Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[smartcooky]

That's right. Your post is nonsense. At least you recognize it. Good job.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

That's right. Your post is nonsense. At least you recognize it. Good job.

I can appreciate why you want to bob and weave and not answer my question, by calling a hypothetical "shoe on the other foot" question a logical fallacy. We all know the answer, anyway. In any case, Pelosi did not pull off a "genius" move. She backed herself into a corner with no way out. She can either send the crime-free articles over and lose or keep them and lose. She sounds and acts like she's either drunk or crazy most of the time. Her inane comments are incomprehensible and fake news pretends they don't notice, just like they pretend that AOC's more frequent and lengthy comments actually make sense. They don't. Democrats better hope she is not the future as Pelosi is fading away right before their eyes and their main presidential candidates all have tragic flaws. The Democrat Party may very well be heading straight for the political off-ramp right behind Labour. All IMO.

 

[Belz...]

Nonsense.

A fine rewording of acbytesla's post.

 

[acbytesla]

I can appreciate why you want to bob and weave and not answer my question, by calling a hypothetical "shoe on the other foot" question a logical fallacy. We all know the answer, anyway. In any case, Pelosi did not pull off a "genius" move. She backed herself into a corner with no way out. She can either send the crime-free articles over and lose or keep them and lose. She sounds and acts like she's either drunk or crazy most of the time. Her inane comments are incomprehensible and fake news pretends they don't notice, just like they pretend that AOC's more frequent and lengthy comments actually make sense. They don't. Democrats better hope she is not the future as Pelosi is fading away right before their eyes and their main presidential candidates all have tragic flaws. The Democrat Party may very well be heading straight for the political off-ramp right behind Labour. All IMO.

You want to put the shoe on the other foot. I see that. I think that is crap. A false equivalence. So excuse me for not having interest in playing your pathetic game.

Trump is the most corrupt lying POS on the planet. And McConnell is a lying sleazy manipulative bastard. Morality is non-existent in the Republican party these days. So the shoe is never going to fit.

 

[Venom]

I can appreciate why you want to bob and weave and not answer my question, by calling a hypothetical "shoe on the other foot" question a logical fallacy. We all know the answer, anyway. In any case, Pelosi did not pull off a "genius" move. She backed herself into a corner with no way out. She can either send the crime-free articles over and lose or keep them and lose. She sounds and acts like she's either drunk or crazy most of the time. Her inane comments are incomprehensible and fake news pretends they don't notice, just like they pretend that AOC's more frequent and lengthy comments actually make sense. They don't. Democrats better hope she is not the future as Pelosi is fading away right before their eyes and their main presidential candidates all have tragic flaws. The Democrat Party may very well be heading straight for the political off-ramp right behind Labour. All IMO.

If the Democrats embrace AOC, she actually will fight the Republican fire with fire, unlike the ineffectual resistance of the established members of the Democratic Party.

Conservatives better enjoy deal makers like Pelosi and Schumer while they're still in office.

 

[I Am The Scum]

BrooklynBaby, just so we're 100% clear: I would not applaud Paul Ryan for holding Obama accountable for soliciting a bribe for personal gain, because Obama did not solicit a bribe for personal gain.

Your question has been answered. You may proceed with your argument.

 

[thaiboxerken]

BrooklynBaby, just so we're 100% clear: I would not applaud Paul Ryan for holding Obama accountable for soliciting a bribe for personal gain, because Obama did not solicit a bribe for personal gain.

Your question has been answered. You may proceed with your argument.

But if Obama did solicit a bribe for personal gain, Democrats would hold Obama accountable. It's obvious that Republicans would. It's also historically proven that Republicans hold Obama accountable for any perceived "moral" shortcoming (like a BJ) even if it wasn't illegal or a high crime/misdemeanor.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats stand for lawn and order. Republicans just want to win.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Neither do the Democrats it seems, which is a problem when you're on the losing side of the last election and need to get people to your side.



You keep saying that over and over as if it's supposed to mean something. You can't stain a troll who was elected to troll.

Just to piss off the people who don't like them imagine as a metaphor that Trump is currently banging someone else's wife on the desk in the Oval Office on Live TV making no effort to hide it or showing any shame in doing it, all while all the Republicans high five him and tell him what a great job he is doing and when the Democrats sew a Scarlet A into his suit jacket to "shame him" you start creaming yourself over how much that matters and how nothing he can ever do will erase that Scarlet A.

He'll never erase the stain because he wears it with pride. He was elected to break the system. This is the star on that tree.

Can you honestly sit there and say with intellectual honesty that the Trumpers see the impeachment as a "stain" on their demi-god?



And it makes the Dems look like a bunch of petty, sore losers who raised the hand but now are scared to flip their cards over and see who gets the pot.

On the other hand, doing nothing signals to the entire system that there are no limits as to the bullflop they can do in office because no one will fight back.

When those charged with upholding the law give up, we might as well forget ever being able to fix this mess.

 

[smartcooky]

As long as you have politicians who blatantly ignore the laws and the rules (and no-one can truthfully argue that this lot have done exactly that) then, no amount of laws or rules will make them do what they don't want to do.

Joe and Smartcookie are making the most important point. Laws are meaningless if they are not abided to and enforced. We can go back through history and see how some laws are enforced and how some laws have been ignored and really are meaningless today.

<snip>

My point is that laws are only real if we respect them.

When those charged with upholding the law give up, we might as well forget ever being able to fix this mess.

I don't often feel compelled to quote the same man for a second time in the same thread, but I think its appropriate here, because what he said is so on-point and relevant to what is happening right now in the USA.

"A nation that will not enforce its laws has no claim to the respect and allegiance of its people."
- Ambrose Bierce..

 

[Belz...]

I can appreciate why you want to bob and weave and not answer my question, by calling a hypothetical "shoe on the other foot" question a logical fallacy. We all know the answer, anyway. In any case, Pelosi did not pull off a "genius" move. She backed herself into a corner with no way out. She can either send the crime-free articles over and lose or keep them and lose. She sounds and acts like she's either drunk or crazy most of the time. Her inane comments are incomprehensible and fake news pretends they don't notice, just like they pretend that AOC's more frequent and lengthy comments actually make sense. They don't. Democrats better hope she is not the future as Pelosi is fading away right before their eyes and their main presidential candidates all have tragic flaws. The Democrat Party may very well be heading straight for the political off-ramp right behind Labour. All IMO.

Did you take my advice yet and watch sources other than right-wing state propaganda outlets?

 

[BobTheCoward]

But if Obama did solicit a bribe for personal gain, Democrats would hold Obama accountable. It's obvious that Republicans would. It's also historically proven that Republicans hold Obama accountable for any perceived "moral" shortcoming (like a BJ) even if it wasn't illegal or a high crime/misdemeanor.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats stand for lawn and order. Republicans just want to win.

This is speculation.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yeah. There's a difference between knowing the other team is going to use spitballs, and having the referees show up at the game wearing the opposing team's uniform.

ETA: Or more accurately, there's a difference in knowing the other team has bought the referees, and having the refs call the came and declare the other team the winner without a pitch being thrown.

I don't buy that anything about the way the Republican have behaved re impeachment can possibly have been a surprise to anybody who's been paying even the slightest bit of attention over the last few yeas. If this was genuinely a surprise to Pelosi or any other Democratic politician, then they are extremely bad at their jobs and, honestly, deserve to lose.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I disagree.
The investigation lives on. More evidence will continue to be released like Duffey's email telling the pentagon to withhold the aid. Nothing is over.

...then why rush through the impeachment?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm not the only one that disagrees with your position that Democrats would view Pelosi as being unfair or whatever.

I think you are, since this is the third time I've had to tell you that that's not my position and nor is it an opinion I've voiced.

So, yeah, I'm definitely done with you, as you seem oddly determined to ignore what I've actually said in order to argue against a figment of your own imagination. Which you're entitled to do, but you don't actually require my participation to do so.

 

[bruto]

....

The difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats stand for lawn and order. Republicans just want to win.

I thought the ones who stood for lawn and order were the Green party.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I thought the ones who stood for lawn and order were the Green party.

I'd have to think about the context of this statement, maybe take a good look at the landscape.

 

[JoeMorgue]

...then why rush through the impeachment?

"Because of the moral imperative!"

Then why stall the impeachment now?

"Because it's the politically tactical thing to do!"

Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"Because of the moral imperative!"

Then why stall the impeachment now?

"Because it's the politically tactical thing to do!"

Wash, rinse, repeat.

The reality is that more factors inserted themselves between the steps of rushing to impeach and stalling the impeachment. Did you miss where Mitch admitted on Fox News that he wasn't going to even pretend to hold a fair trial?

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is so short sighted. I don't get it that people here seem to think the Impeachment only has one outcome, all or none.

Again I am just so super-impressed by the Democrats ability to always be planning ahead that way they are never doing anything right now. At this point the Democrats are second only to Jabba in their ability to never lose by never letting the game finish.

I know, I know I've heard the speeches. They're playing the long game (the really, really long game apparently), they are thinking 10 moves ahead, they are getting all the pieces into place and one day they will spring their trap.

And sure that could still be true. But here's the thing.

If the Democrats were just stalling to save face, hoping that sooner or later that Trump is just going to keel over or the literal Hand of God is going to descend down from the heavens to smite him... what exactly would be different right now?

That's the problem with "Oh you see I'm playing 3 dimensional chess and thinking 10 moves ahead." It's the exact same thing as stalling until you get results.

If the Democrats don't immediately (I presume you are objecting to the delay) deliver the Articles to the Senate and accept Moscow Mitch's public statement he intends to dispense with it posthaste, then why did they bother?

My issue is with them them doing stuff that isn't doing any good and them and their defenders using whatever after the fact excuse works.

As I just said, I ask why they are impeaching even though it's both a legal dead end and politically unpopular, I get told "We have to because of the moral imperative, screw the fact that it's unpopular." I ask why after that we're seriously considering sitting on the impeachment process as a cheap lawyer tactic and I get "Screw doing what's morally right, we have to do whatever it takes politically."

Again I'm not saying it's an absolute certainty that the Democrats are just panicking and acting pretty much at random hoping something sticks, I'm asking what would be functionally different if they were?

Does it bother you the Democrats have more power than you think they should?

I don't even know what this is supposed to be about.

Where do you get the idea the Democrats lost the election? They are the majority in the House.

Okay this is like the 2nd or 3rd time people have looked at me like I've grown a second head for suggesting that "OMG BLUE WAVE WE'RE SO AWESOME" 2018 election wasn't a win for the Democrats.

It's easy. If they won, you wouldn't be sitting here making excuses for why they haven't taken Trump out yet and aren't going to in the foreseable future.

They gained a minor increase of strength in the least important house of one of the 3 branches of Government while the Republicans held or gained strength in all the others. Yeah... the restrictor plates are totally off their engines *roll eyes*

(ETA: For some reason the quoting got messed up. The below quote is from Acbytesla, not Skeptic Ginger)

This may not mean anything to you unless you're a serious chess player. But a maxim in chess is "to take is a mistake". Beginners almost always exchange pieces simplifying the board. Good players don't. Sending the impeachment articles is what is expected and it relieves the pressure and simplifies everything. Everything ends in a couple of weeks and Trump gets to move on. By not sending the articles over you keep the initiative in your hands. Only give away the initiative if you have to.

Trump isn't playing chess. He's playing "This game is stupid, I want to ruin it so nobody can play it."

You're sitting there, hand on your chin, brow crunched in intense concentration, staring at the board, expertly visualizing the 10 moves ahead needed to skillfully trap him in textbook Philidor position when he drops his guard and leaves his Rook undefended... yet somehow haven't noticed that 4 hours ago Trump flipped the board over, scattered the pieces all over the room, took a crap on the board sitting on the floor, and is in the other room banging the Chess Tournament judge.

 

[d4m10n]

"Because of the moral imperative!"

Then why stall the impeachment now?

"Because it's the politically tactical thing to do!"

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Suppose a Congresswoman perceives herself to be under a moral imperative to help prevent the President taking something like a Whole-of-Government_Approach^WP to reelection, on account of her oath to uphold and support the Constitution. Would that not strictly imply that she engage in clever political tactics to prevent him from taking such an approach, at least to the extent she may do so without violating her own oath? In other words, why imply tactics and morals are somehow at odds, if someone is politically tactical for the sake of moral ends?