Jump to content
MigL

Impeachment Hearings

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Beat down after voting yea?

This one. 

Article 2 also passed. 3 no vote plus 1 vote as present. 195 repubs and 3 dems against. 228 dems and 1 independent for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Phi for All said:

After all, if what you said was true, and I was on the extreme left, I could claim Bernie Sanders was on the right. Just because he'd be to the right of me doesn't make him "on the right".

I typed

On 12/17/2019 at 10:05 PM, YJ02 said:

how far to the right someone is depends on how far to the left you and your perceptions are. all relative to the location of the observer

I did not say that the location of the observer made someone  BE on the right or left, just 'how far' right or left

I would guess that Bernie Sanders would place Al Gore on the left, but much closer to the center then he is. Sander's location puts Gore to his right; Gore's location puts Sanders' to his left, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, YJ02 said:

I did not say that the location of the observer made someone  BE on the right or left, just 'how far' right or left

I would guess that Bernie Sanders would place Al Gore on the left, but much closer to the center then he is. Sander's location puts Gore to his right; Gore's location puts Sanders' to his left, yes?

It's clear you don't understand what a spectrum is, and how your political perspective fits upon it in relation to a group. Whether you're considered left or right isn't relative to any other individual (or an observer, as you put it) , it's where your perspective sits among the group. It would be meaningless to classify Sanders as "on the right" just because he's to the right of me. Doesn't that make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no absolute yardstick for determining where you are on the political spectrum, Phi.

Using YJ's analogy, A Gore might be on the left of B Sanders if we use the Climate change yardstick.
If we use the Education yardstick B Sanders might be on the left of A Gore.

I myself, used the gun owner yardstick to place Zapatos to the right of JCMacSwell.

So I would argue it is subjective, as it depends on which metric you decide to use for making the left/right determination.
( if it wasn't there would be no need for the thread Zap opened ,'Attributes along the Political Spectrum' )

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This, too, is off-topic, but it takes more than 2 people to form a "spectrum." That's the deeper point Phi is making

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MigL said:

There is no absolute yardstick for determining where you are on the political spectrum, Phi.

Using YJ's analogy, A Gore might be on the left of B Sanders if we use the Climate change yardstick.
If we use the Education yardstick B Sanders might be on the left of A Gore.

I myself, used the gun owner yardstick to place Zapatos to the right of JCMacSwell.

So I would argue it is subjective, as it depends on which metric you decide to use for making the left/right determination.
( if it wasn't there would be no need for the thread Zap opened )

That's Phi's point or are you to the right of...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooops.
Maybe I misunderstood Phi ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nancy Pelosi just had her say, following Mitch and Chuck, 30 minutes each.  She won't talk about impeachment anymore.  The senate is not getting the Articles until Mitch is a good boy, and agrees to have a REAL senate trial with relevant witnesses, like Bolton and Mulvaney.  How long can Nancy delay sending the Articles to the senate?  Now is a good time for a few weeks of sweating the GOP.  Maybe the poles will start moving, and GOP senators start taking notice of their own popular support.

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Nancy Pelosi just had her say, following Mitch and Chuck, 30 minutes each.  She won't talk about impeachment any more.  The senate is not getting the Articles until Mitch is a good boy, and agrees to have a REAL senate trial with relevant witnesses, like Bolton and Mulvaney.

All fun and gamesmanship until some become open to voting aye...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

All fun and gamesmanship until some become open to voting aye...

I think withholding the Articles of Impeachment would be a smart strategy by Pelosi (I didn't even realize that was an option). It eliminates McConnell's strategy of using the Senate rules to dump dirt over the A of I and instead leaves McConnell's and Graham's disregard for their oath hanging in the wind for all to see.

Here is the oath the Senators give:

Quote

 “I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [Donald Trump], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.”

Here is what McConnell said:

Quote

I'm not impartial about this at all

And Lindsey Graham:

Quote

This thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MigL said:

Oooops.
Maybe I misunderstood Phi ?

Historically speaking, this is a wise default. But it is off-topic, as iNow points out, and I've said enough about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well, back on topic.

It seems the wheels are starting to come off the cart for D Trump.
Some of his most ardent supporters, that fringe sect of Christianity, the Evangelicals, are now calling for his removal from office.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html

I haven't the stomach to read the whole thing, mostly going by the title, so I may be jumping to wrong conclusions.
But if Republican supporters are starting to distance themselves from D Trump, how soon before Republican Senators ( worried about re-election ) do the same ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MigL said:

if Republican supporters are starting to distance themselves from D Trump, how soon before Republican Senators ( worried about re-election ) do the same ?

It will take one brave one to show courage and step out against the President. That senator will be like a seed crystal on to which others can grasp and grow. It still won’t rise to the 2/3rds needed to remove from office, but Romney seems likely to lead here on principle. We’ll see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MigL said:

Very well, back on topic.

It seems the wheels are starting to come off the cart for D Trump.
Some of his most ardent supporters, that fringe sect of Christianity, the Evangelicals, are now calling for his removal from office.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html

I haven't the stomach to read the whole thing, mostly going by the title, so I may be jumping to wrong conclusions.
But if Republican supporters are starting to distance themselves from D Trump, how soon before Republican Senators ( worried about re-election ) do the same ?

You should do. The ethics it supports are universal in a civilised society. It's just their inspiration for those ethics that isn't.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting that all the Republican arguments attack the Dems, rather than defend D Trump.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Its interesting that all the Republican arguments attack the Dems, rather than defend D Trump.

When the facts aren’t on your side, pound on the process. When the process isn’t on your side, pound on the facts. When neither the facts nor the process are on your side, pound on the table. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting leverage Nancy Pelosi has holding the Articles out of their reach.  She should sweat the GOP for as long as possible, without interfering with primaries.  This is now a war of attrition.  Every time the GOP asks for the Articles, so they can quickly throw it into the fire, Nancy will say "Only if you promise to a real, fair trial with relevant witnesses."  This Charlie Brown and Lucy repetition will work the effect of (Trump's own tactic of constant repetition) it will make more non voters (there are 100 million Americans that DON'T VOTE) step up and actually vote.

Doesn't the House get more authority now to issue subpoenas after impeachment has been approved in the House?  Don't subpoenas have more force now?  They should AGAIN subpoena everyone relevant to this case.

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Doesn't the House get more authority now to issue subpoenas after impeachment has been approved in the House?

No. The power here is in keeping it in the news and highlighting the lack of impartiality in the senate to voters who want fairness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After listening to Michael Moore's interview yesterday I realize that the next election has 3 possibilities:  1 Trump just barely wins;  2 Trump just barely loses;  3 Trump loses in a LANDSLIDE because just a small fraction of the non-voters actually vote out of fear of 4 more years of exhausting drama.

In the perpetual Peanuts analogy, Lucy is Nancy Pelosi, Mitch (and Trump also) is Charlie Brown, and the football is the Articles.  Mitch and Trump both take turns charging at the ball to kick it, and Nancy pulls it away each time saying "Only when you promise a fair trial."

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead I ran across this foreboding comic in the news...

BBYcIou.jpg.0b19d0a8f5aa8d7c1655fcaf01e3312d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*crickets*

Are we so gas lit nowadays that an impending constitutional crisis is apethetic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.