Author |
|
Rebecca Jansen Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 February 2018 Location: Canada Posts: 4540
|
Posted: 29 May 2019 at 4:49pm | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
I thought only one house was tasked with impeaching, that it doesn't need both, doesn't involve both. I would like to know who would vote for a Democrat who had enough to impeach but who wouldn't? If voters would penalize Democrats for holding a president to account on multiple serious matters then so be it, let's just go entirely down that toilet thanks to a bunch of reactionary bigots for a fraud artist and his foreign fascist enemy pals if they have so much power. Nothing conservative about any of them.
Also, the one who brings up IQ and intelligence thew most is the stinking head of the rotting fish yet again, el Trumpo, and what do we know that says about someone who does that? Weaknesses galore and yet people act like they are vastly outnumbered by fools and the fooled? Just a big front like any con man wants to put up, you make it work for him by buying into it.
Edited by Rebecca Jansen on 29 May 2019 at 4:50pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
|
Mark Haslett Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004 Location: United States Posts: 6106
|
Posted: 29 May 2019 at 5:35pm | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
Rebecca: I thought only one house was tasked with impeaching, that it doesn't need both, doesn't involve both.
**
You are mistaken, the process of impeachment begins in the House and ends in the Senate. First the House conducts an investigation and votes on impeachment. If it goes forward, reps from the House act as prosecutor for a trial in the Senate. Then, there's a Senate deliberation and a final result which can be removal from office.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Brian Hague Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 November 2006 Posts: 8515
|
Posted: 29 May 2019 at 5:40pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
"The final Senate vote on impeachment will be an acquittal and the resulting news coverage will depress the Democratic turnout."
Only in part. The outcome is already decided, so yes, the resulting news coverage will depress voter turnout, but that's not the entirety of it.
The entire process will be long and futile. Not just ultimately futile, but futile throughout. Nothing will come of it except Democratic losses since nothing surprising about this creep can be said at this point. It will drag down American morale every step of the way, to no good end. It would likely result in a miserable stretch of months, filled with bad guys saying they're winning, good guys saying "We don't have anything yet..." and news reporters saying, "Everything's undecided. But yes, the Democrats are correct. They have nothing as of yet."
The Democrats need something more than what they have. You could argue that is what the impeachment process will net them (and us) eventually, but absent any clear indication of a bunny at the bottom of the bowl, there is no reason to down this particularly bitter serving of mush.
Edited by Brian Hague on 29 May 2019 at 5:41pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
|
Rebecca Jansen Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 February 2018 Location: Canada Posts: 4540
|
Posted: 29 May 2019 at 6:42pm | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
If it comes down to the Senate then I guess you can expect the majority of Republicans to protect 'their' president (unlike when it was Nixon being investigated). :^(
I said a few weeks ago that if the entry wound has caused as much damage as it has what might the exit be like? Very messy. :^(
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
|
Mark Haslett Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004 Location: United States Posts: 6106
|
Posted: 29 May 2019 at 6:44pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
Brian: The entire process will be long and futile. Not just ultimately futile, but futile throughout. Nothing will come of it except Democratic losses since nothing surprising about this creep can be said at this point. It will drag down American morale every step of the way, to no good end.
** Have you read the Mueller report?
97% of America has not. The amount of detail of Trump and his team's specific unethical and illegal behavior in there is astounding. That's the redacted version.
With impeachment, the un-redacted version can be subpoenaed.
The notion that this will not surprise a vast portion of America is unsupportable.
But I am grateful for at least a theory of why impeachment could be bad for the Democrats. Public hearings, over-determined by GOP partisanship fired up the "Blue Wave" of 2018. So it is hardly a given that more hearings like that would actually depress turnout. Injustice like acquitting an obviously guilty Supreme Court nominee or President has a way of making voters angry-- and angry voters tend to vote.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Brian Hague Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 November 2006 Posts: 8515
|
Posted: 29 May 2019 at 11:47pm | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
I'd like to be able to share your optimism on that, but the Mueller Report at this point contains no smoking gun and no one, no one is talking about how "obviously guilty" frat-boy Kavanaugh is. He skated completely as far as I can tell. I wish I could believe the American voter has a long enough memory to make your scenario work, but they pretty much don't. A significant number of voters went into the polls thinking only of the then-released James Comey statement about Hillary Clinton ringing in their short-term recall.
You're banking on those redacted reveals in the Mueller Report being A.) Breathtaking and B.) Something that can actually be used in a public proceeding. That's a big risk, and again, the report could definitively prove Trump is a serial killing child rapist and Vladimir Putin's intel-leaking love slave and our Republican representatives in the Senate would still clear him, trumpeting his innocence to the heavens. Wal-Mart wouldn't be able to stock enough tiki torches for everyone in his Deep South victory parade.
And U.S. voters in general would only vote Trump out for such crimes if the news broke within 72 hours of their trip to the polls. Otherwise, their minds would be off that and onto whatever streaming show had the biggest, bloodthirstiest finale that week. "Yeah, I heard something about him doing clown paintings and burying the kids in the Rose Garden, but who can keep any of that political stuff straight these days? Did you see everyone in Asia get turned inside out on Game of Breaking Mirrors last night?"
I want to believe better of the political process and the people of this country. I'd enjoy life more if I could. They've shown me however that they are not to be relied upon, either of them.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
|
Koroush Ghazi Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009 Location: Australia Posts: 1652
|
Posted: 30 May 2019 at 2:07am | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
Mark Haslett wrote:
The notion that this will not surprise a vast portion of America is unsupportable. |
|
|
It would only surprise them if they believed the sources through which they would read about the full report. Remember, Fox, Breitbart, InfoWars et al. will skew virtually anything said about Trump to make it sound positive, and every other news outlet will be considered to be fake news by the Trumpanzees, so don't expect surprise so much as outrage at "yet another attack on the President".
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
|
Vinny Valenti Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 April 2004 Location: United States Posts: 8040
|
Posted: 30 May 2019 at 7:47am | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
"And U.S. voters in general would only vote Trump out for such crimes if the news broke within 72 hours of their trip to the polls. Otherwise, their minds would be off that and onto whatever streaming show had the biggest, bloodthirstiest finale that week. "
---
This. Trump is but a symptom of what ails society today, not the cause. Brexit happened independently of Trump, for example. If the Democrats want to win, they need to address this, instead. So far the 20+ Democrats seems to be running on an "I'm not Trump" platform. Unseating an incumbent President is NOT easy, and in the past that involve people voting FOR a new candidate instead of just voting AGAINST the previous one.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Brian Miller Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004 Location: United States Posts: 30901
|
Posted: 30 May 2019 at 8:24am | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
Our President:
“I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected.”
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Peter Martin Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 March 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 15810
|
Posted: 30 May 2019 at 10:05am | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
Sadly, that's about right, Brian.
Mueller: "The central allegation of our indictments [are] that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election." This 'concerted attack', as Mueller describes it, was launched by Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military.
But it's a witchhunt, right?
Putting aside questions of whether Trump was involved or not, of how much he knew about what was going on, it's mind boggling that his attitude to an attack on US democracy has been that it shouldn't be investigated and as long as no-one is blaming him, everything is A-OK.
Edited to correct a typo
Edited by Peter Martin on 30 May 2019 at 12:01pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Brian Miller Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004 Location: United States Posts: 30901
|
Posted: 30 May 2019 at 10:17am | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
God, what a baby.
Edited by Brian Miller on 30 May 2019 at 10:19am
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Eric Ladd Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 4506
|
Posted: 30 May 2019 at 10:25am | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
Just contemplate how hard you have to work in order to reconcile the two positions:
This was a witch hunt to uncover the multiple, systematic and concerted efforts to attack the US Presidential election process by Russian Intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military?
Look for the new legal defense of "ignorant guilt" in a courtroom year you.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|