Impeachment Hearings

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I’m sorry now I mentioned cars at all

You auto have known better...

[rangerx]

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

They never did trust "Trump's Auto Sales", but they needed a car immediately. Who would have thought a month later when they picked it up that maybe they should have read the smallprint?

What is the statute of limitation?

There is none. What's your point?

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, moth said:

If it's ok for the president to demand favors to do his job, why not the people at the Department of Motor Vehicles or the passport office?

Those other people aren’t in charge of the Justice Department (which is charged with enforcing the rules against doing those things).

It’s a who watches the watchers situation. Congress watches the President. The voters watch the congress. The Russian (and Saudi and Chinese and Iranian and...) trolls watch the voters. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, rangerx said:

What is the statute of limitation?

There is none. What's your point?

Point being...maybe she shouldn't have rushed into the purchase.

[moth]

It just sounds like a rich person dream, low wages for bureaucrats who work for tips, and no lines for those who can afford services.
I used to feel some comfort in the 3-way split of power - executive,legislstive, and judicial, so disagreements are settled by 2 to 1 decisions. but the judiciary is argueably partisan now so that seems broken.

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Point being...maybe she shouldn't have rushed into the purchase.

And what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

Are you suggesting just because it was hastily purchased, they lost ownership merely because they didn't drive it right away?

[MigL]

N Pelosi was had.
M McConnel finally promised a hearing in the Senate that seemed reasonable, so she handed over the articles of Impeachment.
At which point M McConnel reneged of the promise, and only wants to present arguments that the Impeachment process was a sham.
IOW just repeating the process Congress just went through, and hoping ( guaranteeing actually ) a different outcome.

Then they can claim D Trump was not Impeached, taking advantage of the fact that most of the American population doesn't realize that he IS Impeached already, and they can deny the whole thing at election time.

[rangerx]

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

N Pelosi was had.
M McConnel finally promised a hearing in the Senate that seemed reasonable, so she handed over the articles of Impeachment.
At which point M McConnel reneged of the promise, and only wants to present arguments that the Impeachment process was a sham.
IOW just repeating the process Congress just went through, and hoping ( guaranteeing actually ) a different outcome.

Then they can claim D Trump was not Impeached, taking advantage of the fact that most of the American population doesn't realize that he IS Impeached already, and they can deny the whole thing at election time.

Sad, but true. Now it's an exercise bathing republican senators in their own hypocrisy before the election, which is about all anyone could ask for under the circumstances.

I can't believe (actually I can) that Moscow Mitch had the audacity and gumption to ask the Dems to "stack" these amendments.

Shiff poured Mitch a nice big cup of go fuck yourself. I'm sure Mitch will sarcastically pour it over Shiff's head later , but at least the voters will have had their spectacle.

Aren't you glad MigL, that we never strayed from the parliamentary system in protest?

We don't need the guns and we don't need the bullshit and every day I thank my lucky stars I'm not American.

Edited January 22, 2020 by rangerx

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, rangerx said:

We don't need the guns and we don't need the bullshit and every day I thank my lucky stars I'm not American.

Must be nice to hail from someplace that has everything figured out. Good for you.

Until we've found the utopia you have, we'll just have to make the best of things and not let a few miscreants determine the outcome of our lives.

[MigL]

It's not a utopia; we have our problems.
But we tend to work on the problems as one group.
We don't have half the country pitted against the other, where certain unscrupulous people/political parties can leverage that polarization for their own gain. But Canada is a big country, and some regions undoubtedly get pitted against other ( see Quebec ).

That being said, If I could no longer live in Canada, my second choice would be the US, and I imagine Rangerx feels the same.
It is closest to 'our' way of life.
Besides, I have faith in you guys, you've lost your way before, but always come back to the right path.

[dimreepr]

utopia is no place and no place is immune to the problems of polarization.

Edited January 22, 2020 by dimreepr

[zapatos]

I think people mistakenly believe what goes on at the top is also what goes on at the bottom. That can lead to a flawed view of whatever the particular situation is.

Following the news tells you that Republicans and Democrats all hate each other. I know plenty of both and have never experienced any harsh exchange other than on anonymous online boards. People are still addressing issues together where the rubber meets the road.

Similarly for religion. When I started here I was shocked how much everyone was against religion. While the leadership was indeed spouting anti-LGBT rhetoric and protecting pedophiles, from my perspective (many years of a Catholic environment) religion meant a bunch of friendly people who looked out for each other, talked about their kids, and perhaps drank too much beer.

From the top things may be a mess, but the top is only one small (and temporary) part of the big picture.

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I think people mistakenly believe what goes on at the top is also what goes on at the bottom. That can lead to a flawed view of whatever the particular situation is.

Indeed, but it can also lead to war.

 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

We don't have half the country pitted against the other, where certain unscrupulous people/political parties can leverage that polarization for their own gain.

I think in the last elections a lot was made regarding the polarization in Canadian politics and especially the grumbling in Alberta and Saskatchewan (i.e. Wexit). 

That being said, your are probably right that the polarization has not been weaponized to the US level and one indicator that I often find telling is that the anti-immigration bid from Bernier ultimately failed. That being said, a recent study suggests polarization arises from party  loyalty. But the study also indicated that folks broadly still do not use social media that much, which may affect the high polarization in the US. On the other hand, MAGA hats are also popping up in Canada, so whatever the US has, it may be contagious.

[CharonY]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

N Pelosi was had.

 I am not entirely sure whether that is the case. The senate vote was for most a foregone conclusion. As we have discussed earlier, it is almost certain that Trump is going to be acquitted no matter what. In that regard, I think the only political capital to be made from the situation is to make a case that a) the impeachment is a moral necessity regardless of the outcome in order to  highlight the abuse of the office, b) the WH is actively trying to hide information (which seems to work as there is overall strong public support for additional witnesses in the senate trial) and now c) demonstrate that the GOP is complicit with the WH in withholding information (why would someone innocent hide info?). It is pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that drawing it out for longer could result in the public losing interest (but before the articles were transmitted McConnell indicated that he had the voice to force the procedure, so I am not sure how that plays into it).

Either way, I think for most folks the outcome is already clear, so it is about presenting a good narrative. 

[iNow]

12 hours ago, MigL said:

N Pelosi was had.
M McConnel finally promised a hearing in the Senate that seemed reasonable, so she handed over the articles of Impeachment.

Not really. She didn't send them b/c McConnell promised anything. He promised nothing, actually, except a giant GFY with raised middle finger. Instead, Pelosi was getting pressured from her own Democrats, both in House and Senate, so she put it to a vote and her members voted to send them over. Done.

In reality, her delay allowed extra time to pressure the GOP Senators to get pressured from constituents on allowing testimony and it also allowed more information to come out (Parnas, GAO report that Trumps actions were technically illegal, etc.).

It may not have been enough to overcome GOP recalcitrance in the Senate, but it's a mistake to assume she was waiting on McConnell to promise stuff and got "had."

36 minutes ago, CharonY said:

and now c) demonstrate that the GOP is complicit with the WH in withholding information (why would someone innocent hide info?).

This last one is big. It's about putting them on the record. 70-80% of citizens regardless of party feel that documents should be provided and witnesses allowed to be called. The fact that they voted both options down yesterday on party line vote... over and over and over again... suggests a complicity and cover up. 

There was the Schiff "master" amendment to allow witnesses and documents. Voted down 53-47.
There was the amendment to allow subpoena of Chief of Staff Mcalvaney. Voted down 53-47.
There was the amendment to allow subpoena of documents from the OMB (Office of Management and Budget). Voted down 53-47.
There was the amendment to allow subpoena of documents from DOD (Department of Defense). Voted down 53-47.
There was the amendment to allow subpoena of documents from the Pentagon. Voted down 53-47.

There were a few others yesterday just like this. They had to say no more than once... Sure, they still have the numbers to win this and acquit, but they also now have a taint on them that will be hard to wash off. Why not allow witnesses and evidence if you're so innocent? Why not allow it unless you're complicit in covering it up?

Party before country...

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Point being...maybe she shouldn't have rushed into the purchase.

Pelosi resisted calls for impeachment for over 2 years, and only reluctantly decided to proceed when the evidence came out that he was trying to extort foreign nations to cheat in the upcoming election. Perhaps you define "rushed" differently than I do?

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Pelosi resisted calls for impeachment for over 2 years, and only reluctantly decided to proceed when the evidence came out that he was trying to extort foreign nations to cheat in the upcoming election. Perhaps you define "rushed" differently than I do?

To use the car analogy (sorry to revisit that) It takes time to decide what car you want. Once you have the money in the bank it might be prudent to hasten the sale if you think your spouse might otherwise spend it on something else. After ownership is taken, it's not up to the seller to expect it be driven immediately or later lest it defaults to the previous owner.

It's none of their business, irrespective of the buyer changing their mind when they intent to use it after the fact.

In the case of articles of impeachment, there are no limitations on the House as to delivery, despite whatever talking point that gets kicked around. It's merely implied under the guise of something else in the absence of actual fact issues at bar.

But I'm sure you already know that. I'm just speaking broadly about those who desperately grasp at that straw.

[iNow]

I'm going to run over with my car the next mofo who mentions the GD car analogy 

[zapatos]

<snicker snicker>

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

 

Pelosi resisted calls for impeachment for over 2 years, and only reluctantly decided to proceed when the evidence came out that he was trying to extort foreign nations to cheat in the upcoming election. Perhaps you define "rushed" differently than I do?

No. You're simply struggling with, or willfully ignoring, the context. Why I don't know, as the 2 + years of Democrats calling for impeachment is a GOP talking point, especially with the impeachment being essentially based on more recent events.

But yes, there were calls of "wolf" going back that far.

That doesn't change the fact that in the end the impeachment was rushed through by the House claiming it had become an urgent matter, followed by waiting a month to pass it to the Senate.

 

[iNow]

Ok

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That doesn't change the fact that in the end the impeachment was rushed through by the House claiming it had become an urgent matter, followed by waiting a month to pass it to the Senate.

Basically, whoever is in the driver's seat of this hypothetical car looks bad. But they also can't stop the car at any given point, they have to drive it to the end once they start. So the House started driving this car, and then worked as hard as they could to quickly send the car to the Senate to drive. Then, they try to make the Senate look bad for driving as fast as they can.

Likewise though, the Senate decried the House driving as fast as they could. But now that the Senate has the hypothetical car, they want to drive as fast as they can too.

The only difference between the Senate driving and the House driving is the party who controls it.

[MigL]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

I'm going to run over with my car the next mofo who mentions the GD car analogy 

You want addresses for Rangerx and Raider5678 so you can go run them down ?

I'm getting tired of the car/driving analogies myself.
( just joking, I don't have addresses...or do I ?  )

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

The only difference between the Senate driving and the House driving is the party who controls it.

True, but the equivalence is worlds apart.

The Dems got a parking ticket. The GOP are reckless driving for vehicular manslaughter.

So yes, it true. The GOP is in control. 

That means ending this one of two ways. Pedal to the metal ferguson style, or pulling over until they sober up.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

...and for God sakes people...keep the 2021 Monster Truck keys away from Trump!

Edited January 23, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell