• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
Doesn't really matter when they can't afford it.
Click to expand...

You can't do that. You can't say a solution won't work unless you have Power Point Presentation ready with your solution.

Less flippantly none of this matters. The scale we're talking is just too big. Our rural areas simply aren't tenable anymore because all advancement we're making as a society are making only work in dense urban cores or at the very least suburbs with reliable transportation.

Again which wouldn't be a problem if the question "So... what do we do with these people?" had been asked by anyone in power at any point in the last 20 years or so.

There aren't all going to be able to move into the cities and get jobs as web developers.
 
TragicMonkey said:
If healthcare and transportation were improved to the point where rural areas became inviting for retirees that would help as well. They'd be attracted by the low property costs and scenery and quiet. The things holding them back are the lack of access to gobs of healthcare, something the elderly need more than most and the rural US lacks more than most.
Click to expand...

As long as retirees congregate in sufficient numbers then they can generate the demand for, and hence supply of, healthcare and other services.

In the process they may "destroy" the atmosphere of some of the smaller towns and villages by arriving in too great a number but then again, the hospitals have to employ people who will live locally and stimulate the local economy.

Of course if the place is ugly and has terrible weather then it may not appeal to retirees.
 
TragicMonkey said:
And nothing. You never have any solutions to offer so why do you demand anyone else do so? Congratulations! You've identified a problem you've deemed to be unsolvable. So move on. Once a problem is determined to be unsolvable all that can be done is to ignore it and move on. There is no value in standing there crying over spilled milk.
Click to expand...

It has been a trend for centuries with a lower and lower percentage of the population being farmers and required for rural jobs. There are tons of issues with poverty in the country and I don't think all that many of them are solely based on location instead of class, but you will never get the rural poor to see that they have the same issues as the urban poor.
 
I debated whether this belonged here in the Impeachment thread, or in the Iran/Qassem Soleimani thread. I've decided to put it here, since it has a bigger impact on the impeachment process...

From: https://www.motherjones.com/impeach...red-iran-strike-because-of-impeachment-fears/
...a new report appears to confirm a sneaking suspicion held by Trump critics for why Trump ordered the strike at this very point in his presidency. From the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate."

So Trump was willing to start a war just to avoid impeachment.

While I wouldn't necessarily put that past him, I do have to wonder about the logic of it... the congress-critters most likely to have wanted an air strike were probably the ones who would have supported Trump regardless. The ones he actually needs support from are the moderates who will likely be opposed to such military action.
 
Trump want's to believe he's indispensable. Trump and the political advisors around him clearly thought the timing of this was perfect.

The idea of controlling the news cycle is a key feature of Trump's whole campaign and Presidency.

Add to that the fact they cannot show any pending inciting incident. "Trust us." :rolleyes:

So of course the whole purpose of this attack was to control the news cycle. And they've been very successful.

At first I was annoyed that Senator Feinstein has the position for Pelosi to give the Articles over to the Senate. Then I read her reason, the Impeachment is getting buried.

The Democrats are going to need work very hard to generate a lot of publicity about Trump's corruption and bringing on foreign interference in the 2020 election if they have any hope at all of stopping McConnell's mission of burying the whole thing.


But that MJ article makes it even more specific than that. He was out to please GOP Senators who want to see an even harder stance against Iran. No wonder Trump said first and a couple times more in his little 'announcement to the citizens', Iran will not get nukes.

It's no coincidence Trump would be cozying up to GOP Senators who will be voting on the Impeachment.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
The Democrats are going to need work very hard to generate a lot of publicity about Trump's corruption and bringing on foreign interference in the 2020 election if they have any hope at all of stopping McConnell's mission of burying the whole thing.
Click to expand...
Well, supposedly Republican Senator Susan Collins has said she is working with a "small group" of republicans to ensure witnesses will be called.

See: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...group-republicans-ensure-impeachment-n1113741

In my opinion, its just empty rhetoric on her part. Her popularity has fallen since she voted to confirm Drunky McRapeface, and her support of the Republican "Give money to the wealthy" tax plan makes it harder for her to claim to be a moderate.

What I predict will happen: a few republican senators (possibly including Collins) will vote to allow witnesses to be called, but not enough to overrule Moscow Mitch. Result: Trump still gets cleared (after a show trial with no witnesses), while Collins can go back to her state and say "See? I'm really a moderate! Trust me!" (even though it is obvious that her 'plan' would fail.)
 
Segnosaur said:
I debated whether this belonged here in the Impeachment thread, or in the Iran/Qassem Soleimani thread. I've decided to put it here, since it has a bigger impact on the impeachment process...

From: https://www.motherjones.com/impeach...red-iran-strike-because-of-impeachment-fears/
...a new report appears to confirm a sneaking suspicion held by Trump critics for why Trump ordered the strike at this very point in his presidency. From the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate."

So Trump was willing to start a war just to avoid impeachment.

While I wouldn't necessarily put that past him, I do have to wonder about the logic of it... the congress-critters most likely to have wanted an air strike were probably the ones who would have supported Trump regardless. The ones he actually needs support from are the moderates who will likely be opposed to such military action.
Click to expand...
Trump puts on rallies for his base all the time. He doesn't want to deal with the middle, he wants the base to worship him. Same with the Senators. Trump wants Senate worshipers out there in the news media singing his praises and telling him how indispensable he is.
 
Last edited:
I just read that Trump is going to assert Executive Privilege is Bolton is called to testify during the Impeachment trial. Now I sincerely doubt the senate will call on Bolton to testify. But I can't imagine a scenario where Roberts wouldn't dismiss Trump's claim out of hand and order Bolton to testify.
 
Mike! said:
I haven't done the math to be sure, but the article says it'd be January 12th.
Click to expand...

A Sunday.

I don't disagree with a Senate rule that requires a timely transition from impeachment to trial, but you can't change the rules to set a deadline prior to the changing of the rules.
 
I don't like that we're having more and more "we have to debate the technical rules of how an impeachment should go" fights in high politics. If rules about how impeachments "go" are starting to leak into the political dick waving that, to me, reads a lot like both sides are planning on this not being the last impeachment they ever have to deal with.

There's not a lot of "rules" (official or unofficial) for how impeachments go with the current mentality being based on a tacit understanding that they are supposed to be rare and unique enough that their nuts and bolts have to be built from scratch each time.

But now? Impeachments are just going to be another one of those things we have to put up with every few years, like the government shutdowns.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I don't like that we're having more and more "we have to debate the technical rules of how an impeachment should go" fights in high politics. If rules about how impeachments "go" are starting to leak into the political dick waving that, to me, reads a lot like both sides are planning on this not being the last impeachment they ever have to deal with.

There's not a lot of "rules" (official or unofficial) for how impeachments go with the current mentality being based on a tacit understanding that they are supposed to be rare and unique enough that their nuts and bolts have to be built from scratch each time.

But now? Impeachments are just going to be another one of those things we have to put up with every few years, like the government shutdowns.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I think you are right, again.

There is one thing that might just work to prevent that. If the Democrats get shellacked at the polls this November, that would be two times in a row that the party that impeached paid a political price.

I don't want that to happen, though. It would be a case of the cure being worse than the disease, in my opinion.
 
Meadmaker said:
Sadly, I think you are right, again.

There is one thing that might just work to prevent that. If the Democrats get shellacked at the polls this November, that would be two times in a row that the party that impeached paid a political price.

I don't want that to happen, though. It would be a case of the cure being worse than the disease, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
McConnell & 12 other republicans have signed on to a resolution that would change Senate rules so that Articles of impeachment are automatically dismissed if they are not sent to the Senate within 25 days of being voted on in the House
Click to expand...

Sounds unconstitutional to me. I think they could have a rule that allows the start of the trial without official delivery of the articles of impeachment, and could even allow the trial to begin with a vote of the Senate on whether or not to dismiss, but I think there has to be a vote of some sort.

There could be some interesting cases pending before the Supreme Court if they try something like this. Of course, this whole "delivery of the articles of impeachment" thing is all extra-constitutional anyway. We're once again in uncharted legal waters. There has never been a case before where the House impeached a president, and the articles weren't "delivered".

I read (in these threads) that there have been other impeachments, i.e. non-presidential, where the articles weren't delivered, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that what happened in those cases was that the impeached person ended up resigning. I can't imagine a case where the House would impeach, but then decide not to hold a trial.

Well, I can't imagine it ever happening before now. We live in interesting times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom