Jump to content

Politics First Contact


Recommended Posts

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-rep-compares-trump-jesus-during-impeachment-hearings-pontius-pilate-afforded-more-1478059

Best bit of all the speeches today.  Was one guy, Sensenbrenner maybe ?, who was ranting about Socialists taking down Trump - as a close second.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

My personal view on gun control is that I'm more than willing to give up my guns but only if the government gives up there's first.  Gun control is a double edged sword.

Government aka the police or government aka the military? You do realize that completely not having a military (well, unless you want to return to the days of fighting with bow and sword) is a pretty stupid idea, right? If aka police, I get where you're going with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

gavel'd out and adjourned for the day, gabbard votes "present" on both articles.

well, ok then.

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the gov't can't trust its own citizens with weapons why the HELL should citizens trust the gov't with wepaons when the gov't  (in theory lol) is supposed to work for the citizens? LMAO

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough they're trying desperately to bring in armed police here by stealth, at exactly the same time they're buying back newly banned firearms- 2 days to go, less than 1/3 bought back despite increasingly strident "but you have to, it's the law!" adverts from the popo. It's by stealth because arming the police is spectacularly unpopular with pretty much everyone including a large subset of the rank and file police themselves, and even anti gun people are at best bemused by the ham fistedness of the timing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After McConnell has made it clear that there would be no real trial, Pelosi apparently hinted that she won't send the articles of impeachment to McConnell so they can claim "ACQUITTED IN TRIAL!", but instead will hang them so that he's forever impeached but never cleared. Would be an interesting maneuver.

Edited by Bartimaeus
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

Being anti-Marxist and clinging to age-old bourgeoise and petty bourgeoise ethics (Christian family values, homophobia, etc etc) is the definition of conservative and reactionary, and there's still a chunk of Republicans who think that way.  If they don't fall into that (latter) category yet still call themselves "Republican"  they're more than likely fascists (People who aren't rigidly into age old bourgeoise traditions but nonetheless are very anti-Marxist and very pro imperialist and expansionist).

 

I'm curious. I am, as far as I know, the most anti-marxist poster on this board. Having read everything that you have from me would you call me conservative? I certainly would not identify myself as such. 

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites

perspective

those few democrats who claimed they could not vote for impeachment 'cause while they thought the President had done wrong, they were not necessarily in favor o' removing him from office, shoulda' listened to the aforementioned. within first couple minutes o' her famous impeachment speech, ms. Jordan points out the  misreading o' the Constitution by those conflating impeachment with removal.

as to not sending articles to Congress, we mentioned such a few days ago in this thread and other Constitutional scholars has been advocating such for awhile. may be political reasons for not doing such, but from our admitted naive pov, it appears to be the best option.

President has been impeached, which is historical. to let senate acquit the President with a sham trial would not be justice and would necessarily fail to absolve trump o' responsibility for those infractions o' which he is accused. wait. wait for Court to resolve legal questions, which isn't real questions in our mind-- is well established the House has near complete authority and freedom to call witnesses, request documents and decided rules for impeachment.

wait for Court to catch up and then force trump to acquiesce to House demands or flaunt the authority o' two coequal branches o' government. at such a point, particular with what is perceived to be a conservative Court with multiple trump appointees, notion the President is acting in a manner other than repugnant to the Constitution would be historical untenable and am suspecting more than a few moderate republicans would balk at justifiable being labeled enablers o' tyranny. 

impeachment is history. is done. now comes the hard part. am hopeful the House is prudent. wait is right choice... at least such is the opinion o' some rando retired guy posting on a game message board.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited by Gromnir
  • Like 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing though is that while waiting for the courts would certainly be ideal/optimal, the Democrats don't want to wait for the courts because it'd take too long and the WH is already running the clock as much as they can. If there was a way to make the proccess take days instead of months/years, they'd probably have used it already.

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

The thing though is that while waiting for the courts would certainly be ideal/optimal, the Democrats don't want to wait for the courts because it'd take too long and the WH is already running the clock as much as they can. If there was a way to make the proccess take days instead of months/years, they'd probably have used it already.

"take too long" for what? is goal to get trump out of office before election? if such were goal, then send to senate now is a waste.

tell us what is goal which waiting makes too remote to achieve.

HA! Good Fun!

ps from our pov, with impeachment already achieved, goal should be to have a meaningful trial where finder of fact active probes for relevant evidence to make truth certain. am not seeing a "take too long" situation if such is the goal. 

Edited by Gromnir

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

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

The Democrats are the ones saying that waiting would take too long, not me.

again, take too long for what? yeah, take too long for impeachment were a given. democrats couldn't count on public support to be maintained for +6 months while the Courts decided on witness and document situation. but guess what, impeachment is done.

democrats saying? democrats is now clear saying they is willing to wait 'til they get assurances from the senate there will be a meaningful trial. 

so again, take too long for what? now that impeachment has occurred, what is the "take too long"?

HA! Good Fun!

 

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Take too long' while it often takes months if not years for final verdicts to occur in actual trials. Remember, they claim the main reason for impeachment is that phonecall with Ukraine yet the calls for impeachment came well before that.  Impeachment of Trump was forgone  conclusion once Dems got power just like him staying on as Pres is guaranteed as long as the Repubs have their power. Both sides are garbage. Fix that. All 6 six sides are garbage. Trump is no more a threat to Amerikan democracy than any other  politician.

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Impeachment of President Donald Trump might be the dumbest political move in quite some time. I only fear the repercussions when Democrats supporters will figure out that Trump is staying in office and still will be president after 2020 election. There might be some tragedies.

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

After McConnell has made it clear that there would be no real trial, Pelosi apparently hinted that she won't send the articles of impeachment to McConnell so they can claim "ACQUITTED IN TRIAL!", but instead will hang them so that he's forever impeached but never cleared. Would be an interesting maneuver.

I reckon that would be a terrible idea though. It would play great to those who'd never vote for Trump anyway and just want cheap gotchas! but I could very easily see it backfiring spectacularly with the general public.

The big talking point from the R side of the impeachment was about how it was a narrow political witch hunt, monkeying around with the process will just give them ammunition for that point of attack instead of being able to claim acquittal. And they'd hammer that, and point out that an impeachment largely based on Trump improperly playing politics to benefit his own position against a political rival was being used by the D side to, well, play politics to benefit their own position vs a rival. Not transferring the impeachment to the Senate for trial may not be strictly illegal unlike (at least potentially) strongarming a foreign power to investigate a domestic rival, but it also isn't what is expected or 'meant' to happen either.

It's obviously a political process and equally obviously McConnell, Graham et alia will vote for acquittal in the Senate no matter what the evidence is. If they didn't want that end result they shouldn't have impeached. At the moment a reasonable and impartial observer probably thinks Trump is pretty sketchy, though maybe not sketchy enough to remove from office- and that's about the best that can be expected.

Edited by Zoraptor
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Impeachment of President Donald Trump might be the dumbest political move in quite some time. I only fear the repercussions when Democrats supporters will figure out that Trump is staying in office and still will be president after 2020 election. There might be some tragedies.

What kind of tragedies? I'd be much more worried about the fallout of Trump being removed. How many far right extremists have already committed tragedies while Trump has been in office?

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

What kind of tragedies? I'd be much more worried about the fallout of Trump being removed. How many far right extremists have already committed tragedies while Trump has been in office?

Probably means the lefty snowflakes will commit suicide or something, you should know how the dog operates by now, Hurl. :p

  • Like 1

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trump is removed Pence becomes President for the next year and 28 days. Pence is capable, boring, and competent. He is not a man who will inspire passion on the right. Rather than pour gas on a smoldering fire on the right I'd expect his rhetoric will be calm and measured which means he might be the right guy at the right time if Trump is removed. He is very religious which will  drive the left wingers and a lot of you guys crazy. (How DARE he believe in something I don't!) It is questionable he would even run in 2020. He was getting ready to retire when his 2nd term as Indiana governor was ending in 2016. And even if Trump is removed he can still run again next year AND be re-elected. Now wouldn't THAT be a lit torch in the hay barn?  

I don't even give a f--k anymore to tell you the truth. Trump is despicable. Obama thought I and people like me were likely terrorists. His admin sold guns to drug cartels in some half assed "investigation" about how guns come back into the country from Mexico. He weaponized the IRS, thought it would be perfectly fine to use military air strikes against US citizens,  yadda, yadda, yadda. He was despicable. Bush brought us Iraq & the Patriot Act. He was despicable. With very few exceptions (Gabbard, Yang, and maybe Klobuchar) the democrat nominee is either going to be Obama 2.0 or one of the crazy lefties who dream of a big intrusive state that will happily kill you if you don't do as you're told.  So the next President will also be despicable. The only thing we can hope for is Congress is controlled by the opposite party and has the spine to assert it's enumerated powers. Which is WHY I supported Trump's impeachment in the first place.   

Edited by Guard Dog
And another thing

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Every evil act in the history of mankind begins when one group of people think they get to tell another group of people how they should be living. It's our inability to just leave each other alone, to live and let live, that causes all of the wars we fight. 

 

17 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

He is very religious which will  drive the left wingers and a lot of you guys crazy. (How DARE he believe in something I don't!) It is questionable he would even run in 2020. 

 

:lol:

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

What kind of tragedies? I'd be much more worried about the fallout of Trump being removed. How many far right extremists have already committed tragedies while Trump has been in office?

Well there are many instances of democrats supporters attacking people for supporting Trump:

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20190409/109266/HHRG-116-JU00-20190409-SD008.pdf

https://www.attacksontrumpsupporters.com/

https://www.conservapedia.com/Left-wing_violence_in_the_Trump_era

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-supporters-attacks-violence-hatred-media-bias/

There are not so many instances of people inciting violence in the name of Trump. And the few that occurred were made by lone deranged individuals. 

I would be equally worried in the case of Trum removal for antitrumpers to attack Trump supporters to "show them" they have "won". 

Disgusting behavior should be condemned. I hope you agree.

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

 

 

:lol:

Ha ha.

You know I also said this:

Quote

There is actually nothing wrong with holding on to social values based on faith and religion. It is perfectly OK to think abortion and gay marriage and (insert thing here) is wrong. It's not OK, however, when you try to impose your ethics on someone else.

You know if you wanted to score some points on me for contradicting myself you probably don't need to rely on an out of context contrivance. I've been posting here for 15 years. I'm quite sure I've contradictory for real before. 

Edited by Guard Dog

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seeing a few people point out a constitutional element that says if a President is impeached by Congress, but not convicted by the Senate, his first term is nullified, and thus he's eligible to run for office for a third term?   So, is that actually a thing or just one of those internet fake facts?

  • Haha 1

"Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Gorth locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...