Emerald

When I was in my early 20s, I used to have a kind of fantasy image around the idea of being sexually desired by a wealthier middle aged man like in his 40s. Not super wealthy, but like middle class to upper middle class to my working class/ working poor background. But it didn't really have to do with the money or some idea of gaining upward mobility. It had to do with this fantasy I had around being desired a certain way with a certain setting that I appreciated at the time. And there was a certain type of music I associated with it, like Sade's "Smooth Operator" or some old vaudeville music. And I'd always envision that he would be surprised and grateful that I took interest in him because of his age, so he would value me. And it was really indicative of the type of persona I was trying to adopt at the time. I was working hard to fit in as a school teacher, which is a job that my personality isn't very well suited to. And I always felt like I was a square peg in a round hole in the work setting around all these middle class folks. So, I had these dreams of being able to vanillify myself and blend in as socially acceptable. And I wanted people to see me as a professional young woman who was well-put-together. And somehow, this played into this fantasy a lot. But really, this fantasy was more of an outgrowth of trying to fit a place in society that was inauthentic to me. And I'd always imagine in the fantasy, that this rigid middle-aged man with trouble expressing his sexuality was set free by me who brought back his youth for a time. And that he would open up only to me, and I'd be like a manic pixie dream girl for him. But it occurred to me, at some point, that this uptight wealthy man was really a representation of myself and my self-imposed limitations set in place by the type of persona I was trying to occupy that wasn't fitting for me. I was always trying to be a 40 year-old woman in terms of maturity in a 23-25 year-old body. And in trying to set him free in the fantasy, it was really a metaphor for trying to set myself free. But truly, the money was only one accessory to the whole image I was trying to embody. So, money might equal out to you as simply what it is. And it could indicate some desire for upward mobility. Or it could be some old reptilian-brain thing that lights up your pair-bonding response in relation to a man who is capable of providing. Or if you're like me, it could be that the money is just one symbol associated with an entire inner dialogue. And it will fall away, as mine did, upon integrating other aspects of yourself.

The dearth of positive masculine role models is one of the biggest problems I see for young men's development now-a-days. If a man wants to own his masculinity and be empowered in that way, there's not much healthy material out there readily available. At least, nowhere near as readily available as the toxic and half-toxic masculine role models that are harkening to the juvenile, domineering, and disintegrated masculinity of the past. Namely, the kind that suppresses the feminine at all costs. But who can blame them? Just like a son with an abusive father (or absent father), they know no other model of masculinity but the shadow side of it. And they come to hold up the shadow masculine as an example of the healthy masculine to be aspire to. Or, half-toxic role models like JP, will mix the healthy and unhealthy masculine... which leads to conflation of the negative with the positive and just thinking masculinity itself is inherently positive with no dark side to it. And this is very dangerous because degeneration will feel like improvement, which is one of the reasons I go so hard at JP. Now, I'm certain that healthy masculine role models do exist somewhere on the interwebs. But by and large, you'll find regressive masculine role models that men can actually feel the sense of masculine empowerment that they're looking for. Then, you have other guys that are healthy but not as masculine (or sometimes not healthy and suppressing their masculinity), and men who want masculine empowerment are put off by them because they don't embody the masculine archetype enough to stir their interests and needs. Also, most men already have a script in their mind about what masculinity entails. So, many men may miss positive examples of the masculinity by conflating them with femininity because their definition of the what constitutes masculinity has been corrupted... with very high social stakes applied to men who deviate from the masculine. That, compounded with the fact that most men just want to be masculine because they put far too much stock in women's opinions of them, it's just the witches brew for disaster. Because these men will flock to the toxic and half-toxic role models and become angry and resentful to the women they previously felt powerless to. And they tend to stay stuck in Orange thinking if they make it there. I agree with what Leftist Youtuber Natalie Wynn said about this at the end of her most recent video, in terms of men needing to create a new model of manhood and masculinity. It's a great video to watch... She's also trans-gendered, so she's lived both the male experience and the female experience, and has lots of great first-hand insights on gender.

@electroBeam My recommendation is to find girls to add to your social circle in general that you appreciate talking to and hanging out with. And to have a social circle that has close friends, distant friends, and acquaintances that is evenly stacked between men and women. Most women, especially women who are of a more Feminist sort, prefer warm approach to cold approach. And there is a whole process to falling in love with someone that cold-approach just doesn't allow for. So, my best recommendation is to cultivate a wide social circle of people who are cut from the same cloth as you, and see who you resonate with and who resonates with you. You can develop your social circle around a common interests to get somewhat of a guarantee that someone's on a similar page. You can even cultivate a social circle online and do Zoom chats and stuff like that. It may take a bit longer to get a girlfriend compared to doing cold approach, but it will most likely be worth the wait.

@Focus Shift Good video, sans the "anti-pc" and "anti-snowflake" guys like JP and the other guy. That just espouses more of the ideology that got incels into the spot they're currently in. And more than likely, they'll take a half-step up to those guys' level, feel the sense of improvement, and get stuck there. It's better than being an incel, but it's still a trap. But otherwise, I think he touched on some great points... especially the part where he was talking about changing the identity and the self-story. That's what I would have suggested.

@Zak Be careful with Stefan Molyneux. He's into some white supremacy kind of stuff. So, even if he has some good insights into philosophical topics, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's a high consciousness person. You have to weed out the dumb intellectuals from the actual high consciousness individuals.

I'm totally not surprised by this.

First off, the top marginal tax rate being proposed is 70% on every dollar made past the first $10 MILLION made in the year. So, it's not as high as 96% and the income isn't as low at $400k. It's actually a very modest tax proposal that would effect VERY few people. Also, the effective rate could be worked down to somewhere around 30-40%, even for people making over $10 million per year as there are many different tax breaks available. And new tax breaks could be created for businesses who invest in their business, create new jobs, and pay their workers well. Secondly, back in the 50s, when the top marginal tax rate was between 90% and 93%, it was known as "the golden age of economic growth." And that's because of the reason I listed above. When people know the tax rate will be high, they will be sure to do the things that will give them tax breaks including investment in their business. And that's what created the economic boom of that time. It really helped us get up out of the Great Depression. Also, businesses outsourcing and seeking tax havens is NOT a problem of us expecting too much in taxes. It's the result of there being ineffective legislation that has tons of loopholes specifically placed there by politicians who have been bought off by corporate interests. And that's the source of the issue. It's not about the amount of taxes. The businesses would do it anyway. It's about corporate and government corruption. And this is specifically why Bernie Sanders is the BEST choice for president. He will stick it to big corporations that want to leave to avoid paying their fair share. He doesn't take any money from them. So, he has no conflict of interest. He will close up all those loopholes that corporation use, and he will tax them heavily for leaving and outsourcing. And for corrupt politicians who stand in his way, he will use the bully pulpit and lead protests in that politicians home-state. Which, of course, would be a terrible look for them come election time.

Well said

Radical is not always more conscious. I could say that I believe society would be better if everyone rode on top of elephants instead of in cars to reduce carbon emission and that would certainly be radical... but definitely not more conscious. But let's be clear, though NOT everything more radical is more conscious, EVERYTHING that's more conscious IS more radical by its very nature. And if it weren't seen as radical, we'd already be doing them. It would be part of the new middle ground. We need to change the structure if we want to grow and evolve. And Centrism won't cut it. The middle ground just ensures the status quo continues and nothing gets shook up. And I also agree that we need to take all angles into account. That's precisely why I hold the views of society and politics that I do. If you actually consider the real world effect of politics and don't see politics as its own little bubble, you'll see that the "middle ground" has a lot of imbalances in it. So ironically, to be balanced, you need to change society to something more balanced... which will be seen as radical. You shouldn't define balance by "How much in the middle am I on the political spectrum compared to others in my society?" You should define balance in terms of, "What policies and worldviews should I support to help create a sense of balance and fairness in society?" And most of the most poignant balance-creating policies that would help us evolve into a less corrupt society are NOT to be found in the middle ground. Most of them are on the avant garde of mainstream society's political development (aka progressive). But furthermore, if you are a Centrist and take the "middle ground", it usually just means that you've only considered your impression of both political extremes and arbitrarily drew a mid-point in between both of those relative extremes. You haven't fundamentally done the work of venturing out into the real-world consequences of this "middle ground" thinking, and usually Centrists don't even have a clear idea of partisan groups that they've arbitrarily wedged themselves in the center of. They just go, "Hey, I think everyone should get along. So, I'm going to just support both groups because that's the nicest thing to do that creates the least amount of conflict in my life. It's more comfortable and it makes me less likely to be accused of extremism. Also, I don't need to educate myself at all, I just tout the virtues of being oh so balanced and tolerant and accepting." And that's how they decide upon their political and social views. Also, if you understand that the "middle ground" is a relative term defined by the current state of society and politics, and that so are the terms Progressive and Conservative... then you'll understand that Centrists are just as guilty of partisanship as someone who identifies as (liberal/progressive/conservative/left/right, etc.) Also, I gave two forms of what our society deems extremism in my last example... right (Nazi-ism) and left (Communism ala Stalin). I chose extreme left wing and right wing examples of societies where the "middle ground" is extreme in our view and the "extremes" are moderate in our view. But I can give plenty more... In some tribal societies, it was a "middle ground" practice to kill twins upon birth because the phenomenon was ascribed to a demon doppleganger of the original twin being birthed into society. It was extremism to even suggest there were ethical issues with this. In ancient Greece, when a woman was raped it was the "middle ground" that she was responsible for the rape as sexual impropriety on her part and she was expected to commit suicide immediately afterward to save her honor. And it was extremism for a woman to suggest she wasn't the one responsible for her rape or to stay alive. In our society, it's the "middle ground" that there is vast income inequality where the top three wealthiest people in America own more than the bottom 50% of people. In our society, it's the "middle ground" that big corporations buy favor with the government to stack the deck in favor of their interests and against the interests of the average person. In our society, (if you're American) it's the "middle ground" that public schools are funded off of property taxes, which leads to the wealthiest children having the best public schools and the poorest children having the worst public schools that struggle with funding and over-crowded classes. And it also guarantees a kind of de facto segregation where there are still poor mostly black schools and richer mostly white schools. In our society, it's the "middle ground" the people who work 40 hours per week are making poverty wages, where they can't even afford to live. And it's also the "middle ground" that the minimum wage hasn't changed in a close to a decade, despite the fact that the cost of living has increased as well as the level of productivity. In our society, (if you're American) it's the "middle ground" for people to go bankrupt due to medical debt and it's also the "middle ground" for 30k to 40k Americans die per year due to lack of insurance, under-insurance, rationing care, and not being able to afford prescriptions. So, this gives you just a little hint of the tyrannies of the "middle ground". So, if these are the "middle ground", we need to be "extreme" in order to change to a society that's more balanced and fair for ALL people. We have the capacity to do it. And if we do it, it will become the NEW middle ground eventually. And while capitulating to the center and the "middle ground", probably creates more harmony and balance in your life as a Centrist via getting along with everyone you're talking politics with in the center left and center right and not "fighting/demonizing" eachother within that 'oh so civil' conversation... you're not fundamentally considering how much imbalance these "middle ground" views are contributing to. So, actually be balanced. Actually consider things from ALL angles. Actually have a viewpoint that's based on more than just arbitrarily drawing the mid-point between the most common polarities within your particular society. Open your eyes to the actual real-world effects of your political opinions.

Currently human beings are like parasites to the Earth in the same way the maggot is to the apple. But the interesting thing about our species is that we have the potential to be a symbiote as well. Our technology can destroy the planet, but it can also help it as well. It's really just a collective choice that must be made to do the more challenging talk of living in harmony with nature and bringing science and innovation into that harmony as well.

The middle ground is for those seeking to preserve the status quo, including all the unfairness and corruption of the status quo. And those seeking to preserve the status quo are conservative by definition. Where do you think the "conserve" in conservative comes from? Don't fall for the middle ground fallacy. Centrism is no virtue. All it means is that you are in alignment with the views of most of the people in your particular society. And you happen to fall in the middle of the two most common extremes. And usually, it means that you are under-educated and people-pleasing with your views trying to capitulate to the norms of your society and the opinion of the majority. Either way, the middle ground is always defined relativistically, just as Conservatism and Progressivism are. So, it depends on what society you live in at what era in time, that determines where the middle ground actually is. And most people are like fish in water, and just take their experiences as the norm without question... and that's true no matter how obvious the corruption is to an outsider. In Nazi Germany, the middle ground was Nazi-ism. Was that the sweet spot? Furthermore, you were an extreme radical if you were anti-Nazi. In the old USSR, the middle ground was Communism and gulags. Was that the sweet spot? And yes, you'd be a radical if you were against the Communists. The only reason why you think that the middle ground is a sweet spot is because you define normal in relation to your society. And that's because you're indoctrinated to believe your society is normal and that your worldview is correct. And you miss the corruptions that need to be called out. And when progressives come and try to make positive change, you go "What about the middle ground? Everyone's getting too radical."

You do realize that this is the same argument that gets trotted out no matter what the change is, right? Ask a person back in the antebellum South if they think chattel slavery should be abolished, and they'll trot out this same argument that traditions need to be preserved. So, on its own, this is not a good justification for keeping around old corrupt systems... especially when new and better ones are already being proposed. And that's really what it boils down to. The norm is to take the status quo for granted and even long for a past status quo as a reactionary. And whenever, 1% of the time, someone comes around and tries to change it to something better... those with a conservative lean try to pretend they're being the adults in the room by appealing to tradition and the veneer of pragmatism. And they'll clutch pearls about those changes "destabilizing society" and "corrupting the youth". But what really underlies this pearl clutching most of the time, is fear of loss of power and fear of change. The fact of the matter is that most things remain the same most of the time. Things aren't changing at a very rapid pace at all. It's always small changes that lead to a better future. But conservatives don't like these small changes because they see them as big. And that's because, to them, the changes are emotionally big and threaten their worldviews and cherished power structures (that are usually stacked in favor of whomever tends to lean conservative). So, when progress and change comes, it's already rare enough. So, the conservatives can give up some of their comfort for a little progress toward a more evolved society based around the needs of all instead of the desires of the few. Honestly, in America, over the past 30 years the Overton Window in the government has been shifting further and further right to the point where "liberal" politicians are really just center right while "conservative" politicians are far right. So, our government is a lame bird with two right wings. It's about time we had some change. It's not best to pick the status quo all the time, especially when so much is riding on our ability to change into a society that works for all people and for the planet as well.

It was on the internet on Facebook as part of major news outlet's feed. And literally 98% of the comments below the ad were criticizing the clear manipulation that was going on. So, it was already well marked upon. But this is just one example of many. Most of it actually happening on news shows of exaggerating Biden's successes and diminishing Bernie's successes and criticizing his "electability".

It will be tough because the media is corrupt. I saw an ad the other day from some news outlet. And it had a picture with four boxes. In the first box it had Biden with his name above it, the second box had Warren with her name above it, the third box had Kamala Harris in it with her name above it. And in the fourth and last box, it had Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders sharing one box and above it it just said "Other". And I was like, "Bitch! Bernie is out-polling Kamala by a ton" That said Bernie ranks to be the most popular politician in America. And he has a ton of grass roots support. This is why he's set the record for most individual contributions (over a million donors) at this point in the race. He is the only Democratic candidate that has more individual donors than Trump. Bernie dominated the map they drew out on where financial support is coming from so much, that they had to create a second map to give a picture of how the other Democratic candidates are doing in relation to one another. Also, Biden will continue bleeding support because he's just such a terrible candidate. He started with a 25 point lead over the next person in the race, but is now at like a 2 point lead over Warren and a 3 point lead over Sanders. The more Biden talks, the more his support wains. The more Bernie and Warren talk, they more they go up. It won't be long before Biden is polling third.

It always feels to me that you're trying to bypass your humanity with your outlook on relationships, and life in general. And that your bypassing has been defined as a virtue and an achievement in your mind. As something that makes you like the hermit who steals away to a cave, whose archetype you admire and feel safe in. A place where you can always find positive sentiment about yourself and the work you've put in to self-growth. Just consider, you could have many shadows about this. There could be lost parts of yourself that are still looking for connection and relationship... parts of you that have been labeled wrong or weak. And facing them and embracing them would be where real growth would be found.

I agree that the DNC is corrupt. And they certainly love to hide their corruption behind Trump's more colorful corruption, and pretend to be the good ones. But I would imagine that Bernie will have a plan for such an occasion.

Yes. That's exactly why. And Bernie Sanders is the candidate who is most adamant about changing structures to get rid of corruption. He's been talking about it his entire career of 40 years. And he would certainly have the mobilizing power and grass roots support to hold politicians accountable for their corruptions. And he would make moves that would really disturb Big Pharma, the private health insurance industry, Wall Street, the military industrial complex, the private prison industry, and other corporate entities. And since 99.9% of politicians are bought and paid for by these industries, they really would be in a pickle if they have these industries pressuring them on one side to do some corrupt laws and Bernie Sanders leading a grass roots march against them in their home-state because they voted for said corrupt laws on the other side. And you can see his effect already from just a few years ago. All the candidates have to talk about his policy proposals like $15 minimum wage, free tuition at public colleges, forgiveness of student load debt, Medicare for All, and getting money out of politics. Before, they weren't talking about these things. But Bernie has conjured up so much grass roots support around them that other politicians are having to talk about and consider these policies. And many are even pretending to be more progressive and creating sneaky policy proposals that sound like Bernie's proposals but are really just more corruption. Like there are politicians creating proposals called "Medicare for America" and "Medicare for Everyone" that's basically just a re-hashing of the current system dolled up to look like Bernie's proposal of a single payer health insurance system he calls "Medicare for All".

I don't think the lack of corporate support will hurt him as much as it helps him. But he has a ton of people in the establishment framing his campaign as struggling, and pretending like he's not one of the front-runners. And also, you have all the people smearing him and crying Socialist. I'm imagining this might hurt him. But that's what you get for being honest in a dishonest system. But it's also going to help him among those who are informed and don't take things at face value. But yes. Bernie will be the type to hold people's feet to the fire and really play hardball. He'll essentially strong-arm corrupt politicians through holding rallies in their home-states, and pressure them into supporting things for the people. Warren, I see her as being someone who will end up going corporatist. She's already backing down off of her support for more progressive platforms.

Exactly. And that's one of the many reasons why Bernie will knock him out of the water. Bernie is actually way more likable and charismatic than Trump is. And that's because Bernie has a big personality... but he's not annoying or duplicitous-seeming. Honestly, Trump couldn't even win the popular vote against Hilary, whose personality and demeanor is like Dolores Umbridge meets nails on chalkboards. Bernie is a strong figure. He's not budging and he's not playing. He will fight the good fight and do so with integrity. Everything about his demeanor and non-verbal communication screams this.

I'm sure he's scared. He can't use his usual thing and be successful against someone like Bernie, who's so above it. He's like this cantankerous old codger that doesn't give a crap what Trump says about him. I mean, honestly, he's supported these platforms for 40 years. Do you know how controversial and against the grain that was 40 years ago? Also, he's used to people throwing all kinds of dishonesty and fear tactics at him. He's desensitized to it by now for sure.

Sanders would totally burn Trump to the ground in a debate... TKO-style in terms of both charisma and policy substance. I'd love to see it. Trump's usual tactics only work because of the spinelessness and corruption of the other person. And the fact that they try to beat him at his own game. And only Trump can be best at his own game. And Bernie is neither spineless nor corrupt. And Bernie doesn't play games. The choice will be clear once Bernie starts grilling Trump on his fake populism and broken promises, and hitting him with some real populism. That's what the people care about anyway. Only the fan-boys care about Trump being a character (which doesn't mean he's charismatic). Also, Trump's new campaign slogan "Keep America Great" is a sure fail. The only reason he got the support he did was because he promised to make it better. He fundamentally hasn't, and the people that voted for him in hopes he would help realize that. And if he's saying, "Keep America Great" the people from the still-poor Rust-belt will go after him with the pitchforks and tools from the abandoned factories Trump lied and said he'd save, while continuing to outsource jobs and give huge tax-cuts to the mega-wealthy.

I am principled on the stance that he should be impeached, as no one is above the law. But I do fundamentally see the Democratic establishment as corrupt and a result of the excesses of Orange. So, because they are fundamentally supporting the status quo, I see them as conservative by the very definition of it. They are trying to maintain what is. And I do think that the impeachment proceedings will help Trump and not hurt him.

The problem is that this will probably die before it gets anywhere. And they probably know that. It will honestly likely help Trump in 2020. Bill Clinton got a bump in popularity after he was facing impeachment proceedings. So, in my eyes, they're just trying to deflect from Biden and nothing more. Truthfully, I think they're pretty okay with Trump being in office because he's a sure bet for green-lighting literally everything that benefits them financially. And Trump's antics give them a veneer of respectability in contrast. They just have to pretend to not be okay with Trump in office because they have to appeal to their voter base.

I would say that Trump is the garden variety corrupt politician. But he is more dangerous in many regards, including demagoguery, persecuting vulnerable groups, and heading his cabinet with tons of billionaires and people who have direct conflicts of interest with their post. Sort of like entrusting the sheep farm to a wolf. Also so much lying beyond what's normal for even politicians. That said, I'm not willing to underestimate the severity of what establishment politicians do. They too support oppressive governments and vote to stage offensive regime change wars. They support dictators and give weapons deals to countries known for human rights abuses. They leverage the law to do the bidding of the billionaires that bleed the middle class dry and push many into poverty. They support Big Pharma and the health insurance industry, maintaining the corruption in the system so that 30k to 40k Americans dies per year due to under-insurance. So, I agree that Trump has a more dangerous effect on the populace and waters the worst seeds in use. But he and the other establishment politicians have equally piss-poor and corrupt foreign policy. But Trump is definitely worse domestically due to the cult of personality he has. I doubt it's about holding Trump accountable. They really don't care about that. It's all about smoke and mirrors and protecting Biden's corruption, through shifting the focus to Trump and his impeachment. I don't expect anything genuine coming from establishment Democrats because they're fundamentally not principled and just interested in their own financial interests. And if Biden tanks any further, it's a huge threat to their pocketbooks because he's their candidate. And he isn't looking to rock any boats. Next in line are Sanders and Warren. They'll definitely tip over some cash cows if elected. So, they're just trying to keep Biden from sinking further and losing his lead which is now marginal.

The reason why is because they want to throw the heat off of Biden, who is the front-running Democratic establishment candidate. The establishment Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, are trying to throw people off of Biden's scent because the progressive candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are polling within only a few percentage points of him. And they stand to lose a lot of money if either of them get elected... especially if Bernie Sanders gets elected. Their numbers keep going up as they campaign and Biden's numbers keep going down as he gaffes more and more dirt comes out about him being handsy with minors, supporting segregation back in the 60s, shitting on millennials, showing signs of confusion/cognitive decline on the campaign trail and during speeches, and a whole bunch more. The establishment Dems know that Biden is in a fragile place because he has been steadily bleeding away his initial lead which was very strong. Before, he was a solid 20 points ahead of Bernie and Elizabeth. Now, he's like 1 or 2 points ahead, as their popularity grows and his diminishes. This is also why Biden's chosen to do a limited campaign. The more he's in front of people, the more he tanks. So, his solution is to ride of name recognition and association with Barack Obama, who is seen in a nostalgic light for many on center-left... despite his corruption and milktoast Centrism. So, when Trump did this, it spells a very bad look for Biden. His son has basically been employed and paid copious amounts of money by the fossil fuel industry to do nothing, based off of pure nepotism and the industry heads in the Ukraine purchasing favor with Joe Biden. So, of course the Democratic establishment chooses this instance to impeach Trump. They don't care if it really happens or not. The point is simply to create chaos so that no one sees the corruption. They're hoping to ride off of the Trump hate that so many on the left feel to obscure Biden's corruption and have us focus on Trump's impeachment... which isn't going to happen in the first place. If they really wanted Trump impeached, they could have done it already. Trump has violated the emoluments clause of the constitution by having Saudi Arabian government officials stay at his Trump hotels and overpay. This is basically a money-laudering scheme where the Saudi government is funneling money to him to buy favor. To which, Trump has already vetoed a bill that passed both the house and senate to rescind support from the Saudi Arabian military as they continue to enact genocide in Yemen. And that money that he funnels through his businesses is likely the reason why that bill was vetoed. And it's normally not allowed. Jimmy Carter, back in the 70s when he was president, was required to sell a peanut farm that he owned for this very same reason. The rationale given, was that there could be foreign government officials, just buying up a bunch of "peanuts" to funnel money to him to buy favor. So, he had to divest that business. But Trump found a loophole in that he just gave his business over to his kids. And he pretends to have divested from it. But truly, if the Democrats really wanted him impeached (which they don't because he benefits them financially too), they would go after him on violation of the emoluments clause. So, this is all shadow puppetry and nothing else. Trump isn't going anywhere, unless they happen to find something stronger against him while investigating. Yet again, the Democrats were very specific that they're narrowing their scope only to this one issue. So, if that tells you something, it says "We're not really looking to impeach."