 
     |
| The 2nd Impeachment of (former) President Donald J. Trump (Page 2/9) |
|
sourmash
|
FEB 10, 11:31 AM
|
|
Journalists are egotists by nature. They think they're the smartest people in the room and have ultimate say about the spin you have to accept. If you disagree, you're a denier and aligning yourself with dangerous terrorists.
Trump troll-blasted them, making himself their enemy. He huffed and puffed and blew their dresses up exposing their peccadilloes and transgressions. In him, they trained their combined skulduggery to protect their benefactors and livelihood. They want to remain the priest class of clown kingdom.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
FEB 10, 01:19 PM
|
|
I wonder if anyone who's plugged into the wagering scene can talk about what kinds of bets are being offered.
Could someone place a bet that the Dems will reel in anywhere from 3 to 5 Republican votes to convict?. And what's the commonly understood terminology for such a wager? "Under" and "over" and "spread"..? I'm not versed in the vernacular.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-10-2021).]
|
|
|
|
randye
|
FEB 10, 02:12 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
And what's the commonly understood terminology for such a wager?
|
|
The proper terminology is:
...and it isn't going to happen
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
FEB 10, 02:16 PM
|
|
|
Ringling Bros went out of business. All of those clowns had to go somewhere.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
FEB 10, 02:38 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
The vote on whether or not this trial was constitutional came out as expected of 56 for, 44 against proceeding..
|
|
We have a Judicial Branch of our government in which resides The Supreme Court of the United States whose mandate it is to decide what is constitutional and what isn't.
That separate branch of our government and that particular court were instituted by the founders of this country specifically to preclude the legislative branch from doing what it just did.
Demorats have now pointedly decided to simply dispense with those little "inconveniences" called The Constitution and the separation of powers defined therein.
Chief Justice John Roberts refusal to participate in "Impeachment 2, Kangaroo Court Boogaloo" becomes more prescient by the day.
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
FEB 10, 03:09 PM
|
|
|
I have tried to "give a sherbet", but just like watching Gilligan's Island, we all know how it will end. Nobody is getting off the island alive.
|
|
|
|
blackrams
|
FEB 10, 06:10 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
We have a Judicial Branch of our government in which resides The Supreme Court of the United States whose mandate it is to decide what is constitutional and what isn't.
That separate branch of our government and that particular court were instituted by the founders of this country specifically to preclude the legislative branch from doing what it just did.
Demorats have now pointedly decided to simply dispense with those little "inconveniences" called The Constitution and the separation of powers defined therein.
Chief Justice John Roberts refusal to participate in "Impeachment 2, Kangaroo Court Boogaloo" becomes more prescient by the day. |
|
On the positive side, the Dems have now set the rules for future impeachments. I don't expect Biden to run again but, I'm think'n Harris has her time coming.
Speaker Pelosi would be next on my list. But, since she's already indicated she won't run for Speaker again, I'm think'n she's realized she's done all the damage she can.
As of this point, (as I understand it) the FBI is charging about 250 people with rioting or charges similar to include simple trespassing but, there are some serious charges.
Did anyone get a count of how many people were there protesting? 10K, 50K, 100K? Just imagine if, all the protestors or, 74 Mililion had actually been intent to capture Pelosi and others. We might have some new folks in charge. But, that wasn't the case, was it.
Rams[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-10-2021).]
|
|
|
|
randye
|
FEB 10, 06:45 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
On the positive side, the Dems have now set the rules for future impeachments.
|
|
If you honestly believe that Demorats have any set rules, either for now or in the future, you are seriously mistaken.
I have long awaited a list of any fixed principles, morality, norms or rules to which Leftists abide.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-10-2021).]
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
FEB 10, 07:09 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
On the positive side, the Dems have now set the rules for future impeachments. I don't expect Biden to run again but, I'm think'n Harris has her time coming.
Speaker Pelosi would be next on my list. But, since she's already indicated she won't run for Speaker again, I'm think'n she's realized she's done all the damage she can.
As of this point, (as I understand it) the FBI is charging about 250 people with rioting or charges similar to include simple trespassing but, there are some serious charges.
Did anyone get a count of how many people were there protesting? 10K, 50K, 100K? Just imagine if, all the protestors or, 74 Mililion had actually been intent to capture Pelosi and others. We might have some new folks in charge. But, that wasn't the case, was it.
Rams
|
|
I disagree. I think she would happily continue in her position for as long as she remains in Congress if she thought she could again garner enough support in the House but with 'progressivism' being the left's NBT, she saw the handwriting on the wall and is pre-empting a loss of face vote next time around.
It's one thing to lose House leadership position because the opposition won control of the House, but another thing entirely if your own party replaces you.
That prospect is something she probably wouldn't handle well. Unless I read it wrong, she had to make some serious wheelin&dealin on the side to even retain speakership this time and I suspect the promise to make this her last was part of the deal.
Between the Bernie socialists and the squad types, her days as Speaker of the House appear to be numbered anyway.
Good Riddance.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
FEB 10, 08:02 PM
|
|
What's important to the Democrats is how this conditions popular opinion after Trump is acquitted. When there's 50 or more votes to convict Trump but less than the two thirds majority (supermajority) of 67 votes to formally convict him.
"To lose is to win, and he who wins loses [all.]"
~ Doctor Who
I have the word "all" in brackets because I think it needs to be there for "punch" but the actual sentence that I quoted stops with "loses."[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-10-2021).]
|
|
|
|