• 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.

Split Thread A second impeachment

Meadmaker said:
I fear for our country.

Seriously. People at that level shouldn't be crazy. What's wrong with us that we are electing the crazy?
Click to expand...


"WE" aren't electing the crazy. Ask how any of those claiming that the election was stolen because the election was 'rigged', stormed the Capitol, are QAnon believers, belong to the Proud Boys, or any of the militia groups planning such idiocies such as kidnapping and executing a governor are Democrats.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Wtihout even hearing a single minute of evidence.

They are not Americans. They are not loyal. They must be criminally charged and removed by the DoJ.
Click to expand...

You really need to cut back on the hyperbole. I understand your frustration. I agree that they're disgusting cowards and are more concerned with their own ambitions than the good of the country but they are Americans, however self-centered, and they have not committed any legal crime by their votes in the Senate today.
 
acbytesla said:
I wouldn't read to much into the fact that the GOP Is disinterested in holding an impeachment trial. Their party is not going to look good. They are going to be facing a very different trial. Actual evidence of a very awful event that many of them were complicit in is going to be put in front of the American people. Who can blame them for wanting to sweep it under the rug.
Click to expand...

It is a political maneuver.

Many of them have condemned Trump and said he provoked the attack and is responsible for his actions. But convicting him of impeachment is going to anger a bunch of their Republican constituents.

This gives them an option to condemn Trump's actions, but gosh darn it now that he is out of office impeachment just isn't technically Constitutional and there is nothing we can do. And those dang Democrats are going against the Constitution just for political vengeance to further division instead of pursuing unity.

They can condemn Trump. But not vote against him. And accuse Democrats of preventing unity. It's a win-win-win.

It is not a question of Constitutionality. If a Democrat did this they would be calling for his head and screaming bloody murder from the rooftops. Even the Congressional Research Service says an overwhelming number of scholars say this is Constitutional. Of course it is. A President doesn't get to avoid the consequence of an impeachable offense and being barred from holding future office simply because it was done near the end of a term when the trial could not be completed before he left office.

It is a political maneuver.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
It is a political maneuver.

Many of them have condemned Trump and said he provoked the attack and is responsible for his actions. But convicting him of impeachment is going to anger a bunch of their Republican constituents.

This gives them an option to condemn Trump's actions, but gosh darn it now that he is out of office impeachment just isn't technically Constitutional and there is nothing we can do. And those dang Democrats are going against the Constitution just for political vengeance to further division instead of pursuing unity.

They can condemn Trump. But not vote against him. And accuse Democrats of preventing unity. It's a win-win-win.

It is not a question of Constitutionality. If a Democrat did this they would be calling for his head and screaming bloody murder from the rooftops. Even the Congressional Research Service says an overwhelming number of scholars say this is Constitutional. Of course it is. A President doesn't get to avoid the consequence of an impeachable offense and being barred from holding future office simply because it was done near the end of a term when the trial could not be completed before he left office.

It is a political maneuver.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Which brings me to the question: since when is it within the purview of the Senate to determine what is Constitutional and what is not?
 
So, Lindsey Graham went from

- Trump is a crazy ************!
to
- Trump, my dear leader!
to
- I didn't sign up for this!
to
- I totally signed up for this!

:eek:

One might come to the conclusion that there is some mass Alzheimer's going on in the GOP and their Voters.
 
Meadmaker said:
I fear for our country.

Seriously. People at that level shouldn't be crazy. What's wrong with us that we are electing the crazy?
Click to expand...

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (Jan 2013)

“We must stop being the stupid party. I'm serious. It's time for a new Republican party that talks like adults. It's time for us to articulate our plans and visions for America in real terms. We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. We’ve had enough of that."


He also warned that Republicans were too associated with "big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes."
"We must not be the party that simply protects the well-off so they can keep their toys, We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive."

“We must stop looking backward. … Nostalgia about the good old days is heart-warming, but the battle of ideas must be waged in the future."​


Whatever happened to the former US Representative and Rhodes Scholar?

Oh, yeah. He left the Governor’s Mansion in Jan 2016 (replaced by a Democrat). That’s just about when he decided that the private sector really needed him.
 
Last edited:
DevilsAdvocate said:
It is a political maneuver.

Many of them have condemned Trump and said he provoked the attack and is responsible for his actions. But convicting him of impeachment is going to anger a bunch of their Republican constituents.

This gives them an option to condemn Trump's actions, but gosh darn it now that he is out of office impeachment just isn't technically Constitutional and there is nothing we can do. And those dang Democrats are going against the Constitution just for political vengeance to further division instead of pursuing unity.

They can condemn Trump. But not vote against him. And accuse Democrats of preventing unity. It's a win-win-win.

It is not a question of Constitutionality. If a Democrat did this they would be calling for his head and screaming bloody murder from the rooftops. Even the Congressional Research Service says an overwhelming number of scholars say this is Constitutional. Of course it is. A President doesn't get to avoid the consequence of an impeachable offense and being barred from holding future office simply because it was done near the end of a term when the trial could not be completed before he left office.

It is a political maneuver.
Click to expand...

I agree that it seems less hopeful than it did when McConnell was blaming Trump.

But we can still cling on to a little hope - this line of "it's unconstitutional" could be an excuse to not participate at all. With 18 Republicans absent and 50 Democrats voting to convict, it would only need 5 Republicans to secure a conviction.

I'm not saying it's likely, but it is feasible. And it'd be a way for the Republicans who want him gone but who want it to look like they're supporting him to accomplish both things simultaneously.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
But we can still cling on to a little hope - this line of "it's unconstitutional" could be an excuse to not participate at all. With 18 Republicans absent and 50 Democrats voting to convict, it would only need 5 Republicans to secure a conviction.

I'm not saying it's likely, but it is feasible. And it'd be a way for the Republicans who want him gone but who want it to look like they're supporting him to accomplish both things simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was thinking that too. Unfortunately that would then give an excuse to anyone who wants to pretend that the impeachment was invalid, but they'd probably dream one up whatever happened.

Dave
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Yes they are
Click to expand...

No, they are NOT.


They are to themselves and their donors
Click to expand...

But not to the nation. Which is the ONLY loyalty that should matter here.


no, they should be removed under the 14th Amendment.
And charged by the DoJ if they can be linked to the insurrection.
Click to expand...

The very fact that they are voting to dismiss the charges against the Insurrectionist Trump indelibly links them.
 
Stacyhs said:
You really need to cut back on the hyperbole. I understand your frustration. I agree that they're disgusting cowards and are more concerned with their own ambitions than the good of the country but they are Americans, however self-centered, and they have not committed any legal crime by their votes in the Senate today.
Click to expand...

Perjury. False Oath. Disobedience to the Constitution.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
no, they should be removed under the 14th Amendment.
And charged by the DoJ if they can be linked to the insurrection.
Click to expand...

ChristianProgressive isn't talking about the violence at the capitol. He's talking about the Senate impeachment vote. He considers that as treason.

Do you think that qualifies for removal under the 14th amendment?
 
Stacyhs said:
Of course it is. Which brings me to the question: since when is it within the purview of the Senate to determine what is Constitutional and what is not?
Click to expand...

Every branch of government is supposed to make that determination. That's the whole point of the oath of office. The Supreme Court is held to be the ultimate arbiter in case of dispute, but each branch is still supposed to evaluate things on their own. Many issues never even make it to the courts, so for Congress or the executive to ignore the question of constitutionality would be a grave disservice. For example, Congress is not supposed to pass laws that violate the Constitution. It doesn't have to wait for the Supreme Court in order to turn down bills that would do so, and harm can occur if they pass unconstitutional laws even if those laws are later overturned.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
And it'd be a way for the Republicans who want him gone but who want it to look like they're supporting him to accomplish both things simultaneously.
Click to expand...

I’m having a hard time accepting such cowardly enablers as really wanting him gone.

(And no I don’t think this is a True Scotsman).
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Qanon for liberals.

Get a grip my friend.
Click to expand...

Hardly "Qanon" to call a Traitor a Traitor.

They have taken binding oaths to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, Foreign and Domestic".

They are deliberately refusing to fulfill their oath sworn duty.

To do so in the midst of an active and on-going insurrection is Treason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom