Posts
Newspaper publisher Mark Guerringue again sits in the left chair and we begin with Trump's wall. The producer asks us if the wall is built without funding from Mexico, will it hurt Trump's reelection chances in 2020. I say no. If he gets a wall at all, or part of one, it would be good for him. If he loses this standoff with the Dems and doesn't get funding for his wall, that will hurt him badly.
Mark agrees and cites Bush 41's "No New Taxes" pledge as a comparison. Should Trump not get his wall, he could be in trouble for reelection.
We go to Mitt Romney's op-ed in the Washington Post critical of Trump's character. I contend that if Romney's move portends decay of Trump's Republican support in the Senate, that could spur the new Democrat House to begin impeachment proceedings because the likelihood of finding Trump guilty in the Senate might increase.
Again, Mark agrees. He thinks Trump a terrible person and Republicans who support him sell their souls. He says Democrats will be forced to impeach. I contend that Democrats are driving the impeachment investigations, not being forced by circumstances.
Mark cites former Trump Attorney Cohen's testimony about payoffs to women with whom Trump had affairs as impeachable offenses. I disagree, citing Alan Dershowitz and suggesting that Trump's base knows what he's like and supports him anyway because he gets things done. Mark interrupts, suggesting that no one should be supportive of Trump because he's a terrible person and I should be more critical of him.
I contend the Meuller Investigation exists to divert attention from Obama officials spying and interfering in the 2016 election against Trump and Trump's base sees it that way -- that cooperation between mainstream media and Democrats drives Meuller's efforts. Mark calls that another conspiracy theory. I point out that no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia has come out because there isn't any. Mark says we don't know because there's an investigation going on and we have to wait for results -- and to talk about it is pointless.
Mark cites the Trump Tower meeting, but gets riled and interrupts when I try to comment on the meeting that he brought up. Things get contentious and Mark asks to change the subject.
Mark brings up global warming and a NASA report citing that 97% of climate scientists say human activity is mostly responsible for global warming. I dispute that claim and remind Mark that we have had many heated discussions about this in another forum. I had previously cited thousands of other scientists who refute the 97% "consensus." He derides those scientists as funded by petroleum interests and therefore not reliable.
Again he gets riled up that I still don't agree with his global warming claims and interrupts me when I offer conflicting evidence. It goes on that way for several minutes until nearly the end of the show.
