tanq - I understand what you are saying. I'm just using a more technical definition of bipartisan. I don't think senate or house leadership should block as many bills or nominations as they have in the last decade. Full stop. That's really my only point. In this day of hyper-partisanship, I'd rather have up-or-down votes on legislation if at least a few people from each party in either the house or senate vote in favor of it. That would probably work against my policy desires in some instances (forcing dems to vote on bills pushed with majority republican support). But so be it. Right now there are too many ways to gum up the works. If people want to filibuster, make them talk and talk and talk like the old days. If the House or Senate passes a bill, make the other half of the legislative branch at least vote on the legislation or amend and vote on the legislation. Make the president (whomever he or she is) veto more legislation if that is the way it goes.

OO - my bad, you have said you did not vote for Trump on numerous occasions! I knew that too, no good excuse from me.

OO - I give you full credit for free thinking on many policy issues. To be fair, you are correct that I have no idea whether you opinions on impeachment/Ukraine or Mueller/Russia were formed through thoughtful reflection or having it directly injected into your brain (please note use of hyperbole) by Fox News or the volume of Lindsey Graham's bellows (please note use of hyperbole). So I concede the point and I really was not trying to be insulting. I apologize it came off that way, I will be more careful with my language.

OO (and others) - What I don't get is how someone who thinks as independently as you do on some things comes to the exact same position on impeachment/Ukraine and Mueller/Russia as Fox News and Lindsey Graham. And it isn't just you. As far as I can tell you, 69/70/75, and tanq all think impeachment/Ukraine and Mueller/Russia are much ado about nothing and/or a hoax and/or partisan politics run amok. I am horrified by Trump's actions and I would be equally horrified if a democrat was doing the same thing. It boggles my mind that the 3 of you shrug. I mean, multiple Republican senators have now said they think Trump acted inappropriately, even if they will not remove him from office. Many, many, many former Republicans (including former congresspeople) agree. Why would they do that if it was some Democratic fever-dream?

I'll end with this, something I have asked similar questions a few times now (with no responses). Pretend Elizabeth Warren wins the nomination.
(1) Is it OK for her to get on stage at the democratic convention and say, "China, if you can dig up some dirt on the Trump family then my administration will give you more favorable treatment on trade and human rights issues."? If it is not OK and she is subsequently elected, what should happen?
(2) If Warren is elected (without the hypo in #1) and Trump immediately announces that he is running against her in 2024. Can President Warren call Putin and say, "Vlad, I think the Trump family is corrupt and corruption is a big problem. If you can give me evidence of their corruption or announce investigations into them, the USA will stop sending financial support to Ukraine for 2 years." If it is not OK, what should happen?

I think both are bad, bad, bad. Both should result in her removal from office via impeachment. I'll take President Pence over Trump in a heartbeat.