Heard today that 15 senators didn't attend which leads one to think they have a plan to get it to 2/3rds of PRESIDING senators to convict and if some don't attend the vote to convict requires a smaller number. You would think it would need to be Republicans that aren't attending. If so, are you learning what I've been saying about them?
Also, it's been suggested that the Proud Boys (White supremacists) were headed by a proven FBI informant and the 3%era are headed by a former FBI agent then the 2 most notorious groups were FBI run orgs.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 02-12-2021).]
Heard today that 15 senators didn't attend which leads one to think they have a plan to get it to 2/3rds of PRESIDING senators to convict and if some don't attend the vote to convict requires a smaller number.
That isn't how it works.
Moreover, those 15 Senators were there, they simply weren't sitting in their seats in the Senate chamber when the Leftist reporter looked for them...
Thanks, however the rule of law is, by it's very nature, factual, and usually very precise. It is also totally bereft of emotion.
Law is so factual and precise that individual words have great importance, such as the difference between the words may and shall.
This is illustrated in the law of the United States as codified in our Constitution:
Article I, Section 3:
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside..."
It doesn't say that the Chief Justice might or may. The Constitution unequivocally and precisely says the Chief Justice SHALL preside.
There is no Constitutional provision to force the Chief Justice to preside and there is NO case law that addresses it.
Likewise there is absolutely NO Constitutional provision that allows the Congress or either of the other two branches of government to appoint anyone else to serve in place of the Chief Justice.
That means that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must preside and in the present instance where Chief Justice Roberts has refused to participate the Senate should have been left incapable and without legal jurisdiction to proceed unless or until the issue was settled by the Judicial Branch of our government.
Senate Leftists, with the help of some incredibly ignorant Senate Republicans, completely usurped the legal role of the Judicial Branch to decide what is Constitutional or not and instead voted among themselves if or how the United States Constitution limits them and went ahead with this travesty.
They also appointed a currently serving, partisan politician and member of the former President's opposition party to preside instead of the Chief Justice.
We are now very firmly in Banana Republic, totalitarian, territory and as someone else said in another thread; "I don't know where we go from here."
My very firm sense is that if this behavior of those presently holding the reins of power in our government continues unabated, eventually the guns will come out, the bullets will fly and blood will flow.
Leftists will now move to their next unconstitutional wet dream:
https://hotair.com/archives...ng-unconstitutional/ "Despite the obvious unconstitutionality of the plan, McClatchy reports that Democrats still want to keep the so-called 14th Amendment Option in reserve in the all-too-certain case that the impeachment trial results in an acquittal for Donald Trump. Democrats want to "defend the Constitution" by violating one of its core controls on congressional power, it seems"
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-13-2021).]
Open minds looking at the evidence versus the charges would acquit. Apparently, you drank too much of the coolaide.
This coming from someone that never liked DJT.
CNN's opinion:
Why Democrats blinked in the Senate impeachment trial On Saturday morning, Democrats appeared to score a coup: Winning a surprise vote on calling witnesses in the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. On Saturday afternoon, Democrats agreed to end the trial without calling any witnesses.
If that seems odd to you, well, you are far from alone. The Democrats' rapid backtrack left almost everyone not in the Senate scratching their heads, wondering why the party blinked when it appeared to be on the verge of getting more testimony that would shine a light on exactly what Trump knew and when he knew it during the January 6 riot at the Capitol.
(Sidebar: Senate Democrats will point to the fact that they got a statement from Washington GOP Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler detailing her side of an angry call between House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Trump on the day of the riot. Sure. But why not depose Beutler as a witness?)
So, why did they do it? And then undo it?
The obvious answer is that President Joe Biden (or his surrogates) made clear to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer that he did not want this trial dragging on -- especially if the outcome is not in doubt.
Biden has largely avoided commenting about the ongoing trial other than to say that he is interested in seeing how Republicans vote on whether to convict or acquit Trump. But, behind the scenes, the Biden folks have made no bones about their desire for the trial to conclude quickly so that the attention of the country (and the Congress) can return to the President's efforts on battling the Covid-19 pandemic and the Senate can refocus on confirming his Cabinet nominees.
Calling witnesses would, without any question, have lengthened the trial -- likely by a considerable amount of time. In the aftermath of the vote, Republicans aligned with Trump were saying that they had a list of 300 witnesses they would try to call. And there appeared to be a desire among the centrist wing of the Democratic Party -- West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, in particular -- to allow both sides to call an equal number of witnesses.
And, remember, that the Senate is coming up on a week-long President's Day recess, meaning that if Democrats had stuck to their guns on witnesses, the trial could have extended into into early March (or much later).
There also wasn't any obvious path to convicting Trump -- even if there were more witnesses. The expectation going into Saturday was that there were five or six Republican senators who would likely vote to convict -- and that number solidified after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had suggested he was keeping an open mind on Trump's guilt, said Saturday morning that he would be voting to acquit.
With McConnell on the "acquit" side, the chances of Democrats securing the 17 Republican votes they would need to convict Trump were, roughly, zero.
Given that, spending additional days (or, more likely, weeks) deposing witnesses would be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
So, yeah, I get it. But what I don't get is why Democrats voted FOR witnesses Saturday morning. All of these pitfalls were totally visible for Senate Democrats before they voted.
By voting in favor of witnesses before voting against them, Democrats hamstring their own case. If hearing from witnesses would have helped House impeachment managers make their case that Trump had incited the Capitol riot on Saturday morning, why was just putting Herrera Beutler's testimony into the record fine and dandy by Saturday afternoon?
It all had the feel of a non-serious move by Democrats. And a very weird way to end an impeachment trial in which Trump's conduct -- and the ongoing timidity of Senate Republicans to break with him -- was on full display until Saturday morning.
In other words, they knew they weren't going to win the impeachment and not reach their goal of never having to face a Candidate Trump again. And, that was their whole goal. I honestly don't think DJT can win another election (but, that's just my opinion) unless, the Dems put up another HRC as their candidate. Or one similar to her. CNN has never been a Pro-Trump organization. But, they finally came around to seeing the true Dem agenda and admitting it.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-13-2021).]
Why Democrats blinked in the Senate impeachment trial On Saturday morning, Democrats appeared to score a coup: Winning a surprise vote on calling witnesses in the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. On Saturday afternoon, Democrats agreed to end the trial without calling any witnesses.
As usual, CNN's opinion has the same value as a skid-mark in a homeless bum's underwear.
Leftists are notorious for ignoring the law of unintended consequences and "they got played".
The truth of the matter is that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, in a master stroke of Congressional procedural gamesmanship, voted to allow the Leftists witnesses and even helped round up Republican votes to agree. After the vote he gleefully reminded them that it will now drag this charade out for many weeks to come and completely tie up the Senate while they cross-examine the Leftist's witnesses and then call a whole roster defense witnesses for the former President.
The eventual outcome would not be changed but Senate Republicans were more than happy to help Lefties stall Dementia Joe's agenda for many weeks, if not a couple of months, longer.
The ever-stupid Senate Leftists instantly felt the cold, hard, hand of unintended consequences around their throats and back-pedaled as fast as they could.
As usual, CNN's opinion has the same value as a skid-mark in a homeless bum's underwear.
Leftists are notorious for ignoring the law of unintended consequences and "they got played".
The truth of the matter is that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, in a master stroke of Congressional procedural gamesmanship, voted to allow the Leftists witnesses and even helped round up Republican votes to agree. After the vote he gleefully reminded them that it will now drag this charade out for many weeks to come and completely tie up the Senate while they cross-examine the Leftist's witnesses and then call a whole roster defense witnesses for the former President.
The eventual outcome would not be changed but Senate Republicans were more than happy to help Lefties stall Dementia Joe's agenda for many weeks, if not a couple of months, longer.
The ever-stupid Senate Leftists instantly felt the cold, hard, hand of unintended consequences around their throats and back-pedaled as fast as they could.
Thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't aware of Senator Graham's move. I really would like to see Speaker Pelosi testify under oath and with perjury penalties applicable for lying.
"[Mitch] McConnell would have happily considered finding Trump guilty, were it not for Mitch McConnell"
I like that. The banner at the top.
It's from WaPo, and I will now provide the Internet page link as a "pro forma" or matter of record.
"McConnell would have happily considered finding Trump guilty, were it not for Mitch McConnell" Philip Bump; op-ed for the Washington Post; February 13, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost....not-mitch-mcconnell/
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-13-2021).]
Translation: "He didn't vote the way we wanted him to and he didn't rally other Republicans to vote the way we wanted them to...Boo Hoo Hoo"...so now we shall mock him and create juvenile, snarky, article titles That will show him!, plus the rest of the Leftie sheep really eat this mindless sh*t up"
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-14-2021).]
I have pointed out many times before that Leftists form their opinions and make their decisions based largely or primarily on emotion / feelings.
Very little, if any, objective factual data and analysis is involved. Critical thinking is absent.
They have significant problems with discerning opinions and emotions from objective facts and see all of them with equal value.
They can hold and earnestly believe two or more completely contradictory and irreconcilable ideas in their heads simultaneously and apparently be completely unaware or unconcerned by it.
This how they see and scrutinize the world around them and consequently how they assume others do as well, so it is unsurprising that they would make emotion the most integral part of their shampeachment presentation.
I (mostly) agree. But I’d also argue that not only are leftists emotional and contradictory, the right-wing is worse.
How do you reconcile small government with a large military? How do you reconcile small government with drug laws? How do you reconcile small government with oil and farming subsidies? How do you reconcile small government with abortion laws?
Leftists have some terrible ideas, but I definitely find them more ideologically consistent than Republicans, who seem to say things that their Representitives never actually believe in or vote for.
I (mostly) agree. But I’d also argue that not only are leftists emotional and contradictory, the right-wing is worse.
Of course you would.
quote
Originally posted by theBDub:
How do you reconcile small government with a large military? How do you reconcile small government with drug laws? How do you reconcile small government with oil and farming subsidies? How do you reconcile small government with abortion laws?
You obviously missed the numerous posts where I have said to never allow a Leftist to frame an argument.
I'm not making any exceptions for you.
I said precisely what I intended to say, I made the point I intended to make, and no more is necessary.
quote
Originally posted by theBDub:
Leftists have some terrible ideas, but I definitely find them more ideologically consistent than Republicans....
Of course you do.
.............................................
By the way, in your blind zeal to be an argumentative contrarian YOU FAILED to note that I wasn't talking about Democrats, Republicans or any other political party.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-14-2021).]
By the way, in your blind zeal to be an argumentative contrarian YOU FAILED to note that I wasn't talking about Democrats, Republicans or any other political party.
I was just making conversation. I agree with you with regards to leftists having more emotional-based arguments.
Originally posted by rinselberg: It's from WaPo, and I will now provide the Internet page link as a "pro forma" or matter of record.
My Mom warned me about hanging out with people of bad character. You should be careful. We might draw up articles of impeachment against you. True, it might be partisan, but so would be your "trial", .
Well, bi-partisan. I would not vote to impeach you.
@ the forum : I watched the whole debacle yesterday. Actually, I watched the whole debacle.
My favorite moment ? It was when that Asian Jauquin Castro, an impeachment House Manager, while introducing "proof" that your President incited a riot, said "the whole world is laughing at us".
The Dumbs spent 16 hours trying to prove their case. The Repulsives spent 3+ hours to demolish their case. The Dumbs are still claiming victory.
Originally posted by blackrams: ... I honestly don't think DJT can win another election (but, that's just my opinion) unless, the Dems put up another HRC as their candidate. Or one similar to her. CNN has never been a Pro-Trump organization. But, they finally came around to seeing the true Dem agenda and admitting it.
I think that the Republicans will try to ignore Trump, next time around. In the event that he is part of the primaries, I don't think he will win the nomination. (If this whole outlook seems cynical on my part, so be it. I think he'll probably get "Bernied", similar to the Dems, with Hillary.) With that being the case, he will probably run as an independent. This will cause a split vote, giving the Dems the win (Google "Ross Perot".) Of course, Ralph Nader could run, again (assuming he is still alive, by then) and split the Dem vote.
I would like to go on record as saying that the very idea is outrageous, a total sham, a circus and an affront to the sanctity of both the legislative and executive branches. However, in a time where the bizarre has become banal, I can barely eke out a convincing yawn.
I think that the Republicans will try to ignore Trump, next time around. In the event that he is part of the primaries, I don't think he will win the nomination. (If this whole outlook seems cynical on my part, so be it. I think he'll probably get "Bernied", similar to the Dems, with Hillary.) With that being the case, he will probably run as an independent. This will cause a split vote, giving the Dems the win (Google "Ross Perot".) Of course, Ralph Nader could run, again (assuming he is still alive, by then) and split the Dem vote.
Steve, I agree with much of what you just posted. Although, I can see DJT having a lot of influence within the Republican Party. I believe he already knows that a third party run would be fruitless.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-14-2021).]
I (mostly) agree. But I’d also argue that not only are leftists emotional and contradictory, the right-wing is worse.
How do you reconcile small government with a large military? How do you reconcile small government with drug laws? How do you reconcile small government with oil and farming subsidies? How do you reconcile small government with abortion laws?
Leftists have some terrible ideas, but I definitely find them more ideologically consistent than Republicans, who seem to say things that their Representitives never actually believe in or vote for.
My personal opinion... Democrats have changed so dramatically, that I really don't know what they actually represent. ~20 years ago, I was a Democrat. And they stood for basically someone who was fiscally conservative (as were most Republicans), but with an emphasis on compassion (e.g., working class people, and support for labor unions). Right now... I personally feel they are the party of crazy. Full-on Socialism, absurd spending... and other ideas that I can't even begin to list out because they're so many, and so ludacris.
But on your list above:
"How do you reconcile small government with a large military?"
I've always believed a strong and big military is important for a show of power... that is, as a deterrent. What I've learned over the past several years is that the military in general has become somewhat of an albatross. I go back to Eisenhower's speech on the Military Industrial Complex. You have pretty much every GS-15 civilian and O6 and higher retiring from Government and then coming back as a contractor to sell services and lobby their friend network. The military LEADERSHIP wants an even bigger military so that they can grow the number of Generals and Admirals, and so that others can get promoted, and continue the cycle. It's self-fulfilling. At the same time, we continue to do a lot of dumb **** ... producing modern-day Battleships (air craft carriers). Don't get me wrong, I love them... but why do we need 13? Air Craft carriers. I understand how it works... they are floating military basis. But our newest submarine is already a 20 year old design (Virginia class). China has a larger navy than we do, and they're focusing on speed and agility... while we're focusing on the ability to be out for 6+ months at sea. China is also working on hypersonic missiles and other technology that can have a greater impact. In the mean time, we're still producing M1 Abrams tanks... for what purpose? It takes in excess of 3 million dollars to build an M1 and deliver it somewhere. A $70k Hellfire air to surface missile from an F15 will more easily take out whatever it is that tank is looking to destroy, at a significantly lower cost. Every president, from Bush Jr to Trump, has voted to save that M1 tank plant for some reason. So... military needs to really rethink their strategy, they need to modernize, and they need to eliminate this massive lobbying / incestuous contract structure they have. And don't even get me started on MMT...
"How do you reconcile small government with drug laws?"
My brother died of a drug overdose, so I inherently have a dislike of drugs (never used them). The libertarian side of me agrees that there's no point in restricting the sale of marijuana. I don't presume for a second to admit that my feelings on drugs are rational, but I have no intention of ever voting for unrestricted drug use. I recognize I'm the one here in the wrong.
"How do you reconcile small government with oil and farming subsidies?"
I don't agree with farming subsidies... except for the situation when we were leveraging tariffs against China. At that point it made sense to do so in order to keep the pressure on China, and not hurt our own industry. That said, I don't like corn subsidy, or any other farming subsidies other than tax breaks. I'll admit though, I'm not at all familiar with the oil subsidies. Can you elaborate? I'm not aware of them?
"How do you reconcile small government with abortion laws?"
The libertarian aspect would say "hands off my body." But the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" comes into play, and because I believe life begins at the heartbeat... I personally believe at that point that it's no longer "just" the pregnant woman's body. There's plenty of time for a woman to get an abortion before the heartbeat (which is roughly 6-8 weeks).
The republican party is now dead....LONG LIVE THE TRUMP!!!!! PARTY...(Noone is ever allowed to question trump- he always perfect! March with him or die!)
The republican party is now dead....LONG LIVE THE TRUMP!!!!! PARTY...(Noone is ever allowed to question trump- he always perfect! March with him or die!)
No guts whatsoever........
I'm curious, what flavor was that kool aid you drank? There are a lot of people that support most of what DJT did during his administration without actually liking the man. I don't believe any President ever fulfilled all the citizen's wants nor did any politician prior to this ever work so hard to fulfill his campaign promises.
No other president ever faced as much opposition. Hell, the Dems were trying to impeach him as he took office.
If, we want to hold folks responsible for everything that happened while they are in office, OK. Let's start with Obama and his lies, HRC and her lies and then move to Pelosi. Edited: Almost forgot the Biden family. Yeah, I'll go with that. As a registered Dem, I'd love to find one I could support and trust. They just aren't out there.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-15-2021).]
"How do you reconcile small government with.......
Todd, like I said, NEVER allow a Leftist to frame the question.
His demand that "small government" be "reconciled" with anything on his list is a false premise and a nonsensical strawman.
It's a series of questions posed by someone with very poor ideological and political intellect and possessed of a cartoon-like impression of what he imagines conservative thought is.
The republican party is now dead....LONG LIVE THE TRUMP!!!!! PARTY...(Noone is ever allowed to question trump- he always perfect! March with him or die!)
No guts whatsoever........
You have become the PFF equivalent of a drunk heckler in a karaoke bar.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: My personal opinion... Democrats have changed so dramatically, that I really don't know what they actually represent. ~20 years ago, I was a Democrat. And they stood for basically someone who was fiscally conservative (as were most Republicans), but with an emphasis on compassion (e.g., working class people, and support for labor unions). Right now... I personally feel they are the party of crazy. Full-on Socialism, absurd spending... and other ideas that I can't even begin to list out because they're so many, and so ludacris.
But on your list above:
"How do you reconcile small government with a large military?"
I've always believed a strong and big military is important for a show of power... that is, as a deterrent. What I've learned over the past several years is that the military in general has become somewhat of an albatross. I go back to Eisenhower's speech on the Military Industrial Complex. You have pretty much every GS-15 civilian and O6 and higher retiring from Government and then coming back as a contractor to sell services and lobby their friend network. The military LEADERSHIP wants an even bigger military so that they can grow the number of Generals and Admirals, and so that others can get promoted, and continue the cycle. It's self-fulfilling. At the same time, we continue to do a lot of dumb **** ... producing modern-day Battleships (air craft carriers). Don't get me wrong, I love them... but why do we need 13? Air Craft carriers. I understand how it works... they are floating military basis. But our newest submarine is already a 20 year old design (Virginia class). China has a larger navy than we do, and they're focusing on speed and agility... while we're focusing on the ability to be out for 6+ months at sea. China is also working on hypersonic missiles and other technology that can have a greater impact. In the mean time, we're still producing M1 Abrams tanks... for what purpose? It takes in excess of 3 million dollars to build an M1 and deliver it somewhere. A $70k Hellfire air to surface missile from an F15 will more easily take out whatever it is that tank is looking to destroy, at a significantly lower cost. Every president, from Bush Jr to Trump, has voted to save that M1 tank plant for some reason. So... military needs to really rethink their strategy, they need to modernize, and they need to eliminate this massive lobbying / incestuous contract structure they have. And don't even get me started on MMT...
"How do you reconcile small government with drug laws?"
My brother died of a drug overdose, so I inherently have a dislike of drugs (never used them). The libertarian side of me agrees that there's no point in restricting the sale of marijuana. I don't presume for a second to admit that my feelings on drugs are rational, but I have no intention of ever voting for unrestricted drug use. I recognize I'm the one here in the wrong.
"How do you reconcile small government with oil and farming subsidies?"
I don't agree with farming subsidies... except for the situation when we were leveraging tariffs against China. At that point it made sense to do so in order to keep the pressure on China, and not hurt our own industry. That said, I don't like corn subsidy, or any other farming subsidies other than tax breaks. I'll admit though, I'm not at all familiar with the oil subsidies. Can you elaborate? I'm not aware of them?
"How do you reconcile small government with abortion laws?"
The libertarian aspect would say "hands off my body." But the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" comes into play, and because I believe life begins at the heartbeat... I personally believe at that point that it's no longer "just" the pregnant woman's body. There's plenty of time for a woman to get an abortion before the heartbeat (which is roughly 6-8 weeks).
Firstly, thanks for answering. Despite claims indicating otherwise, I'm not framing an argument in bad faith.
Re: Military It sounds to me that you think a strong military is important to enable a smaller government, but that the current instantiation is a bit of a bastardization of that concept. Do I have that right? I can appreciate the idea. So many of our allies are allies simply because of our military presence in their countries. Decrease the military too much, and you lose your power, and not just as a deterrent to attack.
Re: Drugs I'm a proponent of full legalization of all drugs, because I don't believe in the government telling me what I can and can't put in my body. I'm fine with the FDA ensuring "purity" of drugs as a realistic necessity to avoid companies putting out tar and not being responsible for it. You and I differ on this, and I totally get why. I'm sorry that happened to your brother. I've lost friends to drugs, but they didn't die, just... weren't my friends anymore.
Re: Subsidies Really the question is in regard to all subsidies, but I hit on those two since it's a big deal for the republicans around me. There is a part of me that understands "paternal libertarianism," or essentially coaxing desired behavior out of specific taxes and subsidies. Like cigarettes are bad, but we don't want to outlaw them, let's just tax them so heavily that people don't buy them. Or maintaining domestic production of oil is really important for international relations, so we should subsidize production as a matter of national security. But it just never fully sits right with me. Bailouts, subsidies, specific taxes, all the same messy cronyism from my perspective. Let free trade fly, let the free market dictate prices.
Re: Abortion It really comes down to when you think that life has more right to live than the potential parent has a right to bodily autonomy. It's a deeply personal issue, it's not anything I'd like to debate at the moment, but it's definitely another side of big government (especially at the extremes).
At the end of the day, it's not that I can't understand conservative thought. I'm pretty damn close to it, to be honest. I just don't understand this notion that somehow liberals don't have some foundation, and conservatives do. Both liberals and conservatives have some misaligned ideas. Liberals being against gun ownership has never made sense to me, for example. It's just emotion. But I do find them a bit more consistent, in that they at least don't shy away from saying they're all about a bigger government. From where I sit, conservatives want a smaller government, but have a bunch of "except A, B, and C" attached to it.
Todd, like I said, NEVER allow a Leftist to frame the question.
His demand that "small government" be "reconciled" with anything on his list is a false premise and a nonsensical strawman.
It's a series of questions posed by someone with very poor ideological and political intellect and possessed of a cartoon-like impression of what he imagines conservative thought is.
Speaking of a strawman, you continue to completely misrepresent and mislabel my beliefs. You can't get out of your own head long enough to see that the political spectrum is a lot deeper than two independent dots.
.
