Think about the argument put forth by the left. They impeached the president for mounting a legal defense. Think about that for a minute. They literally made the argument that Adam Schiffs lack of patience was more important than due process. This wasnt an impeachment, it was a mockery of the constitution, the framers and an exercise in Legislative Supremacy.
But jj, it was a political process.... not criminal. The president doesnt have RIGHTS? I call b.s. Congress shall make no LAW limiting etc. But jj, it's not a LAW it's a rule. Ok. So the congress can adopt a rule allowing it to subpoena someone to a hearing bar them from meaningful legal representation, bankrupt them with cost of testifying before congress, lie about and smear them from behind state microphones, call witnesses brought by the state to smear me in public with no means of objection or legal recourse, and if I misstate that I was at home on friday not saturday then I'm subject to perjury and prison. Any attempt to defend myself is used as proof of my guilt. That's the system you want? That's what your advocating for? Fine. But dont tell me Trumps the @$%/ Dictator!
(01-30-2020, 07:03 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020, 06:39 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]This was the "insurance policy" in case he won.
Everyone has known from the beginning this was going to end in acquittal if it was going to get this far. There should be absolutely no surprise or outrage at this inevitable outcome.
Now, no matter who wins and loses, the 2020 election is forever tainted by the Democrats and the sham impeachment effort.
The facts matter absolutely nothing to those looking for a removal outcome, which the facts have never supported. The facts didn't support the impeachment from the start, proven by the 100% partisan vote. This is what was warned against in the Federalist papers.
History will not be kind to those rejecting the truth here.
Oh really? Specifically where in the federalist papers? Which one? Is there a remedy to make us more like what the founders intended, going forward?
You flap your gums an awful lot for someone who has no substance to add, other than bringing questions to things you should already know if you were worthy to debate at the adult table.
Like I've advised you before, if your knowledge is slight (which yours demonstrably is) it would benefit you to do more listening than talking.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/18/779938819...mpeachment
"... will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.
In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
(02-01-2020, 02:20 AM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020, 07:03 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Oh really? Specifically where in the federalist papers? Which one? Is there a remedy to make us more like what the founders intended, going forward?
You flap your gums an awful lot for someone who has no substance to add, other than bringing questions to things you should already know if you were worthy to debate at the adult table.
Like I've advised you before, if your knowledge is slight (which yours demonstrably is) it would benefit you to do more listening than talking.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/18/779938819...mpeachment
"... will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.
In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
Lol. I make no statement, ask only questions, and, you admonish me to listen more than I talk.
For all the knowledge you claim to have, your understanding of how conversations work is lacking. I haven't met you, but I would imagine your personality is as well.
Now that gratuitous insults are out of the way, yes, I am very familiar with that particular NPR article and with Federalist 69.
Hamilton is saying that impeachments will usually stir up partisan passions.
The mere fact that the process, this time, became partisan is not evidence that anything was wrong with the process. Partisanship is typical.
What does Hamilton go on to say about the Senate. He compares Senators to the Supreme Court. What does he say about them?
(02-01-2020, 01:30 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Think about the argument put forth by the left. They impeached the president for mounting a legal defense. Think about that for a minute. They literally made the argument that Adam Schiffs lack of patience was more important than due process. This wasnt an impeachment, it was a mockery of the constitution, the framers and an exercise in Legislative Supremacy.
But jj, it was a political process.... not criminal. The president doesnt have RIGHTS? I call b.s. Congress shall make no LAW limiting etc. But jj, it's not a LAW it's a rule. Ok. So the congress can adopt a rule allowing it to subpoena someone to a hearing bar them from meaningful legal representation, bankrupt them with cost of testifying before congress, lie about and smear them from behind state microphones, call witnesses brought by the state to smear me in public with no means of objection or legal recourse, and if I misstate that I was at home on friday not saturday then I'm subject to perjury and prison. Any attempt to defend myself is used as proof of my guilt. That's the system you want? That's what your advocating for? Fine. But dont tell me Trumps the @$%/ Dictator!
Do you enjoy talking to yourself?
(01-31-2020, 02:39 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Can you imagine being in a place in your life where you hate Donald Trump so much that you put your faith in clowns like Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff? I mean, waking up and having to look at yourself in the mirror every morning just praying that these guys know what they are doing is hard to think about. It is embarrassing.
Babs Streisand is already there. She thinks Schiff should be President.
Jerry Nadler's wife is in the final stages of her life battling pancreatic cancer and Nancy Pelosi makes sure to choose Nadler as one of the impeachment managers so he can be away from his wife before finally announcing he won't be there for the "last few days" of this complete sham of an event.
These people have no souls.
(02-01-2020, 11:24 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Jerry Nadler's wife is in the final stages of her life battling pancreatic cancer and Nancy Pelosi makes sure to choose Nadler as one of the impeachment managers so he can be away from his wife before finally announcing he won't be there for the "last few days" of this complete sham of an event.
These people have no souls.
Pelosi didn't force him. Nadler always had the option to say no.
I wouldn't make political hay out of a deeply personal situation as this. It's best left alone.
(02-01-2020, 11:50 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2020, 11:24 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Jerry Nadler's wife is in the final stages of her life battling pancreatic cancer and Nancy Pelosi makes sure to choose Nadler as one of the impeachment managers so he can be away from his wife before finally announcing he won't be there for the "last few days" of this complete sham of an event.
These people have no souls.
Pelosi didn't force him. Nadler always had the option to say no.
I wouldn't make political hay out of a deeply personal situation as this. It's best left alone.
+1
What a week for The President. The democrat party screws up a simple primary process on Monday night. The President will give the State of The Union address tonight and will be acquitted tomorrow. Meanwhile the economy continues to hum right along.
Been gone a while and decided to check in. Yep, same ol', same ol'. I imagine after the acquittal we'll get to start another impeachment thread for some other lame "national security" ploy. Honestly, I hope the next major thread is Schiff being recalled or Pelosi losing her mind seat.
(02-04-2020, 02:13 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Been gone a while and decided to check in. Yep, same ol', same ol'. I imagine after the acquittal we'll get to start another impeachment thread for some other lame "national security" ploy. Honestly, I hope the next major thread is Schiff being recalled or Pelosi losing her mind seat.
Yep. We were warned about the majority abusing impeachment in the Federalist Papers.
That's why they made it relatively easy to begin, yet has a high bar for removal. To help prevent the kind of abuse we're seeing now.
I wouldn't put it past these lunatics to try again. The risk they face there is the perception that it's election interference - which it truly would be, and has been.
(02-04-2020, 05:09 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ] (02-04-2020, 02:13 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Been gone a while and decided to check in. Yep, same ol', same ol'. I imagine after the acquittal we'll get to start another impeachment thread for some other lame "national security" ploy. Honestly, I hope the next major thread is Schiff being recalled or Pelosi losing her mind seat.
Yep. We were warned about the majority abusing impeachment in the Federalist Papers.
That's why they made it relatively easy to begin, yet has a high bar for removal. To help prevent the kind of abuse we're seeing now.
I wouldn't put it past these lunatics to try again. The risk they face there is the perception that it's election interference - which it truly would be, and has been.
They have already said as much. It's not going to end until 2024 (for President Trump) and will move on to the next Republican President (most likely Mike Pence).
The democrat party is in a huge tail-spin and going down fast.
(02-04-2020, 06:15 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (02-04-2020, 05:09 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Yep. We were warned about the majority abusing impeachment in the Federalist Papers.
That's why they made it relatively easy to begin, yet has a high bar for removal. To help prevent the kind of abuse we're seeing now.
I wouldn't put it past these lunatics to try again. The risk they face there is the perception that it's election interference - which it truly would be, and has been.
They have already said as much. It's not going to end until 2024 (for President Trump) and will move on to the next Republican President (most likely Mike Pence).
The democrat party is in a huge tail-spin and going down fast.
Pence has too much religious baggage and is too milquetoast. Only someone fiery and thick skinned can follow Trump's act. I'm thinking they might go for another political maverick because I don't see any Republican politicians with the moxie to pull it off.
Greatest speech of his political career.
Pelosi thought that was the constitution.
Most direct appeal of conservatism to black Americans in our lifetime.
I wouldn't equivocate Trump with conservatism. I definitely agree he is doing a better job welcoming blacks to the Republican party. It's good to see someone actually reaching out to that community.
(02-05-2020, 11:47 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't equivocate Trump with conservatism.
Trump is much more moderate than most who have come along.
I think that's why he faced so much resistance initially from his own party (and still so from far rights) and why he continues to face it from an ever leaning left.
Something just died.................Mitt's political career.
(02-05-2020, 03:46 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Something just died.................Mitt's political career.
![[Image: giphy.gif?cid=790b76112c039b1e4562eb6318...=giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/3ornjXJUIDbLSlnZwQ/giphy.gif?cid=790b76112c039b1e4562eb6318795fae03656697e3896d26&rid=giphy.gif)
(02-05-2020, 12:16 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2020, 11:47 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't equivocate Trump with conservatism.
Trump is much more moderate than most who have come along.
I think that's why he faced so much resistance initially from his own party (and still so from far rights) and why he continues to face it from an ever leaning left.
Very much so. I'll be the first to admit that I didn't vote for him in the primary and I pretty much cast my vote for him "because he wasn't Hillary". I'll say right now that he's already got my vote over any of the clowns that the democrat party are rolling out.
.gif "Laughing")