The Old Man posted:
thistlintom posted:
The Old Man posted:
thistlintom posted:

It will be quite interesting if Bernie wins Iowa.  And what will be the reaction by the Dem establishment and the other candidates if that happens?

As awful a candidate as is he's not a racist, a bigot, or a sexist. He's not an anti-Semite. Also not a know-nothing and probably would not be a demagogue. So who exactly do you think we would vote for?

It's not for me to say, I just want to sit back and see what happens.  Good luck

But you can take an educated guess, no? It's really not too tough of a choice except for some here.

Trump beats Bernie far worse than Clinton. 

irwin posted:  As to what the Founders intended....  who knows?  

 

Well... the Federalist Papers, and hundreds of writings by many of them. It's not too hard to guess how they'd feel about a president who bribes a foreign country to help him/her cheat in an election.

jcocktosten posted:

Very much dislike Bernie Sanders and he bears a lot of the blame for the mess we are currently in

I have said he may become the 21st century Eugene McCarthy.

irwin posted:

On the question of calling witnesses or not.......  What happens if there is a vote on calling witnesses, like Bolton, and the vote is 50-50? Does the Chief Justice break the tie?

 

 

According to current Senate rules, there is no provision for a tiebreaker.  A tie is counted as a "no" vote.  There is a precedent for the Chief Justice to cast tie breaking votes.  The only time it occurred was in Andrew Johnson's impeachment.  The more I read about that impeachment, the more I shake my head.  There was a lot of sleazy stuff going on.  Imagine that.

PH

Last edited by purplehaze
purplehaze posted:
irwin posted:

On the question of calling witnesses or not.......  What happens if there is a vote on calling witnesses, like Bolton, and the vote is 50-50? Does the Chief Justice break the tie?

 

 

According to current Senate rules, there is no provision for a tiebreaker.  A tie is counted as a "no" vote.  There is a precedent for the Chief Justice to cast tie breaking votes.  The only time it occurred was in Andrew Johnson's impeachment.  The more I read about that impeachment, the more I shake my head.  There was a lot of sleazy stuff going on.  Imagine that.

PH

The Chief Justice would actually cast a vote?  That is, frankly, shocking to me. 

I'm no expert, but I always thought that the process for breaking a tie in the senate was for the VP to cast a vote.  Given that he or she has a vested interest in the outcome of the trial though, I could see why that wouldn't happen during impeachment. 

The Old Man posted:
thistlintom posted:

My guess is the Republicans will require testimony from the Bidens and Schiff if the Dems want Bolton to testify.  They may also want the testimony of the ICAG to be made public also.

Yes, we all know they want immaterial witnesses.

I think that Biden should take them up on it.  He's already seeing increases in poll results based on the additional attention he's getting from this red herring.  They've got nothing on the guy related to this impeachment.  Hunter?  He's totally immaterial to this trial.  I think that the Bidens made grave errors in judgement regarding junior's Burisma entanglement, but nobody has found a single thing that either of them did that was illegal.

PH

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz said.

So, if Trump were to frame his political opponent for murder, or fake a video that showed him to be a child molester, or have someone on his staff make a false accusation of sexual assault against his opponent, that's just fine because Trump believes his re-election is in the public interest.  And that concept would apply to any politician, since no doubt they all believe their election is in the public interest.  

I don't suppose any lawyers here were taught by Dershowitz, were they?  If so, have you any thoughts on his views?

 

 

irwin posted:

I certainly wasn't taught by Dershowitz.  Suppose the President commits treason in order to get reelected?

Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution.

It will be official tomorrow.  The President may crime as much as he wants, without intervention, so long as his criminal acts are for the purpose of staying President "if he believes that is what would be in the country's best interest."

        

winetarelli posted:

It will be official tomorrow.  The President may crime as much as he wants, without intervention, so long as his criminal acts are for the purpose of staying President "if he believes that is what would be in the country's best interest."

        

Impeach Alan D

I guess I knew the GOP Senators are a bunch of shitbags, but to actually see it play out live is stunning and horrific.  

Trump is a lot of things, but I didn't know he could see into the future, when he said he could 'stand on 5th Avenue and shoot someone'.  

 

Poor little Marco Rubio, "Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office."

That's one big hunk of huh?

