Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
???

I think the House Dems are playing plenty fair. Not necessarily smart, but certainly fair. Are you trying to reply to what I'm actually saying, or just using my posts as jumping-off points for unrelated rants?
Click to expand...

Goodness, this is what you said:
TP said:
The Speaker of the House literally can't dictate terms to the Senate. It would be an abuse of power, if there were actually any power to abuse.
Click to expand...

So which is it, playing fair or abuse of power? :boggled:
 
theprestige said:
???

I think the House Dems are playing plenty fair. Not necessarily smart, but certainly fair. Are you trying to reply to what I'm actually saying, or just using my posts as jumping-off points for unrelated rants?
Click to expand...

I think it is smart. I think it is very smart. But then again, you think I am stupid.
 
What did McConnell and Graham think was going to happen when they gleefully announced that their minds were made up, and they were not going to call witnesses - except the whistleblower?

In essence, they were saying that no amount of evidence was going to change their minds, so they didn't want to hear it.

Would a responsible prosecutor allow a case to be tried in front of that jury? Pelosi can't get a new jury, but she might yet get additional evidence into the public record. It's not going to come out in the Senate, that's for damn sure.

ETA: If this is such a big win for Trump, why is he complaining about it?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
What word do you think I'm using?

Are you even reading the posts you're replying to?
Click to expand...
Yes, but you shifted your argument to be about pedantry rather than substance.

You only said this:
TP said:
acbytesla said:
The House negotiates with the Senate all the time. The idea that Pelosi "negotiating" terms with the Senate is an abuse of power is risible.
Click to expand...
Beelzebuddy said dictate terms. Negotiating is something you do when you can't dictate terms. That's why Pelosi is negotiating, not dictating terms.
Click to expand...
After you said this:
acbytesla said:
theprestige said:
The Speaker of the House literally can't dictate terms to the Senate. It would be an abuse of power, if there were actually any power to abuse.
Click to expand...
The House negotiates with the Senate all the time. The idea that Pelosi "negotiating" terms with the Senate is an abuse of power is risible.
Click to expand...

So once again you expect people to go back a dozen posts to find that you said one thing, then another. In this case it was absurd to argue, "The Speaker of the House literally can't dictate terms to the Senate. It would be an abuse of power" then claim you were only arguing dictate vs negotiate.

It's a stupid argument. Dictating said terms can indeed be part of negotiating.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes, but you shifted your argument to be about pedantry rather than substance.

You only said this:
After you said this:

So once again you expect people to go back a dozen posts to find that you said one thing, then another. In this case it was absurd to argue, "The Speaker of the House literally can't dictate terms to the Senate. It would be an abuse of power" then claim you were only arguing dictate vs negotiate.

It's a stupid argument. Dictating said terms can indeed be part of negotiating.
Click to expand...

Go back even further. Beelzebuddy said Pelosi was dictating terms to the Senate. That's a terrible description. I'm arguing against that description.

You seem to be arguing against arguing against that description, even though you agree with me that it's the wrong description. What's your point?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes, but you shifted your argument to be about pedantry rather than substance.

You only said this:
After you said this:

So once again you expect people to go back a dozen posts to find that you said one thing, then another. In this case it was absurd to argue, "The Speaker of the House literally can't dictate terms to the Senate. It would be an abuse of power" then claim you were only arguing dictate vs negotiate.

It's a stupid argument. Dictating said terms can indeed be part of negotiating.
Click to expand...

The problem of course is such an absurd personally strict definition of the word "dictate" and a risible suggestion that what Pelosi is doing is some kind of abuse of power. I see you doing this over and over. Getting bogged down in the words when I know you understand what the poster meant. Do you think it is a clever deflection or is it something else else?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
FTFY

Der Trumpenführer keeps referring to the Democrats as the "Do Nothing Dems". This is pure projection. The House has in fact passed over 300 bills and pieces of legislation, much of it bipartisan, and almost all of it sits in an ever-growing pile on Moscow Mitch's desk as he refuses to even allow it to go to the Senate for a vote.... he has literally turned the Senate into the "do nothing Senate".

This is another thing that America needs to put an end to, the power of one man, the Senate leader to block all bills and legislation from being voted on. No other western country has a Parliament with a leader who has so much personal power to effectively prevent the elected representatives of government from voting on the passing of bills and legislation, then very thing goverment's need in order to function properly.
Click to expand...

^ This.

The US is discovering (I hope!) that the prior operation of government in an environment of observance of norms without sufficient specificity in the rules allows unscrupulous individuals like Mitch to hijack the process. Until this sorry state of affairs is subject to redress, democracy hangs in the balance.
 
acbytesla said:
I think it is smart. I think it is very smart. But then again, you think I am stupid.
Click to expand...
I think it's smart too. However you characterize the maneuver, insuring that some testimony occurs in the Senate changes what the Senators are doing even if it does not change their votes. With no testimony they can put the whole thing down as a rigged political process, ignore or discredit any testimony, and vote their party line. With testimony they may still vote their party line but they will be presumed to have heard the testimony and voted against its substance. They'll be discrediting the evidence itself, and not the box it came in. Even if the vote comes out the same, I think it makes a big difference in public perception.
 
Lurch said:
^ This.

The US is discovering (I hope!) that the prior operation of government in an environment of observance of norms without sufficient specificity in the rules allows unscrupulous individuals like Mitch to hijack the process. Until this sorry state of affairs is subject to redress, democracy hangs in the balance.
Click to expand...

I'm more and more convinced that our government needs a total overhaul. The Senate which is a terribly undemocratic body has far too much power. California has the approximate population of the 20 least populated States yet has 1/20 the representation in the US Senate. And the US Senate approves all the judges. And judges actually write 5 times as much law as the legislative branch. The great compromise is a disaster.

Combine this with gerrymandering and voter suppression and how elections are paid for, the average citizen has little or no representation.
 
theprestige said:
Insuring how, though? There's no mechanism by which this can be insured.
Click to expand...

To a certain degree it can. A public agreement now will not be something any of the parties would want to break. They could also write it into law.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
To a certain degree it can. A public agreement now will not be something any of the parties would want to break. They could also write it into law.
Click to expand...

It goes without saying that if McConnell actually agrees to something, that makes it more likely he'll do that thing. For whatever reason, you decided to say it anyway.

How is that agreement supposed to be achieved?

And I'm sorry, but the idea of the House the Senate, and the president all getting together to pass this agreement into law is insane.
 
theprestige said:
If.

What is Pelosi going to offer McConnell, in order to persuade him?
Click to expand...
I think it would have to be some things that Pelosi is not in complete control of, so she might merely be playing the odds on

1. Enough of a change in public opinion toward having witnesses and/or some elements of a fair trial

2. Enough complaints from Donald because he wants the whole thing done with sooner rather than later

If those things don't come to pass within some amount of time, or Pelosi sees that 1 and 2 have moved as much as they are expected to but is not enough, then she cuts bait as moves things over, with very little harm to the impeachment process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom