Impeach!
-
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 22:15 last edited by George K
I'm glad that the (2nd) greatest deliberative body in the world took two hours to discuss this!
ETA: I'm not saying it was, or was not, justified. However, the rushed push for impeachment, with no discussion, no evidence, etc reeks of nothing but partisanship and hatred.
What, other than preventing the unlikely possibility of him holding federal office again (and, c'mon, how likely was that?) what is the point of this exercise other than being a demonstration of a temper tantrum?
-
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 22:17 last edited by
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
partisanship
Yes, everything against Trump is partisanship.
5% is now being pumped all over the media as historic bipartisanship. Explain that to me please. Seriously.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
partisanship
Yes, everything against Trump is partisanship.
5% is now being pumped all over the media as historic bipartisanship. Explain that to me please. Seriously.
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 22:32 last edited by -
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 22:35 last edited by
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
5% is now being pumped all over the media as historic bipartisanship. Explain that to me please. Seriously.
It is. Partisanship is a huge issue.
My point was that a democrat voting for impeachment is not necessarily due to partisanship.
I agree, I would have been much more supportive if not for the first impeachment.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
partisanship
Yes, everything against Trump is partisanship.
5% is now being pumped all over the media as historic bipartisanship. Explain that to me please. Seriously.
-
I'm glad that the (2nd) greatest deliberative body in the world took two hours to discuss this!
ETA: I'm not saying it was, or was not, justified. However, the rushed push for impeachment, with no discussion, no evidence, etc reeks of nothing but partisanship and hatred.
What, other than preventing the unlikely possibility of him holding federal office again (and, c'mon, how likely was that?) what is the point of this exercise other than being a demonstration of a temper tantrum?
-
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 22:45 last edited by
5% is now being pumped all over the media as historic bipartisanship. Explain that to me please. Seriously.
Sure. None of the other impeachments got a single vote from the President’s party.
Okay. I was just thinking how much it would fail by in the Senate if the percentages held. Kind of like historic but set to fail big time in the Senate. That would be a complete sentence.
-
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 22:46 last edited by jon-nyc
Of the four impeachments we’ve had in our history, this is the only one that will age well.
-
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 22:48 last edited by
However, the rushed push for impeachment, with no discussion, no evidence, etc reeks of nothing but partisanship and hatred.
We all witnessed it. Every one of us.
And this is how you remove a president? No deliberation, no evidence, no discussion?
Just do it!
This is dangerous territory.
-
However, the rushed push for impeachment, with no discussion, no evidence, etc reeks of nothing but partisanship and hatred.
We all witnessed it. Every one of us.
And this is how you remove a president? No deliberation, no evidence, no discussion?
Just do it!
This is dangerous territory.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
5% is now being pumped all over the media as historic bipartisanship. Explain that to me please. Seriously.
It is. Partisanship is a huge issue.
My point was that a democrat voting for impeachment is not necessarily due to partisanship.
I agree, I would have been much more supportive if not for the first impeachment.
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 22:59 last edited by -
However, the rushed push for impeachment, with no discussion, no evidence, etc reeks of nothing but partisanship and hatred.
We all witnessed it. Every one of us.
And this is how you remove a president? No deliberation, no evidence, no discussion?
Just do it!
This is dangerous territory.
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 23:00 last edited by Aqua Letifer -
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 23:17 last edited by
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
This is dangerous territory.
Like "coup attempt" dangerous?
Bill McGurn (WSJ): "If you throw a rock through a window, you have more consideration that what happened here. Impeachment has been cheapened, to the point that it becomes normal."
(paraphrasing)
-
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
This is dangerous territory.
Like "coup attempt" dangerous?
Bill McGurn (WSJ): "If you throw a rock through a window, you have more consideration that what happened here. Impeachment has been cheapened, to the point that it becomes normal."
(paraphrasing)
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 23:23 last edited byBill McGurn (WSJ): "If you throw a rock through a window, you have more consideration that what happened here. Impeachment has been cheapened, to the point that it becomes normal."
(paraphrasing)I agree about the first impeachment, not the second.
A rock wasn't thrown through the Capitol window. A mob was shouting to hang Mike Pence. They tried to trample cops to death. They brought homemade napalm and molotov cocktails to the nation's capital. Pipe bombs were planted at DNC and RNC. They came and did these things because Trump egged them on. He said he loved these people.
-
Bill McGurn (WSJ): "If you throw a rock through a window, you have more consideration that what happened here. Impeachment has been cheapened, to the point that it becomes normal."
(paraphrasing)I agree about the first impeachment, not the second.
A rock wasn't thrown through the Capitol window. A mob was shouting to hang Mike Pence. They tried to trample cops to death. They brought homemade napalm and molotov cocktails to the nation's capital. Pipe bombs were planted at DNC and RNC. They came and did these things because Trump egged them on. He said he loved these people.
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 23:26 last edited by@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
They came and did these things because Trump egged them on. He said he loved these people.
See, that's sort of my point. From a purely legal standpoint, that's pretty thin gruel. He never said, "you should do this," and that's the legal standard for inciting violence.
But, we're talking political, not legal, and that's my point. Anyone can, and will, mark my words, drum up an exta-legal, political reason to impeach a president.
Again, other than the symbolism, what's the point? What will be accomplished other than a (cheap) moral victory? At what cost to political behavior going forward?
-
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
They came and did these things because Trump egged them on. He said he loved these people.
See, that's sort of my point. From a purely legal standpoint, that's pretty thin gruel. He never said, "you should do this," and that's the legal standard for inciting violence.
But, we're talking political, not legal, and that's my point. Anyone can, and will, mark my words, drum up an exta-legal, political reason to impeach a president.
Again, other than the symbolism, what's the point? What will be accomplished other than a (cheap) moral victory? At what cost to political behavior going forward?
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 23:30 last edited by -
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 23:33 last edited by
This isn't Hitler.
And he condemned the violence immediately when it happened.
Many people seem to have worked themselves into such a frenzy they think he actually asked the mob to do what they did.
He didn't.
In fact he condemned it.
-
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 23:37 last edited by
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
Again, other than the symbolism, what's the point?
They went easy on Hitler after his attempt to flip the government and look what happened.
And Trump is no longer president in 7 days. Who's going easy on him?
I really don't see your point. Are you suggesting that he will take the presidency in the future?
And you went full Godwin. Never go full Godwin.