House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Babbylonian said:
Republicans may believe that this is their last presidency. It seems like the only reason they would continue supporting him and his ********. At this point, with the evidence available, Republicans should be lining up in front of the White House to tell this mass of evil goo to resign.
Click to expand...


If Trump did not have the personality cult going,I think he would have gotten that visit from the party elders telling him it's time to go.
 
Now convinced more then every how badly we need Term Limits for congress.
If a congressman knew would only be there for a few terms, Lets say 5 for the house and two for the senate and could not make a 20 or more career out of being in congress...they be more inclined to vote for what is right rather then what will get them reelected.
I think career congress people is a cancer on Democracy.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
So I heard a quite snippet on the radio just now that Trump is being denied due process that Nixon and Bill Clinton were given. Any right wingers here want to expound on what is meant by that exactly? I'm genuinely curious.
Click to expand...
The due process he is talking about, the right to call witnesses, the right to cross examine witnesses, takes place during the trial, which will of course occur later in the Senate. He is confused.
 
alfaniner said:
But every single Republican not acknowledging the crimes of our President is reprehensible.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they'll be hearing from constituents but at the moment the party-line split doesn't bother me. For the most part they haven't heard all of the testimony so I think they can plausibly tell constituents that they're exercising caution. It's not like there was any chance they were going to block the inquiry. They have cover to vote with their caucus at this stage. IMO.
 
Babbylonian said:
Republicans may believe that this is their last presidency.
Click to expand...

Which is silly, they have the chance of putting up a number of candidates that might actually win against the democrat line-up.

My biggest fear is that they might wake up and remove Trump, install Pence and the 46th President, nominate Nikki Haley to VP, then have her stand in 2020. That could very well be a winning strategy.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Which is silly, they have the chance of putting up a number of candidates that might actually win against the democrat line-up.

My biggest fear is that they might wake up and remove Trump, install Pence and the 46th President, nominate Nikki Haley to VP, then have her stand in 2020. That could very well be a winning strategy.
Click to expand...

You think running Nikki Haley in 2020 is a winning strategy?
 
acbytesla said:
You think running Nikki Haley in 2020 is a winning strategy?
Click to expand...

I think she would do a lot better than Trump because she would bring back a lot of Republicans who have left and either won't vote, or will protest vote, but don't feel right about going Democrat. I think she'd be able to bolster the sagging support the Republicans have among women voters. She also have a few polls suggesting that head to head with Trump she'd do well, and is enough on the board against the Democrat lineup, that with better name recognition she could indeed be a force to be reckoned with. And I doubt that she is the only one, both Romney and Kasich are polling reasonable strongly considering the lock that Trump has on the GOP currently, though I tend to favour Haley because they have both had a go and lost, and also Haley being a woman might be seen as a fresh start for the GOP.
 
I have to wonder how many prior Republicans, like myself, have morphed from being anti-Trump to now being anti-Republican. What I mean is the party has so debased itself that no time in the foreseeable future could I see myself voting Republican, regardless of which candidate emerged.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Babbylonian said:
What makes it reprehensible to my mind is that every time they support him in his clear-cut abuse of power, they are giving him tacit permission to do even worse.
Click to expand...

And tacit permission for a future president to do the same. Of course we all know that if a Dem president did this, they'd be screaming for his head at the top of their lungs :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


This may be the future of the GOP, impotently screaming at the top of their lungs about Democrat transgressions, real or imagined, that they accepted or even cherished when done by Republicans. And little else, since they will have wasted all their political capital defending the indefensible.

A future as back bench whiners. Well deserved. Perhaps even better than they deserve. They have proven beyond any doubt that as a party they are ethically bankrupt at best and unhesitatingly criminal at worst. Bigots, racists, and cheaters.

Any political survival at all is a gift they have failed to earn.
 
Just popping in to ask if the President that has actually admitted to treasonous acts has been removed from office for treason yet?
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I have to wonder how many prior Republicans, like myself, have morphed from being anti-Trump to now being anti-Republican. What I mean is the party has so debased itself that no time in the foreseeable future could I see myself voting Republican, regardless of which candidate emerged.
Click to expand...

The Republican party is dead. It's the Trump Party now.
 
I know this has been posted in one thread or another, but for those of you who missed it... This is apt to resonate with readers who, like me, view the Trump phenomenon as a cult.

Who said it...?
What we’re seeing ... right now is like a cult. These are a group of people loyally following their leader as he bounces from one outlandish conspiracy theory to another.
Click to expand...
Devin Nunes, referring to the House Intel committee. Call the paramedics! This is red alert triage due to self-awareness deficit.
 
JoeMorgue said:
But that's the beauty of the weasely way they phrased it.

"Speaker Pelosi’s conduct is an encroachment across the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers. She has no business examining or investigating the president’s legitimate exercise of his authority to determine the foreign and national security policy of the United States," the complaint argues."

