US Politics [serious discussion - please read OP before posting] - page 11.

iluvbitcoins

legendary

Activity: 2198

Merit: 1150

Freedom&Honor

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: iluvbitcoins on January 11, 2020, 04:18:25 AM

But if you take more time to read about the subject which even more people won't do, you'll ask yourself who's the only president that they didn't try to impeach?
It's fucking Nixon.

Uh, speaking of fake news, where did you hear that?

Quote

The Judiciary Committee voted on October 30, to begin consideration of possible impeachment of President Nixon by a 21–17 party-line vote, with all the committee's Democrats voting yes and all Republicans voting no,[42] and took up the matter in earnest that December, upon completing the Ford confirmation hearings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon#Preparation_for_impeachment_proceedings

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee was Peter Rodino, who was a Democrat, obviously.

EDIT: Yeah, I fucked up. It was Ford, not Nixon.

Anyways.

First, the House of Representatives’ members (Article I, Section 2) can introduce an impeachment resolution - or the entire House can vote to open an investigation into the possible reasons for impeachment.

Second, a special committee or, more commonly, the Judiciary Committee will then investigate. After the investigation is done, the committee can vote on sending the impeachment articles to the full House.

Third, the Judiciary Committee and the House can approve or disapprove of the impeachment. Both the investigating committee and afterwards the House of Representatives vote with a simple majority on whether or not to impeach the president.

Fourth, if a president is impeached, then they become subject to trial in the Senate (Article I, Section 3). When the Senate has to decide whether or not an official is guilty of the charges, a two-thirds majority is needed.

So, basically you need 75% support in order to impeach a president.
It's pretty obvious they won't get 75% support in the Senate.
So what's the point? It's a propaganda tool.

I still find it pretty misleading to be labeled as mostly false.

iluvbitcoins

legendary

Activity: 2198

Merit: 1150

Freedom&Honor

The most Orwellian thing I've seen recently are these Fact-checkers even Facebook uses to warn the users about "false" information.
So, you see a statement on facebook saying 'Democrats tried to impeach every Republican president since Eisenhower' and a notification pops up saying this is false. I'm extremely suspicious on how unbiased these are and what sorts of information they're used for.
For example, if you take the time to click the article and read through it without just taking it as false, it will say Democrats tried to impeach 5 out of 6 Republican presidents.
They know most people won't click&read.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: inlovewith on January 10, 2020, 07:33:39 PM

I always wondered what it meant to be impeached. Clinton was impeached yet he was still President and fulfilled his full termed. It's pretty much a waste of time what they are doing.

Impeachment preserves democracy. Just because only 3 presidents have been impeached, and most likely all 3 will be acquitted doesn't mean it hasn't had any affect on the decisions of the other 42. Without the possibility of being impeached, there wouldn't be much standing in the way of the guy who's in charge of the military, Department of Justice and all the intelligence agencies to be an authoritarian.

Impeachment affects every presidency.

Quote from: Spendulus on January 10, 2020, 11:50:15 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 10, 2020, 06:43:48 PM

Pelosi is sending the articles of impeachment next week. Senate trial will probably begin within 1-2 weeks from now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pelosi-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate-after-weeks-long-delay-097185

My reading on it will be the Senate trial will be timed so as to maximize the advantage to Biden being out campaigning, and maximize the confinement of Sanders into DC for six days a week.

So those who were for Sanders get screwed a second time around by their own party!

I don't think keeping Bernie/Warren not physically being in Iowa/NH will benefit Biden that much, if at all. Bernie/Warren have thousands of people who have been canvasing for months, which is more valuable than any rally, especially in Iowa. The fact that they are too busy trying the President might actually them a little bump.

We can pretty much call SC for Biden already.

Not really sure how NV works though, but that's the third or fourth week of Feb and I feel like there's a very slim chance the trial hasn't concluded by then.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 10, 2020, 06:43:48 PM

Pelosi is sending the articles of impeachment next week. Senate trial will probably begin within 1-2 weeks from now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pelosi-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate-after-weeks-long-delay-097185

My reading on it will be the Senate trial will be timed so as to maximize the advantage to Biden being out campaigning, and maximize the confinement of Sanders into DC for six days a week.

So those who were for Sanders get screwed a second time around by their own party!

inlovewith

sr. member

Activity: 257

Merit: 252

I always wondered what it meant to be impeached. Clinton was impeached yet he was still President and fulfilled his full termed. It's pretty much a waste of time what they are doing.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Pelosi is sending the articles of impeachment next week. Senate trial will probably begin within 1-2 weeks from now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pelosi-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate-after-weeks-long-delay-097185

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Viper1 on January 06, 2020, 10:53:14 AM

Quote from: BADecker on January 06, 2020, 10:43:26 AM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 05, 2020, 10:52:03 AM

Quote from: BADecker on January 05, 2020, 07:48:22 AM

Come on! Don't feel so rejected. The real question is, when is an impeachment an impeachment?

As soon as a simple majority of the House Votes to impeach.

It's the same as an indictment.

If someone is indicted on murder charges and then found not guilty by a jury, or if a plea deal is reached for lesser charges, or if the charges are dropped completely, it doesn't mean they weren't indicted.

But you ignored the rest of what I said.

An impeachment isn't important if it doesn't produce results. And in the case of Trump, the impeachment seems to be doing exactly the opposite of what was intended by the impeachers... impeaching Trump out of office.

Cool

You're assuming you know what their real intent was. You don't. Besides, what does it matter. Clinton was impeached and despite the republicans wanting him out of office they didn't get their way. And yet he was still impeached. In this case everyone on both sides get to make it a big part of the next election as opposed to real issues. Yay. Maybe that was their intent.

Thank you.

In other words, impeachment that doesn't go through all the way and oust the President, is only a distraction.

Cool

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Today Bolton said he would testify in a Senate trial if subpoenaed without going to court first.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/us/politics/bolton-testify-impeachment-trial.html

Lots of interesting questions now.

Keep in mind that other than Trump, and possibly Mulvaney, nobody knows more about the situation than Bolton and he can't be flagged as a 'never Trumper' or Democrat. He's as conservative as it gets. He also called the whole thing a 'drug deal' while it was going down and claims to have relative information that has not been made public.

- Does the Iran situation have anything to do with his announcement?
- Are there 4 Republicans willing to vote to subpoena him? ( They need 51 total, Romney seems to be a yes, Murkowski and Collins are wishywashy, but are in a tough spot politically, there are a couple other maybes)
- Would Mitch be willing to agree to allow a vote on whether or not to allow any witnesses before the trial begins?
- Would Mitch be able to find a way to not allow a vote after the trial starts?
- How long does Nancy sit on the articles if Mitch doesn't budge?

Viper1

sr. member

Activity: 686

Merit: 320

Quote from: BADecker on January 06, 2020, 10:43:26 AM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 05, 2020, 10:52:03 AM

Quote from: BADecker on January 05, 2020, 07:48:22 AM

Come on! Don't feel so rejected. The real question is, when is an impeachment an impeachment?

As soon as a simple majority of the House Votes to impeach.

It's the same as an indictment.

If someone is indicted on murder charges and then found not guilty by a jury, or if a plea deal is reached for lesser charges, or if the charges are dropped completely, it doesn't mean they weren't indicted.

But you ignored the rest of what I said.

An impeachment isn't important if it doesn't produce results. And in the case of Trump, the impeachment seems to be doing exactly the opposite of what was intended by the impeachers... impeaching Trump out of office.

Cool

You're assuming you know what their real intent was. You don't. Besides, what does it matter. Clinton was impeached and despite the republicans wanting him out of office they didn't get their way. And yet he was still impeached. In this case everyone on both sides get to make it a big part of the next election as opposed to real issues. Yay. Maybe that was their intent.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 05, 2020, 10:52:03 AM

Quote from: BADecker on January 05, 2020, 07:48:22 AM

Come on! Don't feel so rejected. The real question is, when is an impeachment an impeachment?

As soon as a simple majority of the House Votes to impeach.

It's the same as an indictment.

If someone is indicted on murder charges and then found not guilty by a jury, or if a plea deal is reached for lesser charges, or if the charges are dropped completely, it doesn't mean they weren't indicted.

But you ignored the rest of what I said.

An impeachment isn't important if it doesn't produce results. And in the case of Trump, the impeachment seems to be doing exactly the opposite of what was intended by the impeachers... impeaching Trump out of office.

Cool

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: BADecker on January 05, 2020, 07:48:22 AM

Come on! Don't feel so rejected. The real question is, when is an impeachment an impeachment?

As soon as a simple majority of the House Votes to impeach.

It's the same as an indictment.

If someone is indicted on murder charges and then found not guilty by a jury, or if a plea deal is reached for lesser charges, or if the charges are dropped completely, it doesn't mean they weren't indicted.

kro55

sr. member

Activity: 1610

Merit: 301

*STOP NOWHERE*

Bill clintion in 1998 bombed Afgnanistan and Sudan to avoid impeachment on Monica case.

Quote

The missiles were launched three days after Clinton testified on the Monica Lewinsky scandal,[131] and some countries, media outlets, protesters, and Republicans accused Clinton of ordering the attacks as a diversion.
Wikipedia

I am sure Trump will also get away from getting impeached because of recent Iranian general killing.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 04, 2020, 03:14:41 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on January 04, 2020, 02:38:05 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 04, 2020, 07:10:53 AM

....
In Trumps defense, there's no evidence of him explicitly saying he was doing it because of the election.

Also, after he found out he was being investigated by congress he did explicitly say 'I want nothing, no quid quo pro' to the EU ambassador and then released the funds.

In my opinion it's painfully obvious that his primary motivation was to make his political opponent look bad. ....

Earlier you said ...

There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election. For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House?....

I replied ...

"Evidence that suggests" is not evidence.

You are trying to make inferences as to motive.

Now you are saying

In my opinion it's painfully obvious that his primary motivation was to make his political opponent look bad. ....

It would appear you agree with me? Please clarify. Is there actually evidence, or do we just get to hear your opinion? This may seem trivial but the "witnesses" brought by Adam Schiff also seemed to just have a bunch of Orange Man Bad "opinions", and everyone's really sick of hearing that sort of tripe.

There's also a fundamental legal problem with your position, which is that the alleged actions did not occur, so you have no person damaged by the alleged "motivations." It's as if you have some guys talking about burglarizing Democrat HQ (Watergate) but not doing it. The correct charge for this would be a form of conspiracy, would it not?

Or do you just want to impeach for your opinion of primary motivation?

There is evidence and I have an opinion. I don't see any reason to explain it all again.

I understand you disagree with me, think very little of my opinions, believe I'm not capable of looking at the situation rationally due to an extreme hatred of Trump and am a fool for supporting any Democrat. So there's no need to keep pointing it out over and over again. I've also made it clear I disagree with most of your opinions and believe many things you've stated as facts are untrue. There's no need to keep going in circles.

Come on! Don't feel so rejected. The real question is, when is an impeachment an impeachment? Is it when a bunch of people think about it? When they talk about it? When they write it down? When they vote on it? When a vote on it passes? When it goes through the whole process (Senate)? When?

It hasn't officially made it to the Senate, yet, has it? But if it has, they haven't voted on it yet, have they? But if they have, the voting hasn't been made public yet, has it?

Until the Senate's vote on the matter is made public, the REAL effects of an impeachment aren't worth anything. And this is proven when Trump goads Pelosi by inviting her to impeach him, and she responds that they are going to force him to remain in office his full term.

The whole impeachment thing is smoke and mirrors, a dog and pony show... or at least a game.

For any really serious discussion, we need to wait for the Senate vote.

Cool

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: Spendulus on January 04, 2020, 02:38:05 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 04, 2020, 07:10:53 AM

....
In Trumps defense, there's no evidence of him explicitly saying he was doing it because of the election.

Also, after he found out he was being investigated by congress he did explicitly say 'I want nothing, no quid quo pro' to the EU ambassador and then released the funds.

In my opinion it's painfully obvious that his primary motivation was to make his political opponent look bad. ....

Earlier you said ...

There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election. For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House?....

I replied ...

"Evidence that suggests" is not evidence.

You are trying to make inferences as to motive.

Now you are saying

In my opinion it's painfully obvious that his primary motivation was to make his political opponent look bad. ....

It would appear you agree with me? Please clarify. Is there actually evidence, or do we just get to hear your opinion? This may seem trivial but the "witnesses" brought by Adam Schiff also seemed to just have a bunch of Orange Man Bad "opinions", and everyone's really sick of hearing that sort of tripe.

There's also a fundamental legal problem with your position, which is that the alleged actions did not occur, so you have no person damaged by the alleged "motivations." It's as if you have some guys talking about burglarizing Democrat HQ (Watergate) but not doing it. The correct charge for this would be a form of conspiracy, would it not?

Or do you just want to impeach for your opinion of primary motivation?

There is evidence and I have an opinion. I don't see any reason to explain it all again.

I understand you disagree with me, think very little of my opinions, believe I'm not capable of looking at the situation rationally due to an extreme hatred of Trump and am a fool for supporting any Democrat. So there's no need to keep pointing it out over and over again. I've also made it clear I disagree with most of your opinions and believe many things you've stated as facts are untrue. There's no need to keep going in circles.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 04, 2020, 07:10:53 AM

....
In Trumps defense, there's no evidence of him explicitly saying he was doing it because of the election.

Also, after he found out he was being investigated by congress he did explicitly say 'I want nothing, no quid quo pro' to the EU ambassador and then released the funds.

In my opinion it's painfully obvious that his primary motivation was to make his political opponent look bad. ....

Earlier you said ...

There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election. For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House?....

I replied ...

"Evidence that suggests" is not evidence.

You are trying to make inferences as to motive.

Now you are saying

In my opinion it's painfully obvious that his primary motivation was to make his political opponent look bad. ....

It would appear you agree with me? Please clarify. Is there actually evidence, or do we just get to hear your opinion? This may seem trivial but the "witnesses" brought by Adam Schiff also seemed to just have a bunch of Orange Man Bad "opinions", and everyone's really sick of hearing that sort of tripe.

There's also a fundamental legal problem with your position, which is that the alleged actions did not occur, so you have no person damaged by the alleged "motivations." It's as if you have some guys talking about burglarizing Democrat HQ (Watergate) but not doing it. The correct charge for this would be a form of conspiracy, would it not?

Or do you just want to impeach for your opinion of primary motivation?

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: KingScorpio on January 04, 2020, 05:44:04 AM

Quote from: Spendulus on January 03, 2020, 09:58:11 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 03, 2020, 03:19:19 PM

Quote from: KingScorpio on January 03, 2020, 12:17:55 PM

trying to impeach trump on basis of biden corruption is complete nonsense

There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election. For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House?....

"Evidence that suggests" is not evidence.

You are trying to make inferences as to motive.

reacting aggressive on corruption no mattter and even especially if its caused by your own citizen is an important and valuable mindset of american imperialism, you can't be weak on corruption especially if its your own, america would lose only trustworthyness with its allies, trump did everything wrong stupid demorats, can't admit it, because they don't get a black president's cock to suck.

The funds were released in 2017 and 2018, no problem.

Biden announced he was running in late April 2019.
Biden had a huge lead by June, which was when Trump made his requests and froze ~$400m in military aid that was ordered by congress and approved by the DOD.

He wanted the president of Ukraine, a corrupt country, to make a public announcement (on CNN was the plan) that Ukraine was opening an investigation into the DNC and Biden/Burissma in exchange for the $400 million and a White House Meeting.

No other investigation requests. Just the DNC and the Bidens.

This was all confirmed by career, non partisan officials and officials appointed by Trump under oath. There are also transcripts and emails that support all of the above.

In Trumps defense, there's no evidence of him explicitly saying he was doing it because of the election. Also, after he found out he was being investigated by congress he did explicitly say 'I want nothing, no quid quo pro' to the EU ambassador and then released the funds.

In my opinion it's painfully obvious that his primary motivation was to make his political opponent look bad. I think it's just second nature for him to do whatever he can to trash the reputation of anyone who stands in his way by any means necessary.

KingScorpio

sr. member

Activity: 1470

Merit: 325

Quote from: Spendulus on January 03, 2020, 09:58:11 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 03, 2020, 03:19:19 PM

Quote from: KingScorpio on January 03, 2020, 12:17:55 PM

trying to impeach trump on basis of biden corruption is complete nonsense

There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election. For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House?....

"Evidence that suggests" is not evidence.

You are trying to make inferences as to motive.

reacting aggressive on corruption no mattter and even especially if its caused by your own citizen is an important and valuable mindset of american imperialism, you can't be weak on corruption especially if its your own, america would lose only trustworthyness with its allies, trump did everything wrong stupid demorats, can't admit it, because they don't get a black president's cock to suck.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: Spendulus on January 03, 2020, 09:58:11 PM

"Evidence that suggests" is not evidence.

Yeah. It literally is.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 03, 2020, 03:19:19 PM

Quote from: KingScorpio on January 03, 2020, 12:17:55 PM

trying to impeach trump on basis of biden corruption is complete nonsense

There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election. For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House?....

"Evidence that suggests" is not evidence.

You are trying to make inferences as to motive.

KingScorpio

sr. member

Activity: 1470

Merit: 325

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 03, 2020, 03:19:19 PM

Quote from: KingScorpio on January 03, 2020, 12:17:55 PM

trying to impeach trump on basis of biden corruption is complete nonsense

There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election. For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House?

What would an investigation led by a corrupt country even prove?

If it really was just a coincidence that his most likely 2020 opponent was involved, and Trumps actions were driven purely by a desire to stop corruption, then I agree with you. It's clear that was not the case though.

jes there are reasons for that, but he is a businessman, he would have risked american trustworthiness as a global partner if he wouldn't have reacted aggressive on corruption especially if its american corruption.

so holding funds back was a tool of trump to force an american partner to fight corrupt people even if they are americans.

corrupt democrats and corrupt liberals can't accept that they are corrupt and hoped they would be able to stay corrupt because they where americans.

Topic: US Politics [serious discussion - please read OP before posting] - page 11. (Read 5800 times)