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 Teallaura View Post
    Yes. The Republican led House.

    We'll see.
    I don't think that's correct. Article I, section 5, paragraph 2 of the Constitution specifies that each House of Congress may determine its own rules and may expel Members, and actual impeachment belongs only to the House to make the charges and the Senate to convict and remove.

    The House itself can expel a member, but I don't think they can impeach one.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      If the Republicans retake the House in 2020 at the very least Schiff won't be chairman of anything and I wouldn't be completely surprised that as a result the Democrats take steps to ensure he never will again.
      I think the BEST thing that could happen is for Schiff to remain in the House as a minority member. He deserves it.
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        One of my favorite Youtubers says that there's a study showing that conservatives can generally predict liberal positions but liberals can't do the reverse.
        I've found it to be generally true that if you simply say the dumbest thing you can think of, you'll sound exactly like a liberal.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          I'm still leaning toward the idea that they never thought Trump was going to release the transcript from the call between him and Zelensky so that they would be able to present the Ciaramella-Schift version as accurate instead of the uncorroborated spurious gossip that the actual legitimate evidence indicates that it is.
          I think it goes beyond that: I suspect they believed Ciaramella actually knew what he was talking about and that they would have the opportunity to humiliate Trump by forcing him to to release what they were certain was damning evidence.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            You need to get new talking points, Jim. The Democrats were in "let's impeach Trump" mode from Day 1 of Trump's presidency, and Pelosi has been all over the map on this.
            We are talking now about the Impeachment for Trumps actions in the Ukranian scheme. It was of course the opinion of many of the House Dems, as well as In my opinion, that there was adequete evidence in the Mueller report to file articles for collusion, as well as that of obstruction, but Trumps toadie Attorney General came out and exonerated Trump rather than turning the report over to Congress to deal with, just as he did when he decided to come out and dispute the recent IG report which debunked the whole propaganda notion of a deep state.


            I said "the Democrats" - you are hiding behind Nancy Pelosi's skirt. And, yes, it's entirely political - look at the FACTS....
            See above.
            • It is ONLY the Democrats on these House committees voting FOR impeachment.
            • The ONLY bi-partisanship is two DEMOCRATS crossing the isle to vote with REPUBLICANS.
            • The Democrats are constantly looking at POLLING and checking with FOCUS GROUPS to see how to sell this steaming pile of horsie poo.
            • The DEMOCRAT controlled House will vote to impeach, but they'll probably lose another couple Democrats - possibly up to 10 - who will side with Republicans.
            • Again - the ONLY bipartisanship is Democrats not going along with the entirely political sham impeachment circus.
            • The REPUBLICAN controlled Senate will NEVER remove Trump, particularly with newer polling showing that Americans are NOT supporting this sham impeachment circus.
            • Your colleagues were all excited about a poll that showed that 50% of Americans supported impeachment and removal, but you have to totally ignore the fact that that support has collapsed, and is trending DOWN, and you still claim that 46.5% is "half".
            • The 31 Democrats "at risk" in their home districts are having a hard time deciding how to vote because of their POLITICAL risk.
            • There is NOTHING about this impeachment that is NOT political.
            • Schiff had to OUTRIGHT LIE about the transcript to get the ball rolling
            • Nadler had strongly opposed Clinton's impeachment because it HAD to be WIDELY bipartisan both in the political realm and in the House and Senate - and there had to be OVERWHELMING evidence of actual crimes
            • Pelosi had made similar speeches
            • The Democrats have to keep lying about there being "overwhelming evidence" in order to try not to look like the lying hypocrites they are
            • Schiff has been claiming he has a "mountain of evidence" that he's holding back - why can't the shifty little liar produce it?
            None of that makes it completely political. Impeachment is political on it's face, it's a political trial, but that doesn't negate, or have anything to do with the truth or falseness of the accussations.

            I could go on and on. Which of the above facts are in error?
            All are irrelevant talking points. What you want to do is talk/complain about process, not the underlying facts of the case.
            It's POLITICAL, Jim, regardless of the talking points in your bubble pretending it's not.
            Impeachment is a political trial, CP, thus in that sense it is always political. But again, what you actually want to say without saying it, is that the President is innocent.
            Last edited by JimL; 12-14-2019, 04:51 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              Not a nit pick - you said he had a Senate trial.
              No, I said prior to a Senate trial.
              Not a couple - as popular as Nixon was having any is a good indicator that everyone had concerns about the evidence they had at that point.
              Oh please, I'm sure many share those same concerns now, though they won't admit to it for political reasons. There are just less pricipled people in the republican Congress today than there were in !974.
              That evidence had been tied up in a court battle that Nixon lost. Nothing comparable exists this time - that the leaky Schiff retained something condemning is wildly implausible.
              Yes, and there is even more evidence not yet seen in this Impeachment because of Trumps absolute obstruction/cover-up.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                EGGzackly --- it was an impeachment looking for an excuse to move forward.
                No, you're just willfully blind.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Because there was an actual undeniable verifiable inexcusable documented crime.
                  Not by the president. It took time to connect Nixon directly to the crime and cover-up, and we have the same situation here except that the underlying crime in this case is much worse.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Even if "obstruction of congress" was a thing, it's not that - it's standing up to a small group of partisan hacks on one committee of one HALF of Congress.
                    It's actually called "contempt of Congress" and it is a thing, enacted in 1857. You can call it standing up to partisan hacks if you want, but it's an impeachable offense.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      The Democrats might have had a better case if they had bothered to make the impeachment inquiry official with a full vote of the House.
                      The process has nothing to do with the undelying facts of the case.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        There are SO MANY problems with the way they botched this, not the least of which was putting shifty Schiff in charge.
                        You guys just don't like wise men and women like Schiff and Pelosi because the unprincipled hacks defending the lawless president can't get anything past them. Whenever a democrat is targeted by republicans for demonization like Schiff and Pelosi have been, then you know they're doing a great job.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          I'm still leaning toward the idea that they never thought Trump was going to release the transcript from the call between him and Zelensky so that they would be able to present the Ciaramella-Schift version as accurate instead of the uncorroborated spurious gossip that the actual legitimate evidence indicates that it is.
                          That is so stupid, one has to wonder about you. The transcript, the redacted transcript, was accurate and confirmed.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            I think there were a number of things they never anticipated, but, yeah, I think Trump really tossed them a hand grenade, and exposed Schiff for the lying little crooked vengeful partisan he is.
                            I sense some real hatred there, CP. And just what was Schiff's lie? You know we have to prove a lie when we accuse someone of it here on tweb.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              I'd say that any plans he had to continue rising through the Democratic Leadership just suffered a severe body blow
                              Again, such a ridiculously stupid thing to say. If anything Schiff has increased his stature in spades.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                I sense some real hatred there, CP.
                                Hatred is in the eye of the hater, Jim.

                                And just what was Schiff's lie?
                                Let's start with his TOTAL misrepresentation of "the phone call".

                                You know we have to prove a lie when we accuse someone of it here on tweb.
                                That's when we accuse each other, Jim - please don't misrepresent the rules, OK? That's dishonest.

                                We consider a lie to be a poster knowingly and willfully making a statement they know to be untrue. If you call someone a liar you need to substantiate it. In order to substantiate an accusation of lying, it must be shown that the poster in question is stating something they know to be untrue. Opinions or facts that are in dispute should never be referred to as lies. Someone's faith or beliefs should also never be referred to as lying. We will not allow repeated accusations of lying. We will moderate any tossing out the term "liar" - and similar charges - when it is used in place of a response or as a mere insult to denigrate the other person, as judged by the moderators. We will also not allow repeated posts calling someone a liar, accusing them of lying, or claiming their post is a lie. If you wish to challenge the truth of someone's statement, then do so ONLY ONCE in the thread, and substantiate your claim IN THE SAME POST. Further discussion of the matter will only be allowed in the Padded Room.
                                "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 CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:03 AM
                                21 responses
                                50 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 07:38 PM
                                11 responses
                                65 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 07:26 PM
                                12 responses
                                89 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 04:21 PM
                                1 response
                                21 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 02:20 PM
                                8 responses
                                75 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X