(01-14-2021, 09:43 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 09:40 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Just stating what I think are the relevant facts that we need to keep in mind.
He built a metaphorical bomb, lit the fuse, and took no responsibility for the resulting explosion.
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Fr...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Fr%2Foka.gif&f=1&nofb=1)
Normally, I wouldn't be in favor of impeaching the guy with less than a week to go in his term, but I can understand how incredibly angry the Congress is to have their lives threatened by his supporters. Anyone who has ever been physically threatened would understand how angry that can make someone. And I think they are acting out of anger. But I understand it. They feel like they cannot simply let it go.
I think Mitch McConnell is doing the right thing by delaying the trial.
(01-14-2021, 09:49 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 09:43 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]
Normally, I wouldn't be in favor of impeaching the guy with less than a week to go in his term, but I can understand how incredibly angry the Congress is to have their lives threatened by his supporters. Anyone who has ever been physically threatened would understand how angry that can make someone. And I think they are acting out of anger. But I understand it. They feel like they cannot simply let it go.
I think Mitch McConnell is doing the right thing by delaying the trial.
It's almost like you were born in January 2021 and never saw what was happening in 2020.
(01-14-2021, 09:52 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 09:49 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Normally, I wouldn't be in favor of impeaching the guy with less than a week to go in his term, but I can understand how incredibly angry the Congress is to have their lives threatened by his supporters. Anyone who has ever been physically threatened would understand how angry that can make someone. And I think they are acting out of anger. But I understand it. They feel like they cannot simply let it go.
I think Mitch McConnell is doing the right thing by delaying the trial.
It's almost like you were born in January 2021 and never saw what was happening in 2020.
We all know if it were up to you, you'd nominate Trump for sainthood.
(01-14-2021, 10:19 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 09:52 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]It's almost like you were born in January 2021 and never saw what was happening in 2020.
We all know if it were up to you, you'd nominate Trump for sainthood.
Just simply pointing out there was no message board outrage when someone tried to assistant Scalise on a softball field or when a crazy nut job attacked Rand Paul in his front lawn.
The outrage bias is why nobody takes it serious.
(01-14-2021, 09:49 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 09:43 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]
Normally, I wouldn't be in favor of impeaching the guy with less than a week to go in his term, but I can understand how incredibly angry the Congress is to have their lives threatened by his supporters. Anyone who has ever been physically threatened would understand how angry that can make someone. And I think they are acting out of anger. But I understand it. They feel like they cannot simply let it go.
I think Mitch McConnell is doing the right thing by delaying the trial.
So it's ok to act on feelings rather than fact or the law?
(01-14-2021, 09:40 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 09:32 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Is this a diary entry?
Just stating what I think are the relevant facts that we need to keep in mind.
He built a metaphorical bomb, lit the fuse, and took no responsibility for the resulting explosion.
Are those the ONLY relevant facts, or are there others that we also need to keep in mind when judging his culpability? You are willing to consider both sides of the debate, aren't you?
P.S. Memoirs of a Metaphorical POTUS, p. 532-547. Available soon in hardcover.
(01-14-2021, 10:24 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 09:49 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Normally, I wouldn't be in favor of impeaching the guy with less than a week to go in his term, but I can understand how incredibly angry the Congress is to have their lives threatened by his supporters. Anyone who has ever been physically threatened would understand how angry that can make someone. And I think they are acting out of anger. But I understand it. They feel like they cannot simply let it go.
I think Mitch McConnell is doing the right thing by delaying the trial.
So it's ok to act on feelings rather than fact or the law?
Re-read what I wrote. Did I say it was okay? I didn't. I said I understand it.
(01-14-2021, 10:24 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 09:49 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Normally, I wouldn't be in favor of impeaching the guy with less than a week to go in his term, but I can understand how incredibly angry the Congress is to have their lives threatened by his supporters. Anyone who has ever been physically threatened would understand how angry that can make someone. And I think they are acting out of anger. But I understand it. They feel like they cannot simply let it go.
I think Mitch McConnell is doing the right thing by delaying the trial.
So it's ok to act on feelings rather than fact or the law?
In a court of law, no, never.
The United States Senate is not a court of law.
(01-14-2021, 11:44 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 10:24 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]So it's ok to act on feelings rather than fact or the law?
In a court of law, no, never.
The United States Senate is not a court of law.
So you're saying that just because congress is not a court of law then it's okay to act based on feelings rather than actual fact or the law?
Not surprised coming from a leftist like you.
(01-14-2021, 12:03 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 11:44 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]In a court of law, no, never.
The United States Senate is not a court of law.
So you're saying that just because congress is not a court of law then it's okay to act based on feelings rather than actual fact or the law?
Not surprised coming from a leftist like you.
No, he's a conservative Republican.
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.tenor.com%2Fimag...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.tenor.com%2Fimages%2F0a75bcc7ffc5f17ad28e2335536d36c1%2Ftenor.gif%3Fitemid%3D5612432&f=1&nofb=1)
(01-13-2021, 10:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-13-2021, 09:42 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The Senate is in recess until January 19th. There's no time for a hearing before he leaves office. Once he leaves office they have no standing to try or convict him.
What will be fascinating is seeing how the Dems try to impeach him on these charges in 2025.
That's up to the judgement of the Senate majority and John Roberts.
I think they do have such standing. Even though removal is moot, barring him from holding office in the future is not. They'll vote on that. We shall see what the vote totals are.
Its really not. You cannot be impeached if you are not incumbent. If you are not impeached you cannot be disqualified. Like I said, they can spend 3 years trying again in 2025.
I can’t say I’d have voted to impeach.
Yes, he fomented anger by going on for weeks about “the steal” and mounds of other lies that played some role in all of this. And I do think he’ll continue to foment derision.
Just seemed rushed and somewhat haphazard.
The censure suggestion from a leading Republican seemed more well suited IMO.
(01-14-2021, 12:03 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 11:44 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]In a court of law, no, never.
The United States Senate is not a court of law.
So you're saying that just because congress is not a court of law then it's okay to act based on feelings rather than actual fact or the law?
Not surprised coming from a leftist like you.
Now what did we say about name calling?
Have you read Federalist 65?
You should.
(01-14-2021, 12:21 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]I can’t say I’d have voted to impeach.
Yes, he fomented anger by going on for weeks about “the steal” and mounds of other lies that played some role in all of this. And I do think he’ll continue to foment derision.
Just seemed rushed and somewhat haphazard.
The censure suggestion from a leading Republican seemed more well suited IMO.
That leaves him free to run in 2024.
(01-14-2021, 12:11 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 12:03 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]So you're saying that just because congress is not a court of law then it's okay to act based on feelings rather than actual fact or the law?
Not surprised coming from a leftist like you.
No, he's a conservative Republican.
Can't get much more conservative than following the Federalist papers...
(01-14-2021, 12:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 12:03 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]So you're saying that just because congress is not a court of law then it's okay to act based on feelings rather than actual fact or the law?
Not surprised coming from a leftist like you.
Now what did we say about name calling?
Have you read Federalist 65?
You should.
(01-14-2021, 12:21 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]I can’t say I’d have voted to impeach.
Yes, he fomented anger by going on for weeks about “the steal” and mounds of other lies that played some role in all of this. And I do think he’ll continue to foment derision.
Just seemed rushed and somewhat haphazard.
The censure suggestion from a leading Republican seemed more well suited IMO.
That leaves him free to run in 2024.
In 2024, he'll be 78, and not a healthy 78 from the looks of things. And I don't think he'll want to go through it all again. The last 4 years must seem like a nightmare to him.
(01-14-2021, 12:42 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 12:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Now what did we say about name calling?
Have you read Federalist 65?
You should.
That leaves him free to run in 2024.
In 2024, he'll be 78, and not a healthy 78 from the looks of things. And I don't think he'll want to go through it all again. The last 4 years must seem like a nightmare to him.
So in 4 years he will be Biden?
(01-14-2021, 12:47 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 12:42 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]In 2024, he'll be 78, and not a healthy 78 from the looks of things. And I don't think he'll want to go through it all again. The last 4 years must seem like a nightmare to him.
So in 4 years he will be Biden?
I think Biden is a lot more healthy right now at 78 than Trump will be in 4 years.
The assumption that if Trump ran again he would receive overwhelming support and the automatic nomination is misguided. He was very effective serving as an influence for future candidates who wish to win wide Republican support, but on a personal level he's chaotic.
(01-14-2021, 12:54 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2021, 12:47 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]So in 4 years he will be Biden?
I think Biden is a lot more healthy right now at 78 than Trump will be in 4 years.
Without medical training and studying the medical record of each, I don't know how anyone could be remotely qualified to make such assumption. But I get it, #orangeman bad bandwagon.