent but a once-a-while acknowledgement that some Dems/Libs failed in doing what's right when it was their time to rise up would be nice. Otherwise this forum would turn into an echo chamber of circle jerking ... oh, wait ...

Rubio's defense, and franky the entire new GOP stance of "Let the people decide" has made the single greatest argument to get rid of congress, the EC and go to a direct vote, democracy. That is what they are selling isn't it? Oh wait, it's what they are selling as long as it's what the GOP are willing to give. Otherwise, we can't do anything that might be out of the best interest of the 41% that support, back and that they now represent.

lol

Trump congratulates the Chiefs and the state of Kansas.

I imagine someone just logged into his twitter account and fixed it rather than tell him he's wrong.

Fast and Furious was an unmitigated disaster. The Syrian Red line was a horrible play of the cards. Inability to work better trade dealings was pretty terrible.

So yeah, there's that. Now can someone please tell the GOP that their moral fucking high ground is over.

An argument that Dems on this board should criticize Dem policies is a different argument than that the same exact opinion is required on both the Clinton and Trump impeachments. The latter is a ridiculously stupid argument with no merit whatsoever.

I get tired of these both sides arguments because they don't have anything to do with the issues at play. Even if you thought Sack was completely disengenuous with his criticism of Rubio, that's not a defense of Rubio. You've done nothing to prove Sack's statement wrong. You've accomplished nothing at all except attack the personal motives of the person making the argument, which is a classic fallacious argument.

Thanks. How about lack of significant immigration reform when the Dems had an opportunity to put it front and center; deficit also increased considerably when Dems had Presidency, House and/or Senate; and aligning with frenemies occurred under their watch too; failure to vote to impeach Clinton by some Dems to do what was right? (those come to mind, I'm sure there are additional)

With that all said, I can easily concede more "blame" should go to GOP on these issues (but not all as it is often portrayed in this forum). Let's say 70-30 or 60-40.

Yes, there is no doubt the GOP moral high-ground sucks quite a bit with their support of Trump.

Deficit really ain't the field you should play on.

Exact is a strong statement and I am not asking for that (see post above on my concession that GOP has to shoulder significant amount of the "blame" but not all).


My intent was not to "prove" Sack's statement wrong and don't think Sack was disingenuous. I just think there is too much GOP is to be blamed for all/most things and I want to "accomplish something" by bringing awareness & some balance to these discussions.

Really?

yes, really

PolitiFact | A service of the Tampa Bay Times

This is simply quite false.

One can argue that one prefers the things that the GOP politicians prefer and therefore prefers what the GOP spends money on compared to the Dems. And that is a defensible position. I don't agree with it, but it makes sense.

But if one is sincerely and honestly concerned about the deficit as the deficit, then one should never ever ever ever ever vote for a GOP politician.

That the question is even debatable at this point is proof of how good the GOP is at politics and messaging and how piss poor the Dems are at it.

I see. Let me correct and say the "accumulated budget deficits" = increased debt by Presidency.

US Debt by President: By Dollar and Percentage

A wiki link comparing "accumulated budget deficits" (e.g. debt) by Presidency and % of GDP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...es_public_debt

The rate of the accumulated debt is directly driven by the size of a deficit, no? Meaning it accumulates at a slower rate with lower deficit vs. higher deficit, unless there is some new math algorithm I'm missing.

What you seem to be saying is this:

Group A creates $100k in debt
Group B then creates $400k more in debt
Group A comes in and creates $50k more in debt

Geez, group A sure are irresponsible spenders. They made the debt $550k

I'm not sure I understand. The articles are by Presidential term? Are we talking about rate of increase or about total accumulated deficits = total debt by Presidency?

The national debt is a function of an annual budget deficit, but they aren't the same thing.

Since Reagan, the pattern has been clear, the GOP increases the yearly budget deficit and then the Dem lowers it. That works for Reagan to Clinton, Bush2 to Obama, and almost certainly for Trump to whoever comes next.

But wait, there's more! This isn't accidental. The GOP has embraced a theory that the welfare state can only be dismantled through a budget crisis. The goal is a government that can be drowned in a bathtub, and the way to do that is tax cut driven budget deficits that cause "crises" for Democratic presidents.

Or there's always the "TAXCUTS WILL PAY FOR THEMSELVES" line that the GOP keeps trying to sell us.

Pretty much the same in this context. Your link was by end of Presidential term, annual deficit had increased/decreased. My links are by end of Presidential term, here is the accumulated deficit = total accumulated debt.

Is annual deficit at a point-in-time what we want to talk about or is it total accumulated deficit by Presidential term? I contend the latter is a better analysis for this discussion.


Can't paste the table but look at the wiki link, midway down "Gross Federal Debt" section. There is a table that tells you in raw $ and % of GDP how the "total accumulated deficits" have grown by Presidential term.

Obama comes out ahead on raw $ and second to GWB on % of GDP in total accumulated deficits. The chart only goes to Obama's first term and does not have Trump's stats so the $ & % are not entirely accurate but its significant enough ... so let's not say the Dems didn't increase the total accumulated deficits significantly.

I disagree whole-heartedly. With the former it's easier to determine whether or not the president left the deficit better or worse than when he founded it. With the latter you add in a factor beyond the incumbent's control.

Take Obama for instance. Is it his fault that Bush left him a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit? I don't think so but with your preferred metric Obama takes the blame. I applaud the fact that the deficit under Obama was cut in half even though I wish he had gone further.

Maybe the confusion is my wording. My links are not talking about total accumulated deficit life-to-date, it is talking about total accumulated deficit by Presidential term. Hence, it does not factor in what GWB left Obama to start of with. Here's the raw nos from my wiki link.

During GWB term 1

The change in accumulated deficit (or total debt) during his presidency - $2,135B or 7.1% of GDP

During GWB term 2

The change in accumulated deficit (or total debt) during his presidency -
$3,971 or 20.7% of GDP

During Obama term 1

The change in accumulated deficit (or total debt) during his presidency term 1 $6,061 or 18.5% of GDP


So if you add up all the GOP and Dem presidents, did the GOP presidents increase the accumulated deficit the most? Yes. Did the Dem presidents also increase the accumulated deficit significantly? Yes.

The other thebalance link breaks it down each year by President.

Donald Trump: Trump plans to add $5.088 trillion to the debt in his first term.8 That's a 25% increase from the $20.245 trillion debt at the end of Obama's last budget for FY 2017. If he remains in office for a second term, he plans to add $9.1 trillion for both terms. Trump had promised to eliminate the debt during his campaign.

FY 2021 - $1.276 trillion
FY 2020 - $1.281 trillion
FY 2019 - $1.260 trillion
FY 2018 - $1.271 trillion

Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion, a 74% increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

FY 2017 - $671 billion
FY 2016 - $1.423 trillion
FY 2015 - $327 billion
FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion
FY 2013 - $672 billion
FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion
FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion
FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion
FY 2009 - $253 billion. Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009.9 This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. This was Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act.
FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion
FY 2007 - $501 billion
FY 2006 - $574 billion
FY 2005 - $554 billion
FY 2004 - $596 billion
FY 2003 - $555 billion
FY 2002 - $421 billion

I really think you guys are missing a big part of the entire debt/deficit argument, and that is current economic situation and which parties are in control of the Exec v. Legislative.


Those are very big pieces of this puzzle that complicate the simple argument that D's are better. A complicit legislative or exec is the biggest driver of debt and deficit, at least, the biggest impact on whether or not it explodes. Then you have to layer the quality of the economy behind it.



In the Clinton years, you had opposition legislative that somewhat forced the president to reign in certain elements of spending in a boom economy.



Compare that with trump, and his ass kissing legislature who allowed him to create a plan that runs 1 trillion in the red every year.



I imagine if Clinton could have gotten the same thing, he'd have run with it like crazy.



Bush 2 doesn't nearly get the credit he deserves for bankrupting the economy by the end of his term. He was forced to pass the budget that Obama had to take credit for in '09 that resulted in a trillion plus deficit as the economy tanked, yet Obama get's called a big spender. He needed to spend that anyway, or the economy would have tanked to a 2 trillion deficit.



Obama gets credit for closing that gap, but a lot of that was due to the R's shoving everything up his ass and keeping anything from getting done. So yes, his numbers look good, but he still didn't do what he wanted to do either.


This is a much more nuanced argument than the simple numbers game would show.

And Edward's argument that the D's didn't do anything about immigration is half bs. Since the 80's it's been the R's that didn't do anything. They knew that businesses needed that labor. Those big corps are their supporters. They easily could have worked to stem the tide by hammering punishments on businesses (like they should) for employing them illegally (and outside the system), but they had no stomach for that. Both sides could have changed the approach, but money talks. Both sides get money. Blame those outside forces as much as anything else.

I agree. The President doesn't get all the credit or blame but does get some. We do have to level set and agree on some factors and it doesn't seem that we even agree on the baseline accumulated deficit nos.

I don't understand what was going on here. The yearly deficit was:

2012 1087
2013 679
2014 485
2015 438
2016 585

What drives the great discrepancy between these two sets of numbers?

I can see why you think what you think about my position. However, my position is not that the Dems didn't do anything about immigration. My point is its not all the GOP fault like many posts here seem to say. What did the Dems do during Obama's first 2 years when they had the Presidency and both houses?

If we want to allocate blame since 2000's, yeah I'll concede the GOP is more at fault.

What about blame since the 80's? I'd give the GOP credit for that one more than anything.

From Reagan to Clinton -- arguably, I think the GOP party did more than the Dems.

Reagan gets a lot of credit for his reforms. His amesty would seem to trump (!) all the other reform packages.

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Wikipedia


Clinton also had a reform package. But IMO it wasn't near as extensive or favorable to illegals south of the border.

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 - Wikipedia

Too much blaming going on.

Your guy is the president now. He needs to fix shit.

They all do.

Obama's biggest mistake was trying to work with the GOP to make things bipartisan. They planned from the beginning to resist everything he proposed, so the limited time they had, look at how long it took to seat Franken, was taken up with other priorities.

And that still doesn't change the fact the impediment to immigration reform since Bush2 has been the desire by too many GOPers to restrict legal as well as illegal immigration, especially when it concerns non-Europeans. There have always been plenty of votes, probably enough to pass a bill, but the hardliners in the GOP won't even let it be debated.

Not my President.

I agree, Presidents and Congress needs to fix shit.

Unfortunately, when it comes to annual accumulated deficit, they all fall short.

You are right. thebalance nos look off and will concede the Obama's total accumulated deficit was not as much as what was document in thebalance (but think the wiki is correct).

See below for a graphical representation from Rachel Maddow site. I hope this is sufficient to show there is plenty of blame to spread around (PM caveats nothwithstanding however they are valid).

Despite his promises, Trump pushes deficit past $1 trillion mark | MSNBC

I still see deficits decreasing under Democratic presidents and increasing under Republican ones. Given that I think the blame should be thrown at mostly one party.

Yes, I agree and conceded this in the above post. It would be nice to see this represented as a % of GDP, I think it is a more fair comparison vs raw $.

Quote:

So if you add up all the GOP and Dem presidents, did the GOP presidents increase the accumulated deficit the most? Yes. Did the Dem presidents also increase the accumulated deficit significantly? Yes.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

It doesn't really change the discussion

ETA: By which I mean the percentages go up under GOP presidents and down during Democratic presidents.

Let me make sure I understand you.

You think rate of change in the annual deficit is a better measure than total deficits for a President?

Yup, it shows direction. If the president left the yearly deficit lower than when he entered office I consider that positive change and vice versa.

A president can't control where he starts from which is why I don't like the total deficits metric.

And external factors matter. The Great Recession demanded increased federal spending.

In that sense, Trump has been the worst, by far. He's run up trillion dollar plus deficits with a good economy for all four years.

Exactly! He has pretty much done exactly the opposite of what you are supposed to do when the economy is good. It's nothing short of us getting fleeced by him and the rich.

You can fuck right off to Fuckyourselfville with that bullshit.


Once acquitted, what incentive for good behavior does he have? He now demonstrably has a Senate with neither the balls nor the spine to tell him no.

In '2016 they were yammering about having enough material for years of hearings to slam Clinton with and ohbytheway we're gonna impeach her for Benghazi.

Nothing new.

If Biden wins, the House is likely going to stay Democratic... so... no, they won't.

Very McConnell-esque

Virginia GOP delegate tries to kill own bill to remove Democratic segregationist statue | TheHill

Guess not interested in fair & balanced?


I thought I answered it.

Quote:

Your assumption that a threat of impeachment would have somewhat constrained Trump is questionable. Arguably, for the House to not impeach Trump would have emboldened him even more. I think the threat of a 2-time impeachment club is just as persuasive. I supported the impeachment process because it was the right thing to do. It also puts our politicians on record which is good. Its all out there now (calling on Bolton as additional witness for Ukraine is really pointless) and if Trump gets re-elected even with this impeachment, the Dems/Libs will need to take a good hard look in the mirror and assess whether they really are in tuned with the priorities and sentiments of the country as a whole (e.g. not just liberal enclaves in the NE and West).

Per the Maddow chart, the first year of a Presidency is multi-colored. Take out all first year deficits because it came from the previous year/administration. So for Obama, remove 2009 from the discussion.

In 2010, 2011 & 2012, the deficit is > $1T each year. Far greater than any other Presidents before him in raw $ (not sure where to get $ adjusted for inflation but that would be a better measure). In 2013 it drops to $650B.

That would be a dramatic drop but I don't think the "rate of decrease" is as relevant because 2010-2012 were such dramatically bad years. The damage was front loaded and already done. I don't care as much the decrease was 40-50% from 2012 to 2013 when we were already $3-4T up in 2010-2012.

Hence, my position that the total accumulated deficit is more important than rate of increase/decrease.

Let's agree to disagree.

Let's take a break, Sack.

This is fair. Much of Obama's deficits were because of the GR. Just like we can say much of GWB deficits were because of 9/11 wars.

Look at Obama's 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. Those deficits were just as great as GWB who had a war to deal with.

For Trump, according to Maddow's chart, its not all 3 years but your point is taken. He is headed in the wrong direction in a record way for sure.

One caveat for future conversations -- I think we have to look at raw deficit/debt $ but it needs to be complemented by "as a % of GDP" and normalized for today's $. The wiki article had % of GDP but only went through Obama's first term and (obviously) nothing on Trump.

Why do you guys keep engaging the Russian bot troll

Define "9/11 wars"

I was made in Singapore thank you very much!

No, much of the deficit under GWB was from his tax cuts for the rich.

And Iraq War

Yes the wars were considerable costs, but it doesn't touch what we lost from the tax cuts. For that, Bush deserves some blame for the deficit under Obama. Although Obama later extended portions of it so he gets some blame too.

It seems self evident to me -- Afghanistan and Iraq.

Did I miss a nuance, why did you ask?

The other low intensity conflicts probably did not add much to the deficit.

Using the Iraq War as a mitigating factor in Bush's management of the deficit is a really weird argument considering many of the arguments against the war centered around how much it would cost, especially because it would take much longer than the administration was touting. No shit the war was a major factor in the deficit increase. That's kinda the point.

There's plenty of troll bots on this forum.

Are you the Dem/Lib troll bot or the Independent troll bot or the GOP/Trumpers troll bot?

I was just making sure you lumped the Iraq War (because Saddam caused 9/11) in the "9/11 wars" before I put words in your mouth

It was first time I've heard that phrase.

You'll have to ask my maker.

Okay, I understand. Yes, agree my wording could be better but I was thinking Afghanistan and Iraq part deaux.

It's like watching a toddler that can't sit still. There seriously has to be something medically wrong with the man.

Trump is caught on camera waving his hands during national anthem - Business Insider

Have you ever seen Bladerunner?

That looks like a guy suffering from dementia.

So kneeling and remaining silent is disrespectful, but talking, waving your arms, gesturing and being otherwise disruptive is perfectly respectful? Okay.

Remember, he has Article II of the Constitution, which allows him to do what ever he wants

Yes but it's been a while. Why?

The “I am rubber and you are glue” approach.

I think Trump's odds of a second term just went up a some. Lot's of time left for something to happen but he's likely to go into November with a good/strong economy/market (e.g. too late for us to get into an official recession now but market could still crash).

https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/...onal-best.aspx
And the rationale ...

Sure, he's got as good a chance as a sitting president, who has gotten the green light to manipulate the system for his benefit, as any other previous president has.

Sure, he's got as good a chance as a sitting president, with special needs, as any other previous president has.

Sure, he's got as good a chance as a sitting president, who is defended by rape, murder, and child porn lawyers, as any other previous president has.

He's an incumbent with a good economy, he should be the favorite.

Also, don't put too much stock in one poll.

I'm sure I missed this at some point, but we're pro landmine now?

Yes. And if by 'we', you mean trump and his ilk...yes.

Bone Spurs for all! Real ones this time too!

That breathing again.

And Nancy busy doing work in the background. It would be hilarious if she took out her iPhone and started texting!

Forgot about the clapping after every sentence.

GOP clapping and cheers seem almost ... giddy?

MSM will analyze the inaccuracies and provide more context but Trump is giving a pretty good speech right now.

The Pelosi paper rip becomes a massive meme within 24 hours.

A pretty good speech if you’re living in an alternative universe where the only thing that matters is what The Great Leader tells us should matter. Facts be damned.

Didn't watch all of it so catching up some.

Inviting Juan Guaido was a good move. I hope this means we will be doing more in Venezuela.

Pelosi supposedly tearing up the SOTU speech at the end is fun. Both are trying to show each other up and it's entertaining.

Yes! Let’s meddle some more, because it’s been so successful in the past! As if Chavez/Maduro wasn’t a direct result of our propping up other corrupt governments....

So has there been any US support of an existing foreign government or opposition leader that you would support?

Trying to understand what would be "good/justifiable" vs "bad"

I’m not sure I get the question.

I am opposed to meddling in the internal politics of other countries because quite frankly, we do not have a very good history in that regard and it has a direct correlation to troubled spots we deal with today.

We supported the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, which gave us the Shah. Which in turn gave us the Revolution in 1979 and our current enmity with Iran.

Our support of corrupt Cuban military governments gave us Castro. And the pattern repeats over and over in Latin America.

Supporting the overthrow of Ghadaffi in Libya and Assad in Syria has done nothing but give more power to Islamists.

We needed a do over in Egypt after we realized we didn’t really like the results of their free elections.

Point being, I can’t think of any meddling we have been a part of in other country’s internal politics that has been a long term positive for us.

And if we are going to bitch about Russia meddling with our elections, we really ought to have a leg to stand on. And we don’t. Not even close.

Which is why you haven't heard me bitch about that stuff.

Every nation acts in their own best interest, not particularly more or less than we do historically.