Page 47 of 57 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 ... LastLast
Results 1,381 to 1,410 of 1681

Thread: Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

  1. #1381
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    22,632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
    There’s a lot to chew on here, and I agree with some of it, but just a few points for now, as my audience has long departed…. First, Pelosi’s statement was absurdly over-the-top, but your counter, “Can you imagine if Trump claimed the obverse, that unless he is reelected civilization was at risk??,” hardly stretches the imagination. Remember Trump, in full Mussoliniesque swagger at the convention, after reciting the many perils facing us, assured us that “I, alone, can fix it!” Apparently without him, the end would indeed be upon us.
    I agree that Trump's self-aggrandizement knows no bounds. But my point is that rather than ignore the obvious stupidity of Trump's outrageous comments and approaches, other politicians have instead imitated it and begun to act the same eway. Pelosi actually said that civilization was at risk. Trump says crap like that, obviously, but to respond like Pelosi did? This suggests, as you originally said, that Trump is a symptom, not a cause. And the cause is us. We have turned our backs on our founding principles and myths. We have turned our back on decorum and appropriate conduct. We have turned our back on clear-thinking and rational discussion. I have never liked Trump. And I have never been surprised by his abhorrent behavior because he showed himself as exactly what he is on national TV for years. I was never worried about his presidency, however, because I was convinced that the ballast in our system would correct his efforts to capsize the government. But I may have been wrong. It may be that we are getting exactly what we deserve. Not at a policy level but at a more fundamental level. I do not like Trump, but I am more disappointed in the reaction to him. We should all do better.

    And yes, past presidents have committed a multitude of unstatesmanlike screw-ups. Obama had many errors in foreign policy (e.g., his line in the Syrian sand). You can go back to John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts for examples of very unstatesmanlike behavior. But overall, until Trump, pretty much every President respected the institutions--even Nixon accepted the Supreme Court decision that led to his resignation and in leaving office behaved with some degree of honor and respect for the institutions that essentially removed him. Does anyone think Trump would be capable of such a response?
    My point/question is what is it about those prior presidents that made them statesmen? Obama had Fast and Furious. Reagan had Iran/contra. Johnson and Kennedy had the Gulf of Tonkin and the 'secret' war in Laos, along with domestic surveillance that continued under republican presidents and now ripens into the NSA/FISA assault on our freedoms. I fear that we have been relying on the appearance of statesmen-like behavior to paper over the very real deterioration of the values upon which our system was built and relies. I would certainly agree, however, that we are always better off with someone of Obama's decorum as compared to Trump.


    And as for retrenchment, I’m inclined to disagree. We have a military presence in many dozens (I think >70) countries. It has cost us vast amounts of blood and money, but our global presence in the second half of the 20th Century allowed democracy and free enterprise to generate vastly more freedom and wealth than at any other time in history. We’ve also made a boatload of stupid decisions, strategic and tactical, in utilizing that presence. So while we should constantly reassess our role, simply cutting back significantly seems like a very bad idea, since it’s a certainty those sinister forces will be happy to fill the void, with a concomitant loss of freedom and wealth.
    This is another entire topic. Like I said before, this is not a Trump problem, it is a US budget and American-will problem. Besides, if you want to assert our will in the far-flung corners of the globe, Trump is doing more to equip the military, and particularly the navy, to maintain that ability than Obama did. But either way you come out on that issue, this is an election issue, not an impeachment issue. I thought Obama made some huge foreign policy blunders. But it never occurred to me that he should be impeached as a result. I assumed that would be an issue at the ballot box.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  2. #1382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    It's never really been discredited. He continues to advance wittingly/unwittingly Russian interests, but carry on Seattle Huckabee Sanders.
    LOL. Frank is still crying about Russian collusion.

  3. #1383
    Explosivo Commando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    17,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    LOL. Frank is still crying about Russian collusion.
    LOL what reason would we have to believe that Trump is a Russian asset?*




    *Except that he's met with Putin 16 times since taking office, or that our standing has tanked in every single major country except Russia, that he advances Russian interest at every opportunity- even with his own presidency at stake and (checks notes) also met with Sergei Lavrov *again* yesterday in the Oval Office. Or is it that he continues to deny that Russia meddled in our election *even advancing a ridiculous conspiracy that it was actually Ukraine* despite confirmation from U.S. intelligence that it was indeed Russian interference? I'm sure it's nothing.
    "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

  4. #1384
    功 流感 战斗机 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    22,966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    What happened to everyone saying Biden would be an agreeable candidate? It won’t RT.com’s favourite girl, Tulsi. So you won’t have that option.

    If someone Bloomberg wins, he would dampen progressive enthusiasm, so he wouldn’t compound that by licking Gabbard. Of course I’d vote for that ticket over Trump. He’s a threat to our republic. Watch ISIS have some sort of revival.
    Biden is the worst of the bunch... It is fitting he would call his voters damn liars, fat, and dumb. When, in fact, Joe can't even remember which state he is in:



    He also thinks that Obama was a dumbass... and he had to carry Obama on his back for those eight years.

    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  5. #1385
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    22,374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    What happened to everyone saying Biden would be an agreeable candidate? It won’t RT.com’s favourite girl, Tulsi. So you won’t have that option.

    If someone Bloomberg wins, he would dampen progressive enthusiasm, so he wouldn’t compound that by licking Gabbard. Of course I’d vote for that ticket over Trump. He’s a threat to our republic. Watch ISIS have some sort of revival.
    I agree that it’s doubtful that Bloomberg would lick Gabbard. Biden in the other hand seems to be the licking type.
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  6. #1386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    LOL. Frank is still crying about Russian collusion.
    And you're still unpleasant.
    Is what I said untrue? btw, I see your inferring right-wing mythology that Obama ordered the FBI to go after pure-as-the-driven-snow Trump for simple political reasons. That's right out of his twitter feed.

  7. #1387
    Adventurer Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    West of House
    Posts
    3,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    LOL. Frank is still crying about Russian collusion.
    And people still think we found WMD in Iraq. People are dumb.
    You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay
    Almost everything you post is snarky, smug, condescending, or just downright mean-spirited. --Jeffrey Lebowski

    Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace. --President Donald J. Trump
    You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war. --William Randolph Hearst

  8. #1388
    功 流感 战斗机 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    22,966

    Default

    Shut the FISA court down... The FISA court is a joke and approves like 98% of applications with a rubber stamp. This might be the only good thing that comes out of this hearing:

    https://streamable.com/w31yo

    The Dems are getting destroyed and this attempt to impeach the president is just exposing them as the fools they are:

    https://streamable.com/qydpo

    "Smoking guns are big, old nothing burgers." LOL. Great entertainment.

    House Judiciary Report BOMBSHELL: Dems Trying to Change the Constitution

    The jig is up. The Democrats have now actually admitted—in writing—that their sad little attempt at impeachment is entirely baseless. The House Judiciary Committee Report was released Saturday and admitted two very critical points:

    First, the Democrats are trying to change the standard of impeachment. They are literally changing the rules to fit their theatrical story. Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler wrote in the preface that the previous reports on grounds for impeachable offenses in the Nixon and Clinton eras “remain useful points of reference, but no longer reflect the best available learning on questioning relating to presidential impeachment.”

    Why, Jerry? Because you have no evidence for legitimate grounds of impeachment? This only proves that President Trump indeed does not belong in the ranks of Nixon and Clinton, where there was actually evidence of impeachable offenses.

    Second, the Democrats are proceeding with impeachment against President Trump not because of any past wrongdoing which they have no proof of, but to “save the Nation” from Trump remaining in office. That is not a constitutionally permissible reason to impeach. That’s why we have elections. The American people get to decide who remains in office, absent clear evidence of impeachable offenses actually committed. We don’t impeach or convict based on a vague fear for democracy from the opposition party.

    The Report, however, claims that impeachment exists, “not to inflict punishment for past wrongdoing, but rather to save the Nation from misconduct that endangers democracy and the rule of law.” This is not the standard for any legal proceeding in any context in the United States. We do not bring charges (even articles of impeachment) or convict based on the possibility of a future threat “to democracy” or otherwise.

    The Democrats are totally failing. They have no evidence that genuinely qualifies as an impeachable offense and are now trying desperately to aggregate a lot of nothing (even going back to the dead Mueller Report) to try to force their end game of impeaching President Trump simply because they don’t want him to be re-elected. Please, they are saying, don’t be sidetracked with facts and evidence and law and standards.
    [...]
    https://townhall.com/columnists/jenn...ution-n2557690

    I am starting to wonder if the supreme court will shut this down before it even gets to the senate...

    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  9. #1389
    Board eye candy beefytee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lehi
    Posts
    5,271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    I am starting to wonder if the supreme court will shut this down before it even gets to the senate...
    How would the supreme court shut things down?

    Look, I'm no fan of the Dems and they are royally screwing up the impeachment process, but basically the only thing you need to impeach the president is a majority vote in the House of Representatives.

  10. #1390
    功 流感 战斗机 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    22,966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beefytee View Post
    How would the supreme court shut things down?
    Someone makes a complaint about the impeachment or impeachment process, say Drumpf himself. It is fastpath'ed to the supreme court to rule on whether it is kosher with the constitution. That seems like one way.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  11. #1391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Someone makes a complaint about the impeachment or impeachment process, say Drumpf himself. It is fastpath'ed to the supreme court to rule on whether it is kosher with the constitution. That seems like one way.
    Lol, no. Someone makes a complaint about the impeachment or the impeachment process, it gets resolved by the branch of government tasked with the impeachment process - the Legislative branch. SCOTUS doesn't get involved, because SCOTUS specifically has no role in the impeachment process.

  12. #1392
    My Mic Sounds Nice falafel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Wegas!
    Posts
    30,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Someone makes a complaint about the impeachment or impeachment process, say Drumpf himself. It is fastpath'ed to the supreme court to rule on whether it is kosher with the constitution. That seems like one way.
    Seems like Trump would have jumped on that option months ago if it were an actual option.
    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  13. #1393
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    22,632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Someone makes a complaint about the impeachment or impeachment process, say Drumpf himself. It is fastpath'ed to the supreme court to rule on whether it is kosher with the constitution. That seems like one way.
    Impeachment is a political question and the court will not intervene.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...on#Impeachment
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  14. #1394
    功 流感 战斗机 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    22,966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    Impeachment is a political question and the court will not intervene.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...on#Impeachment
    So congress can impeach a president because their feelings are hurt... good to know.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  15. #1395
    My Mic Sounds Nice falafel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Wegas!
    Posts
    30,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    So congress can impeach a president because their feelings are hurt... good to know.
    Sure. But the Senate can't convict because their feelings are hurt. Are you just now starting to pay attention to the process?
    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  16. #1396
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    22,632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    So congress can impeach a president because their feelings are hurt... good to know.
    Pretty much. The remedy is at the ballot box, just as the remedy for ma ny of the things people don't like about Trump should be at the Ballot box.

    It was shocking to me to hear Nadler say, yesterday at the mark up hearing, that he felt compelled to rush through impeachment because if we didn't Trump would imperil the integrity of the 2020 election. In other words, he is penalizing Trump for something that has not even happened and for something that was not supported by evidence in any of the hearings (apart from some over wrought speculation by some very partisan 'expert' witnesses) and, second, it is staking out the democrats position that the next election is illegitimate if Trump wins. This sort of insidious undermining of confidence in our processes is much more dangerous to our republic than the patent buffoonery of Trump the nincompoop. Nadler and Schiff are both awful.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  17. #1397
    Board eye candy beefytee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lehi
    Posts
    5,271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    So congress can impeach a president because their feelings are hurt... good to know.
    Yep.

    It is a really simple process...with a lot of ramifications:

    At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.

    First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere. For example, the Nixon impeachment inquiry began in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The facts that led to impeachment of Bill Clinton were first discovered in the course of an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

    Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".

    Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote of those present. The result of conviction is removal from office.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac..._United_States

  18. #1398
    Semper infra dignitatem PaloAltoCougar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Pleasanton, CA
    Posts
    12,916

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    .... it is staking out the democrats position that the next election is illegitimate if Trump wins. This sort of insidious undermining of confidence in our processes is much more dangerous to our republic than the patent buffoonery of Trump the nincompoop. Nadler and Schiff are both awful.
    Agreed, except I'd call it a draw with respect to danger. Trump has devoted years to convincing his followers that the system is rigged and that the voting process is illegitimate, so there's more than mere buffoonery at work when the guy with the weird hair hat goes to work.

  19. #1399
    Senior Member BigFatMeanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    South Jordan, UT
    Posts
    3,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beefytee View Post
    Yep.

    It is a really simple process...with a lot of ramifications:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac..._United_States
    So if the VP is impeached does he preside at his own Senate trial?
    Last edited by BigFatMeanie; 12-12-2019 at 03:21 PM. Reason: typo

  20. #1400
    Explosivo Commando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    17,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    So congress can impeach a president because their feelings are hurt... good to know.
    Ted Translator: These impeachment proceedings hurt my feelings.
    "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

  21. #1401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    Pretty much. The remedy is at the ballot box, just as the remedy for ma ny of the things people don't like about Trump should be at the Ballot box.

    It was shocking to me to hear Nadler say, yesterday at the mark up hearing, that he felt compelled to rush through impeachment because if we didn't Trump would imperil the integrity of the 2020 election. In other words, he is penalizing Trump for something that has not even happened and for something that was not supported by evidence in any of the hearings (apart from some over wrought speculation by some very partisan 'expert' witnesses) and, second, it is staking out the democrats position that the next election is illegitimate if Trump wins. This sort of insidious undermining of confidence in our processes is much more dangerous to our republic than the patent buffoonery of Trump the nincompoop. Nadler and Schiff are both awful.
    So you're saying that the witnesses that testified in the hearings about the aid to Ukraine having been withheld to exert pressure on them to make an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens before it would be released are not to be believed, OR does it just not amount to evidence of Trump trying to get Ukraine to do something to influence the 2020 election? Not trying to be disrespectful or anything, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.
    Last edited by BlueK; 12-12-2019 at 02:58 PM.

  22. #1402
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    22,632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    So you're saying that the witnesses that testified in the hearings about the aid to Ukraine having been withheld to exert pressure on them to make an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens before it would be released are not to be believed, OR does it just not amount to evidence of Trump trying to get Ukraine to do something to influence the 2020 election? Not trying to be disrespectful or anything, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.
    I am not sure that I said anything about testimony at the hearing (although I am also not sure the testimony was quite as clear cut as you are suggesting). But if you are suggesting that what Trump did would lead to undue influence on the 2020 election, I think you are over claiming it and misconstruing it. There are a lot of steps that go from what Trump apparently did to unduly influencing the election. Here are a few: First, Trump would need to make a specific demand and force the issue (which he did not do), then the Ukraine would need to announce or investigate something AND come up with something that might be newsworthy or impactful, then this information would need to be disseminated uncritically and then it would need to make a difference. All of that is possible, but none of it has nor will happen. So act to remove him for what he DID but not for what MIGHT have happened if a series of other events had occurred, some of which probably would never have occurred even if Trump HAD been successful i asserting the pressure that he did.

    Two points: I am not excusing what Trump did in that phone call. It was inexcusable and borderline impeachable.

    Second, if you apply the standard of the IG report, however, then you have to accept Trump's explanation (which is plausible even if not likely) that he was asking for an investigation into corruption for the prior election in 2016 or corruption in general. That tracks with what he said. Moreover, if there are two equally likely explanations (2020 vs 2016) then the IG std. says the legal explanation is accepted.

    But, as I said in the quoted post, the implication of Nadler's comments is that Trump can win but only if he illegally messes with the election so we cannot risk that and must impeach now rather than rely on the will of the electorate. This is so elitist and anti-democratic that it makes me angry. It will result in a large portion of the electorate having no confidence in the system or the result even if it is the fairest campaign in history. What the democrats are doing is just as bad (and maybe worse because they put on the cloak of 'statesmen') as what Trump has done or might do.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  23. #1403
    Board eye candy beefytee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lehi
    Posts
    5,271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie View Post
    So if the VP is impeached does he preside at his own Senate trial?
    He would have to, right?

  24. #1404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    I am not sure that I said anything about testimony at the hearing (although I am also not sure the testimony was quite as clear cut as you are suggesting). But if you are suggesting that what Trump did would lead to undue influence on the 2020 election, I think you are over claiming it and misconstruing it. There are a lot of steps that go from what Trump apparently did to unduly influencing the election. Here are a few: First, Trump would need to make a specific demand and force the issue (which he did not do), then the Ukraine would need to announce or investigate something AND come up with something that might be newsworthy or impactful, then this information would need to be disseminated uncritically and then it would need to make a difference. All of that is possible, but none of it has nor will happen. So act to remove him for what he DID but not for what MIGHT have happened if a series of other events had occurred, some of which probably would never have occurred even if Trump HAD been successful i asserting the pressure that he did.

    Two points: I am not excusing what Trump did in that phone call. It was inexcusable and borderline impeachable.

    Second, if you apply the standard of the IG report, however, then you have to accept Trump's explanation (which is plausible even if not likely) that he was asking for an investigation into corruption for the prior election in 2016 or corruption in general. That tracks with what he said. Moreover, if there are two equally likely explanations (2020 vs 2016) then the IG std. says the legal explanation is accepted.

    But, as I said in the quoted post, the implication of Nadler's comments is that Trump can win but only if he illegally messes with the election so we cannot risk that and must impeach now rather than rely on the will of the electorate. This is so elitist and anti-democratic that it makes me angry. It will result in a large portion of the electorate having no confidence in the system or the result even if it is the fairest campaign in history. What the democrats are doing is just as bad (and maybe worse because they put on the cloak of 'statesmen') as what Trump has done or might do.
    to me it isn't relevant if it would have actually made a major difference in the election. I think it's wrong for a president in his official capacity to ask another country for a personal political favor, much less now that we know he asked for the funds to be blocked before he made the call. Yes, they were eventually released, but only after it hit the news. I would say it crosses the borderline of impeachable, but reasonable people I guess can disagree if it goes that far or not.

    And I personally don't care about what Nadler says about whether it's the only way he can win or not. It doesn't really seem relevant.

    I also find it impossible to believe the Republicans wouldn't be equally up in arms if a democrat president did the same thing, and I would agree with them.

  25. #1405
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    22,632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    to me it isn't relevant if it would have actually made a major difference in the election. I think it's wrong for a president in his official capacity to ask another country for a personal political favor, much less now that we know he asked for the funds to be blocked before he made the call. Yes, they were eventually released, but only after it hit the news. I would say it crosses the borderline of impeachable, but reasonable people I guess can disagree if it goes that far or not.

    And I personally don't care about what Nadler says about whether it's the only way he can win or not. It doesn't really seem relevant.

    I also find it impossible to believe the Republicans wouldn't be equally up in arms if a democrat president did the same thing, and I would agree with them.
    You are making my point. Trump's impeachment question should be answered based on conduct that has occurred (which is what you are basing your opinion on). IT should not be based on what Nadler or anyone else thinks MIGHT happen down the road. Moreover, and this is the part you aren't addressing and which is my greater criticism of Nadler's comments, his criticism of Trump's potential future conduct means he is justifying impeachment because we cant trust voters to choose correctly due to the undue influence that he believes might happen and if Trump wins it can only mean that he cheated making the election illegitimate. Nadler (and others such as Pelosi have said similar things) is pursuing this impeachment because of what MIGHT happen. That's why he claims it must be done now and done quickly. This attitude is as problematic to our system and the confidence in our process than Trump's conduct.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  26. #1406
    功 流感 战斗机 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    22,966

    Default

    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  27. #1407
    功 流感 战斗机 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    22,966

    Default

    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  28. #1408
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    I agree that it’s doubtful that Bloomberg would lick Gabbard. Biden in the other hand seems to be the licking type.
    Ew.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  29. #1409

    Default

    Interesting take on Professor Turley.

    https://www.cato.org/blog/jonathan-turley-then-now

  30. #1410
    Bald not naked Pelado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The 208
    Posts
    12,645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    Interesting take on Professor Turley.

    https://www.cato.org/blog/jonathan-turley-then-now
    Thanks.
    "I think it was King Benjamin who said 'you sorry ass shitbags who have no skills that the market values also have an obligation to have the attitude that if one day you do in fact win the PowerBall Lottery that you will then impart of your substance to those without.'"
    - Goatnapper'96

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •