ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , impeachment , Mitch McConnell , partisanship , partisanship charges , partisanship issues , Trump impeachment

Reply
Old 13th December 2019, 06:13 AM   #1
ChristianProgressive
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,715
Mitch McConnell is openly conspiring with Trump on Impeachment

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...on-impeachment

The fix is formally in. Traitor Trump has openly added jury tampering to his list of crimes.

The American Experiment is dead.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 06:19 AM   #2
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,793
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...on-impeachment

The fix is formally in. Traitor Trump has openly added jury tampering to his list of crimes.

The American Experiment is dead.
It isn't a court room. Senators are supposed to be partial.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 06:23 AM   #3
ChristianProgressive
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,715
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It isn't a court room. Senators are supposed to be partial.
In the case of Impeachment, it IS a trial. And the "jury" and the "court" are supposed to be neutral and put the good of the nation first.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 06:28 AM   #4
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,793
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
In the case of Impeachment, it IS a trial. And the "jury" and the "court" are supposed to be neutral and put the good of the nation first.
I disagree. At no time do they lose their role as representative. If being impartial is against the interest of their constituents, then being impartial would violate their duty.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 06:36 AM   #5
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20,151
This is a shocking development for all those that believed that the Republican leader of the majority Republican house is not going to be impartial when bringing impeachment hearings against the republican president.

Shocking, I tells ya.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 06:44 AM   #6
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,444
It's hard to say exactly when it started, but we're living in the era of the imperial presidency. It's inconceivable that Republicans would ever impeach one of their own, and I really doubt that Democrats would at this point either. It's hard to imagine either party getting a super-majority in the Senate, so the impeachment power is essentially neutralized.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 06:47 AM   #7
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20,151
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It's hard to say exactly when it started, but we're living in the era of the imperial presidency. It's inconceivable that Republicans would ever impeach one of their own, and I really doubt that Democrats would at this point either. It's hard to imagine either party getting a super-majority in the Senate, so the impeachment power is essentially neutralized.

I've been saying for some time that impeachment is a practical impossibility and, to all intents and purposes, not something that actually exists in the US system.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 06:53 AM   #8
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,889
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It's hard to say exactly when it started
Reagan.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:01 AM   #9
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,444
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I've been saying for some time that impeachment is a practical impossibility and, to all intents and purposes, not something that actually exists in the US system.
It's probably been true for a while, but there really hasn't been a test case to fully demonstrate it until Trump.

Trump's abuse of the office is exactly what the Founders had in mind when the included impeachment as a remedy.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:03 AM   #10
Armitage72
Illuminator
 
Armitage72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,745
"I said I was coordinating with the White House. We want to make sure President Pence's transition is smooth."

A fantasy, I know.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:07 AM   #11
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,919
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I've been saying for some time that impeachment is a practical impossibility and, to all intents and purposes, not something that actually exists in the US system.
The way Impeachment is setup currently ensures it's only an option in scenarios where it could never practically work.

25th Amendment is pretty much the same way. The only possible non-insane scenarios it would be invokable in are the exact scenarios where it's certain within a statistical rounding error to not happen.

Essentially impeachment is only an option in scenarios where normal checks and balances would already be working so it's not necessary. If there's enough people in Congress to agree to impeach a President then that same Congress is already keeping him in check. Likewise a Congress the lets a President get away with anything to the point we have to consider impeaching them, well then they would not impeach them.

Not least of all because no Congress wants to answer the "Why did you let it get this bad?" question.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 13th December 2019 at 07:10 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:17 AM   #12
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,217
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Reagan.
Wilson or FDR
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:20 AM   #13
Brainiac
Thinker
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 159
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It isn't a court room. Senators are supposed to be partial.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I disagree. At no time do they lose their role as representative. If being impartial is against the interest of their constituents, then being impartial would violate their duty.
That's an interesting take. I completely disagree with it, and I suspect I'm not the only one.

Senators aren't supposed to blindly rubber-stamp whatever their constituents want. They're supposed to intelligently represent their constituents. That includes gathering the facts, considering the facts, voting their conscience, and not simply basing their votes on what will get them re-elected.

That kind of thinking is exactly what is wrong with the USA today. It's certainly not the way the Republicans in Congress acted during the Watergate hearings.

How things have changed.
Brainiac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:24 AM   #14
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,793
Originally Posted by Brainiac View Post
That's an interesting take. I completely disagree with it, and I suspect I'm not the only one.

Senators aren't supposed to blindly rubber-stamp whatever their constituents want. They're supposed to intelligently represent their constituents. That includes gathering the facts, considering the facts, voting their conscience, and not simply basing their votes on what will get them re-elected.

That kind of thinking is exactly what is wrong with the USA today. It's certainly not the way the Republicans in Congress acted during the Watergate hearings.

How things have changed.
But that still doesn't describe impartiality.


ETA: I also don't understand what voting your conscience means in a representative role. How are you so egotistical that you would think your moral position is superior to the moral position you perceive of the people who voted for you? If you have such low regard for the why are you wishing to represent them?

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 13th December 2019 at 07:30 AM.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:31 AM   #15
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 3,999
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
In the case of Impeachment, it IS a trial. And the "jury" and the "court" are supposed to be neutral and put the good of the nation first.
There is specific direct precedent from the Clinton impeachment that the Senate are not jurors.

ETA: The Tom Harkin objection

https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stor...ent.objection/

Last edited by Suddenly; 13th December 2019 at 07:32 AM.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:36 AM   #16
Brainiac
Thinker
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 159
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
But that still doesn't describe impartiality.


ETA: I also don't understand what voting your conscience means in a representative role. How are you so egotistical that you would think your moral position is superior to the moral position you perceive of the people who voted for you? If you have such low regard for the why are you wishing to represent them?
You and I clearly have different ideas about what representative government means.
Brainiac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:37 AM   #17
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,919
An impeachment is an impeachment. It's its own metaphor. Any language we use that isn't specifically tailored to it is going to be imprecise at best.

It's a trial but also sort of a trial but not. It's a political decision but also sort of not. It's a legal thing but also sort of not.

And we've only had 4(ish) of these things in the country's history, Congress has some pretty wide latitude to tailor the exact specifics of the nuts and bolts of the process to each scenario, and they all happened under wildly different social/political environments so I don't think we can really start "Impeachment Trend Data Mining" at this point.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 13th December 2019 at 07:46 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:41 AM   #18
Brainiac
Thinker
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 159
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
There is specific direct precedent from the Clinton impeachment that the Senate are not jurors.

ETA: The Tom Harkin objection

https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stor...ent.objection/

Posting that article isn't really an effective argument that the Senate isn't a jury. The decision was that the Senate is the entire court, not JUST the jury.

Quote:
"I object to the use and the continued use of the word jurors," Harkin said in the first vocal objection of the trial. He spoke up during the final opening statement of the night by Rep. Bob Barr (R-Georgia).

Rehnquist ruled in Harkin's favor. "The senator from Iowa's objection is well taken," the chief justice said. "The Senate is not simply a jury, it is a court in this case. Therefore counsel should refrain from referring to senators as jurors."
Brainiac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:45 AM   #19
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,788
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
"I said I was coordinating with the White House. We want to make sure President Pence's transition is smooth."

A fantasy, I know.
I know you're joking but I suspect McConnell considers Pence incompetent. Ironic considering Trump actually is incompetent.
__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:46 AM   #20
slyjoe
Master Poster
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 2,158
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I disagree. At no time do they lose their role as representative. If being impartial is against the interest of their constituents, then being impartial would violate their duty.
They take one oath - what oath is that? I'm sure you can tell me.

The interests of their constituents is a political calculation. Most Senators and Representatives don't even know what the interests of their constituents are.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:47 AM   #21
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 23,684
I was appalled to see that snippet on the news this morning. The branches are supposed to be separate but equal, and here McConnell says right out that he is working with the White House. This would be just as wrong if he were a Democrat trying to work out a deal.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:47 AM   #22
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,559
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
An impeachment is an impeachment. It's its own metaphor. Any language we use that isn't specifically tailored to it is going to be imprecise at best.

It's a trail but also sort of a trial but not. It's a political decision but also sort of not. It's a legal thing but also sort of not.

And we've only had 4(ish) of these things in the country's history, Congress has some pretty wide latitude to tailor the exact specifics of the nuts and bolts of the process to each scenario, and they all happened under wildly different social/political environments so I don't think we can really start "Impeachment Trend Data Mining" at this point.
I fully expect this will be the last attempt at impeachment ever. The rules will be changed to prevent the possibility from arising again.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:51 AM   #23
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,919
Yeah Bob, spare us the "We can't do anything about Trump because we had a sudden onset case of the morals" argument.

Politicians who play even the cleanest version of politics that's possible doing the whole "Oh noes... I can't do that because of my... *pause for dramatic effect* MORAL DUTY.... *cough*that I've completely ignored multiple times for reasons far less important then this.*cough*" can take the longest walk the can manage off the shortest pier they can find.

I don't buy it when the Democrats/Their Supporters do the whole "Oh we could beat Trump... but that would mean fighting dirty and no we can't do that we're just too pure and innocent" when... they've certainly done it before for less important reasons and I don't buy any version of it from the Republicans or their hangers on either.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 13th December 2019 at 07:55 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 07:55 AM   #24
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,793
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
They take one oath - what oath is that? I'm sure you can tell me.

The interests of their constituents is a political calculation. Most Senators and Representatives don't even know what the interests of their constituents are.
and I'm describing how one fulfills that oath
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:00 AM   #25
slyjoe
Master Poster
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 2,158
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
and I'm describing how one fulfills that oath
Well, you failed.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

If the interests of constituents are against the Constitution, these reps are supposed to support the Constitution.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:03 AM   #26
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,793
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
Well, you failed.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

If the interests of constituents are against the Constitution, these reps are supposed to support the Constitution.
I agree. In the event that the constituents are trying to get the representative to certify the electoral vote for a person who is 32 years old, they shouldn't do it. But the vast majority of issues are not Constitutional issues. And being a jerk during an impeachment certainly doesn't violate the Constitution.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:08 AM   #27
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,793
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Yeah Bob, spare us the "We can't do anything about Trump because we had a sudden onset case of the morals" argument.

Politicians who play even the cleanest version of politics that's possible doing the whole "Oh noes... I can't do that because of my... *pause for dramatic effect* MORAL DUTY.... *cough*that I've completely ignored multiple times for reasons far less important then this.*cough*" can take the longest walk the can manage off the shortest pier they can find.

I don't buy it when the Democrats/Their Supporters do the whole "Oh we could beat Trump... but that would mean fighting dirty and no we can't do that we're just too pure and innocent" when... they've certainly done it before for less important reasons and I don't buy any version of it from the Republicans or their hangers on either.
In my statements about voting one's conscience, that is coming from a position of my dislike of the US Constitution specifically and representative democracy in general.

So my statement is a pox on everyone and not a recommendation.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:11 AM   #28
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,919
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
In my statements about voting one's conscience, that is coming from a position of my dislike of the US Constitution specifically and representative democracy in general.

So my statement is a pox on everyone and not a recommendation.
Oh so it's nonsense that has nothing to do with what anyone is talking about.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:14 AM   #29
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,559
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Oh so it's nonsense that has nothing to do with what anyone is talking about.
Welcome to the forum!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:16 AM   #30
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,793
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Oh so it's nonsense that has nothing to do with what anyone is talking about.
Brainiac brought up voting your conscience in post 13. So someone was talking about it before I made a comment about morals.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:17 AM   #31
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,340
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I fully expect this will be the last attempt at impeachment ever. The rules will be changed to prevent the possibility from arising again.
You're predicting a constitutional amendment that takes impeachment off the table?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:20 AM   #32
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,559
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You're predicting a constitutional amendment that takes impeachment off the table?
No, just the addition of a bunch of murky procedural rules that will make the question never arise. Like how abortion is legal in every state but nearly impossible in many due to additional laws to death-by-a-thousand-cuts it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:23 AM   #33
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,919
I can half seriously actually see them try to codify in some manner the whole "You can't impeach a President without evidence, but you aren't allowed to investigate the President to get that evidence without proof he's guilty" thing that's been a core of their defense.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:26 AM   #34
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,070
Hold on, leeme go through my "things I been telling y'all" file...

Ah! *clears throat*

"The single worst politician for America today isn't Dolt 45, it's Mitch McConnell."

Now lemme just put this away to use next time anyone acts surprised by what he does.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:28 AM   #35
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,919
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
Hold on, leeme go through my "things I been telling y'all" file...

Ah! *clears throat*

"The single worst politician for America today isn't Dolt 45, it's Mitch McConnell."

Now lemme just put this away to use next time anyone acts surprised by what he does.
Salvatore Maroni : Look, take it up with the Joker. He killed your woman. He made you... like this.

Harvey Dent: The Joker's just a mad dog. I want whoever let him off the leash
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:28 AM   #36
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,793
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I can half seriously actually see them try to codify in some manner the whole "You can't impeach a President without evidence, but you aren't allowed to investigate the President to get that evidence without proof he's guilty" thing that's been a core of their defense.
Other than being harmful and practically encouraging crime, what is wrong with that?

There are some impractical elements of our justice system. For example, killing witnesses kinda works. I don't know if the fifth amendment has passed rigorous cost benefit analysis.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:33 AM   #37
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,340
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I was appalled to see that snippet on the news this morning. The branches are supposed to be separate but equal, and here McConnell says right out that he is working with the White House. This would be just as wrong if he were a Democrat trying to work out a deal.
FFS. The branches are separate but equal in authority. In theory. It's a weird-ass legal theory that is hopefully true, but has never been fully explored or tested (hence the controversy over the Executive contesting Legislative subpoenas).

It is *not* a theory proscribing communication and cooperation between the branches.

Under the actual separate-but-equal theory, only the Legislature has the authority to prohibit one of its members from talking to the president. And only the Executive has the authority to decide whether or not to talk to a senator when they ask.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:33 AM   #38
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,793
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
Hold on, leeme go through my "things I been telling y'all" file...

Ah! *clears throat*

"The single worst politician for America today isn't Dolt 45, it's Mitch McConnell."

Now lemme just put this away to use next time anyone acts surprised by what he does.
McConnell reminds me of Scrooge. Scrooge doesn't do the things people dislike rich people for. He doesn't buy politicians or live in extravagance. He is a miser.

Why does McConnell do it? Fame? He isn't on TV as much as he could be. Power? He doesn't seem to have that strong of a political agenda. Money? He would make more in the private sector.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:34 AM   #39
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,197
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It isn't a court room. Senators are supposed to be partial.
No they ARE NOT. Before the trial every Senator must take an oath to be impartial and uphold the Constitution.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2019, 08:35 AM   #40
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,199
I have come to the conclusion that Impeachment is a deeply flawed method for a check on power on the President, precisely because it tries to turn a legislative body into a judicial one: this undermines the credibility of such a process.
Impeachment should be up to the Supreme Court, and the threshold should be high.
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.