3rd time in history of USA
- Thread starter NYShoreGuy
- Start date
And it will likely be the first who is re-elected.
That’s where we are....amazing
A historic moment yet CBS chose to air the Survivor finale and ABC....All In The Family. Bizarre
2 different republican gop'ers on the floor wed compared trump to jesus and what is going on to pearl harbor...wow
At the current state this will haunt Democrats for the next 4 years minimum and even longer if RBG steps down in the next 4 years. Amy Coney Barrett would be a big hit to Democrats. Democrats have a few months to really prove to the American people this was necessary and not just an attempt to smear him for the next election.
Idiots all over DC.
Like this idiot Nadler in 1998:
“There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.”
And as expected, Trump’s popularity increases, SMH.
2019 Nadler is no brighter. At election time, he will be all over the news with his remarks that we can’t wait for the American people to decide if Trump should stay in office.
What is worse? Orange hair nepotist Prez or a career politician with a gavel who pulls his pants up to his nipples? This my friends is who is representing us. What have we done and why won't anyone run we can get behind and be proud of?
Correct. The politics of this are not favorable to democrats. They all know that, yet still about 30 members voted to impeach knowing they could lose their job. Sign me up for politicians putting their jobs on the line when voting for what they believe is right.
Politics is politics. The question we don't know is have there been promises made to these people if they lose their job? On the surface it's poetic. Nothing in Washington is poetic. So yes it looks beautiful but I'm sure deep down in the dark places of Washington we will never see, something else is going on we don't know about.
Or are they afraid that Nancy P will not support them or their reelection. She has been known to do all she can to get back at Dems that cross her. You be the judge but I bet its a bit of both. Her public words are totally different than how she operates behind closed doors.
Partisans gonna partisan.
you going to post all of the quotes from Lindsey in 1998 as well?
I actually agree with Nadler in 1998. In a perfect world, our representatives would put country over party and there would be more fact finding than partisan shit show. Unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world.
The good thing is that his words ring true to that of conviction by the senate.
So they are afraid to lose their jobs by voting no, so they risk losing their jobs by voting yes?
Every politician is different behind closed doors. Pelosi is no different there.
The party throws their su$$ort behind another candidate especially for a new congressperson. Or she gives them no access and they can't get anything done in the future. Happens all the time do not kid yourself on both sides of the aisle.
Last edited:
Yup, another DC idiot:
On January 21, 1999, the republican representative said of President Clinton, “A President doesn’t even have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office. So, the point I’m trying to make is that you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.”
So they are putting their career on the line by voting yes so they don’t lose their access which they wouldn’t have if they were voted out anyway?
Specifically talking about the 30 or so dems in Trump districts.
I’m cyclical of our representatives, though not quite as cynical of the freshman class who have been there less than a year being corrupted as easily as you are suggesting.
"I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There's nothing judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision,.The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all." - Mitch McConnell
Impeachment is a political process but separation of powers is a Constitutional issue. For McConnell to put his party above his duty as the leader of the Senior chamber of the Legislative Branch in a trial against the Executive Branch is wrong and dangerous.
Impeachment is a political process but separation of powers is a Constitutional issue. For McConnell to put his party above his duty as the leader of the Senior chamber of the Legislative Branch in a trial against the Executive Branch is wrong and dangerous.
It’s the problem in all of politics. It was the problem in the house too. Yes it is a problem in the Senate and it’s a problem in the House. Quite frankly the 2 party system is an American problem. To point out one side and not the other is a hack job by all in journalism. Those who believe these journalists are giving the full truth and not negligent when it comes to giving both sides are foolish.
I don't agree that because Nancy Pelosi is a ninny that Mitch McConnell needs to be one too.
I agree with that but why give Nancy a pass for being a ninny? You have had 12 months to call her out on being a ninny and never did once.
In the waning days of 2019, I will make amends. Nancy Pelosi is a ninny. Perhaps I should have said it sooner but I did not.
Back to my original comment. - For McConnell to put his party above his duty as the leader of the Senior chamber of the Legislative Branch in a trial against the Executive Branch is wrong and dangerous.
I’m not sure of the rules but if there was a way to overthrow Pelosi and re do the impeachment vote because it is deemed she acted in favor of party over country would you be all for that?
As a real American don’t you want an impeachment vote that’s not led by a ninny? And then a senate trial that’s not led by a ninny?
Last edited:
I did not comment on the political process of impeachment. I did not advocate "overthrowing" the Senate Majority leader. And shame on the Speaker of the House if she acted in favor of party over country. But the process in the House is completed and now it is in the hands of the Senate.
In the Constitution, after impeachment by the House of Representatives, the Senate Majority leader will have the duty of setting the rules for the trial. The issue is the separation of powers. The Legislative Branch (Senate) has the duty to conduct a trial against the Executive Branch. For McConnell to put his party above his duty as the leader of the Senate in a trial against the Executive Branch is wrong and dangerous.
Sadly we will have an unfair process in the Senate, just like we had an unfair process in the House. In a few months life will go on just like it did before.
Since you love the Constitutional procedures, I fully expect to see you be a vocal advocate against the removal of the electoral college, as I expect many idiots in 8-10 months will be talking about it's removal.
Do not resign yourself to the inevitability of an unfair process in the Senate. Unequivocally state that you agree that what the Senate Majority Leader said was not acceptable.
People who want to remove the Electoral College are not idiots. You can disagree with them without being disrespectful.
For the record, I am against the removal of the Electoral College.
The idea of politicians even trying to pretend their not partisan hacks is over. Both sides are disgraceful.
Pick your word, idiots, hypocrites, etc your choice. When the Constitution works for them they want to respect our Founding Fathers. When it doesn’t work for them, they’re all about getting rid of it. They act dumb to persuade those who can’t think for themselves.
Yes, the partisan politicians are still just partisan politicians on both sides but they will respond to public opinion. The politicians just do their best to guide public opinion. It’s on us to see beyond the bullshit.
There is a bit more to it than that for me regarding the constitution though.
Intent of the founders is important, but so is their ability to understand what the country would look like hundreds of years later.
The 2nd amendment for example, could they really have envisioned a country where we have more guns than people? Where those guns would be capable of killing 50+ people on a matter of seconds? in that sense, I do believe the second amendment has grown beyond the intent of the founders and should be updated/modernized.
On the case of impeachment, it is worth reading what the founders were worried about regarding foreign influence, emoluments and abuse of power.
Read the discussions from the constitutional convention and why high crimes and misdemeanors was added and it is almost impossible to think they didn’t foresee someone like Trump becoming president.
I agree 100% on politicians guiding public opinion and I also agree with you on the second amendment. I believe owning a gun is a right. I also believe there are weapons that should not be for sale to regular citizens. So I believe confiscating every gun is wrong. This is not hard to meet in the middle with using common sense. Further proof both sides are hacks. The second amendment is like the first amendment, there are limitations to it. You have to use it wisely.
Now let's talk the crux of the matter, foreign influence. If Donald Trump should face trial for his actions so should Joe Biden. Joe Biden is getting a pass because he's running for President. Without that, he's just a general citizen, who was a former Vice President and in that role he abused his power. He should face the justice system for that. Curious what Obama knew as well. The fact a man who used his role to get his son a job he was unqualified for in a foreign country is now the leading democrat for the nominee of President of the USA is scary.
Last edited:
again, I need to preface that I support any current dem nominee over Biden, but that is not true.
No one has alleged that Biden has done anything wrong.
Hunter should not have taken that job because of the optics, but the only thing Joe could have done wrong here is acted against US interests with his foreign policy in Ukraine. No one has suggested that happened.
That was the case with what Trump did.
If by no one, you mean half the country, alleged Biden did something wrong. Then I hear ya. I’m not positive but I think there might have been something where Biden kindly suggested someone be fired. Maybe that was the right thing to do.
Last edited:
What is the allegation against Biden other than his son getting a job he wasn’t qualified for?
Again, Biden was acting on the behalf of the US policy interests telling them to remove a corrupt prosecutor, a move which also had international support.
Quite different than holding aid, against US interest, for a political favor.
Also, if Trump believed Biden did something wrong, the US department of Justice would be the place to investigate that. Not a foreign government.
Exactly. Watching CNN you’ll hear one was wrong. Watch Fox the other was wrong. Use your own brain and both are wrong. It’s just another example of the politicians using the media in order to persuade their way of thinking on those who can’t think for themselves.
2015.
We sent over a hundred million to Ukraine including security assistance, equipment, drones, counter mortar radars and medical equipment.
Sad that you bought right into that line without looking it up.
They are vastly different.
Biden was acting on behalf of US interest in cooperation with the international community and IMF.
Trump was acting on behalf on Trump’s personal interest, counter to US policy.
How are those possibly similar?
We can certainly debate foreign policy, and each president can certainly establish their own. You can argue Obama didn’t do enough, though given the positions most here have provided on Obama’s foreign policy I doubt anyone here would have applauded him had he sent more to Ukraine at the time.
That said, this isn’t about a policy difference.
This is the president using the office for personal gain.