Catch that? That's the game they are playing. "Oh sure fiddle dee we're totally not saying *wink wink* that Congress can't investigate the President... only that they can't do it when what the President doing is legitimate."

The fact that determining if or if not what the President IS THE POINT is something they are trying to poison the well on. Create a Catch-22 where it's unfair to investigate innocent people, but you're innocent until you've been proven guilty which a process that requires an investigate to start. It's like arguing that you can't give the cops a search warrant until after the suspect has already been found guilty in court.

It's that whole "You can't even to investigate the President until you've already totally and completely across the board proven wrong doing" thing the Trumpers have gotten stuck on.
Click to expand...

Be fair to the tea-baggers, they are mirroring actual arguments being put forth by the lawyers for Individual One in court
 
At the risk of being slightly off-topic, I thought that I'd mention an op-ed in the Washington Post which discusses the fact that in June 2017 the Ukrainian president was invited to the White House a few days after Ukraine for all intents and purposes ended its investigation into Paul Manafort by transferring the investigation out of their anti-corruption bureau. Which happened a few days after Rudy Giuliani met with the Ukrainian president and the Ukrainian prosecutor general in Kiev.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...4b1b80-fc28-11e9-8906-ab6b60de9124_story.html
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
I have to wonder how many prior Republicans, like myself, have morphed from being anti-Trump to now being anti-Republican. What I mean is the party has so debased itself that no time in the foreseeable future could I see myself voting Republican, regardless of which candidate emerged.
Click to expand...

I was solidly behind GWB in his first term, then a little less by his second. My political views shifted to the left well before Trump came along. But I could've seen my self potentially voting for either party in any given election until Trump came along. If the Republicans won't do what is right and remove an actual traitor* from the White House I can't see myself ever voting for them again. Maybe if decades from now politics have shifted massively to the left in the USA.

*Abandoning an ally (the Kurds) for... either bribery or extortion, that played right into the hands of our enemy is traitorous behavior, its even worse than Ukraine. Plus the fact its gotten thousands of innocents killed
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Now convinced more then every how badly we need Term Limits for congress.
If a congressman knew would only be there for a few terms, Lets say 5 for the house and two for the senate and could not make a 20 or more career out of being in congress...they be more inclined to vote for what is right rather then what will get them reelected.
I think career congress people is a cancer on Democracy.
Click to expand...

I don’t agree.
Becoming a good legislator is hard work. All of America’s statesmen in the past have taken the time to forge relationships across the aisle, and that takes more time than term-limits would allow.

I do agree that the partisan bickering and misplaced party-loyalty does, when it crops up in its more pernicious forms, makes term-limits seem like a great solution. I think that it is a short-sighted solution that forgets the unity that can be formed by deep relationships among opposing sides in various debates.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I have to wonder how many prior Republicans, like myself, have morphed from being anti-Trump to now being anti-Republican. What I mean is the party has so debased itself that no time in the foreseeable future could I see myself voting Republican, regardless of which candidate emerged.
Click to expand...

It didn't take Trump to move me in that direction, it happened a long time ago. Trump is not the cause of the cancer that is the modern Republican party, he's just a symptom of it.
 
autumn1971 said:
I don’t agree.
Becoming a good legislator is hard work. All of America’s statesmen in the past have taken the time to forge relationships across the aisle, and that takes more time than term-limits would allow.

I do agree that the partisan bickering and misplaced party-loyalty does, when it crops up in its more pernicious forms, makes term-limits seem like a great solution. I think that it is a short-sighted solution that forgets the unity that can be formed by deep relationships among opposing sides in various debates.
Click to expand...
I agree. I find most of the memes regarding "throwing them out", "cut their pay", "give them crappy benefits", etc., Seem to disregard expertise and experience as a means of accomplishing things.

Further, I think they would actually decrease the representation we get. Who but a multi-millionaire can take eight years out of their careers to serve as a congressperson with low pay and no benefits? And what might they be hoping to gain from such a stint? perhaps single issue regulation with a large payout at the end from the regulated industry?

The law of unintended consequences could turn term limits against us, making every congressperson not just "in the thrall of" lobbyists- but instead actual lobbyists.
 
Distracted1 said:
I agree. I find most of the memes regarding "throwing them out", "cut their pay", "give them crappy benefits", etc., Seem to disregard expertise and experience as a means of accomplishing things.

Further, I think they would actually decrease the representation we get. Who but a multi-millionaire can take eight years out of their careers to serve as a congressperson with low pay and no benefits? And what might they be hoping to gain from such a stint? perhaps single issue regulation with a large payout at the end from the regulated industry?

The law of unintended consequences could turn term limits against us, making every congressperson not just "in the thrall of" lobbyists- but instead actual lobbyists.
Click to expand...

In rebuttal: Katie Porter. Not a millionaire; just a professor. But possessing passion to do right by her constituents.

In assent: If Katie remains true to her lights, then may she occupy her seat 'til she's unable.

