Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

JoeMorgue said:
I've been calling it the "Susan Collins is very, very concerned... about the thing she is currently voting for" game.
Click to expand...

That's some truth right there. There is another female (R) that does the same thing, though her name is escaping me at the moment.
 
Sekulow is telling the news media 'quid pro quo' wasn't in the Articles. I suppose that means he's pretending it can't be introduced.


Trump's on now claiming his "transcript" was perfect again.
 
plague311 said:
That's some truth right there. There is another female (R) that does the same thing, though her name is escaping me at the moment.
Click to expand...

Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) is probably who you're thinking off. A lot of "Oh I'm gonna be fair this is all very troubling" talk but yesterday she voted against witnesses and called Trump to reassure him that she didn't hate him.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the Democrats are appealing to the American public - in the hope that they will convince the Republicans.
Trump's lawyers are making a show for an audience of One, i.e Trump.
 
plague311 said:
I've been calling it the "Susan Collins is very, very concerned... about the thing she is currently voting for" game.
Click to expand...
That's some truth right there. There is another female (R) that does the same thing, though her name is escaping me at the moment.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to Lisa Murkowski? (Senator from Alaska)

If so, I think she deserves a little more respect than Collins. After all, unlike Collins, she did vote against confirming Drunky McRapeface. (She did vote with the rest of the republicans on approving the rules; we will have to wait and see if she ends up going against Moscow Mitch later in the proceedings.)
 
Segnosaur said:
Are you referring to Lisa Murkowski? (Senator from Alaska)

If so, I think she deserves a little more respect than Collins. After all, unlike Collins, she did vote against confirming Drunky McRapeface. (She did vote with the rest of the republicans on approving the rules; we will have to wait and see if she ends up going against Moscow Mitch later in the proceedings.)
Click to expand...

She didn't vote No on Kavanaugh. She voted "Present," the same B.S. Tulsi pulled on voting to impeach Trump.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Are you referring to Lisa Murkowski? (Senator from Alaska)

If so, I think she deserves a little more respect than Collins. After all, unlike Collins, she did vote against confirming Drunky McRapeface.
Click to expand...
She didn't vote No on Kavanaugh. She voted "Present," the same B.S. Tulsi pulled on voting to impeach Trump.
Click to expand...
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
 
Segnosaur said:
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
Click to expand...

Still doesn't explain why she couldn't have just voted no. That article just explains why it was the best maneuver to cover her own ass by voting present.

It's what was good for her, it wasn't out of any desire to keep Kavanaugh out of the SCOTUS. It was actually a cop out vote, despite the article saying otherwise. It gave her the best of both sides, but I'm certainly not going to give her any props for it. **** her even more now that I know she did that.
 
theprestige said:
This is just empty rhetoric and pointless name-calling.
Click to expand...

I thought I made an important point. How does it compare to the number of times we've heard "bone spurs" in here? I would say my nonsense is just a drop in the bucket. In any case, Schiff has been talking about Russia for hours, and it is just boring.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
I don't know why one would want to win to represent gullible people.
Click to expand...
Because elected officials represent ALL the people in their district, state, etc.


You actually didn't know that or couldn't figure it out without asking me?
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Seems unconstitutional on its face, limiting Roberts' power to "preside", as specified in the Constitution.

No?
Click to expand...
Senate rules state a majority of the Senate can overrule the Chief Justice, and the power to make those rules comes from the Constitution, which gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, which the SCOTUS has previously interpreted to mean that the way in which the Senate holds the trial is their sole power. If the Senate tried to remove the Chief Justice as presiding officer, then the constitutional provision that says the CJ presides would apply.


So you've got a trial in which the jurors can override a ruling by the judge.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
I thought I made an important point. How does it compare to the number of times we've heard "bone spurs" in here? I would say my nonsense is just a drop in the bucket.
Click to expand...
You mean like how we regularly call Trump "Stubby McBonespurs"?

Well, lets see:
- Trump has claimed he had bone spurs that kept him out of Viet Nam, yet claims to be "pro military"
- Trump has bragged about his sexual prowness
So calling him "Stubby McBonespurs" highlights his hypocrisy, and is related to things Trump himself has said and/or done.

On the other hand, nick names like "Piglosi"? "Shiff for Brains"? None of it seems related to any of the actions of Adam Shiff or Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi has never (for example) insulted another person's appearance by comparing them to barnyard animals. She never worked on a farm. The "Piglosi" label has no wit, no intelligence. Same with "Shiff for Brains"... Shiff never goes around bragging about his intelligence, nor does he call other people stupid. Again, another label that has no wit or intelligence.

Now, I have actually used the nickname "Comrade Sanders" when referring to Bernie Sanders. Again, that nick name stems from his prior actions (such as his taking a honeymoon in Russia).
In any case, Schiff has been talking about Russia for hours, and it is just boring.
Click to expand...
Sorry if an attempt by a foreign government to corrupt the U.S. political system isn't exciting to you. But I guess you're happy with democracy going away if it happens to be a guy you like who gets into power (who just happens to be a racist/bigot.)
 
Last edited:
BrooklynBaby said:
I thought I made an important point. How does it compare to the number of times we've heard "bone spurs" in here? I would say my nonsense is just a drop in the bucket.
Click to expand...
Other people are pissing in my ear and telling me it's raining. You're pissing in my ear and telling me it's okay, because there's already a lot of piss in my ear. I'm just asking you to stop pissing in my ear. Is that a problem?
 
dmaker said:
I have to say that I'm a bit puzzled by the lock step obedience to Trump during this impeachment. To date the argument has been fear of Trump rebuttal to any disloyalty and how it could hurt any GOP candidate in a primary, etc. OK, fine. Being under Trump's thumb removes the spine from GOP congress members. But here is a golden opportunity to get out from under. But they won't. Why not? Don't they want to be free of him? Just vote to remove him and you're free. If removed from office he would be a feckless windbag with no ability to harm anyone.

Trump's base would not like it, but what can they do? Vote democrat? Not likely. Why not do the right thing and get out form under at the same time? Could it be that it's more about the judges, and a rubber stamp for conservative policies than it is about fear of reprisal?
Click to expand...


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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom