Printable View
The dems are just planning to drag out the senate hearings as long as possible in hopes of messing with Trump?s chance of reelection. If it went to the senate quickly then he would likely be exonerated and they would rather have him campaigning with the shadow of doubt looming over him.
Those cases are from the Executive pushing back. They didn't appear to be necessary for the impeachment vote in the House.Quote:
Originally Posted by davsel
It's amusing. Cast a differing opinion that differs in any way shape or form from praise for Obama and you're instantly labeled a racist. Oops, sorry, I typoed that.
Substitute "Trump" and "Never Trumper", respectively. Amusing that I didn't see a single person consider alternative perspectives. I am a busy person and frankly don't care. Also if you want to insult me you'd have to meet me to get material.
Nowhere did I insult anyone here, I called the action of Trump moronic. Why is it moronic? It appeases only his followers (e.g., people here), but it telecasts all of his arguments in advance of a trial. Many of the people here know it is moronic but reason it away (Sure, nobody else would ever do that, but Trump is...), and there's the always present belief of some kind of conspiratory grand scheme to "piss off liberals". If your political decisions are merely based on pissing off your opposition, then you are neither an effective leader nor are you an effective adult, that's tribal leadership, not national, and if our country is to survive at all, that shit needs to stop (but it isn't going to). If he wanted an epic hollywood action finish, he should've saved it for closing arguments, you know... when people besides GOP would be paying attention. Any liberals read this? No. But instead, you lay out all of your strategies in advance, giving them the maximum opportunity to diffuse, dismiss, adapt, and overcome their story with months to think about it. If he wanted the last word, he would've had his chance. Now, Pelosi gets the final say which mitigates what would have been an excellent opportunity.
Not that it'll make a difference insofar as this is concerned, impeachment is usually political suicide for the party pursuing it, much less over vague charges "Abuse of power". For those that call me a never Trumper, you may as well call me a "racist" too. You're wholly unable differentiate between the church of Trump and someone who voted for him. I don't praise juvenile, unprofessional or tribal antics from any party. The thing about my morals is they don't adapt and disappear when I "like" someone". What I find amusing is how a lot of people are no better than the politicians they bitch about... praising Trump for the same stuff they'd be swearing at Clinton or Obama for. (FFS, at least be consistent in what you stand for and/or condemn)
God protects fools and children and I'm no kid. Think of this forum as a big wall of graffiti, then read between the lines.
I don't think I've been disrespectful to you at all in my disagreements with you. I happen to disagree with the quote in bold above, too (along with some of the other things you've said).Quote:
Originally Posted by OxArt
I find it pretty to agree with you about Trump being an ineffective leader and an ineffective adult. You may find that, according to your standards. But by objective reasoning on his accomplishments I'd say that statement is pretty hard to substantiate, other than by measuring him according to your subjective standards. He owns a business empire and he won his first race for political office which just happened to be the highest elected office in the land. He's had numerous political "wins" since he's been president including several legislative victories. He draws more people to his political events than any other politician I recall. My guess is he'll easily be elected to a second term barring something unusual happening in the next year...which is plenty of time for something to happen.
And you calling people "worshipers" is no different than someone calling you a "never Trumper".
It also may mean that, in essence, Trump was never really impeached according to one Harvard law professor who testified on behalf of democrats during the impeachment proceedings:Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcc...dems-cold-feetQuote:
The back-and-forth rhetoric comes as Noah Feldman, the Harvard Law School professor who testified for Democrats at the impeachment inquiry earlier this month, wrote an explosive op-ed asserting that if Democrats do not forward the impeachment articles to the Senate as dictated by the Constitution, then Trump was never even impeached at all. The Constitution dictates that after impeachment by a majority in the House, a two-thirds vote is needed in the Senate to remove a president from office.
Feldman cautioned that impeachment "means the House sending its approved articles of impeachment to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached."
Therefore, "if the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn?t actually impeached the president," Feldman said." If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn?t truly impeached at all."
I think they do have a smart play. Or maybe one that's less dumb than the others. Forward the articles to the senate while McConnell wants to keep the trial brief. Just let it run it's course. Everyone already knows they fucked up. If they take time to play more stupid games it gives McConnell motive to change his mind and really hurt them by calling witnesses in a senate trial the dems don't want called. Do it, get it over with quickly. Then make a big deal of quickly getting back to work on a legislative agenda in the house.
But Pelosi is trying to dictate to McConnell the terms of a senate trial. That's a huge mistake. People everywhere are really tiring of this democrat fiasco. Dems are even jumping ship to the other side. Tulsi Gabbard gave Pelosi the big middle finger by voting present. Even hard-core leftist media outlets are saying it's time to move on.
The second the "high crimes" were reduced to "abuse of power" and "obstruction of congress" is when the grenade blew up for middle-America. The best thing for Pelosi to have done would've been to drop it all and blame obstructionism. Spending all that time alleging briberty, quid pro quo, etc., and then impeaching on those two is hilariously petty to even the non-political layperson; only the far left adherents celebrated it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
It kind of reminds me of the "War of the Worlds" ending.
Quote:
From the moment the invaders arrived, breathed our air, ate and impeached, they were doomed. They were undone, destroyed, after all of man's weapons and devices had failed, by the tiniest creatures that God in his wisdom put upon this earth.. the hyperactive progressive
My boss looked at me this morning, and said, wide eyed, "did you watch the impeachment last night?" When I said, "no," he said, "it was crazy. We are without a president now." I said, "no, it has to go to the Senate now, they will vote. But the President is still the President. He still has all his powers." He looked at me half-believing, half-scared.
In that way, the Democrats have won. Scaring normal people to death.
-John
^^ I heard similar talk like that around yesterday. It's amazing how little the average person knows about how the government functions.
I?d guess an overwhelming percentage of Trump haters were triggered when the media posted everywhere that he had been impeached and yet there he was, still being president.