[Continuation] House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2 - Page 2

Minoosh · 28th November 2019, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

It's Graham talking about the Clinton Impeachment, and how vital it was to impeach even if the Senate would not convict.

I wonder if he's watched these clips of his younger self recently. Impeachment is about "cleansing the office." Well said, senator!

Shalamar · 28th November 2019, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Back when I said "We need "So little doubt that even the most corrupt ******** in the Senate finally feel some shame in trying to publicly claim there's still some doubt" levels of evidence", I wasn't just thinking about Senators. That line applies to just about everyone still supporting the Republican Party at this point, which means you.

There's no way you can't honestly see how bad the evidence against Trump is. The problem is, you apparently don't seem to care about that. You're happy playing these stupid reindeer games instead of doing what you know is right. So when I talk about "feel some shame in trying to publicly claim there's still some doubt" levels of evidence, I'm talking about you. These hearing need to continue until there's enough evidence on the table that even you finally throw your hands up and admit Trump needs to go, and needs to go now.

It's only wrong when the Democrats/liberals/progs/etc do it. Otherwise it's just funny. 'LOL, look how upset the stooopid libs are at Trumps crimes and corruption! LOL!'

I see it all over facebook. They literally do not care, because trump is on 'their side'.

The Great Zaganza · 28th November 2019, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Thanks.

PhantomWolf, is Graham's argument supposed to be your argument? Is that why you posted it?

MY argument would be that Graham is nothing but a hypocrite.

theprestige · 28th November 2019, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

MY argument would be that Graham is nothing but a hypocrite.

That's your argument for why House Democrats should pursue impeachment? Lindsey Graham is a hypocrite? Seems like a non sequitur to me.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 28th November 2019, 08:08 AM

The Big Dog was better at this.

theprestige · 28th November 2019, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

The Big Dog was better at this.

He didn't seem to get a lot of straight answers either. Setting aside the weird ass Appeal to Lindsay Graham argument for a moment, what's your take? What do you think the House Democrats' endgame actually is?

Belz... · 28th November 2019, 08:22 AM

This is really boring. Can we get back to actual discussion about the issues?

autumn1971 · 28th November 2019, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

That's so sweet. But what's the point of the impeachment inquiry? Is it just jobsworths doing their jobs?

Jumping Jesus on a pogo-stick, it is about upholding the Constitution of the United States!

Republicans have abandoned that document

Belz... · 28th November 2019, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by autumn1971

Jumping Jesus on a pogo-stick, it is about upholding the Constitution of the United States!

Yeah but this assumes that anyone here should care about that.

autumn1971 · 28th November 2019, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Maybe many do try to stay informed. Everyone thinks their news is the correct news, unbiased and all that. It's a minefield of bullcrap.

People may actually believe CNN is still an impartial news source, or FOX. I can't think of a single source that I completely trust. Not even close.

I come here often to hear the "rest of the story" or at least get a few different takes on it. I learn more here than I can at any news site. Still have to sort through the bull

Which of us has the real news and the correct opinions? None of us.

I agree with you, especially the info I get here. I do read the opposite sides ideas.
We disagree about a lot, but not everything

Craig4 · 28th November 2019, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

He didn't seem to get a lot of straight answers either. Setting aside the weird ass Appeal to Lindsay Graham argument for a moment, what's your take? What do you think the House Democrats' endgame actually is?

Since it's all but certain that the Trumptrash in the Senate won't do their duty to the nation, it seems clear the goal is to get the information in front of the electorate.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 28th November 2019, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

He didn't seem to get a lot of straight answers either. Setting aside the weird ass Appeal to Lindsay Graham argument for a moment, what's your take? What do you think the House Democrats' endgame actually is?

You can't consistently post in bad faith and then act all surprised and hurt that people act as if you're posting in bad faith.

So no, thank you. I'm not interested in playing your games.

autumn1971 · 28th November 2019, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I don't read it much because I don't subscribe, but I see it as valuable because it's also owned by Murdoch. If it reports anything negative about Trump it's much harder for conservatives to write it off as "fake news." The WSJ needs to retain its credibility as a serious news source. Fox News has no such issue.

