There are plenty who want to walk away from the GOP as well. I am hoping we are just about ready for a viable third party. The left fails by being economically liberal along with socially liberal. The right fails by being socially conservative and what used to be economically conservative(before Reagan), but it now wildly economically liberal.

We need a party which is an amalgam of Libertarian and republican. Some type of platform that not only recognizes the individual rights, but also the collective responsibility of fiscal and social restraint in the state.

The only issue I see with the walkaway group is that they will bring plenty of liberal economic baggage to the republican side, which lost their economic conservatism long ago. However, it appears a good start for those Dems who can no longer stomach the idiocrisy of their old party.

There's no such thing as a presidential criminal indictment. It is ONLY an impeachment. Removal and trial for the president can only be done through impeachment. It's very clear. No bill of attainder would be granted for the president who was accused and investigated for a crime. Only impeachment.

The case of slick willy is very clear on that. He was caught red-handed lying under oath. For that, he agreed to give up his law license forever, and he faced impeachment. His 'high crime' was perjury, and obstruction. He did both, and he got away with both in the senate. There was never an outside indictment, or arrest, or anything like that because the constitution is quite specific on how the president and vice president are to be tried. It is the most extra-judicial method known. The founders were NOT going to have a rogue law enforcement arm going around arresting the leader of the country. Checks and balances.

Just know that there is nothing the DOJ, or AG, or any other copper in the land can do to Trump or Pence. Impeachment is it.

Here's a weird answer for ya. Technically, the left isn't wrong. As a republic, we are a nation of laws. Those laws should reflect the best in any society, to the advancement of all people. This WAS the bargain that the left offered for at least a while. Security, access, help for those less fortunate, and a willingness to take lawful action when there were discrepancies in the human condition.

Where the left went wrong is their embracement of democracy. Democracy by it's design and by definition pits one group against another, and will in all cases devolve to a mob rule mechanism. Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. There is nothing democratic about how a good society works. This was known by the Greeks, the Romans, the Etruscans, and probably by Cro-Magnon man way before there was papyrus and charcoal.

Republican methods work well with 'liberal' policy(small l) when they advocate for EVERYONE equally. This is the theory - and this is where Liberals(democrats, progressives) begin and end as a failure. If the left would stop embracing democracy and get back to a republican way of advocating, I think they would have a real future. Advance a policy that gains all Americans. Not just the blacks, Mexicans, immigrants, women, or some other sub-society. If a law is to be well defined, it will be defined for everyone and it will advance freedom and liberty(not liberalism) for every citizen. This is why prohibition failed so miserably, and the liberals should take a page of history from that massive failure of the republicans when they went so, so, so, wrong. Restrictions on liberty should be the LAST refuge of law, not the first, most draconian effort.

Well, I'm sure Wiki is rather glowing about the erstwhile Bezos. There is no doubt that Bezos pays someone handsomely to edit, and manage his page on a daily basis so that nothing of slander, or negativism gets in there.

Now, there's nothing against the law about ONE very wealthy man privately owning the most politically powerful newspaper on Earth. I'm sure he purchased it all on the up-and-up, and I'm equally sure this is the American way. Just as I'm quite sure his publication and editorial staff are slightly to the left of Karl Marx. The WaPo history reads like the founding of the American liberal/communist party. The only paper in the world to have taken down a US prez. Bezos owns it. Personally, not corporately. Again - I'm sure it's all legal, and I'm sure it's all proper, but that kind of fourth estate power in the hands of a socialist causes me grief. If the rest of the planet is ok with that, well, then shame on me.

Tax avoidance. I'm a true believer in tax avoidance. I practice it as much as I can, and I advise anyone and everyone to do the same. Now, where Bezos and I differ on this plan is that while he is a big believer in tax avoidance(zero fed taxes paid by Amazon in 17, and very little in 16, moving away from Seattle due to their head tax on large corp) for HIS company and HIS holdings - he is a big believer that OTHERS should pay high taxes, and fund huge wasteful social programs to benefit those who contribute little, nothing, or less than nothing to the national GDP. He wants to fund a lot of the old Johnson 'great society' improvements. Including benefiting the less fortunate(homeless and bums). But - he doesn't want to fund them from profits out of Amazon, no, he wants to use his cudgel and influence on congress and the exec to fund his darling programs from the US treasury.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-31/for-bezos-now-world-s-richest-philanthropy-is-saved-for-later

The guy is smart, influential, and a complete left-wing libtard when it comes to politics. I'm often amazed that someone can be so successful at public marketing and knowing how and where to make money, but have NO CLUE how public money is best spent. They must go around every day with blinders on to history. The great Cultural revolution that impoverished China isn't on the menu. The Bolshevik revolution that destroyed the wealth of Russia for 2 generations, he can't be bothered. These are the two largest but not only economic upheavals in recent history that tells us quite clearly and without equivocation that socialism does - not - work! There are dozens of smaller and sadder examples. S Korea - N Korea. S Vietnam - N Vietnam. How can he be so blind? How can anyone?

I hope this clears it up a bit. It's the old hypocrisy angle writ large(I mean, with Bezos writ really, really large). If he wants to fund social welfare, that's fine, write checks on your account. Be just like Clinton Global Initiative(another global failure) or Clinton Foundation. See how well they did in Haiti? Isn't Haiti a paradise on Earth now that Bill and Hillary said they would fix it? After you make billions, and pay at least a modicum of taxes to support defending you, and building roads a bridges and airports so your packages can be delivered, I say take some of your PROFITS and do good things. But - for those who privatize profit, and socialize spending, this is certainly the road to a class segmented society. And we know how those turn out.

I do have a solution, but it kinda runs into the fascism, liebensraum deal. We can start by neutering people who are only on the planet to consume, and not to produce. Of course, this would have the purely unintended consequence of decimating the liberal meatsack population significantly.

You concept was how our nation was intended to operate from the beginning. Even the name chosen represents that we are to be a group of states, which share attributes about liberty, and national defense. If one looks at the actual power delegated to the prez, they are surprisingly thin. Any reading of the Declaration of Ind will give clear evidence that they wanted no part of a king, or oligarch. The fed guv is out of control, and the powers assumed by the pres are all out of proportion to what was intended.

As for the senators, we should never have gone to popular election. I consider the upper chamber of the congress to be a deliberative body. Charged with seeing that the nation retain it's individualism and answer to the people of their own state. Appointment by the governors, or by the state legislature was the right thing to do. Moving anything toward democracy is a mistake.

As for the electoral college system, the way it's set up now is to prevent large states from having too big a democratic sway in the process. Frankly, I consider the needs of Wyoming to be nearly as important as the needs of CA. If the political landscape were switched from R to D in WY, I would still think the same way.

Weird as it sounds, if I got to know Fightin' Joe, kinda one on one, we would likely be fast friends. He's the kind of guy that's got your back. He calls a spade a fucking shovel. He isn't worried too much about his image. But - in public office, or representing the public he's just a putz.