How will Impeachment play out?

[GlitterRose]

They'll prove a whole bunch of stuff, but it won't matter, because the Senate won't do anything about it. 

 

[Gromdor]

9 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Nope, the term that has been used all these years is Anthropomorphic or Human caused climate change, which is an oxymoron.  As for the other, yes, Man pollutes his environment but environment has nothing to do with climate change.

 

Anthropomorphic means having human traits/form.  Bugs Bunny for instance is Anthropomorphic as is Lumier the candlestick from Beauty and the Beast.

 

[Golden Duck]

15 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Nope, the term that has been used all these years is Anthropomorphic or Human caused climate change, which is an oxymoron.  As for the other, yes, Man pollutes his environment but environment has nothing to do with climate change.

 

Congratulations! You've won an argument no one is having.

No one is saying climate changes has human form or characteristics. 

[RavenHawk]

25 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Anyone from Georgia can tell you how the impeachment will work out. To properly impeach you must have a tight grip on the peach and squeeze, if it done correctly the seed will just pop out of the top and the process will be finished. It's not really that difficult since Georgia is full of Peachs, you can get plenty of practice. 

Hope this helps

I have a few peach trees.  I guess I have never done it correctly.  I always end up with peach pulp.

[+Grim Reaper 6]

12 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I have a few peach trees.  I guess I have never done it correctly.  I always end up with peach pulp.

 

Well I am sorry to hear that,  I suspect that's what is going to happen to this impeachment once it goes forward to its next level.

Just in my opinion.

[RavenHawk]

24 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Anthropomorphic means having human traits/form.  Bugs Bunny for instance is Anthropomorphic as is Lumier the candlestick from Beauty and the Beast.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Congratulations! You've won an argument no one is having.

No one is saying climate changes has human form or characteristics. 

I guess you two were not alive when the term was first used??  It was perhaps in the 70s??.  It was originally Anthropomorphic (Man caused) Global Warming.  But that didn’t sit well with the political elites and propagandists.  So it eventually became just Climate Change because it was easier to insult someone arguing that Man caused climate change did not exist and twist the argument to make it look like they did not believe in just climate change.  Ever since then I’ve used Anthropomorphic.  Now, I do think that anthropogenic was the term they really wanted but I’m guessing that that would refer to just pollution and polluting the environment is not climate change.  So that argument was not useful.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  Does that help enlighten you?  Probably not.

[Gromdor]

57 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

 

I guess you two were not alive when the term was first used??  It was perhaps in the 70s??.  It was originally Anthropomorphic (Man caused) Global Warming.  But that didn’t sit well with the political elites and propagandists.  So it eventually became just Climate Change because it was easier to insult someone arguing that Man caused climate change did not exist and twist the argument to make it look like they did not believe in just climate change.  Ever since then I’ve used Anthropomorphic.  Now, I do think that anthropogenic was the term they really wanted but I’m guessing that that would refer to just pollution and polluting the environment is not climate change.  So that argument was not useful.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  Does that help enlighten you?  Probably not.

Umm.  It's originally Greek-  Anthro= man  Morph=form/shape  Genesis=Origin/Beginning.

So to recap: Anthropomorphic= Man form/shape   Anthropogenic=Man Origin/caused

It's never meant what you said it means. (At least for the last 2000 years or so.)

 

 

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

 

I guess you two were not alive when the term was first used??  It was perhaps in the 70s??.  It was originally Anthropomorphic (Man caused) Global Warming.  But that didn’t sit well with the political elites and propagandists.  So it eventually became just Climate Change because it was easier to insult someone arguing that Man caused climate change did not exist and twist the argument to make it look like they did not believe in just climate change.  Ever since then I’ve used Anthropomorphic.  Now, I do think that anthropogenic was the term they really wanted but I’m guessing that that would refer to just pollution and polluting the environment is not climate change.  So that argument was not useful.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  Does that help enlighten you?  Probably not.

I can agree that Anthropomorphic Climate Change and those that insist on using it are full of BS.

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

I suspect that's what is going to happen to this impeachment once it goes forward to its next level.

I agree.  The Republicans have a golden opportunity here.  The Progs have given them a gift all wrapped up with a pretty bow.  Conservatives have a chance to send the Socialist Party of America back into the Stone Age, but I suspect that they will somehow screw the pooch.

[Doug1029]

8 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Ummm.. I rather think he IS, you know ? 

He has presented no exculpatory evidence to the House.  It appears he will be impeached by the full House this week.  Then there's a trial in the Senate - but Trump isn't controlling it - Moscow Mitch is.  McConnell has said he wants a quick trial and may not call Trump's witnesses.  Maybe he will call them and maybe not.  We'll find out in January.

Trump had his chance to enter his evidence into the record.  Whatever happens now, it is his own fault.

Doug

[DarkHunter]

1 hour ago, Doug1029 said:

He has presented no exculpatory evidence to the House.  It appears he will be impeached by the full House this week.  Then there's a trial in the Senate - but Trump isn't controlling it - Moscow Mitch is.  McConnell has said he wants a quick trial and may not call Trump's witnesses.  Maybe he will call them and maybe not.  We'll find out in January.

Trump had his chance to enter his evidence into the record.  Whatever happens now, it is his own fault.

Doug

There is a chance it wont even go to the Senate at all.  1 Democrat has already said they are voting against the articles of impeachment and 19 more have said they are undecided/unclear on how they will vote with 48 Democrats having not saying anything yet on how they will vote.  

Only would take 18 more defections for the impeachment to die in the house.  While unlikely to happen it's not impossible.

[+joc]

2 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

He has presented no exculpatory evidence to the House.  It appears he will be impeached by the full House this week.  Then there's a trial in the Senate - but Trump isn't controlling it - Moscow Mitch is.  McConnell has said he wants a quick trial and may not call Trump's witnesses.  Maybe he will call them and maybe not.  We'll find out in January.

Trump had his chance to enter his evidence into the record.  Whatever happens now, it is his own fault.

Doug

This...from the guy who says Man Made Climate Change is Fact! pffft

[RavenHawk]

3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Umm.  It's originally Greek-  Anthro= man  Morph=form/shape  Genesis=Origin/Beginning.

So to recap: Anthropomorphic= Man form/shape   Anthropogenic=Man Origin/caused

It's never meant what you said it means. (At least for the last 2000 years or so.)

 

 

Sigh!  I guess everything I said, as everything does with you, flew right over your head.  So let me rephrase.  It has less to do with the definition as it does with usage.  The concept was that climate change was ‘formed’ or ‘shaped’ by man.  Clear now?

[RavenHawk]

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I can agree that Anthropomorphic Climate Change and those that insist on using it are full of BS.

I was right.  It didn’t help.  That’s why I sarcastically use it.  It shows my disdain of the dishonesty of those that willfully conflate real climate change with the fake manmade climate change.  They are not the same.  The ones that use it are those that believe in manmade climate change and you are right, they are full of BS.

[Golden Duck]

12 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I was right.  It didn’t help.  That’s why I sarcastically use it.  It shows my disdain of the dishonesty of those that willfully conflate real climate change with the fake manmade climate change.  They are not the same.  The ones that use it are those that believe in manmade climate change and you are right, they are full of BS.

Oh so you make up some unsubstantiated history about a phrase used in ignorance. And now your being sarcastic.

OK.

Yes you're right your stories didn't convince anyone.

[RavenHawk]

3 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

He has presented no exculpatory evidence to the House.

He doesn’t have to.  In our system, the accused is innocent until proven guilty.  To date, that requirement has not been met.

 

It appears he will be impeached by the full House this week. 

It certainly looks that way, but not the full House.  Only by the Progs in the House (no bipartisan support) and there are already democratic defections.  It’s not a done deal yet.  By various counts, there are anywhere from 31 to 55 Dems that could vote no.  I still think that the Republicans should vote yes and send this to the Senate.  When that happens, the Progs will be mincemeat.  But I just had a wicked thought.  What if the vote in the House is Nancy’s way of disgracing AOC et. al. to ensure they are a one-term Congressman?  And she thinks that she could still hang on to the House?  Probably not, it was just a thought.

 

Then there's a trial in the Senate - but Trump isn't controlling it - Moscow Mitch is. 

Of course not, just as Moscow Pelosi, Moscow Schiff, and Moscow Nadler ran a kangaroo court the House committees.

 

McConnell has said he wants a quick trial and may not call Trump's witnesses.  Maybe he will call them and maybe not.  We'll find out in January.

I hope he does call all the witnesses.  The Republicans have a chance to extract well-earned justice and put the Progs in the doghouse for a very long winter.  This next election could reshape the political environment for generations to come.  And for the better.

 

Trump had his chance to enter his evidence into the record.  Whatever happens now, it is his own fault.

Again he doesn’t have to.  One is innocent until proven guilty.  He’s actually played it very well basically giving Congress the finger.

[RavenHawk]

18 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Oh so you make up some unsubstantiated history about a phrase used in ignorance. And now your being sarcastic.

OK.

Yes you're right your stories didn't convince anyone.

You are so ignorant.  No wonder you are always confused.  I’ve always have used it sarcastically.  Someone that has paid attention to my posts would probably see that.  I thought everyone was aware of the general history?  The Left’s search for the right phrase.  No wonder you are sucked into “Manmade” (ok?) climate change.  That was sarcasm too.  I don’t need to convince anyone.  If you want to remain ignorant, be my guest.  You’ve been corrected so it’s up to you if you want to wallow in stupidity.

[Golden Duck]

4 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

You are so ignorant.  No wonder you are always confused.  I’ve always have used it sarcastically.  Someone that has paid attention to my posts would probably see that.  I thought everyone was aware of the general history?  The Left’s search for the right phrase.  No wonder you are sucked into “Manmade” (ok?) climate change.  That was sarcasm too.  I don’t need to convince anyone.  If you want to remain ignorant, be my guest.  You’ve been corrected so it’s up to you if you want to wallow in stupidity.

 

Nice expressionism; but, your stories are still unsubstantiated. 

[Unusual Tournament]

2 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

There is a chance it wont even go to the Senate at all.  1 Democrat has already said they are voting against the articles of impeachment and 19 more have said they are undecided/unclear on how they will vote with 48 Democrats having not saying anything yet on how they will vote.  

Only would take 18 more defections for the impeachment to die in the house.  While unlikely to happen it's not impossible.

Its going to the senate. Relax, I'm sure the manchurian candidate is safe for now. Play some solitaire... 

[Unusual Tournament]

5 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I agree.  The Republicans have a golden opportunity here.  The Progs have given them a gift all wrapped up with a pretty bow.  Conservatives have a chance to send the Socialist Party of America back into the Stone Age, but I suspect that they will somehow screw the pooch.

Screw the pooch ? and you vote for these people... 

[+and-then]

On 12/13/2019 at 9:43 PM, Manwon Lender said:

I think your right they will not convict him under any circumstances, but the part about being Co-Equal and that he can obstruct Congress anytime he feels like it may change. I saw something today on the news about that very issue being sent to the Supreme Court, now what they chose to do about it may be nothing or they could set a precedent that changes everything. It's hard to say what they will do, they may not even look at it.

I'd be genuinely surprised if the USSC decided to touch a separation of powers case.  What I meant was if there is even a perception that he - or any other president - was acting or even "might" be acting within his authority as the Chief executive, no case of obstructing Congress would have a chance.  Think about how vague that description is.  They aren't quoting an existing statute and if they set the precedent of attempting to remove a president for exercising his Constitutional authority, where would that take us in the future?

[+and-then]

 

9 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

The most recent speech of his I came across (a couple-or-three days old ? ) he was still denying that there was anything impeachable about the telephone call, and that he had done nothing wrong. 

He is correct.  Even if he had demanded Ukraine look into the H. Biden situation, he'd be working within his authority.  The two "sides" here are baked into position and nothing is going to move most of them off their choice.  The most dangerous aspect of this situation is that what was once considered almost unthinkable (removing the choice of the majority of voters in the majority of states) is now corrupted by rank politics and it's a dangerous, potentially destabilizing move.  They are going to discover that this whole process can and will work against them in time.

[RavenHawk]

10 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Screw the pooch ? and you vote for these people... 

Yeah, I know.  But that’s no reason to vote Socialist.  The Conservatives in Congress just need a leader that can encourage them to find a backbone.  Trump is such a leader.  One more term will cement it for a long time.  Once the Republicans learn how to standup to the Progs, governance will start working for the people once again.

[+Grim Reaper 6]

13 minutes ago, and then said:

I'd be genuinely surprised if the USSC decided to touch a separation of powers case.  What I meant was if there is even a perception that he - or any other president - was acting or even "might" be acting within his authority as the Chief executive, no case of obstructing Congress would have a chance.  Think about how vague that description is.  They aren't quoting an existing statute and if they set the precedent of attempting to remove a president for exercising his Constitutional authority, where would that take us in the future?

I think your right in most cases, however the President is being investigated and he personally obstructs the investigation into himself by stopping people who receive a subpoena from going to court. I think in this case not only is it a conflict of interest it is really obstruction of justice. 

I don't believe his constitutional authority includes investigations of impeachment into himself, it may include anything else but not that.

Just in my opinion

[+and-then]

On 12/13/2019 at 10:00 AM, Doug1029 said:

Trump never claimed executive privilege in regards to the Ukraine extortion/bribery deal.  That means it's not a Constitutional issue, but one of Trump just digging his heals in and throwing a tantrum.

Doug

He's finally gotten to the end of his patience with these hacks.  What Trump is doing is giving a coequal branch of our government, the old middle finger salute.  If he continued cooperating, he'd eventually become totally neutered as a president.  NOWHERE in our Founding documents is there any mention of Congress having the authority to force the president to do anything

What this all gets down to in the end is we are experiencing hyper-partisanship along with a refusal to accept the will of the people in 2016.  These arguments or discussions have become pointless because the two parties believe what they WANT to believe and cannot or will not accept the will of the people.  Think about that a moment.  Two entities who look at the exact same dialogue and swear that only "their" version is real.  This isn't about facts it is about emotions and egos.  

The D's seem ready to continue the hate and with the coordination from the media they might be capable of carrying on if he wins re-election.  There have even been references online about using a Trump win in 2020 as proof that he cheated.  These media types are close to openly fomenting violence.