In rebuttal: If someone like Katie becomes cynical and corrupted, then term limits are the correct path.
 
quadraginta said:
This may be the future of the GOP, impotently screaming at the top of their lungs about Democrat transgressions, real or imagined, that they accepted or even cherished when done by Republicans. And little else, since they will have wasted all their political capital defending the indefensible.
.....
Click to expand...
That's been going on in the GOP for a long long time, starting with Bill.
 
varwoche said:
I know this has been posted in one thread or another, but for those of you who missed it... This is apt to resonate with readers who, like me, view the Trump phenomenon as a cult.

Who said it...?
​
Devin Nunes, referring to the House Intel committee. Call the paramedics! This is red alert triage due to self-awareness deficit.
Click to expand...

When I heard that earlier my thoughts immediately went to:

Hypocrisy
Irony
Projection​
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
quadraginta said:
This may be the future of the GOP, impotently screaming at the top of their lungs about Democrat transgressions, real or imagined, that they accepted or even cherished when done by Republicans. And little else, since they will have wasted all their political capital defending the indefensible.
.....
Click to expand...
That's been going on in the GOP for a long long time, starting with Bill.
Click to expand...


Sadly, they are far from impotent now, or even starting with Bill.

One may have hopes for the future, though.

The GOP as an insignificant, third-rate third party, lacking in any credibility or influence. That's what I'm looking forward to.
 
quadraginta said:
The GOP as an insignificant, third-rate third party, lacking in any credibility or influence. That's what I'm looking forward to.
Click to expand...

Because functionally one-party systems work so well.

Actually, I shouldn't say that sarcastically. They do work well, if your goal is controlling people.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because functionally one-party systems work so well.

Actually, I shouldn't say that sarcastically. They do work well, if your goal is controlling people.
Click to expand...

Nobody said we need a one party system.

We can have two (or more) parties that honestly and passionately disagree on a huge swath of sane, rational points across a wide range of stances without our current setup of one spineless party of formless goobers and one corrupt obstructionist cult of racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, science denying idiots.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Because functionally one-party systems work so well.

Actually, I shouldn't say that sarcastically. They do work well, if your goal is controlling people.
Click to expand...

As Joe said, hoping that the GOP becomes a third party isn't at all the same as wanting a one-party system (even functionally).

I don't anticipate the GOP going away any time soon. If things go well, the fallout from the Trump presidency is a precipitous drop in the popularity of the GOP, who will regroup and change their positions and tactics to become a healthy, reasonable conservative alternative.

Man, that just sounds like a ridiculous fantasy in so many ways. Still, that would be my druthers, as unlikely as it is.
 
Has anyone else encountered Trumptrash going door to door with a petition to stop the impeachment inquiry? Is this a national thing or do I just have a particularly dedicated traitor to his country living somewhere close by? I've found a couple of online petitions but nothing trying to organize people to canvas for signatures. I couldn't tell if he was an official campaign representatives. He had on the racist paraphernalia their kind wear which is what you'd expect.
 
phiwum said:
As Joe said, hoping that the GOP becomes a third party isn't at all the same as wanting a one-party system (even functionally).
Click to expand...

In the post I responded to, he didn't say he wanted it to become a third party. He said "third rate", but just like "second rate", that's an expression which doesn't literally mean "third" or "second". And there is no realistic candidate to become a second party. So one party domination is really the most realistic outcome for what he proposed. His follow-up post suggests he meant something else, but I'll stand by my response to what he actually said in that first post.
 
Ziggurat said:
In the post I responded to, he didn't say he wanted it to become a third party. He said "third rate", but just like "second rate", that's an expression which doesn't literally mean "third" or "second". And there is no realistic candidate to become a second party. So one party domination is really the most realistic outcome for what he proposed. His follow-up post suggests he meant something else, but I'll stand by my response to what he actually said in that first post.
Click to expand...

In fact, quadraginta said "third-rate third party". It is easy to misread that (seriously, not sarcastically), but he did refer to it as a third party.

I agree that there's no serious alternative second party. I've already given my sadly fantastic druthers.
 
phiwum said:
I agree that there's no serious alternative second party. I've already given my sadly fantastic druthers.
Click to expand...

A good option for the a new Second Party would be for the Conservative Democrats and Non-Trumpers who have left, or want to leave, the GOP to split off and form a new Conservative Party that is Centre Right, with the remaining Democrats forming a Centre Left Party. It has happened before in US Politics, so no real reason that it couldn't happen again.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Oh, I'm sure the Democratic party will splinter after that.

But having no party that panders to ignorance and bigotry would be a welcome change.
Click to expand...

Wait... are you under the impression that Democrats don't do that too? Oh, you dear boy.
 
phiwum said:
In fact, quadraginta said "third-rate third party". It is easy to misread that (seriously, not sarcastically), but he did refer to it as a third party.

I agree that there's no serious alternative second party. I've already given my sadly fantastic druthers.
Click to expand...

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom