Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam View Post
    So, no. The criminality of Nixon was not immediately recognized by Republican politicians or voters. And even at the height of support for Nixon's removal, almost 40% polled did not think Nixon should be removed from office. If, as you claim, Nixon's criminality was "not disputed" then that's a pretty damning indictment of that 40%!

    --Sam
    Sam, cut the crap -- I didn't say anything about the "criminality of Nixon" --- Here you are blasting everybody about ethics and honesty. I was specifically referring to the BURGLARY from which all this flowed.

    Nobody was disputing that THAT ACTUAL CRIME happened. Unlike Trump's impeachment, where it was an impeachment in SEARCH of a crime.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • What seems obvious is that saying "There was an actual CRIME with Nixon" when the point is that Nixon's culpability in the criminal behavior leads to a non sequitur. We've gone over the federal crimes that Trump exposed himself and others to regarding Ukraine but the point of comparison are the articles of impeachment and support for removal on the basis of Nixon's and Trump's actions.

      If you're just saying "There was a burglary maybe possibly tied to Nixon" as something different, it's not a sensible difference.

      --Sam
      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sam View Post
        What seems obvious is that saying "There was an actual CRIME with Nixon" when the point is that Nixon's culpability in the criminal behavior leads to a non sequitur. We've gone over the federal crimes that Trump exposed himself and others to regarding Ukraine but the point of comparison are the articles of impeachment and support for removal on the basis of Nixon's and Trump's actions.

        If you're just saying "There was a burglary maybe possibly tied to Nixon" as something different, it's not a sensible difference.

        --Sam
        No, Sam ---- lemme type really slowly....

        There was an ACTUAL UNDENIABLE CRIME that led to the impeachment process for Nixon. Nobody had to go to focus groups to figure out what to call it.

        There was NOT an ACTUAL UNDENIABLE CRIME that led to the impeachment process for Trump. The Democrats began talking about impeachment BEFORE Trump even allegedly committed the "crime".
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          No, Sam ---- lemme type really slowly....

          There was an ACTUAL UNDENIABLE CRIME that led to the impeachment process for Nixon. Nobody had to go to focus groups to figure out what to call it.

          There was NOT an ACTUAL UNDENIABLE CRIME that led to the impeachment process for Trump. The Democrats began talking about impeachment BEFORE Trump even allegedly committed the "crime".
          But Nixon wasn't involved in the "ACTUAL UNDENIABLE CRIME". He was involved in covering it up but it's a complete non sequitur. Even as evidence accumulated that Nixon was covering a crime, Republicans supported him. It's analogous to how Mueller was obstructed throughout his investigation of Trump associates' criminal behavior.

          You're trying to argue that the public was able to tie Nixon to an "ACTUAL UNDENIABLE CRIME" but the point is that Republicans were not doing that until very late in the impeachment process.

          So here, with any luck.

          --Sam
          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
            But Nixon wasn't involved in the "ACTUAL UNDENIABLE CRIME".
            Nor did I ever claim he was. But it's what started the whole Nixon impeachment thing.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Nor did I ever claim he was. But it's what started the whole Nixon impeachment thing.
              What started the whole Nixon impeachment thing was not the Watergate burglary. It was the suggestion and evidence that Nixon had abused his power by attempting to cover up that crime.

              So, let's ask it this way: We know that Trump associates and campaign officials committed crimes. The Mueller report lays out extensively how Trump sought to cover up those crimes by impeding the investigation.

              Are you arguing now that impeachment regarding the Mueller investigation cover ups is warranted because there are underlying criminal convictions and evidence of a cover up? Is that the standard you're trying to apply here?

              --Sam
              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                What started the whole Nixon impeachment thing was not the Watergate burglary. It was the suggestion and evidence that Nixon had abused his power by attempting to cover up that crime.
                You're being incredibly obtuse, Sam. If there was no crime, there would be no cover up. And I believe that's where we popularized the saying "the coverup is worse than the crime". But absent a crime, there can be no coverup.

                Basic logic.

                HOWEVER, this looks like one of those things on which you absolutely positively have to win, so I'll give you the win. GREAT job!

                You can have the last word.
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  You're being incredibly obtuse, Sam. If there was no crime, there would be no cover up. And I believe that's where we popularized the saying "the coverup is worse than the crime". But absent a crime, there can be no coverup.

                  Basic logic.

                  HOWEVER, this looks like one of those things on which you absolutely positively have to win, so I'll give you the win. GREAT job!

                  You can have the last word.
                  So you are not going to apply the Nixon standard of Actual Crime -> Cover Up to the Mueller investigation?

                  Not going to try to explain what the difference is?
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    So you are not going to apply the Nixon standard of Actual Crime -> Cover Up to the Mueller investigation?

                    Not going to try to explain what the difference is?
                    You won, Sam. Take your victory lap. Discussions with you are FAR too tedious.
                    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      You won, Sam. Take your victory lap. Discussions with you are FAR too tedious.
                      The point isn't to win; the point is to come to understanding using agreed-upon principles.

                      So if you think your principle with Nixon's impeachment logically applies to Trump, why not say so?

                      --Sam
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        You're being incredibly obtuse, Sam. If there was no crime, there would be no cover up. And I believe that's where we popularized the saying "the coverup is worse than the crime". But absent a crime, there can be no coverup.

                        Basic logic
                        .
                        So, you're arguing that it's okay for the president to cover up alleged crimes, that it's only known actual crimes that he can't cover up? That's your basic logic?
                        HOWEVER, this looks like one of those things on which you absolutely positively have to win, so I'll give you the win. GREAT job!

                        You can have the last word.
                        But he absolutely did win, CP, which of course is the only reason you're sarcastically and ungracefully ceding it to him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                          The point isn't to win; the point is to come to understanding using agreed-upon principles.

                          So if you think your principle with Nixon's impeachment logically applies to Trump, why not say so?

                          --Sam
                          I'm probably wasting my time, but I'll try this ONE MORE TIME....

                          With Nixon, there actually was an UNDENIABLE CRIME that got the ball rolling. Then there was the coverup, which led to the impeachment. But had there been no crime - no coverup, no impeachment.
                          With Trump, they pretty much had to invent a crime -- and you guys tried the grand Russian Collusion Delusion, and when that didn't fly, it all turned to the Ukraine thing, and all kinds of attempts to figure out "what can we get this guy on and make it stick".

                          It would have been FAR easier if there had been an actual undeniable crime that led to the Trump impeachment, rather than this exhaustive fishing expedition.

                          Now, my dear sweet wife wants me to come to bed, and I love her FAR more than I love you, so....

                          BYE!
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            I'm probably wasting my time, but I'll try this ONE MORE TIME....

                            With Nixon, there actually was an UNDENIABLE CRIME that got the ball rolling. Then there was the coverup, which led to the impeachment. But had there been no crime - no coverup, no impeachment.
                            With Trump, they pretty much had to invent a crime -- and you guys tried the grand Russian Collusion Delusion, and when that didn't fly, it all turned to the Ukraine thing, and all kinds of attempts to figure out "what can we get this guy on and make it stick".

                            It would have been FAR easier if there had been an actual undeniable crime that led to the Trump impeachment, rather than this exhaustive fishing expedition.

                            Now, my dear sweet wife wants me to come to bed, and I love her FAR more than I love you, so....

                            BYE!
                            For tomorrow, then:
                            • Mueller found numerous crimes by Trump associates.
                            • Mueller reported that Trump attempted to cover up at least some of that criminal activity by obstructing the investigation, finding numerous obstructive acts that meet the criminal criteria for obstruction of justice.
                            • Those Trump associates were found guilty by juries, as with the Watergate burglars.



                            So are you not setting a standard with Nixon ("ACTUAL CRIME" leads to "COVER UP" that justifies "IMPEACHMENT") that applies to Trump, as well?

                            And, if so, why is Republican response to Trump now different than what you say Republican response to Nixon was then?

                            --Sam
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              --- in spite of the Democrats supposedly putting on a smoking-gun case, and the media hammering this 24-7, it hasn't moved the needle much at all.
                              Public opinion about impeachment remains split along party lines, but this is irrelevant re the guilt or innocence of Trump

                              Tassy ---- the incredibly partisan Democrats ran their portion of this in the House without the Senate interfering.
                              Yes, it interfered. The Senate and WH stonewalled the House inquiry and withheld key documents and witnesses, which has resulted in the second article of impeachment namely, Obstruction of Congress.

                              The House has absolute authority over the first part of the impeachment process, and the Senate has absolute authority over their part.
                              What’s being questioned is not the authority to run the trial but the Senate leaders publicly abrogating their duty to run a fair, impartial trial as the Constitution demands.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                Public opinion about impeachment remains split along party lines, but this is irrelevant re the guilt or innocence of Trump
                                Agreed, so your colleagues should stop using "but the PEOPLE!!!!" as an argument.

                                Yes, it interfered.
                                No, and neither is it implied. And only the reader or listener can "infer", so, yeah, you may have inferred something that was in no way implied.

                                The Senate and WH stonewalled the House inquiry and withheld key documents and witnesses, which has resulted in the second article of impeachment namely, Obstruction of Congress.
                                So? The incredibly partisan Democrats, lacking an actual crime, consulted with focus groups and came up with a vague accusation.

                                What’s being questioned is not the authority to run the trial but the Senate leaders publicly abrogating their duty to run a fair, impartial trial as the Constitution demands.
                                Which goes back to the Constitution giving them absolute authority to run it as they see fit. From the Senate's website....

                                The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…[but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" (Article I, section 3). The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment.


                                You guys, having made a royal mess of the House's part, now want to dictate how the Senate operates.

                                Ain't happening, bud.
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 04:20 PM
                                23 responses
                                190 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post LeaC
                                by LeaC
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, Yesterday, 09:35 AM
                                8 responses
                                82 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post LeaC
                                by LeaC
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 01-15-2021, 06:39 PM
                                15 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by seer, 01-15-2021, 02:30 PM
                                6 responses
                                51 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by whag, 01-15-2021, 02:17 PM
                                2 responses
                                30 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X