This illustrates something I try to say all the time; these are businesses, they rely on their model of truthful reporting making them money.

Fox News does not, it has more of a Weekly World News model of making money.

Why are so many Republicans denying that Capitalism works?

theprestige · 28th November 2019, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

This is really boring. Can we get back to actual discussion about the issues?

The House Democrats' goal, and whether they're succeeding at it, is probably the most interesting and important issue here.

Belz... · 28th November 2019, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

The House Democrats' goal, and whether they're succeeding at it, is probably the most interesting and important issue here.

So discuss that and stop getting sidetracked.

autumn1971 · 28th November 2019, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

The House Democrats' goal, and whether they're succeeding at it, is probably the most interesting and important issue here.

The House Democrats’ goal is upholding the Constitution by acting as a check on executive abuse.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

The Great Zaganza · 28th November 2019, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

The House Democrats' goal, and whether they're succeeding at it, is probably the most interesting and important issue here.

Why do you think that?
Would the goal of upholding US law be somehow become invalid if Democrats also would like to win the next election?

Shalamar · 28th November 2019, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

The House Democrats' goal, and whether they're succeeding at it, is probably the most interesting and important issue here.

Why do you and other conservatives feel that President Trump is above the law?

BobTheCoward · 28th November 2019, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

The House Democrats' goal, and whether they're succeeding at it, is probably the most interesting and important issue here.

No. The most important issue is what did Trump do and what should be the consequences of it.

phiwum · 28th November 2019, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I don't read it much because I don't subscribe, but I see it as valuable because it's also owned by Murdoch. If it reports anything negative about Trump it's much harder for conservatives to write it off as "fake news." The WSJ needs to retain its credibility as a serious news source. Fox News has no such issue.

The editorials tend to be pro-Trump. For example, a recent editorial argues that the judge's ruling McGahn must testify before Congress has made Congress king and paves the way for partisan harassment of the executive branch.

But the columns are often quite critical of Trump. Peggy Noonan (speechwriter for Reagan) is a good example.

Skeptic Ginger · 28th November 2019, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

The Big Dog was better at this.

Skeptic Ginger · 28th November 2019, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

No. The most important issue is what did Trump do and what should be the consequences of it.

One of your best posts, Bob.

calebprime · 28th November 2019, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

One of your best posts, Bob.

It's true. well done.

I think it better not to ruin it by nominating for the language award.

Segnosaur · 28th November 2019, 09:39 AM

Re: reasons for impeachment, even if efforts will likely fail in the senate, and Lindey Graham's quotes during Clinton's impeachment...

Originally Posted by theprestige

That's your argument for why House Democrats should pursue impeachment? Lindsey Graham is a hypocrite? Seems like a non sequitur to me.

Some people might actually think that Graham had an actual valid point... that integrity and honor are important features of the office of the president, and impeachment (even if it fails in removal) is a valuable tool because it highlights things that go against that integrity.

Now, the reason why that particular quote/video of Graham is so useful:

- Because it makes it harder to dismiss the impeachment as simply 'democratic talking points' when its actually a republican making the statement

- It highlights the lack of integrity that republicans currently exhibit.

acbytesla · 28th November 2019, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

The editorials tend to be pro-Trump. For example, a recent editorial argues that the judge's ruling McGahn must testify before Congress has made Congress king and paves the way for partisan harassment of the executive branch.

But the columns are often quite critical of Trump. Peggy Noonan (speechwriter for Reagan) is a good example.

Except it doesn't make Congress King. Congress has a Constitutional duty to perform government oversight. In other words it is their damn job to keep the executive in check. And it may not do that without transparency.

theprestige · 28th November 2019, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Why do you think that?
Would the goal of upholding US law be somehow become invalid if Democrats also would like to win the next election?

Look at it from a position of skeptical inquiry, not moral judgement. Of course the Democrat would also like to win the next election. And that's fine. If their goal is to win the next election, we can look at what they're doing, and whether or not it's working, without passing judgement on the propriety of the goal. Likewise if their goal is to uphold US law.

Likewise if their goal is to do both those things. Do you think we shouldn't examine what the goal is, and whether it's being achieved?

phiwum · 28th November 2019, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Except it doesn't make Congress King. Congress has a Constitutional duty to perform government oversight. In other words it is their damn job to keep the executive in check. And it may not do that without transparency.

I didn't say I agreed with the editorial. I mentioned it only to illustrate that the WSJ editorial board tends to a pro-Trump stance.

The opinion columns are often not supportive of Trump and the news content is reliably accurate.

acbytesla · 28th November 2019, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Look at it from a position of skeptical inquiry, not moral judgement. Of course the Democrat would also like to win the next election. And that's fine. If their goal is to win the next election, we can look at what they're doing, and whether or not it's working, without passing judgement on the propriety of the goal. Likewise if their goal is to uphold US law.

Likewise if their goal is to do both those things. Do you think we shouldn't examine what the goal is, and whether it's being achieved?

I don't think you can tell whether impeachment will lead to the Democrats winning the election. But impeachment is also about our founding principles. It is about controlling a disaster before it is too late. It's about maintaining the limits of the executive. It's about limiting Hitler's powers to Chancellor before he becomes Dur Fuhrer.

It's a dangerous game the Republicans are playing. And you should know that it is.

The Great Zaganza · 28th November 2019, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Do you think we shouldn't examine what the goal is, and whether it's being achieved?

I sure as **** don't think it has any priority compared to upholding the law: once the investigation is done you can wonder about ulterior motives, but if you are doing it during the process, you are clearly trying to shoot the messenger.

acbytesla · 28th November 2019, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

I didn't say I agreed with the editorial. I mentioned it only to illustrate that the WSJ editorial board tends to a pro-Trump stance.

The opinion columns are often not supportive of Trump and the news content is reliably accurate.

I know that and I didn't say you did. I was just pointing out their position was dishonest.

WilliamSeger · 28th November 2019, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Look at it from a position of skeptical inquiry, not moral judgement. Of course the Democrat would also like to win the next election. And that's fine. If their goal is to win the next election, we can look at what they're doing, and whether or not it's working, without passing judgement on the propriety of the goal. Likewise if their goal is to uphold US law.

Likewise if their goal is to do both those things. Do you think we shouldn't examine what the goal is, and whether it's being achieved?

It sounds like you are struggling with doubts about the theory that impeachment would be political poison for Democrats. Good.

shemp · 28th November 2019, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

The Big Dog was better at this.

Agreed. This is no fun anymore.

Paul2 · 28th November 2019, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

For example, a recent editorial argues that the judge's ruling McGahn must testify before Congress has made Congress king and paves the way for partisan harassment of the executive branch.

There is way too much wiggle room in the phrase "paves the way." One could just as well say that any prosecutor bringing an indictment "paves the way" for prosecutorial abuse.

Equivocation, slippery slope fallacy, rhetoric that ignores the substantive issues - did I miss anything?

Trebuchet · 28th November 2019, 11:00 AM

Trump claims he'd love for everybody, including himself, to testify, but he's doing the to protect future Presidents. Nixon made the same argument.

phiwum · 28th November 2019, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I know that and I didn't say you did. I was just pointing out their position was dishonest.

Okay. It wasn't clear to me whether you thought I was supporting the article.

acbytesla · 28th November 2019, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Trump claims he'd love for everybody, including himself, to testify, but he's doing the to protect future Presidents. Nixon made the same argument.

Trump isn't trying to protect anything but his big white fat ass.

smartcooky · 28th November 2019, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

<snip> But what's the point of the impeachment inquiry? Is it just jobsworths doing their jobs?

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Ask this guy....

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Originally Posted by theprestige

yt;dw

Oh, I'll bet you at least clicked "I AGREE" and saw who it was that PW was referring to... and then you either watched and decided to say you didn't or really did make like an ostrich.

IMO, you're being disingenuous, so in answer to your question in the first quote, I would say that you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job if Congress determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honour and integrity to the office.

That last part is what Lindsay "Flip Flop" Graham said in the video you claimed not to have watched.

Edited by zooterkin:

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

smartcooky · 28th November 2019, 11:41 AM

“The President’s actions are having a profound impact on our society. His misdeeds have caused many to mistrust elected officials. Cynicism is swelling among the grass roots. His breach of trust has eroded the public’s faith in the office of the Presidency.”

You'd be forgiven for thinking that this is a recent quote from a Democrat Congressman talking about Trump. It is in fact, a quote talking about Bill Clinton in 1999, from Senator Chuck Grassley - another Repugnican hypocrite. Lindsay "Flip Flop" Graham and Grassley aren't the only hypocrites, they are just the worst of a bad lot.

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/2/208950...nt-republicans

The only one of these who comes out with any honour at all is Susan Collins

1999 Clinton: “I believe that in order to convict, we must conclude from the evidence presented to us with no room for doubt that our Constitution will be injured and our democracy suffer should the President remain in office one moment more.

“In this instance, the claims against the President fail to reach this very high standard. Therefore, albeit reluctantly, I will vote to acquit William Jefferson Clinton on both counts.”

2019 Trump: “If there are articles of impeachment I would be a juror just as I was in the trial for President Clinton, and as a juror I think it’s inappropriate for me to reach conclusions about evidence or to comment on the proceedings in the House.”

Trebuchet · 28th November 2019, 11:58 AM

RINO!

Lurch · 28th November 2019, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Thanks.

PhantomWolf, is Graham's argument supposed to be your argument? Is that why you posted it?

Probably addressed before I scrolled further...

The point is to show Graham's rank hypocrisy. Back in '98 he was all fired up about cleansing the office of the Presidency, because Willy got a BJ from a consenting adult.

Now he stands behind a credibly accused sexual abuser who pays off his other side action with illegal campaign contributions. (Yeah, I know, this latter was before he was in office, but was in order to help get him into office.) Not to mention all the other rat douchery he's been up to.

To Graham and his lot, just one minor offense by a Dem demands the full measure of righteous wrath. But a Repub can do not wrong--even potentially gunning down some shlub on 5th Avenue, it would seem.

28th November 2019, 07:28 AM	#42
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Somewhere Else Posts: 4,600	Originally Posted by Horatius Back when I said "We need "So little doubt that even the most corrupt ******** in the Senate finally feel some shame in trying to publicly claim there's still some doubt" levels of evidence", I wasn't just thinking about Senators. That line applies to just about everyone still supporting the Republican Party at this point, which means you. There's no way you can't honestly see how bad the evidence against Trump is. The problem is, you apparently don't seem to care about that. You're happy playing these stupid reindeer games instead of doing what you know is right. So when I talk about "feel some shame in trying to publicly claim there's still some doubt" levels of evidence, I'm talking about you. These hearing need to continue until there's enough evidence on the table that even you finally throw your hands up and admit Trump needs to go, and needs to go now. It's only wrong when the Democrats/liberals/progs/etc do it. Otherwise it's just funny. 'LOL, look how upset the stooopid libs are at Trumps crimes and corruption! LOL!' I see it all over facebook. They literally do not care, because trump is on 'their side'.
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

28th November 2019, 07:45 AM	#43
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 10,255	Originally Posted by theprestige Thanks. PhantomWolf, is Graham's argument supposed to be your argument? Is that why you posted it? MY argument would be that Graham is nothing but a hypocrite.
	__________________ “Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”-Sen. Lindsey Graham

28th November 2019, 08:08 AM	#45
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 26,032	The Big Dog was better at this.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

28th November 2019, 08:22 AM	#47
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 86,962	This is really boring. Can we get back to actual discussion about the issues?
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

28th November 2019, 08:31 AM	#48
autumn1971 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,056	Originally Posted by theprestige That's so sweet. But what's the point of the impeachment inquiry? Is it just jobsworths doing their jobs? Jumping Jesus on a pogo-stick, it is about upholding the Constitution of the United States! Republicans have abandoned that document
autumn1971 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,056	__________________ 'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."' -The Bard

28th November 2019, 07:12 AM	#41
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 10,144	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza It's Graham talking about the Clinton Impeachment, and how vital it was to impeach even if the Senate would not convict. I wonder if he's watched these clips of his younger self recently. Impeachment is about "cleansing the office." Well said, senator!

28th November 2019, 07:55 AM	#44
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 39,580	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza MY argument would be that Graham is nothing but a hypocrite. That's your argument for why House Democrats should pursue impeachment? Lindsey Graham is a hypocrite? Seems like a non sequitur to me.

28th November 2019, 08:17 AM	#46
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 39,580	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim The Big Dog was better at this. He didn't seem to get a lot of straight answers either. Setting aside the weird ass Appeal to Lindsay Graham argument for a moment, what's your take? What do you think the House Democrats' endgame actually is?

28th November 2019, 08:32 AM	#49
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 86,962	Originally Posted by autumn1971 Jumping Jesus on a pogo-stick, it is about upholding the Constitution of the United States! Yeah but this assumes that anyone here should care about that.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

28th November 2019, 08:34 AM	#50
autumn1971 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,056	Originally Posted by mgidm86 Maybe many do try to stay informed. Everyone thinks their news is the correct news, unbiased and all that. It's a minefield of bullcrap. People may actually believe CNN is still an impartial news source, or FOX. I can't think of a single source that I completely trust. Not even close. I come here often to hear the "rest of the story" or at least get a few different takes on it. I learn more here than I can at any news site. Still have to sort through the bull Which of us has the real news and the correct opinions? None of us. I agree with you, especially the info I get here. I do read the opposite sides ideas. We disagree about a lot, but not everything
autumn1971 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,056	__________________ 'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."' -The Bard

28th November 2019, 08:35 AM	#51
Craig4 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State. Posts: 19,250	Originally Posted by theprestige He didn't seem to get a lot of straight answers either. Setting aside the weird ass Appeal to Lindsay Graham argument for a moment, what's your take? What do you think the House Democrats' endgame actually is? Since it's all but certain that the Trumptrash in the Senate won't do their duty to the nation, it seems clear the goal is to get the information in front of the electorate.
	__________________ A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.

28th November 2019, 08:38 AM	#52
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 26,032	Originally Posted by theprestige He didn't seem to get a lot of straight answers either. Setting aside the weird ass Appeal to Lindsay Graham argument for a moment, what's your take? What do you think the House Democrats' endgame actually is? You can't consistently post in bad faith and then act all surprised and hurt that people act as if you're posting in bad faith. So no, thank you. I'm not interested in playing your games.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

28th November 2019, 08:39 AM	#53
autumn1971 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,056	Originally Posted by Minoosh I don't read it much because I don't subscribe, but I see it as valuable because it's also owned by Murdoch. If it reports anything negative about Trump it's much harder for conservatives to write it off as "fake news." The WSJ needs to retain its credibility as a serious news source. Fox News has no such issue. This illustrates something I try to say all the time; these are businesses, they rely on their model of truthful reporting making them money. Fox News does not, it has more of a Weekly World News model of making money. Why are so many Republicans denying that Capitalism works?
autumn1971 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,056	__________________ 'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."' -The Bard

28th November 2019, 08:40 AM	#54
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 39,580	Originally Posted by Belz... This is really boring. Can we get back to actual discussion about the issues? The House Democrats' goal, and whether they're succeeding at it, is probably the most interesting and important issue here.

28th November 2019, 08:42 AM	#56
autumn1971 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,056	Originally Posted by theprestige The House Democrats' goal, and whether they're succeeding at it, is probably the most interesting and important issue here. The House Democrats’ goal is upholding the Constitution by acting as a check on executive abuse. Do you agree or disagree with this?
autumn1971 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,056	__________________ 'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."' -The Bard

28th November 2019, 08:45 AM	#57
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 10,255	Originally Posted by theprestige The House Democrats' goal, and whether they're succeeding at it, is probably the most interesting and important issue here. Why do you think that? Would the goal of upholding US law be somehow become invalid if Democrats also would like to win the next election?
	__________________ “Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”-Sen. Lindsey Graham

28th November 2019, 08:48 AM	#58
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Somewhere Else Posts: 4,600	Originally Posted by theprestige The House Democrats' goal, and whether they're succeeding at it, is probably the most interesting and important issue here. Why do you and other conservatives feel that President Trump is above the law?
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

28th November 2019, 09:13 AM	#59
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 17,958	Originally Posted by theprestige The House Democrats' goal, and whether they're succeeding at it, is probably the most interesting and important issue here. No. The most important issue is what did Trump do and what should be the consequences of it.

28th November 2019, 09:26 AM	#60
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,335	Originally Posted by Minoosh I don't read it much because I don't subscribe, but I see it as valuable because it's also owned by Murdoch. If it reports anything negative about Trump it's much harder for conservatives to write it off as "fake news." The WSJ needs to retain its credibility as a serious news source. Fox News has no such issue. The editorials tend to be pro-Trump. For example, a recent editorial argues that the judge's ruling McGahn must testify before Congress has made Congress king and paves the way for partisan harassment of the executive branch. But the columns are often quite critical of Trump. Peggy Noonan (speechwriter for Reagan) is a good example.

28th November 2019, 09:32 AM	#61
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 76,993	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim The Big Dog was better at this.
	__________________ That new avatar is cuteness overload. Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

28th November 2019, 09:34 AM	#62
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 76,993	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward No. The most important issue is what did Trump do and what should be the consequences of it. One of your best posts, Bob.
	__________________ That new avatar is cuteness overload. Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

28th November 2019, 09:38 AM	#63
calebprime moleman Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 12,487	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger One of your best posts, Bob. It's true. well done. I think it better not to ruin it by nominating for the language award.
calebprime moleman Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 12,487	__________________ Now you know for certain what the big wide world is good for. Last edited by calebprime; 28th November 2019 at 09:40 AM.

28th November 2019, 09:39 AM	#64
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 14,156	Re: reasons for impeachment, even if efforts will likely fail in the senate, and Lindey Graham's quotes during Clinton's impeachment... Originally Posted by theprestige That's your argument for why House Democrats should pursue impeachment? Lindsey Graham is a hypocrite? Seems like a non sequitur to me. Some people might actually think that Graham had an actual valid point... that integrity and honor are important features of the office of the president, and impeachment (even if it fails in removal) is a valuable tool because it highlights things that go against that integrity. Now, the reason why that particular quote/video of Graham is so useful: - Because it makes it harder to dismiss the impeachment as simply 'democratic talking points' when its actually a republican making the statement - It highlights the lack of integrity that republicans currently exhibit.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

28th November 2019, 09:43 AM	#65
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 23,216	Originally Posted by phiwum The editorials tend to be pro-Trump. For example, a recent editorial argues that the judge's ruling McGahn must testify before Congress has made Congress king and paves the way for partisan harassment of the executive branch. But the columns are often quite critical of Trump. Peggy Noonan (speechwriter for Reagan) is a good example. Except it doesn't make Congress King. Congress has a Constitutional duty to perform government oversight. In other words it is their damn job to keep the executive in check. And it may not do that without transparency.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

28th November 2019, 09:55 AM	#66
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 39,580	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza Why do you think that? Would the goal of upholding US law be somehow become invalid if Democrats also would like to win the next election? Look at it from a position of skeptical inquiry, not moral judgement. Of course the Democrat would also like to win the next election. And that's fine. If their goal is to win the next election, we can look at what they're doing, and whether or not it's working, without passing judgement on the propriety of the goal. Likewise if their goal is to uphold US law. Likewise if their goal is to do both those things. Do you think we shouldn't examine what the goal is, and whether it's being achieved?

28th November 2019, 10:16 AM	#67
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,335	Originally Posted by acbytesla Except it doesn't make Congress King. Congress has a Constitutional duty to perform government oversight. In other words it is their damn job to keep the executive in check. And it may not do that without transparency. I didn't say I agreed with the editorial. I mentioned it only to illustrate that the WSJ editorial board tends to a pro-Trump stance. The opinion columns are often not supportive of Trump and the news content is reliably accurate.
	Last edited by phiwum; 28th November 2019 at 10:17 AM.

28th November 2019, 10:19 AM	#68
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 23,216	Originally Posted by theprestige Look at it from a position of skeptical inquiry, not moral judgement. Of course the Democrat would also like to win the next election. And that's fine. If their goal is to win the next election, we can look at what they're doing, and whether or not it's working, without passing judgement on the propriety of the goal. Likewise if their goal is to uphold US law. Likewise if their goal is to do both those things. Do you think we shouldn't examine what the goal is, and whether it's being achieved? I don't think you can tell whether impeachment will lead to the Democrats winning the election. But impeachment is also about our founding principles. It is about controlling a disaster before it is too late. It's about maintaining the limits of the executive. It's about limiting Hitler's powers to Chancellor before he becomes Dur Fuhrer. It's a dangerous game the Republicans are playing. And you should know that it is.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . Last edited by acbytesla; 28th November 2019 at 10:22 AM.

28th November 2019, 10:20 AM	#69
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 10,255	Originally Posted by theprestige Do you think we shouldn't examine what the goal is, and whether it's being achieved? I sure as **** don't think it has any priority compared to upholding the law: once the investigation is done you can wonder about ulterior motives, but if you are doing it during the process, you are clearly trying to shoot the messenger.
	__________________ “Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”-Sen. Lindsey Graham

28th November 2019, 10:21 AM	#70
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 23,216	Originally Posted by phiwum I didn't say I agreed with the editorial. I mentioned it only to illustrate that the WSJ editorial board tends to a pro-Trump stance. The opinion columns are often not supportive of Trump and the news content is reliably accurate. I know that and I didn't say you did. I was just pointing out their position was dishonest.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

28th November 2019, 10:32 AM	#71
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,076	Originally Posted by theprestige Look at it from a position of skeptical inquiry, not moral judgement. Of course the Democrat would also like to win the next election. And that's fine. If their goal is to win the next election, we can look at what they're doing, and whether or not it's working, without passing judgement on the propriety of the goal. Likewise if their goal is to uphold US law. Likewise if their goal is to do both those things. Do you think we shouldn't examine what the goal is, and whether it's being achieved? It sounds like you are struggling with doubts about the theory that impeachment would be political poison for Democrats. Good.

28th November 2019, 10:33 AM	#72
shemp a flimsy character...perfidious and despised Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X Posts: 32,307	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim The Big Dog was better at this. Agreed. This is no fun anymore.
	__________________ "Shemp, you are the one fixed point in an ever-changing universe." - Beady "I don't want to live in a world without shemp." - Quarky "Real name? Xavier Jorge Gladdius Horatio McShrimp. No wonder he goes by shemp." - wasapi "...just as a magnet attracts iron filings, ~~Trump~~ shemp attracts, and is attracted to, louts." - George Will

28th November 2019, 10:40 AM	#73
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,428	Originally Posted by phiwum For example, a recent editorial argues that the judge's ruling McGahn must testify before Congress has made Congress king and paves the way for partisan harassment of the executive branch. There is way too much wiggle room in the phrase "paves the way." One could just as well say that any prosecutor bringing an indictment "paves the way" for prosecutorial abuse. Equivocation, slippery slope fallacy, rhetoric that ignores the substantive issues - did I miss anything?
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,428	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

28th November 2019, 11:00 AM	#74
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Great Northwet Posts: 23,840	Trump claims he'd love for everybody, including himself, to testify, but he's doing the to protect future Presidents. Nixon made the same argument.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

28th November 2019, 11:01 AM	#75
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,335	Originally Posted by acbytesla I know that and I didn't say you did. I was just pointing out their position was dishonest. Okay. It wasn't clear to me whether you thought I was supporting the article.

28th November 2019, 11:17 AM	#76
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 23,216	Originally Posted by Trebuchet Trump claims he'd love for everybody, including himself, to testify, but he's doing the to protect future Presidents. Nixon made the same argument. Trump isn't trying to protect anything but his big white fat ass.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .