• 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.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I must admit that I find it a bit bewildering and depressing that the reaction to the testimony so far has apparently lessened approval for impeachment, just as I find it depressing that the Tories here in the UK are polling way ahead of anybody else despite their two campaign promises basically being "We're just as sick of how badly we've ****** up Brexit as you are, so let's just get it over with" and "We're going to make the country better by reversing some of the terrible policies we've implemented over the past decade".
Click to expand...

I guess people have a very low boredom threshold.

Impeachment is taking too long, they'd prefer an hour or two or less, once people are bored of something they want it over with.

Same with Brexit. People have got to the stage that they'd rather have a bad Brexit right now and then deal with the consequences than take time to work through an alternative. :(
 
What needs to happen is that the current crop of GOP congressmen need to be replaced.

The 2018 elections have dramatically rejuvenated the Democratic side of the aisle - time for Republicans to follow suit.
 
The Don said:
I guess people have a very low boredom threshold. Impeachment is taking too long, they'd prefer an hour or two or less, once people are bored of something they want it over with...(
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a TV commercial from about ten years ago: if firefighters ran the world. It showed what looked like a legislative chamber filled with firefighters in turnout gear. Here's a sample:
  • Fireman In Charge: Alright Firefighters, settle down. How ’bout the budget?
  • Audience: Balance it.
  • Fireman in Charge: And the taxes?
  • Audience: One page or less.
  • Fireman in Charge: Anyone want better roads?
  • Audience: We do.
  • Fireman in Charge: All in favor.
  • Audience: Aye.
  • Fireman in Charge: Opposed?
  • Fireman in Charge: Done. A lot of paper to tell us we need clean water. Need clean water, guys?
  • Audience: Aye.
  • Fireman in Charge: Alright, this is the easiest job I’ve ever had. We’re outta here.
Link
Click to expand...

We've arrived at a point where they poll Americans, "Is society so screwed up we should just destroy it and start over?" and forty percent of those polled (the same percentage who support Trump), say "Yes."
 
Trump Tweets

Polls have now turned very strongly against Impeachment, especially in swing states. 75% to 25%. Thank you!
 
Rudy likely believes something might happen to him because he'd be party to something happening to someone else. Conspiracy theorists believe the things they do because they would engage in such conspiracies given the opportunity.
 
phiwum said:
Well, not really. It's incoherent.

He's saying that if he gets thrown under the bus, he will do something that benefits the president. Of course, if he gets thrown under the bus, it will be by the president or his allies. Hence, it is not extortion. It is a bribe to encourage someone to throw him under the bus.
Click to expand...
He also confuses "thrown under the bus" with "disappeared". The bus leaves a very messy residue in the road once it's passed over you. Giulian probably fears disappearance (from the limelight) more than the bus.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I think that what needs to happen if there's to be any hope for the future of the US is for subpoenas to start being enforced. Those who are defying subpoenas may not be willing to commit perjury, and their testimony might help sway public opinion. Without that, not only will Trump get away with his various crimes, but it sets a very dangerous precedent.
Click to expand...

To do this, America will need to curb the power of its president. That means doing such things as...

1. Disallowing (in Law) the "nuclear option" for important appointments so that presidents can't stack departments with partisans. This would mean that Judges, the Attorney General and other important appointments must pass a very high bar, a super majority (67-33) or even more, say 80-20 before they can be approved. It would mean that even a corrupt president like Trump could not force through corrupt people like Barr as AG, and totally unsuitable people like Drunky to the bench

2. Taking away the absolute power of the pardon. Make pardons have to be only recommended by the president, and ratified by the Senate by a 2/3 majority. This would prevent a future Trump (i.e. a corrupt president) from dangling pardons to obstruct justice.

3. Taking away the President's power to fire cabinet members without Senate approval, and his ability to appoint acting temporaries to get around the Senate approval step. e.g., if the AG is fired or resigns, the deputy AG automatically becomes the Acting AG by default.

4. Taking away the president's power to declare a National Emergency. Put that in the purview of Congress.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
Anything negative about ANY candidate who's not Trump will be spread around by bots and trolls (could be Russian, or some other country's, or just GOP), and yes, we should be wary of to the point of paranoid about amplifying that. It's not just social media, though. "The media cycle" seems to primarily be driven by the actual MSM, followed by the "legit" "alternative media," and individual journalists have their ears to the ground all over the place.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of people saying all Presidents lie or all Presidents are narcissists.

Where's the initial evidence blacks don't support Buttigieg? How long ago, how many consistent surveys, was it a direct question or a general one about homosexuals? Was it based on the fact some more traditional religious blacks didn't approve of gay marriage?
 
smartcooky said:
To do this, America will need to curb the power of its president. That means doing such things as...

1. Disallowing (in Law) the "nuclear option" for important appointments so that presidents can't stack departments with partisans. This would mean that Judges, the Attorney General and other important appointments must pass a very high bar, a super majority (67-33) or even more, say 80-20 before they can be approved. It would mean that even a corrupt president like Trump could not force through corrupt people like Barr as AG, and totally unsuitable people like Drunky to the bench

2. Taking away the absolute power of the pardon. Make pardons have to be only recommended by the president, and ratified by the Senate by a 2/3 majority. This would prevent a future Trump (i.e. a corrupt president) from dangling pardons to obstruct justice.

3. Taking away the President's power to fire cabinet members without Senate approval, and his ability to appoint acting temporaries to get around the Senate approval step. e.g., if the AG is fired or resigns, the deputy AG automatically becomes the Acting AG by default.

4. Taking away the president's power to declare a National Emergency. Put that in the purview of Congress.
Click to expand...


All perfectly reasonable to me. Currently the state of the Presidency is pretty dang near to that of a Monarch in some respects.
 
I'm perplexed about why anyone would give the GOP any oxygen at all regarding their claim that the Ukrainians didn't know the military aid was held up. If that was some required element for a charge of guilt, then how is it that conmen can be (and have been, I'd wager) jailed over their acts of fraud of unwitting victims. Christ, that lot of hypocrites would now have it that it's only a crime (or wrong-doing) if the victim is aware of having been victimized.

And their touting of Zelensky's statement about there having been "no pressure" as being some iron clad supporting testimony, when the hapless Ukrainians bloody well knew they'd likely have to deal with the strong-arming, petulant Orangutan for a while yet. Of course they'll say 'the right thing' in order to not burn bridges--however rickety, oil-slicked and laden with demolition charges.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This reminds me of people saying all Presidents lie or all Presidents are narcissists.

Where's the initial evidence blacks don't support Buttigieg? How long ago, how many consistent surveys, was it a direct question or a general one about homosexuals? Was it based on the fact some more traditional religious blacks didn't approve of gay marriage?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that could have to do with people saying all presidents are liars and narcissists.

But:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk...g-black-voters-not-just-because-he-s-n1081641
Buttigieg, 37, may have won over many members of the mostly white political commentariat in New York and Washington, and recent polls of Iowa’s overwhelmingly white electorate put him at or near the front of the crowded Democratic field there. But, at the start of October, a poll referenced in The Charleston Post and Courier found Buttigieg had no black voter support in the state and just 4 percent support overall.
Click to expand...

Rep. Jim Clyburn, the veteran African American congressman from South Carolina who serves as House majority whip, told CNN recently that there was no question that support for an openly gay candidate was a “generational” issue for older African American voters and would affect Buttigieg’s popularity in the state.

“I know of a lot of people my age that feel that way,” Clyburn, who is 79, said. “I’m not going to sit here and tell you otherwise. I think everybody knows that’s an issue.”

But others say that it is more complicated, and that there are other factors dampening Buttigieg’s support in the South.

“I am sure some latent homophobia is influencing some people’s coolness toward Mayor Pete Buttigieg,” said Andra Gillespie, a political scientist at Emory University who studies black political behavior. “But it’s more complex than ‘They are religious and he’s gay.’”
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom