Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
"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.
 
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-faction/2018/10/8/17949756/murkowski-unusual-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."
 
Just the elected ones.

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.
 
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..
 
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.

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.
 
Yeah it does.

It really doesn't.

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/dictionary/english/mischaracterize

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

:p

Unsurprisingly, it was a pro-Trump protester:

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/tr...-coverage-n1119061/ncrd1120786#liveBlogHeader
 

Back
Top Bottom