[Continuation] House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3 - Page 3

JoeMorgue · 22nd January 2020, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I think we can call this the Kavanaugh Maneuver.

I've been calling it the "Susan Collins is very, very concerned... about the thing she is currently voting for" game.

plague311 · 22nd January 2020, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I've been calling it the "Susan Collins is very, very concerned... about the thing she is currently voting for" game.

That's some truth right there. There is another female (R) that does the same thing, though her name is escaping me at the moment.

Skeptic Ginger · 22nd January 2020, 01:36 PM

Sekulow is telling the news media 'quid pro quo' wasn't in the Articles. I suppose that means he's pretending it can't be introduced.

Trump's on now claiming his "transcript" was perfect again.

JoeMorgue · 22nd January 2020, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by plague311

That's some truth right there. There is another female (R) that does the same thing, though her name is escaping me at the moment.

Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) is probably who you're thinking off. A lot of "Oh I'm gonna be fair this is all very troubling" talk but yesterday she voted against witnesses and called Trump to reassure him that she didn't hate him.

Skeptic Ginger · 22nd January 2020, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by plague311

That's some truth right there. There is another female (R) that does the same thing, though her name is escaping me at the moment.

Murkowski from AK.

The Great Zaganza · 22nd January 2020, 01:40 PM

Yes, the Democrats are appealing to the American public - in the hope that they will convince the Republicans.
Trump's lawyers are making a show for an audience of One, i.e Trump.

Segnosaur · 22nd January 2020, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by plague311

Quote:

I've been calling it the "Susan Collins is very, very concerned... about the thing she is currently voting for" game.

That's some truth right there. There is another female (R) that does the same thing, though her name is escaping me at the moment.

Are you referring to Lisa Murkowski? (Senator from Alaska)

If so, I think she deserves a little more respect than Collins. After all, unlike Collins, she did vote against confirming Drunky McRapeface. (She did vote with the rest of the republicans on approving the rules; we will have to wait and see if she ends up going against Moscow Mitch later in the proceedings.)

JoeMorgue · 22nd January 2020, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Are you referring to Lisa Murkowski? (Senator from Alaska)

If so, I think she deserves a little more respect than Collins. After all, unlike Collins, she did vote against confirming Drunky McRapeface. (She did vote with the rest of the republicans on approving the rules; we will have to wait and see if she ends up going against Moscow Mitch later in the proceedings.)

She didn't vote No on Kavanaugh. She voted "Present," the same B.S. Tulsi pulled on voting to impeach Trump.

Steve · 22nd January 2020, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

This is just empty rhetoric and pointless name-calling.

It's the Republican way. Copy Trump

Segnosaur · 22nd January 2020, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Quote:

Are you referring to Lisa Murkowski? (Senator from Alaska)

If so, I think she deserves a little more respect than Collins. After all, unlike Collins, she did vote against confirming Drunky McRapeface.

She didn't vote No on Kavanaugh. She voted "Present," the same B.S. Tulsi pulled on voting to impeach Trump.

True, her vote was recorded as 'present'. But her vote was due to a result of 'pairing'... i.e. one of the republicans who was going to vote 'yes' was unable to attend so she came to an agreement to vote 'present' to basically cancel each other's vote.

(This is different than Tulsi's vote, which was based purely on her own preferences.)

https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-fac...vote-explained

theprestige · 22nd January 2020, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

It's the Republican way. Copy Trump

It's not, though. Not everybody on the right indulges in this kind of rhetoric.

plague311 · 22nd January 2020, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

True, her vote was recorded as 'present'. But her vote was due to a result of 'pairing'... i.e. one of the republicans who was going to vote 'yes' was unable to attend so she came to an agreement to vote 'present' to basically cancel each other's vote.

(This is different than Tulsi's vote, which was based purely on her own preferences.)

https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-fac...vote-explained

Still doesn't explain why she couldn't have just voted no. That article just explains why it was the best maneuver to cover her own ass by voting present.

It's what was good for her, it wasn't out of any desire to keep Kavanaugh out of the SCOTUS. It was actually a cop out vote, despite the article saying otherwise. It gave her the best of both sides, but I'm certainly not going to give her any props for it. **** her even more now that I know she did that.

thaiboxerken · 22nd January 2020, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's not, though. Not everybody on the right indulges in this kind of rhetoric.

Just the elected ones.

Cabbage · 22nd January 2020, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's not, though. Not everybody on the right indulges in this kind of rhetoric.

No, not everybody, but the current figurehead does, and that's pretty damned significant in itself.

BrooklynBaby · 22nd January 2020, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

This is just empty rhetoric and pointless name-calling.

I thought I made an important point. How does it compare to the number of times we've heard "bone spurs" in here? I would say my nonsense is just a drop in the bucket. In any case, Schiff has been talking about Russia for hours, and it is just boring.

Paul2 · 22nd January 2020, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I don't know why one would want to win to represent gullible people.

Because elected officials represent ALL the people in their district, state, etc.

You actually didn't know that or couldn't figure it out without asking me?

Paul2 · 22nd January 2020, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Seems unconstitutional on its face, limiting Roberts' power to "preside", as specified in the Constitution.

No?

Senate rules state a majority of the Senate can overrule the Chief Justice, and the power to make those rules comes from the Constitution, which gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, which the SCOTUS has previously interpreted to mean that the way in which the Senate holds the trial is their sole power. If the Senate tried to remove the Chief Justice as presiding officer, then the constitutional provision that says the CJ presides would apply.

So you've got a trial in which the jurors can override a ruling by the judge.

Segnosaur · 22nd January 2020, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

I thought I made an important point. How does it compare to the number of times we've heard "bone spurs" in here? I would say my nonsense is just a drop in the bucket.

You mean like how we regularly call Trump "Stubby McBonespurs"?

Well, lets see:
- Trump has claimed he had bone spurs that kept him out of Viet Nam, yet claims to be "pro military"
- Trump has bragged about his sexual prowness
So calling him "Stubby McBonespurs" highlights his hypocrisy, and is related to things Trump himself has said and/or done.

On the other hand, nick names like "Piglosi"? "Shiff for Brains"? None of it seems related to any of the actions of Adam Shiff or Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi has never (for example) insulted another person's appearance by comparing them to barnyard animals. She never worked on a farm. The "Piglosi" label has no wit, no intelligence. Same with "Shiff for Brains"... Shiff never goes around bragging about his intelligence, nor does he call other people stupid. Again, another label that has no wit or intelligence.

Now, I have actually used the nickname "Comrade Sanders" when referring to Bernie Sanders. Again, that nick name stems from his prior actions (such as his taking a honeymoon in Russia).

Quote:

In any case, Schiff has been talking about Russia for hours, and it is just boring.

Sorry if an attempt by a foreign government to corrupt the U.S. political system isn't exciting to you. But I guess you're happy with democracy going away if it happens to be a guy you like who gets into power (who just happens to be a racist/bigot.)

theprestige · 22nd January 2020, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

I thought I made an important point. How does it compare to the number of times we've heard "bone spurs" in here? I would say my nonsense is just a drop in the bucket.

Other people are pissing in my ear and telling me it's raining. You're pissing in my ear and telling me it's okay, because there's already a lot of piss in my ear. I'm just asking you to stop pissing in my ear. Is that a problem?

Paul2 · 22nd January 2020, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by dmaker

I have to say that I'm a bit puzzled by the lock step obedience to Trump during this impeachment. To date the argument has been fear of Trump rebuttal to any disloyalty and how it could hurt any GOP candidate in a primary, etc. OK, fine. Being under Trump's thumb removes the spine from GOP congress members. But here is a golden opportunity to get out from under. But they won't. Why not? Don't they want to be free of him? Just vote to remove him and you're free. If removed from office he would be a feckless windbag with no ability to harm anyone.

Trump's base would not like it, but what can they do? Vote democrat? Not likely. Why not do the right thing and get out form under at the same time? Could it be that it's more about the judges, and a rubber stamp for conservative policies than it is about fear of reprisal?

The current congressfolk would be primaried, that is, replaced during the primary for the next election by someone that the base liked and who, presumably, would say that they would not have impeached Trump.

The Republican Senators in deep red states will put their continued employment at serious risk if they vote to convict (even though their duty is to not let such considerations come into play).

Paul2 · 22nd January 2020, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm not sure a stack of unpassed, unsigned bills counts as "governing". It's not like policies are being enacted or agendas advanced by that stack of bills.

It's one of the key features of the US system, that the House of Representatives can't govern on its own. It requires both chambers of the legislature and the office of the president, working together, to actually do any governing.

The House has done it's part of governing, and has fulfilled its role in governance.

I call that governing (to the extent that their constitutional role allows). If that's not governing, then nothing that any House of representatives could conceivably do would be governing.

ETA: theprestige, I see your earlier reply about this issue, so you can ignore my post here.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 22nd January 2020, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Not blaming you, mind you, mischaracterized is Politico's words:

Mischaracterized or made a simple mistake?

"Mischaracterised" doesn't imply that it was deliberate.

Skeptic Ginger · 22nd January 2020, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Paul2

The current congressfolk would be primaried, that is, replaced during the primary for the next election by someone that the base liked and who, presumably, would say that they would not have impeached Trump.

The Republican Senators in deep red states will put their continued employment at serious risk if they vote to convict (even though their duty is to not let such considerations come into play).

Those God believers had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they swore to be honest.

Skeptic Ginger · 22nd January 2020, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

"Mischaracterised" doesn't imply that it was deliberate.

Yeah it does.

If you use it passively, maybe not. The [x] was mischaracterized.

But the minute you put an actor in the scene, it becomes that person who mischaracterized [x].

Generally one has to add an adverb to change the default definition of 'did it purposefully'.

'accidentally' or something like that.

Bottom line, Politico chose to use a more inflammatory title. No surprise, sensation and scandal is their business.

Shalamar · 22nd January 2020, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's not, though. Not everybody on the right indulges in this kind of rhetoric.

‘Libtards’

theprestige · 22nd January 2020, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Shalamar

‘Libtards’

I don't know what this means.

JoeMorgue · 22nd January 2020, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

True, her vote was recorded as 'present'. But her vote was due to a result of 'pairing'... i.e. one of the republicans who was going to vote 'yes' was unable to attend so she came to an agreement to vote 'present' to basically cancel each other's vote.

(This is different than Tulsi's vote, which was based purely on her own preferences.)

https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-fac...vote-explained

I guess I'm not getting why that makes a difference.

"Oh you're gonna vote for Drunky McRapeFace but can't make it? Well I'll just Null-vote in that case."

tyr_13 · 22nd January 2020, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Just the elected ones.

Originally Posted by Cabbage

No, not everybody, but the current figurehead does, and that's pretty damned significant in itself.

Not all of the right, or even Republicans, support Trump. It's one reason I try to use the qualifier 'the Trump GOP' when making such observations.

But it is not insignificant that this group is roughly 90+% of Republicans.

It reflects that either they are for incivility, for it as a show of strength (me and mine can get away with it, but you can't), or it isn't enough of a priority for them to hold their officials accountable for it in any way. There is no politician less civil than Trump. If you don't hold him nor anyone else on your side accountable for it, you will get more people who behave the same way.

Now this same principle applies to every other characteristic/behavior/etc in elected officials. The GOP won't hold their own accountable for being uncivil, then they will get more uncivil officials. They refused to hold accountable a Republican they themselves thought assaulted teenagers and got away with it, so they will get more sexual predator Republicans. They refused to hold that same Republican, and several more, accountable for violating the Constitution repeatedly, and that is what they have gotten more of.

Tolerating such things means they do not prioritize it as much as...tax cuts? Deregulation? Denying healthcare? Hurting the right people.

And here in this impeachment we see the same values at work. They refuse to hold calling for foreign attacks on our elections accountable, and then they got more of that. They refuse to support our agencies and truth, so they get less robust agencies and truth. They refuse to hold abuse of power accountable, so they will get more of their own abusing power.

Culture eats strategy for lunch. The Trump GOP insists on having a lawless, deplorable culture, so that is what they get. Encourage those on the right when they try to change that culture.

Skeptic Ginger · 22nd January 2020, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Not all of the right, or even Republicans, support Trump. It's one reason I try to use the qualifier 'the Trump GOP' when making such observations.

They need to step up to the plate or join the blame line no matter the excuses for what they are getting out of it..

theprestige · 22nd January 2020, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Not all of the right, or even Republicans, support Trump. It's one reason I try to use the qualifier 'the Trump GOP' when making such observations.

Huh. I always read that as "the GOP has been taken over by Trump", not "there is a faction of the GOP that is pro-Trump".

Shalamar · 22nd January 2020, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

That is some pretty special libtard snowflake stuff, especially from the folks who are okay with Ralph "Blackface" Northam.

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't know what this means.

Do as I say, not as I do?

tyr_13 · 22nd January 2020, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

They need to step up to the plate or join the blame line no matter the excuses for what they are getting out of it..

Like I said, encourage those who try to change that. Hell, I never thought I'd be giving Michael Steele props, but that is what is called for when he's trying to get the GOP to change for the better.

It is better when they acknowledge the reality that the GOP as a whole isn't there yet.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Huh. I always read that as "the GOP has been taken over by Trump", not "there is a faction of the GOP that is pro-Trump".

Yeah, it's not as clear as I'd like, but it's much faster than typing 'the Trump supporters in the GOP' and less dismissive sounding than 'Trumpers'. I thought context would get the point much of the time, but it's still a flaw.

alfaniner · 22nd January 2020, 04:37 PM

That guy shouting in the gallery a few minutes ago? That was Trump.

theprestige · 22nd January 2020, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Shalamar

Do as I say, not as I do?

Good point. Thank you. I'll try to be better in the future.

DallasDad · 22nd January 2020, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

That guy shouting in the gallery a few minutes ago? That was Trump.

I couldn't catch what the shouter said, or who it was. Was it one of the Senators? Does anyone know what he said?

Squeegee Beckenheim · 22nd January 2020, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Yeah it does.

It really doesn't.

Quote:

Generally one has to add an adverb to change the default definition of 'did it purposefully'.

'accidentally' or something like that.

Other way round. In order to imply that it was deliberate you have to add an adverb, such as "deliberately".

Here's an example of a definition that doesn't imply "did it purposefully".

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...ischaracterize

Quote:

mischaracterize
in British English
or mischaracterise (ˌmɪsˈkærɪktəˌraɪz)
VERB (transitive)
to characterize in an incorrect or misleading manner

Can you provide a link to a dictionary that defines in in a way that does imply what you are calling the "default definition"?

BrooklynBaby · 22nd January 2020, 05:38 PM

Schiff's top 7 impeachment lies:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-top...t-impeachment/

Oh, just a reminder the transcript of Schiff's 8 hour interview with IG Atkinson is still hidden from Republicans. Also, he allowed no witnesses to be called by Republicans unless they were on Schiff's list.

alfaniner · 22nd January 2020, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by DallasDad

I couldn't catch what the shouter said, or who it was. Was it one of the Senators? Does anyone know what he said?

I highly doubt it was one of the Senators or it would be much more newsworthy. As it is, I doubt the incident will barely get a mention in the media, much less what the guy said.

theprestige · 22nd January 2020, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by plague311

Duly noted. Thanks.

So it really does boil down to nothing more than "Orange man bad"?

I think I lost the thread of this conversation. What really boils down?

Stacyhs · 22nd January 2020, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

That guy shouting in the gallery a few minutes ago? That was Trump.

Unsurprisingly, it was a pro-Trump protester:

Quote:

The protester was escorted out of the chamber within seconds, and Jeffries resumed his remarks, but the man continued to scream loudly just outside the chamber, on the third floor near the press gallery.

He could be heard yelling, "Schumer is the devil," "Dismiss the trial of impeachment," and he repeatedly mentioned abortion, as he was arrested and led away by Capitol Police. He was charged with unlawful conduct, police said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tru...liveBlogHeader

22nd January 2020, 01:23 PM	#81
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,605	Originally Posted by Segnosaur I think we can call this the Kavanaugh Maneuver. I've been calling it the "Susan Collins is very, very concerned... about the thing she is currently voting for" game.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

22nd January 2020, 01:31 PM	#82
plague311 Great minds think... Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Dakota Posts: 8,461	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue I've been calling it the "Susan Collins is very, very concerned... about the thing she is currently voting for" game. That's some truth right there. There is another female (R) that does the same thing, though her name is escaping me at the moment.
	__________________ "Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher “There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

22nd January 2020, 01:36 PM	#84
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,605	Originally Posted by plague311 That's some truth right there. There is another female (R) that does the same thing, though her name is escaping me at the moment. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) is probably who you're thinking off. A lot of "Oh I'm gonna be fair this is all very troubling" talk but yesterday she voted against witnesses and called Trump to reassure him that she didn't hate him.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate." Last edited by JoeMorgue; 22nd January 2020 at 01:39 PM.

22nd January 2020, 01:40 PM	#86
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,627	Yes, the Democrats are appealing to the American public - in the hope that they will convince the Republicans. Trump's lawyers are making a show for an audience of One, i.e Trump.
	__________________ So what are you going to do about it, huh? What would an intellectual do? What would Plato do?

22nd January 2020, 01:44 PM	#87
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 17,103	Originally Posted by plague311 Quote: I've been calling it the "Susan Collins is very, very concerned... about the thing she is currently voting for" game. That's some truth right there. There is another female (R) that does the same thing, though her name is escaping me at the moment. Are you referring to Lisa Murkowski? (Senator from Alaska) If so, I think she deserves a little more respect than Collins. After all, unlike Collins, she did vote against confirming Drunky McRapeface. (She did vote with the rest of the republicans on approving the rules; we will have to wait and see if she ends up going against Moscow Mitch later in the proceedings.)
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

22nd January 2020, 01:36 PM	#83
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,833	Sekulow is telling the news media 'quid pro quo' wasn't in the Articles. I suppose that means he's pretending it can't be introduced. Trump's on now claiming his "transcript" was perfect again.

22nd January 2020, 01:38 PM	#85
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,833	Originally Posted by plague311 That's some truth right there. There is another female (R) that does the same thing, though her name is escaping me at the moment. Murkowski from AK.

22nd January 2020, 01:47 PM	#88
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,605	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Are you referring to Lisa Murkowski? (Senator from Alaska) If so, I think she deserves a little more respect than Collins. After all, unlike Collins, she did vote against confirming Drunky McRapeface. (She did vote with the rest of the republicans on approving the rules; we will have to wait and see if she ends up going against Moscow Mitch later in the proceedings.) She didn't vote No on Kavanaugh. She voted "Present," the same B.S. Tulsi pulled on voting to impeach Trump.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

22nd January 2020, 02:13 PM	#89
Steve Philosopher Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 8,366	Originally Posted by theprestige This is just empty rhetoric and pointless name-calling. It's the Republican way. Copy Trump
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

22nd January 2020, 02:20 PM	#90
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 17,103	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Quote: Are you referring to Lisa Murkowski? (Senator from Alaska) If so, I think she deserves a little more respect than Collins. After all, unlike Collins, she did vote against confirming Drunky McRapeface. She didn't vote No on Kavanaugh. She voted "Present," the same B.S. Tulsi pulled on voting to impeach Trump. True, her vote was recorded as 'present'. But her vote was due to a result of 'pairing'... i.e. one of the republicans who was going to vote 'yes' was unable to attend so she came to an agreement to vote 'present' to basically cancel each other's vote. (This is different than Tulsi's vote, which was based purely on her own preferences.) https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-fac...vote-explained
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

22nd January 2020, 02:23 PM	#91
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,532	Originally Posted by Steve It's the Republican way. Copy Trump It's not, though. Not everybody on the right indulges in this kind of rhetoric.

22nd January 2020, 02:26 PM	#92
plague311 Great minds think... Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Dakota Posts: 8,461	Originally Posted by Segnosaur True, her vote was recorded as 'present'. But her vote was due to a result of 'pairing'... i.e. one of the republicans who was going to vote 'yes' was unable to attend so she came to an agreement to vote 'present' to basically cancel each other's vote. (This is different than Tulsi's vote, which was based purely on her own preferences.) https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-fac...vote-explained Still doesn't explain why she couldn't have just voted no. That article just explains why it was the best maneuver to cover her own ass by voting present. It's what was good for her, it wasn't out of any desire to keep Kavanaugh out of the SCOTUS. It was actually a cop out vote, despite the article saying otherwise. It gave her the best of both sides, but I'm certainly not going to give her any props for it. **** her even more now that I know she did that.
	__________________ "Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher “There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

22nd January 2020, 02:46 PM	#93
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,706	Originally Posted by theprestige It's not, though. Not everybody on the right indulges in this kind of rhetoric. Just the elected ones.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

22nd January 2020, 02:47 PM	#94
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598	Originally Posted by theprestige It's not, though. Not everybody on the right indulges in this kind of rhetoric. No, not everybody, but the current figurehead does, and that's pretty damned significant in itself.
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598

22nd January 2020, 02:48 PM	#95
BrooklynBaby Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 1,106	Originally Posted by theprestige This is just empty rhetoric and pointless name-calling. I thought I made an important point. How does it compare to the number of times we've heard "bone spurs" in here? I would say my nonsense is just a drop in the bucket. In any case, Schiff has been talking about Russia for hours, and it is just boring.
	Last edited by BrooklynBaby; 22nd January 2020 at 02:51 PM. Reason: add

22nd January 2020, 02:58 PM	#96
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,585	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I don't know why one would want to win to represent gullible people. Because elected officials represent ALL the people in their district, state, etc. You actually didn't know that or couldn't figure it out without asking me?
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,585	__________________ 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

22nd January 2020, 03:05 PM	#97
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,585	Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B Seems unconstitutional on its face, limiting Roberts' power to "preside", as specified in the Constitution. No? Senate rules state a majority of the Senate can overrule the Chief Justice, and the power to make those rules comes from the Constitution, which gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, which the SCOTUS has previously interpreted to mean that the way in which the Senate holds the trial is their sole power. If the Senate tried to remove the Chief Justice as presiding officer, then the constitutional provision that says the CJ presides would apply. So you've got a trial in which the jurors can override a ruling by the judge.
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,585	__________________ 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

22nd January 2020, 03:06 PM	#98
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 17,103	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby I thought I made an important point. How does it compare to the number of times we've heard "bone spurs" in here? I would say my nonsense is just a drop in the bucket. You mean like how we regularly call Trump "Stubby McBonespurs"? Well, lets see: - Trump has claimed he had bone spurs that kept him out of Viet Nam, yet claims to be "pro military" - Trump has bragged about his sexual prowness So calling him "Stubby McBonespurs" highlights his hypocrisy, and is related to things Trump himself has said and/or done. On the other hand, nick names like "Piglosi"? "Shiff for Brains"? None of it seems related to any of the actions of Adam Shiff or Nancy Pelosi Pelosi has never (for example) insulted another person's appearance by comparing them to barnyard animals. She never worked on a farm. The "Piglosi" label has no wit, no intelligence. Same with "Shiff for Brains"... Shiff never goes around bragging about his intelligence, nor does he call other people stupid. Again, another label that has no wit or intelligence. Now, I have actually used the nickname "Comrade Sanders" when referring to Bernie Sanders. Again, that nick name stems from his prior actions (such as his taking a honeymoon in Russia). Quote: In any case, Schiff has been talking about Russia for hours, and it is just boring. Sorry if an attempt by a foreign government to corrupt the U.S. political system isn't exciting to you. But I guess you're happy with democracy going away if it happens to be a guy you like who gets into power (who just happens to be a racist/bigot.)
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot Last edited by Segnosaur; 22nd January 2020 at 03:27 PM.

22nd January 2020, 03:07 PM	#100
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,585	Originally Posted by dmaker I have to say that I'm a bit puzzled by the lock step obedience to Trump during this impeachment. To date the argument has been fear of Trump rebuttal to any disloyalty and how it could hurt any GOP candidate in a primary, etc. OK, fine. Being under Trump's thumb removes the spine from GOP congress members. But here is a golden opportunity to get out from under. But they won't. Why not? Don't they want to be free of him? Just vote to remove him and you're free. If removed from office he would be a feckless windbag with no ability to harm anyone. Trump's base would not like it, but what can they do? Vote democrat? Not likely. Why not do the right thing and get out form under at the same time? Could it be that it's more about the judges, and a rubber stamp for conservative policies than it is about fear of reprisal? The current congressfolk would be primaried, that is, replaced during the primary for the next election by someone that the base liked and who, presumably, would say that they would not have impeached Trump. The Republican Senators in deep red states will put their continued employment at serious risk if they vote to convict (even though their duty is to not let such considerations come into play).
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,585	__________________ 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

22nd January 2020, 03:09 PM	#101
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,585	Originally Posted by theprestige I'm not sure a stack of unpassed, unsigned bills counts as "governing". It's not like policies are being enacted or agendas advanced by that stack of bills. It's one of the key features of the US system, that the House of Representatives can't govern on its own. It requires both chambers of the legislature and the office of the president, working together, to actually do any governing. The House has done it's part of governing, and has fulfilled its role in governance. I call that governing (to the extent that their constitutional role allows). If that's not governing, then nothing that any House of representatives could conceivably do would be governing. ETA: theprestige, I see your earlier reply about this issue, so you can ignore my post here.
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,585	__________________ 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 Last edited by Paul2; 22nd January 2020 at 03:11 PM.

22nd January 2020, 03:12 PM	#102
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,239	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Not blaming you, mind you, mischaracterized is Politico's words: Mischaracterized or made a simple mistake? "Mischaracterised" doesn't imply that it was deliberate.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

22nd January 2020, 03:30 PM	#103
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,833	Originally Posted by Paul2 The current congressfolk would be primaried, that is, replaced during the primary for the next election by someone that the base liked and who, presumably, would say that they would not have impeached Trump. The Republican Senators in deep red states will put their continued employment at serious risk if they vote to convict (even though their duty is to not let such considerations come into play). Those God believers had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they swore to be honest.

22nd January 2020, 03:37 PM	#104
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,833	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim "Mischaracterised" doesn't imply that it was deliberate. Yeah it does. If you use it passively, maybe not. The [x] was mischaracterized. But the minute you put an actor in the scene, it becomes that person who mischaracterized [x]. Generally one has to add an adverb to change the default definition of 'did it purposefully'. 'accidentally' or something like that. Bottom line, Politico chose to use a more inflammatory title. No surprise, sensation and scandal is their business.

22nd January 2020, 03:52 PM	#105
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Somewhere Else Posts: 4,929	Originally Posted by theprestige It's not, though. Not everybody on the right indulges in this kind of rhetoric. ‘Libtards’
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

22nd January 2020, 03:56 PM	#106
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,532	Originally Posted by Shalamar ‘Libtards’ I don't know what this means.

22nd January 2020, 04:15 PM	#107
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,605	Originally Posted by Segnosaur True, her vote was recorded as 'present'. But her vote was due to a result of 'pairing'... i.e. one of the republicans who was going to vote 'yes' was unable to attend so she came to an agreement to vote 'present' to basically cancel each other's vote. (This is different than Tulsi's vote, which was based purely on her own preferences.) https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-fac...vote-explained I guess I'm not getting why that makes a difference. "Oh you're gonna vote for Drunky McRapeFace but can't make it? Well I'll just Null-vote in that case."
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

22nd January 2020, 04:16 PM	#108
tyr_13 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 16,411	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Just the elected ones. Originally Posted by Cabbage No, not everybody, but the current figurehead does, and that's pretty damned significant in itself. Not all of the right, or even Republicans, support Trump. It's one reason I try to use the qualifier 'the Trump GOP' when making such observations. But it is not insignificant that this group is roughly 90+% of Republicans. It reflects that either they are for incivility, for it as a show of strength (me and mine can get away with it, but you can't), or it isn't enough of a priority for them to hold their officials accountable for it in any way. There is no politician less civil than Trump. If you don't hold him nor anyone else on your side accountable for it, you will get more people who behave the same way. Now this same principle applies to every other characteristic/behavior/etc in elected officials. The GOP won't hold their own accountable for being uncivil, then they will get more uncivil officials. They refused to hold accountable a Republican they themselves thought assaulted teenagers and got away with it, so they will get more sexual predator Republicans. They refused to hold that same Republican, and several more, accountable for violating the Constitution repeatedly, and that is what they have gotten more of. Tolerating such things means they do not prioritize it as much as...tax cuts? Deregulation? Denying healthcare? Hurting the right people. And here in this impeachment we see the same values at work. They refuse to hold calling for foreign attacks on our elections accountable, and then they got more of that. They refuse to support our agencies and truth, so they get less robust agencies and truth. They refuse to hold abuse of power accountable, so they will get more of their own abusing power. Culture eats strategy for lunch. The Trump GOP insists on having a lawless, deplorable culture, so that is what they get. Encourage those on the right when they try to change that culture.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

22nd January 2020, 04:25 PM	#109
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,833	Originally Posted by tyr_13 Not all of the right, or even Republicans, support Trump. It's one reason I try to use the qualifier 'the Trump GOP' when making such observations. They need to step up to the plate or join the blame line no matter the excuses for what they are getting out of it..

22nd January 2020, 04:25 PM	#110
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,532	Originally Posted by tyr_13 Not all of the right, or even Republicans, support Trump. It's one reason I try to use the qualifier 'the Trump GOP' when making such observations. Huh. I always read that as "the GOP has been taken over by Trump", not "there is a faction of the GOP that is pro-Trump".

22nd January 2020, 04:30 PM	#111
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Somewhere Else Posts: 4,929	Originally Posted by theprestige That is some pretty special libtard snowflake stuff, especially from the folks who are okay with Ralph "Blackface" Northam. Originally Posted by theprestige I don't know what this means. Do as I say, not as I do?
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

22nd January 2020, 04:32 PM	#112
tyr_13 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 16,411	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger They need to step up to the plate or join the blame line no matter the excuses for what they are getting out of it.. Like I said, encourage those who try to change that. Hell, I never thought I'd be giving Michael Steele props, but that is what is called for when he's trying to get the GOP to change for the better. It is better when they acknowledge the reality that the GOP as a whole isn't there yet. Originally Posted by theprestige Huh. I always read that as "the GOP has been taken over by Trump", not "there is a faction of the GOP that is pro-Trump". Yeah, it's not as clear as I'd like, but it's much faster than typing 'the Trump supporters in the GOP' and less dismissive sounding than 'Trumpers'. I thought context would get the point much of the time, but it's still a flaw.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

22nd January 2020, 04:37 PM	#113
alfaniner Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Sorth Dakonsin Posts: 24,857	That guy shouting in the gallery a few minutes ago? That was Trump.
	__________________ Science is self-correcting. Woo is self-contradicting.

22nd January 2020, 04:38 PM	#114
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,532	Originally Posted by Shalamar Do as I say, not as I do? Good point. Thank you. I'll try to be better in the future.

22nd January 2020, 04:44 PM	#115
DallasDad Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 902	Originally Posted by alfaniner That guy shouting in the gallery a few minutes ago? That was Trump. I couldn't catch what the shouter said, or who it was. Was it one of the Senators? Does anyone know what he said?
DallasDad Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 902

22nd January 2020, 05:26 PM	#116
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,239	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Yeah it does. It really doesn't. Quote: Generally one has to add an adverb to change the default definition of 'did it purposefully'. 'accidentally' or something like that. Other way round. In order to imply that it was deliberate you have to add an adverb, such as "deliberately". Here's an example of a definition that doesn't imply "did it purposefully". https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...ischaracterize Quote: mischaracterize in British English or mischaracterise (ˌmɪsˈkærɪktəˌraɪz) VERB (transitive) to characterize in an incorrect or misleading manner Can you provide a link to a dictionary that defines in in a way that does imply what you are calling the "default definition"?
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.