One remarkable thing to me is that Trump belittled Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz in 2016.  "Little Marco." Linked Ted Cruz's father to Lee Harvey Oswald and by implication, helping to assassinate Kennedy, or some such nonsense.  And yet, these two Republican senators will vote to acquit.

Will be interesting to see what Romney does.

winetarelli posted:

Bring back the smoke filled rooms.

(Seriously.  I wasn't being facetious.)

I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is a brokered convention

Actually, if the Politico article is accurate, it is relevant. Didn't the DNC chairs (Wasserman Schultz and Brazile) both resign after they were caught trying to screw Sanders (not figuratively) out of the nomination in 2016? Hope this time the DNC finagles a better candidate.

I have to admit that I didn't watch the impeachment proceedings (too busy at work). I tried keeping up with it on the news. But was there ever any mention of the 2nd article of impeachment, Obstruction of Congress? All I heard about was the Ukraine matter, and now it seems they are wrapping up?

mneeley490 posted:

I have to admit that I didn't watch the impeachment proceedings (too busy at work). I tried keeping up with it on the news. But was there ever any mention of the 2nd article of impeachment, Obstruction of Congress? All I heard about was the Ukraine matter, and now it seems they are wrapping up?

We officially became a monarchy last night; the Republic is dead.

csm posted:

The Chiefs play in Kansas (apparently). 

He is truly as he has shown numerous times a moron. 

... and people wonder why he sued to keep his “ academic “ records hidden! 🤣

wineart 2 posted:
csm posted:

The Chiefs play in Kansas (apparently). 

He is truly as he has shown numerous times a moron. 

... and people wonder why he sued to keep his “ academic “ records hidden! 🤣

And yet 1/3 of the country still admire (and probably) relate to the Moron.

doubled posted:
wineart 2 posted:
csm posted:

The Chiefs play in Kansas (apparently). 

He is truly as he has shown numerous times a moron. 

... and people wonder why he sued to keep his “ academic “ records hidden! 🤣

And yet 1/3 of the country still admire (and probably) relate to the Moron.

And 43% would vote for him again.  Guess they don't understand that the world is pointing and laughing at him, at least when not shuddering in fear at the damage he is doing to his own country and the world.

I wonder if San Francisco had won if Trump would have congratulated that city or the state of California.   I suppose he has an excellent chance of winning in Missouri or Kansas, but not so much in California.

doubled posted:
wineart 2 posted:
csm posted:

The Chiefs play in Kansas (apparently). 

He is truly as he has shown numerous times a moron. 

... and people wonder why he sued to keep his “ academic “ records hidden! 🤣

And yet 1/3 of the country still admire (and probably) relate to the Moron.

Oh, you thought we were surrounded with 100% good people? Many of them are people who know feel free to spew their racism, bigotry, and homophobia upon the public. Hilary said half his supporters are "deplorables." Yeah, I'd say at least 30 million adults would fit very comfortably into that number.

Last edited by The Old Man
bman posted:
doubled posted:
wineart 2 posted:
csm posted:

The Chiefs play in Kansas (apparently). 

He is truly as he has shown numerous times a moron. 

... and people wonder why he sued to keep his “ academic “ records hidden! 🤣

And yet 1/3 of the country still admire (and probably) relate to the Moron.

And 43% would vote for him again.  Guess they don't understand that the world is pointing and laughing at him, at least when not shuddering in fear at the damage he is doing to his own country and the world.

Don’t understand or don’t care?  I’d say the latter. 

"Basket of deplorables" is a phrase from a 2016 presidential election campaign speech delivered by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on September 9, 2016, at a campaign fundraising event, which she used to describe half of the supporters of her opponent, Republican nominee Donald J. Trump. The next day she expressed regret for "saying half", while insisting that Trump had deplorably amplified "hateful views and voices".

The Trump campaign repeatedly used the phrase against Clinton during and after the 2016 presidential election. Many Trump supporters adopted the "deplorable" moniker for themselves in reappropriation. Some journalists and political analysts questioned whether this incident played a role in the election's outcome. Clinton admitted in her 2017 book What Happened that it was one of the factors for her loss.

At the second presidential debate in October 2016, after Trump mentioned the speech in a response to James Carter, debate moderator Anderson Cooper asked Clinton: "How can you unite a country if you've written off tens of millions of Americans?"[11] Clinton responded to Cooper's question by saying: "My argument is not with his supporters, it's with him and the hateful, divisive campaign he has

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×