• 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...

Fiend God
Belz...
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
96,875
Location
In a post-fact world
Norman Alexander said:
I have read somewhere that the Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate is responsible for enforcing the attendance of those summoned by the Senate.
Click to expand...

Again: what are they going to do? Send in the S-A-A to arrest Trump? He'll have the Secret Service throw him out.

That's the 'weakness' of the rule of law: it seems that is requires liberal amounts of forebearance, and if you have people in government who just don't play by the rules of the game, then you can't do anything about them.

Not to say that the alternative is any better.

Thread continued from here. You may quote or reply to any of the posts from that thread here.
Posted By: zooterkin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mgidm86 said:
Because most people don't read much news, and they sure as heck don't go to political forums.
Click to expand...

IMO that's true the world over. Most people are too busy living their lives to invest a lot of time becoming familiar with all of the major issues of the day. Instead they rely on soundbites and/or adopt positions from trusted sources like friends, relatives and celebrities that they respect.

Nuance has very little place in that scenario and a simple, but wrong, message is more easily consumed than a complicated, nuanced one. People are too busy holding down jobs, raising families and making ends meet and most choose to spend their leisure time doing something other than reading manifestos, gathering opinions from a wide range of sources and engaging in informed debate.
 
The Don said:
IMO that's true the world over. Most people are too busy living their lives to invest a lot of time becoming familiar with all of the major issues of the day. Instead they rely on soundbites and/or adopt positions from trusted sources like friends, relatives and celebrities that they respect.

Nuance has very little place in that scenario and a simple, but wrong, message is more easily consumed than a complicated, nuanced one. People are too busy holding down jobs, raising families and making ends meet and most choose to spend their leisure time doing something other than reading manifestos, gathering opinions from a wide range of sources and engaging in informed debate.
Click to expand...

This is something of a derail into the UK General Election, so I'm going to spoiler it:

I think this is the biggest mistake Jeremy Corbyn is making at the moment. His Brexit position actually makes a lot of sense - negotiate a fair deal with the EU, and then hold a second referendum where the public can vote once they've been informed of all the good and bad points of what it is they're actually voting for.

The problem is that this is a fairly nuanced take, and one that's easy to paint as being "wishy-washy". The Tory position of "let's get Brexit done" and the Lib Dem position of "we are going to revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU" are much stronger policies, even if they're less workable and less sensible than Corbyn's position.


A quick, easily digestible slogan is always going to win out over "this is a complicated situation, which requires a nuanced solution" simply because, as you say, everybody has got enough going on in their own lives that it's rare for people to be informed, let alone fully informed, about what is actually going on.
 
Further to what's been said about the Republicans not needing Ukrainian investigations to smear Biden, Lickspittle Lindsey Graham has requested documents and transcripts related to Biden and the sacking of corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin, so they're going with the smear anyway.

On a slightly different tack, Sen John Kennedy went on Fox to push the Kremlin's "it wasn't Russia it was Ukraine" CT then back-tracked on CNN where it wouldn't be seen by Fox viewers. Needless to say, Fox won't report said back-tracking, so job done. Trump is, of course, a Fox viewer, so he'll be thinking kindly of Kennedy.

Is there a Republican left who isn't a complete POS?
 
delete, think I misunderstood the post.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
A quick, easily digestible slogan is always going to win out over "this is a complicated situation, which requires a nuanced solution" simply because, as you say, everybody has got enough going on in their own lives that it's rare for people to be informed, let alone fully informed, about what is actually going on.
Click to expand...

And yet they could be informed if they wanted to. No excuse.
 
Belz... said:
And yet they could be informed if they wanted to. No excuse.
Click to expand...

The obvious excuse is people on political forums are just overinflating the importance of the subject they care about. It isn't more important what other people have going on in their lives.
 
Belz... said:
Again: what are they going to do? Send in the S-A-A to arrest Trump? He'll have the Secret Service throw him out.

That's the 'weakness' of the rule of law: it seems that is requires liberal amounts of forebearance, and if you have people in government who just don't play by the rules of the game, then you can't do anything about them.

Not to say that the alternative is any better.

Thread continued from here. You may quote or reply to any of the posts from that thread here.
Posted By: zooterkin
Click to expand...
Secret Service agents take the same oath as any other federal law enforcement officer, not substantially different from the one taken by presidents. In other words, a Secret Service agent who prevents the legal arrest of someone under their protection would be violating their oath and the law. An agent responsible for the protection of the president would likely insist on accompanying their charge, but that should be the limit of their objections.

The idea that the Secret Service are responsible to the president personally is incorrect and I expect very few would claim any significant loyalty to the occupant of the office over their duty to the law.
 
And then there's this:

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics...-made-unwanted-advances-on-several-women.html
Gordon Sondland, the Portland businessman in the middle of the Trump impeachment, committed sexual misconduct against three women. The women allege that Sondland retaliated professionally against the women after they rejected his advances. Sondland said the allegations are untrue.

Not really sure what effect this will have on the impeachment inquire. After all, Sondland was at one time "Trump's guy", but he ended up providing some rather damaging testimony against Stubby McBonespurs. Now we know that that testimony was coming from a possible serial sexual harasser.
 
Segnosaur said:
And then there's this:

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics...-made-unwanted-advances-on-several-women.html
Gordon Sondland, the Portland businessman in the middle of the Trump impeachment, committed sexual misconduct against three women. The women allege that Sondland retaliated professionally against the women after they rejected his advances. Sondland said the allegations are untrue.

Not really sure what effect this will have on the impeachment inquire. After all, Sondland was at one time "Trump's guy", but he ended up providing some rather damaging testimony against Stubby McBonespurs. Now we know that that testimony was coming from a possible serial sexual harasser.
Click to expand...
Because they are trying to play the "smear them in **** so they smell bad" card. Effectively, if Gordo is "a serial predator" then obviously all his damning evidence before the Impeachment Inquiry is "suspect" and "not to be believed", etc.
 
Last edited:
I see Trump has started to distance himself from this Julieanna bloke, he may have been in the same room once as Trump, he was probably fetching the covfefe.
 
theprestige said:
Seriously? What's the point of the impeachment proceedings, then? To make GOP senators feel at least a little bit of shame when they vote to keep President Trump in office?
Click to expand...

Some of us still believe in doing our job, even if some of our co-workers are incompetent/corrupt sleazeballs. Of course, your mileage may vary: I'm quite aware that simply Doing the Right Thing is a foreign concept to the modern Republican.
 
Cabbage said:
Some of us still believe in doing our job, even if some of our co-workers are incompetent/corrupt sleazeballs. Of course, your mileage may vary: I'm quite aware that simply Doing the Right Thing is a foreign concept to the modern Republican.
Click to expand...

That's so sweet. But what's the point of the impeachment inquiry? Is it just jobsworths doing their jobs?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Trump not winning in 2020 is literally the only way we can get rid of him that doesn't require a series of miracles so unlikely we might as well be invoking God. And impeaching him sends those odds into the basement.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because having their representatives sit on their ass and do absolutely nothing to keep Trump in check is sure to inspire the constituents to come out in droves to vote Blue in 2020. :rolleyes:
 
theprestige said:
That's so sweet. But what's the point of the impeachment inquiry? Is it just jobsworths doing their jobs?
Click to expand...

To keep the president in check, as the Constitution intended. If the Senate can't (or refuse to) do their job, that does not imply the House should throw their hands up and abdicate their responsibility, too.

Is this a foreign concept for you?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
That's so sweet. But what's the point of the impeachment inquiry? Is it just jobsworths doing their jobs?
Click to expand...

Because justice, checks and balances as well as the rule of law are important and must be stood up for.

<snip>

Do you really want a President is accountable to no one?


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rules 0/12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
theprestige said:
That's so sweet. But what's the point of the impeachment inquiry? Is it just jobsworths doing their jobs?
Click to expand...


Oh, and that's simply an adorable attempt to mock those of us who still follow the Constitution. "Awww...they still believe in Constitutional checks and balances. That's so sweet!"

:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom