House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
And the charges against Trump are a hell of a lot more serious then those against Clinton.
 
Marcus said:
The situation is starting to look pretty similar to Clinton. He will be impeached in the house, but not convicted in the Senate. Will all this make a difference during the election? Clinton commanded a much higher approval rating during his impeachment, we will see what happens with Trump.
Click to expand...

Yeah his impeachment certainly kept Clinton out of his third term.
 
dudalb said:
And the charges against Trump are a hell of a lot more serious then those against Clinton.
Click to expand...

That and I've long said that at no point did the Republicans ever really seriously consider the possibility that Clinton was going to be convicted in the Senate. The '98 Republicans were many various kinds of stupid, but they weren't that politically clueless.

Clinton's entire impeachment was character assassination, and a masterful job of it at that.

I mean this was late 98, early 99. Clinton's term was already practically over by the time it was all said and done. This was just part of the '00 Republican Presidential Campaign. Get "Slick Willy" to be forced to talk about his sexual exploits to a voter base that still considered sex with the lights on as too risque and run George W. Bush on a vague "family values" and "bringing dignity back to the White House" message.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I'm very sorry. It wasn't meant to be snarky, and it wasn't directed at you.

I think you must have missed the point of my original comment. It was snarky, and was directed at the meme that McDonald's food is unhealthy or poisonous. It seems like a stupid meme, on a forum supposedly dedicated to reason and science. It seems especially stupid now that any rational person can look at a menu and see that a Big Mac has exactly the same healthful qualities as any other collection of ground beef, bread, cheese, lettuce and thousand island dressing. But no. We still get the stale old "bohoho McDonald's is poison!"

It's stupid.

I'm glad you find the info helpful. I know a lot of people do. This isn't about you, or them.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I actually agree with you - I did miss your previous post.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is such a false equivalence.

You don't know how it is going to play out. (None of us do.)

It wasn't just Clinton's high approval rating, a majority of the public thought the crime was petty. The Republican legislators kept performing their faux outrage about Clinton's horrible lying to the public or whatever. They failed to move the needle.**

Trump is obnoxious in the opinion of many. His crimes keep adding up. Russian interference, Trump refuses to support let alone enact any measures to stop it. Then he's asked China and the Ukraine to dig up dirt on his competition. Now his lawyer, Giuliani, is caught with two foreigners who created a faux LLC-owned PAC supporting Trump and stuffed it with foreign cash.

The snowball is rolling down the hill and it's growing. Time to stop with the nonsensical comparison to Clinton unless one is posting about why there is no match there.



**Laughable given the liar in chief and the perjury of a SCOTUS judge during his confirmation hearing the GOP is fawning over now.
Click to expand...


We only have two recent impeachments to compare to, Clinton and Nixon. Nixon saw that he was going to be convicted in the Senate and resigned. Yes I am speculating, as are we all, my speculation is that Trump will be impeached in the house but not convicted in the senate, and will not resign. Sure I could be wrong, and I will happily admit it if Trump resigns or is convicted, you might have noticed that I would not consider this a bad outcome.
 
JoeMorgue said:
That and I've long said that at no point did the Republicans ever really seriously consider the possibility that Clinton was going to be convicted in the Senate. The '98 Republicans were many various kinds of stupid, but they weren't that politically clueless.

Clinton's entire impeachment was character assassination, and a masterful job of it at that.
I mean this was late 98, early 99. Clinton's term was already practically over by the time it was all said and done. This was just part of the '00 Republican Presidential Campaign. Get "Slick Willy" to be forced to talk about his sexual exploits to a voter base that still considered sex with the lights on as too risque and run George W. Bush on a vague "family values" and "bringing dignity back to the White House" message.
Click to expand...

I would argue it wasn't masterful at all. It was clumsy and ridiculous. And the difference between how Bill addressed it and how the Donald is addressing it couldn't be more stark. Bill's White House was disciplined. Donald's is a mess. If you look at that time, quite a bit of legislation was passed despite a Republican Congress.
 
acbytesla said:
I would argue it wasn't masterful at all. It was clumsy and ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Call it what you will, it worked. "The Family Values Crowd" seeking to right the wrong of the Office of the President being held by some sexually liberal pervert lead to the Bush years.
 
Less than two hours ago, CBS News reported:
Federal prosecutors in New York formally announced federal campaign finance charges on Thursday against two foreign-born men who aided Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal attorney, in his efforts to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. Shortly after the announcement, the Democratic House committees leading the impeachment inquiry into President Trump announced they have subpoenaed Parnas and Furman.

The men were arrested at Dulles International Airport [Wednesday evening] as they were about to board an international flight on one-way tickets, according to U.S. Attorney for the Southern District Geoffrey Berman, who said at a press conference that protecting the integrity of U.S. elections from foreign influence is of primary importance to his office. Link
Click to expand...
 
JoeMorgue said:
Call it what you will, it worked. "The Family Values Crowd" seeking to right the wrong of the Office of the President being held by some sexually liberal pervert lead to the Bush years.
Click to expand...
It certainly had an effect. Not so much getting BJ's and having fun with cigars per se, but cheating on your wife. These days, not so much. Even Melania doesn't seem to mind being cheated on, Republicans would rather not talk about it , even Democrats don't seem to dwell on it, perhaps they are afraid of appearing hypocritical.
 
newyorkguy said:
With some help:



Two out of the past two Republican presidents won a first term despite losing the popular vote. It really stinks.
Click to expand...
I'd say it's working exactly as designed and intended. Smoothing out the majority-minority variances of the states via the electoral college always meant that a majority of states could potentially elect a president even if a majority of voters did not. That possibility was part of the whole point of setting it up that way.
 
theprestige said:
I'd say it's working exactly as designed and intended. Smoothing out the majority-minority variances of the states via the electoral college always meant that a majority of states could potentially elect a president even if a majority of voters did not. That possibility was part of the whole point of setting it up that way.
Click to expand...

Well, it failed. I know you're educated enough to know why it was REALLY set up that way.... to prevent the ignorant masses from electing a, say, incompetent lying boob with populist followers. It was designed to make sure "the right people" held power and so that the wiser heads in the state organizations could prevail over demagogues like Jackson and Trump. It's an elitist oligarchical rule. Core Republican values should hate everything about it.

Ah, but, it gets them the White House every few terms so it's okay, right?
 
Foolmewunz said:
Well, it failed. I know you're educated enough to know why it was REALLY set up that way.... to prevent the ignorant masses from electing a, say, incompetent lying boob with populist followers. It was designed to make sure "the right people" held power and so that the wiser heads in the state organizations could prevail over demagogues like Jackson and Trump. It's an elitist oligarchical rule. Core Republican values should hate everything about it.



Ah, but, it gets them the White House every few terms so it's okay, right?
Click to expand...

Huh.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Call it what you will, it worked. "The Family Values Crowd" seeking to right the wrong of the Office of the President being held by some sexually liberal pervert lead to the Bush years.
Click to expand...

No it didn't. Al Gore and the electoral college led to W being elected. Clinton was enormously popular and if the Constitution would have allowed it would have won a third term in a landslide. Bill was incredibly charming and charismatic. Gore was more boring than plain white rice.
 
theprestige said:
I'd say it's working exactly as designed and intended. Smoothing out the majority-minority variances of the states via the electoral college always meant that a majority of states could potentially elect a president even if a majority of voters did not. That possibility was part of the whole point of setting it up that way.
Click to expand...

C'mon Prestige. As a career sales man, i know bull ****. And my friend that is USDA Grade A manure.

The electoral college was created for two main reasons. To offset the powerful monied interests in NY, MA and PA. Also there was practicallity issues having a nation-wide popular vote. It was part of the great compromise necessary to keep the Southern States from bolting.

There are some great books on the writing of the Constitution or you could just download a copy of the Federalist Papers for free which were written mostly by Hamilton and Madison. Which are a bit harder to understand since our language has changed a bit since then.
 
Last edited:
IIRC it was also to stop people like Trump making President. The EC was supposed to be a level headed, last bastion of defence from populists. It was not intended to be a mere formality. Otherwise you could just replace it with a tally sheet.
 
Another part of how you can tell at a glance that it isn't really about empowering the rural minority against domination by the urban majority is that the ratios never get adjusted to account for population shifts.
 
Delvo said:
Another part of how you can tell at a glance that it isn't really about empowering the rural minority against domination by the urban majority is that the ratios never get adjusted to account for population shifts.
Click to expand...

???

The adjustments can't keep up with the population shifts but the adjustments do get made after every census.

The problem isn't with the mechanisms to adjust. The problem is that there is no fair way to adjust as long as the population is growing and there's a cap on the House of Representatives. When that cap was placed there were less than 100 million people in the US.
 
acbytesla said:
I would argue it wasn't masterful at all. It was clumsy and ridiculous. And the difference between how Bill addressed it and how the Donald is addressing it couldn't be more stark. Bill's White House was disciplined. Donald's is a mess. If you look at that time, quite a bit of legislation was passed despite a Republican Congress.
Click to expand...

The Republican party in 1999 also isn't the same as the Republican party in 2019. There was a substantial amount of bad politics and vile present in 1999, but that was all nothing compared to what they are in 2019. Things were going in the same direction twenty years ago, but they were nowhere near as far.

McHrozni
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom