Impeachment Hearings

[J.C.MacSwell]

“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion.”

Robert Burns 1786

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Stuff like this Zap? Is this the type of statement you are against?

I don't object to discussing specifics when asked. 

[iNow]

I’m curious if the facts I shared about how the Democrats have actually passed 400 bills (which the GOP led senate is ignoring while they focus solely on installing partisan federal judges) has caused anyone here to rethink their narrative that it’s impeachment which is preventing things from getting done for the public. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m curious if the facts I shared about how the Democrats have actually passed 400 bills (which the GOP led senate is ignoring while they focus solely on installing partisan federal judges) has caused anyone here to rethink their narrative that it’s impeachment which is preventing things from getting done for the public. 

How many received any degree of bipartisan support? (Asking, have no idea)

They should of course have a good chance of making it through into law.

The others of course would likely not, and not have received the attention required, or simply been non starters.

[iNow]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/index.asp

I’ll take that as a no 

[J.C.MacSwell]

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/index.asp

I’ll take that as a no 

 I realize you tend to polarized your thinking but don't assume it of me...not that you can help it..LOL.

 

16 hours ago, YJ02 said:

Hello, new here.....

I find myself having to 'preamble' myself on this topic because it seems whenever someone has some little criticism of the democrats and this impeachment process, they get labeled immediately as a 'MAGA hat wearing racist Trump supporter'--yeah not me. Didn't vote for him--didn't vote for Hillary either

 

 

Now...how would our new poster have come upon this little "incite" (not a typo)

The Dems better nominate a good candidate...

Edited December 8, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/index.asp

I’ll take that as a no 

You certainly didn't receive a clear answer.

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You certainly didn't receive a clear answer.

He was, however, kind enough to make it personal and suggest I’m too polarized in my thinking and so much so that I can’t help myself. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

57 minutes ago, iNow said:

He was, however, kind enough to make it personal and suggest I’m too polarized in my thinking and so much so that I can’t help myself. 

I was giving it consideration and asked a question with regard to it.

You weren't satisfied with that...took it as a "no", despite my not giving a clear answer answer either way as Zap points out.

How is that not polarized thinking? It certainly was a polarized reply.

Straight out of the play book...

Edited December 9, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

The impeachment hearings will continue tomorrow and articles may be drafted by as early as this week:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/us/politics/judiciary-committee-report.html

Quote

On Monday, the committee will formally receive the evidence against Mr. Trump in a public hearing. Democratic and Republican lawyers for the House Intelligence Committee, which spent two months investigating the president’s actions, will testify and answer questions, the committee announced on Saturday.

<...>
“The Framers worst nightmare is what we are facing in this very moment,” he said on Twitter on Saturday as the Judiciary Committee report about the history of impeachment was released. “President Trump abused his power, betrayed our national security, and corrupted our elections, all for personal gain. The Constitution details only one remedy for this misconduct: impeachment.”

 

[Sock Prophet]

Jimmy Carter was honest but it didn't seem to be enough for Americans.

[YJ02]

14 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

As far as I can tell, none of those is actually valid.

That's not to say there aren't viable claims to be made; just that the report you cited doesn't show them.

It's interesting to note that the Left is saying that the impeachment action is in support of justice, rather than their cause.- They may be lying.

What is the Right's justification for opposing it?

Do they not want an investigation and hearing that  would clear their guy and make the opposition look stupid?

BOTH sides are pushing their well crafted narratives to the public through the American media outlets that are sympathetic to either side.

For quite a while now, I have not trusted any American media outlet, tv and internet/print, to report news objectively.

So, as for any of my links being 'valid', well... I use them here because I figured no one here would accept the news outlets that I do get news from--and none of those are from the US. I usually watch stuff like France24, BBC and a few Australian news sites. It seems, to me, as if an outsider's perspective on US domestic issues is far more trustworthy and objective/dispassionate, then anything from the US itself.

 

---------------------

Now with this 'Schiff releases phone records "news" I ma seeing on YT clips. I watched a few clips from FOX and a few from CNN and MSNBC.

You would think that the people on each were talking about entirely different events.

It seems as if someone-I dont know what agency it would fall to, may need to conduct independent investigations into BOTH the White House, the Dem side and the GOP side of the House of Representatives, and the media!! All just to get somewhere near the truth at some point in the middle.

I have thought as well (my thought, my opinion based on a subjective observation of all the 'noise' that populates news feeds) that in America the majority of people already think that the way things are done are not via by the book=legal activities, but by way of shaky phone calls between world leaders and backroom deals between official and unofficial diplomats.

So, when this issue of the now infamous phone call of Trump's came out, most Americans simply thought "so what? It's how it is done and has been for a long time"

That is how cynical the American population has become over the decades. All they care about is their family and their family's ability to maintain their status in society/economy. Whatever the politicians are doing, if it benefits those two things, the majority of the American public simply does not care how it is getting done.

They all want sausage but do not want to tour the sausage factory.

Edited December 9, 2019 by YJ02
typo

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

It seems, to me, as if an if an outsider's perspective on US domestic issues is far more trustworthy and objective/dispassionate, then anything from the US itself.

The person to whom you’re responding is an outsider to US domestic issues who watches BBC. The delicious irony. 

23 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

So, when this issue of the now infamous phone call of Trump's came out, most Americans simply thought "so what? It's how it is done and has been for a long time"

This seems to be another of those unspecific claims unsupported by evidence. 

Speaking of evidence:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/70-americans-trumps-actions-tied-ukraine-wrong-poll/story?id=67088534

Quote

An overwhelming 70% of Americans think President Donald Trump’s request to a foreign leader to investigate his political rival, which sits at the heart of the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry, was wrong, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds.

 

Perhaps you’re bad at math and think that 30% is equivalent to “most Americans?”

[YJ02]

On 12/4/2019 at 10:09 PM, Raider5678 said:

Your claims are unsupported. Where did you get your numbers?

In the political landscape of America's last 10 years or so of so much "bloodsport politics", numbers and polls have become little more the manipulative tools for whomever it is paying for the polls.

The best you can get is aggregates, and then you should go +/-, say..hmm...A LOT.

It is pretty sad the state of our polity over the last few decades; the politics of personal destruction, impeachment for sex acts and then lying about it, triangulation, the breakdown of discourse,etc,etc.

It has all amounted to a state where one can really only go with their instincts on a candidate, and then hope you were right.

Then now--following on that--we have a part of the population that went instinctual for Trump, the other for Clinton, and both sides are STILL convinced their instincts were right! 

it used to be, we got facts on a candidate, and then facts on their policy and plans. Whoever won, those who voted fort he loser usually supported the President and the good of the nation.

Today, that is long gone. Even if Clinton had won, the current situation would be much the same. We would be in a situation with a re-actively elected GOP House majority, in the midst of impeachment hearings on her.

And why? All because GOP losers would have been protesting about how THEIR resistance was to begin with impeachment to follow (with all the du rigueur chants of 'lock her up', 'Hillary for Jail', 'Not my President' ) the day after election day 2016. and their impeachment proceedings would also be invalid based on a mass pre-determination before the fact (fact being a high crime and misdemeanor committed while in office) of her guilt.

The only way forward, though I doubt democrats will do this, is for them to nominate a moderate- Gabbard, Yang or even Mayor Pete.The only way I can see that the nation can ever get back to a functioning bi polar, confrontational but compromising and collaborative system of government, is for the nation to push aside the extremes of either party and embrace moderation.

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by YJ02
typo

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

Even if Clinton has won, the current situation would be muck the same

I doubt kids would be separated from mothers and locked in cages, allies shunned, farmers bankrupted, food stamps cancelled, billionaire taxes reduced, half a billion in tax dollars wasted on golf trips, Kurdish allies abandoned and slaughtered, and EPA environmental protections gutted, but yeah... pretty much the same had Clinton won (the electoral college... she did win by 3M votes)

Edited December 9, 2019 by iNow

[zapatos]

28 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

...numbers and polls have become little more the manipulative tools for whomever it is paying for the polls.

At the risk of making you feel I am trying to shut down the speech and opinion of someone like you, would it be too much to ask for some evidence to support the above claim?

[iNow]

On 12/5/2019 at 2:29 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would argue that Democrats make it far to easy for Republicans.

There are obvious flaws in this analogy, but it conveys why your position is so troublesome:

Trump raped the democrats, the GOP is like the sheriff who looked away while it happened and who is now hiding evidence to protect their friend, and instead of focusing on Trump and the corrupt GOP sheriff,  you consistently keep talking about how the democrats shouldn’t have worn so much makeup or such an attractive dress when going out to their friends house that night. 

You’re victim blaming and suggesting it’ll be democrats fault when Trump rapes again, and all because they’re seeking justice now via their constitutional mandate. 

Worse, you're then doing the equivalent of calling me a feminazi who’s too focused on warrioring for social justice merely for pointing this out to you, and you’re calling me these names instead of comprehending the core point we’re making and ceasing with the continued victim blaming. 

I acknowledge the flaws in my analogy, but the central point remains... The time is always right to do what is right. Stop victim blaming. Stop shifting focus from the rapists. Recognize that the responsibility for quality governance is shared across both parties and adjust your commentary accordingly. 

Edited December 9, 2019 by iNow

[iNow]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

would it be too much to ask for some evidence to support the above claim?

Apparently, it was too much to ask

[YJ02]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I doubt kids would be separated from mothers and locked in cages, allies shunned, farmers bankrupted, food stamps cancelled, billionaire taxes reduced, half a billion in tax dollars wasted on golf trips, Kurdish allies abandoned and slaughtered, and EPA environmental protections gutted, but yeah... pretty much the same had Clinton won (the electoral college... she did win by 3M votes)

I am not talking about the events of the Trump administration, nor any hypothetical events of a HRC admin., and I think you know that.

I am talking about, and only about, a simple point A --election night and the reaction of HRC supporters, to point B-- the current events of impeachment

it is apparent to many people-again an observation, that B is a direct result of A and not of anything that happened in between (Comey report, Mueller Report, Stormy Daniels).

Conversely (or is it inversely? hmm), A HRC win would have generated its own point A - reactions of 'lock her up' ninnies post election, resulting in a point B.  The obligatory 'evidence' needed for an impeachment would have been sought out and found. 

Either side in either 2016 result-real or hypothetical- has/would have engaged in a quest to fulfill the predetermined ending desired by their need to have closure to their meet their collective confirmation bias

If your a Star Trek fan, this whole affair is  a lot like the Cardassian justice system

------------------------------------------

Now, another prediction (and please no one ask for evidence of a prediction)-

that if and when the Senate does not convict Trump, the outrage of the dems will surpass that of post election night 2016.

The reason why, perhaps, that those like Schiff and Nadler and CNN and MSNBC have been saying things like "the evidence is overwhelming/ the case is solid against the president/' there are numerous items of evidence supporting high crimes and misdemeanors" and the like in order to put into the minds of an already receptive and pre- convinced and pre-sold democratic audience (all of which connect right back to Point A , 2016 election results) that there is simply no way that Trump will not be convicted.

Then, all the greater the rage when he is not convicted and then the seeds will have been planted for the next round of "the GOP rigged the Senate hearing" etc,etc,etc. And to also attempt to deligit his win in 2020.

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Apparently, it was too much to ask

Then, you show me how you prove the opinion of human beings? it is not possible to give hard and incontrovertible evidence of such. all "proofs" of human behavior are subjective 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

If your a Star Trek fan, this whole affair is  a lot like the Cardassian justice system

You’re 

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Apparently, it was too much to ask

No kidding. I'm so tired of people who pull this stuff out of their asses, believe it passionately, and cannot believe someone has a nerve to question where they get their information.

22 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

Evidence..seems to be a talking point of yours.

It's a fucking science forum.

[swansont]

On 12/8/2019 at 12:16 AM, YJ02 said:

-Lastly-for now- is the perception by said groups that impeachment just looks like 'cheating'.

Impeachment is outlined in the Constitution, and bribery is listed as an example of something that would lead to it.

These "groups" are thus ignorant, or pretending to be.

 

On 12/8/2019 at 12:16 AM, YJ02 said:

To explain, to many Americans, doing this is like a short cut to get rid of him, as if the Dem's know they will have a tough time in 2020 at the election, so they are trying to get rid of him by a loophole/technicality/bad refereeing. Like when a person in a barfight pulls out a knife instead of 'fighting fair'. Follow? I don't hold to this myself, but it is what I hear and read from many other people's opinions.

And such characterizations conform with the above description.

 

On 12/8/2019 at 12:16 AM, YJ02 said:

The dems should be convincing people why any of their candidates would be better as President, better for the nation. You don't do this by saying "i wont be Trump". We are tired of that, stop telling us how bad he is, tell us how good you can be.

You should pay attention, then. That's exactly what's happening in the primaries.

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, YJ02 said:

Evidence..seems to be a talking point of yours.

!

Moderator Note

It's not just a talking point here at SFN, it's recognized officially as a requirement for meaningful discussion in the sciences and all our topics. 

 

[iNow]

deleted

Edited December 9, 2019 by iNow

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

no, you don't say? but this sub forum, is not hard science, it is political. political science is part of social sciences. there is no proving anything when it comes to social science other then historical evidence.

!

Moderator Note

Please learn the difference between "proof" and supportive evidence. Science isn't interested in "proving" anything.