The Impeachment Thread

[NoCalMike]

Haha so basically the house GOP calling the impeachment hearings a "Kangaroo court" are really projecting for what is surely a cluster-F of a Senate Trial that is coming.

 

It is hilarious that the GOP want a quick acquittal, but they have to abandon those plans to appease the Reality TV host in chief demanding it be a spectacle of epic proportions.  Perhaps Melania Trump will come decorate the Senate Floor?

[Jumbo]

4 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I absolutely loathe the current GOP.  Far as I'm concerned, I can't really tell the difference between them, and Satan.  

 

But it's because of what they do, when they get power.  Not because of their racial composition.  

 

 

 

i liked your post because of its base point as i saw it---not to be quick to fall into making skin color equivalent to a form of behavior

 

however, in any matter, ruling out the idea that composition might not be revealing or reflective of some basic nature is quite open to challenge

 

and as i always say about most everything, context matters 

 

if in a society with all the diverse demographics as this one has, many of which have significant numbers, and given it has two primary political parties to cover all, one could quite logically infer that  when there is such a dramatic difference in inclusion and support between the two, such as we see in this case, i'd say it's fair to note the sheer white maleness in an objective analysis as hard data and neutral observation, and to wonder how this can be so, that this party so  hugely dominated by white/male leadership from small town to big city be "healthy" and representative in any democratic sense

 

 if you go into a club with a quite large membership in any sizeable diverse community and 85% of their membership is white, and 95% of the club leaders are white males, it is intellectually valid to at least wonder/question/examine if some "cultural" issues re: inclusivity exist and what that lack might indicate

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Haha so basically the house GOP calling the impeachment hearings a "Kangaroo court" are really projecting

 

That's sort of been the underlining theme to Everything GOP for a while now.

 

If they're waving their arms and yelling about something, there's a near 100% chance that the people they're accusing of wrong doing haven't actually done anything wrong and instead it's the Republicans that have either already done said wrongdoing or are planning to do it shortly.

 

They're quickly becoming a group that needs to be put on a terrorist watch list. They're dangerous for this country and democracy. I do not take making either of those statements lightly. They appear to be only interested in destroying our democracy at this point, either outright via their actions or by simply spreading misinformation to make our people uninformed and/or angry.

 

I'm pretty convinced that the list of options, at this point, does not include anything that involves saving/fixing these people.  They are a danger and immediate threat to our democracy and it's about time we start treating them as such.

 

I think it's worth considering the long term ramifications of allowing this situation to continue. This situation being: A sizable portion of this country is being methodically and constantly (and successfully) turned against the institutions that define and protect this country/democracy. 

 

 

[Hersh]

31 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Gotta say, it's long (like, since I was a teen) offended me that people even notice things like that.  

 

But it's because of what they do, when they get power.  Not because of their racial composition.  

 

 

I'm proud that the party I support has so many diverse faces. I tend to notice a lack of diversity when it's largely white males. Particularly when they are making decisions that impact millions if not billions of people. I say this as a white male.  

[Fresh8686]

17 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Im going to have to. Its about all I can do. I have been exploring how to get more involved with political campaigns, actually. Im so damn busy I dont know what im going to do time wise, but right now me and the fiance have a plan....admittedly its to help us lose weight and save money primarily....but we picked a political campaign of our choice and every time we eat out instead of cooking something we donate the price of the meal. Its just a start though. But....its a start. 

 

I was talking with a member of the state legislature in New Hampshire a couple months ago and we were talking about what can we do? And she said, volunteer to be an election worker. We need as many trust worthy people as possible around our votes, counting our votes, and making sure that nothing weird happens to tip the balance.

[No Excuses]

2 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

I really dont understand how we get out of this. I see how we got here. But I dont see a real way out. 

Social and economic sorting will take its natural course. If you are well adapted to a socially modern and globalized world, you likely have nothing to worry about. The GOP would be far more destructive if they had cultural support in major metro areas. You see this with right wing nationalism in countries like India, where the urban And cultural centers are the breeding grounds of bigotry. But here, the GOP derives it’s power from a decentralized network of disconnected rural regions, which means they get to do all of their bad economic policies but can’t really dictate and control the social norms and trends of the population.

[visionary]

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[NoCalMike]

1 hour ago, Jumbo said:

 

 

i liked your post because of its base point as i saw it---not to be quick to fall into making skin color equivalent to a form of behavior

 

 

I think we often confuse prejudice with racism.  A lot of us hold built in prejudices due to what we have been taught from childhood that take a lot to shake, life experiences, circumstances, basically small things that subconsciously shape the way our brain tells us to react. Like in the ATM machine example I don't think he reacted that way because he thought "I better be careful because the guy is black and all black people are inferior criminals to me......."   It could be that he's seen 30 years of local news that focuses on black criminals 90% of the time.  Something like that.   Or maybe lack of overall experience with interaction of people with other races. (Not talking Larry specifically now obviously, just a general sense of why folks in general could possibly carry prejudices)

 

Racism, traditionally carries a larger context to it that is not only about hating an entire race on the macro level, but also the socioeconomic and systematic oppression that separates and keeps that race of people from prospering in society.

 

I know it is pretty normal and accepted to use both terms interchangeably though. 

 

[Mr. Sinister]

It's fair game in the end, when prejudice can so easily lead to racism. People aren't born racist.

[Isifhan]

24 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

It's been well established at this point, that they don't give a flying **** about oaths.  Doesn't matter in the least to them and no one will hold them accountable so what's a country to do.

[Mooka]

Racism trumps politics.

 

- Patrice O'neal

 

RIP

[Skintime]

47 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

 

He and the GOP are traitors and quite simply must be removed by office, I do not mind at this point if it's by force.

[Mr. Sinister]

Or by more force...

[Larry]

Or Force Choke?  🙂

[Skintime]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

Or by more force...

Or the Space Force

[NoCalMike]

If impeachment passes then by definition that DQ's it from being a "sham" or "hoax" yeah?  The President needs to learn proper terminology.. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

Why don't the Dems go spend months in court and let Trump do as he pleases with no objections?

[Larry]

5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

If impeachment passes then by definition that DQ's it from being a "sham" or "hoax" yeah?  The President needs to learn proper terminology.. 

 

Disagree.  

 

Bill Clinton was impeached, but it was a sham.  The GOP House had been conducting an "investigation" for four years, which consisted entirely of demanding that Clinton hand every document in existence to the opposition party, so they could go through them looking for things that could be used to political advantage.  

 

After four years of opposition research masquerading as an investigation, the voters got tired of it, and the GOP lost a bunch of seats.  

 

At which time, the lame duck congress decided that they absolutely needed to have an impeachment vote (before the election took effect), to try to retroactively justify the "investigations".  And ran through a vote quick, before they lost the votes to do so.  

 

Yes, it is possible for a sham investigation to result in a "successful" impeachment vote.  We saw it happen.  

 

1 minute ago, Cooked Crack said:

Why don't the Dems go spend months in court and let Trump do as he pleases with no objections?

 

I think of it more as "Yeah, he's completely refused to comply with a single subpoena to date.  And forbidden everybody under him from doing so.  And ignored every court order telling him to do so.  So why don;t the Dems just reset the Stall Clock back to zero, and start the whole stall back over again from the lowest level?"  

 

[NoCalMike]

10 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Disagree.  

 

Bill Clinton was impeached, but it was a sham.  The GOP House had been conducting an "investigation" for four years, which consisted entirely of demanding that Clinton hand every document in existence to the opposition party, so they could go through them looking for things that could be used to political advantage.  

 

 

I agree that the process was a sham, but Clinton created his own bed when he lied to the grand jury.  I understand all the circumstances around it and why he did it, but at the end of the day he served up the fuel for the fire where otherwise I don't think the impeachment goes through.

 

Also people talking about how the country is divided because it is 50/50 on the impeachment?  During the Clinton impeachment support for it was around 28% yet the GOP didn't seem very concerned about the voices of the American people.

[Llevron]

Impeach him

hes not removed 

make sure the country knows its the Republicans who saved him (they will help you) 

Keep investigating and fighting in court 

when you get the evidence you show it all and tell people Republicans helped him do it 

During all this he will keep doing it more and more

 

Thats about all the dems have left now. They gotta hope they can prove it through court and have mulvaney admit it. Then use it against every Republican in office if they get the goods. 

 

Even then you are hoping you find something bad enough that it changes peoples minds. And good luck with that ****. 

[Larry]

"Double jeopardy!  It's unconstitutional to impeach a President twice.  Even if he commits the same crime again! (And we all know he will).  Once the GOP unanimously votes to let him get away with what every one of them knows he's guilty of, then all investigations must cease!.  (Except for the GOP "investigations" into everybody who went against Trump.  Those will continue.)"  

 

[nonniey]

47 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Disagree.  

 

Bill Clinton was impeached, but it was a sham.  The GOP House had been conducting an "investigation" for four years, which consisted entirely of demanding that Clinton hand every document in existence to the opposition party, so they could go through them looking for things that could be used to political advantage.  

 

 

Yeah, yeah, perjury isn't something that is really breaking the law (won't even get into the sexual predator side of it). 🙄  If Clinton had been removed Trump would be in serious trouble right now.  The difference in how we approach this is I think Clinton should have been convicted and I think Trump should be convicted. You only think the Republican should be convicted (My Trumpster work colleague is very similar he thinks only the Democrat should have been impeached). 

[NoCalMike]

I was 17 when Clinton was impeached.  I have come around in thinking there was justification to remove him.  I understand why it didn't happen, but he served up the fuel for that fire himself.  I think the reason why people look back on that as a sham was due to the investigation itself and how it started as a completely different thing, then morphed 100 times to try and find something, until Clinton ultimately did himself in.

 

This go around, the impeachment inquiry has been about one issue the entire time, focused on Trump's Ukraine call and overall conduct surrounding it.  It has not veered off that path, as much as the GOP wants to pretend that "impeachment began 3 years ago with Russia" it didn't.  The equivalent of what happened with Clinton, would be Trump testifying under oath about Stormy Daniels, randomly, in the middle of the Ukraine matters and he got caught lying, and then the article of impeachment was about that.

[Larry]

6 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Yeah, yeah, perjury isn't something that is really breaking the law (won't even get into the sexual predator side of it). 🙄  If Clinton had been removed Trump would be in serious trouble right now.  The difference in how we approach this is I think Clinton should have been convicted and I think Trump should be convicted. You only think the Republican should be convicted (My Trumpster work colleague is very similar he thinks only the Democrat should have been impeached). 

 

I think what Trump did is worthy of impeachment.  

 

Clinton is absolutely guilty.  

 

(I think if I'm on a jury, maybe I look real hard for a reason to acquit.  One of those "Yeah, he's guilty, but I really really wanna give him a pass, anyway" deals.)  

 

Let's put if this way:  If the SC forces Trump to appear before Congress under oath, and Nadler or somebody asks him if he's ever cheated on any of his wives, and Trump says No, I'll support giving him a pass, too.  On that one.