Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Amita

Impeachment Amendment

117 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RoofGardener
7 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Like I said.  It got an impartial hearing in the House.

Impartiality may or may not align with party.  In this case, it did.

Doug

ROFL..Impartiality aligned with party ?  that is one HECK of an assumption ?

If the voting was split almost entirely along party lines, then that does NOT suggest an "impartial" hearing to ME ! That suggests that everybody had already made their mind up before they heard the evidence. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

ROFL..Impartiality aligned with party ?  that is one HECK of an assumption ?

If the voting was split almost entirely along party lines, then that does NOT suggest an "impartial" hearing to ME ! That suggests that everybody had already made their mind up before they heard the evidence. 

I looked at the evidence presented, made up my own mind, then noted who voted which way.  Have you actually read the articles?

In case you haven't, here are the Articles of Impeachment:  https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/12/politics/impeachment-articles-annotated/

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Sometimes I think that all this partisan bickering is just a big show the govt puts on to distract us peons from what they're really doing.

Doug

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
39 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Sometimes I think that all this partisan bickering is just a big show the govt puts on to distract us peons from what they're really doing.

Doug

I Always suspect that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
On 1/21/2020 at 2:06 PM, Doug1029 said:

It is a travesty in that we do not expect an impartial hearing in the Senate. 

A travesty is not defined by what you or anyone expects to happen.  But it would be fair to say that bias is defined by assuming what isn't known.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
2 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

A travesty is not defined by what you or anyone expects to happen.  But it would be fair to say that bias is defined by assuming what isn't known.

Trump hasn't been tried yet, but from what I have seen of the evidence, he is as guilty as sin.  Under those conditions, it would be a travesty were he not removed from office.

While my information does not qualify me as fully-informed, I am, at lest, partially-informed.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
4 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Trump hasn't been tried yet, but from what I have seen of the evidence, he is as guilty as sin.  Under those conditions, it would be a travesty were he not removed from office.

While my information does not qualify me as fully-informed, I am, at lest, partially-informed.

Doug

The trial is less about whether he's guilty and more about whether what he did was ok. Democrats think it's not, Republicans think it is. In a sense they're both right...but only the Republican stance sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents and their power to help themselves in future elections. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
1 hour ago, Robotic Jew said:

The trial is less about whether he's guilty and more about whether what he did was ok. Democrats think it's not, Republicans think it is. In a sense they're both right...but only the Republican stance sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents and their power to help themselves in future elections. 

To make it work, future presidents will have to have a base that keeps other members of their party running scared.  Also, that base has to be big enough to determine the outcome of elections.  That is a problem right now (we think).  But one election could change that.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 1/21/2020 at 9:44 AM, Amita said:

To avoid more House partisan votes that can impeach a President with only 51% support.  A future of tit for tat between which party controls the House will result in a further destruction of this nation.

Considering the partisanship makeup of Congress, your rule should be modified to say that no person shall be impeached unless two thirds of both parties are in agreement.  That will be a check on partisanship and should focus on the guilt or innocence and avoid frivolous accusations.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Basically the Constitution is mean to Trump so we should change it?  That's the gist I am getting from this thread.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
6 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Trump hasn't been tried yet, but from what I have seen of the evidence, he is as guilty as sin.  Under those conditions, it would be a travesty were he not removed from office.

While my information does not qualify me as fully-informed, I am, at lest, partially-informed.

Doug

Are you saying it would be a travesty if the majority of Senators don't agree with you?  The reason that the Republicans are in the majority is because most of the country prefers the way Republicans think over the way you and the rest of the Democrats think.   Since they all have been forced to sit through every minute of testimony I would have to say they are fully informed, yet most of them still don't see it your way.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
5 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Also, that base has to be big enough to determine the outcome of elections. 

That's the way it has always been.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
31 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Are you saying it would be a travesty if the majority of Senators don't agree with you?  The reason that the Republicans are in the majority is because most of the country prefers the way Republicans think over the way you and the rest of the Democrats think.   Since they all have been forced to sit through every minute of testimony I would have to say they are fully informed, yet most of them still don't see it your way.

Maybe you haven't heard of voter fraud.  It's mainly a thing perpetrated by Rubs.  Another thing is voter suppression.  Things like putting polling locations 30 miles from where the voters live to discourage voting.  Gerrymandering districts so as to make sure one party gets no representatives at all.

It's not really the quantity of their information.  It's the quantity of their integrity.  Mitch McConnell and several others have said they wouldn't even consider the evidence.  He either lied when he said it, or he lied when he was sworn in.  Either way, he lied.  That's the sort of people the right looks up to.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
33 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

That's the way it has always been.  

A demagogue cannot stay in power if his base doesn't support him.  A brief review of demagogues indicates that they rarely last longer than five years before their supporters start to wake up, Hitler being the exception.  Trump is already into his fifth year.  Do you think he is as capable as Hitler?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
18 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Trump is already into his fifth year.

Must be new math.  Three days ago was the third anniversary of his inauguration.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
14 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Another thing is voter suppression.  Things like putting polling locations 30 miles from where the voters live to discourage voting.

My voting station is in a predominantly government housing, low income, high crime, minority neighborhood. It's not somewhere I would drive through any time of day or night if I have the choice.

I vote in every election and my name was not on the voter roll for ten years even though I lived in the same house and had the same name for 30. I had to show them my voter ID card and they wrote me in every time. I wonder who is doing the voter suppression?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
16 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Basically the Constitution is mean to Trump so we should change it?  That's the gist I am getting from this thread.

Isn't that the same line we hear from the Democrats regarding the Electoral College?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
22 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Isn't that the same line we hear from the Democrats regarding the Electoral College?

Yup.

I'm for the Electoral College.  Our Founding Fathers felt that the general population was too err.. "uneducated" to directly elect a president and they would easily be swayed by populism.  Hence we elect representatives to vote for president for us.  The electors.

This previous election and all the drama that followed is proof enough for me on that.   That's why I laugh when people keep bringing up the "63 million voters" not counting.  Those votes were never for Trump, those votes were for some elector that you hope picked Trump.  No one in the US (except for the electors) truly votes for a president with our system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
27 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Yup.

I'm for the Electoral College.  Our Founding Fathers felt that the general population was too err.. "uneducated" to directly elect a president and they would easily be swayed by populism.  Hence we elect representatives to vote for president for us.  The electors.

That's not true because our founding fathers only allowed men who owned land to vote.  They never planned on uneducated people being allowed to vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
37 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

That's not true because our founding fathers only allowed men who owned land to vote.  They never planned on uneducated people being allowed to vote. 

That's not such a bad idea.  By allowing everyone to vote we now have a situation where people who don't own land can vote themselves benefits to be paid for by people who do.  So many local programs, from schools to infrastructure are financed by property taxes, voted into place by apartment dwellers and paid for by land owners.  They tend to elect presidents and congressmen who will continue to cater to them with other peoples' money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
16 hours ago, Big Jim said:

Must be new math.  Three days ago was the third anniversary of his inauguration.  

He started his demagoguery at least a full year before the election, or don't you member his birther bs?

That was what first led me to doubt his intelligence.  Isn't a Hawaiian certificate of life birth good enough for ythe idiot?

Doug

Edited by Doug1029

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
17 hours ago, Michelle said:

My voting station is in a predominantly government housing, low income, high crime, minority neighborhood. It's not somewhere I would drive through any time of day or night if I have the choice.

I vote in every election and my name was not on the voter roll for ten years even though I lived in the same house and had the same name for 30. I had to show them my voter ID card and they wrote me in every time. I wonder who is doing the voter suppression?

Oklahoma has its drawers in a knot over the new Federal drivers license requirements.  They (the Feds) are threatening to prevent people from voting if they don't have the proper driver's license, yet the state legislature is refusing to comply.  I think it's a p***ing contest, but they're leaving the citizen caught in the middle.

Mostly, the Rubs are doing the voter suppression.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
8 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Oklahoma has its drawers in a knot over the new Federal drivers license requirements.  They (the Feds) are threatening to prevent people from voting if they don't have the proper driver's license, yet the state legislature is refusing to comply.  I think it's a p***ing contest, but they're leaving the citizen caught in the middle.

Mostly, the Rubs are doing the voter suppression.

Doug

Actually, what they are doing is Voter Fraud suppression, and NOT "voter suppression".  ! 

The Dems are up in arms about it because in areas of high illegal immigration, the illegals tend to vote Democrat (because the Democratic Party tends to favour them over legal citizens). Hence fraud suppression might reduce their voter base. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
On 1/21/2020 at 6:44 PM, and then said:

Cite the EVIDENCE that Trump "got help" from any foreign government, if you have any integrity at all on this issue you will prove what you are saying.  Because Mueller found NONE.  There definitely were examples of a candidate doing this but it wasn't Trump.  That dossier is proof of who was doing the shady dealings with Russians and Barr and Durham are apt to dump real evidence of that in a few months.  Be careful what you wish for.

Actually, my understanding is that Mueller found LOTS of evidence that Trump got help from the Russians. What Mueller did NOT find was any evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians, or requesting the help.

That's a bit of a quibble, I'll admit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
4 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Actually, what they are doing is Voter Fraud suppression, and NOT "voter suppression".  ! 

The Dems are up in arms about it because in areas of high illegal immigration, the illegals tend to vote Democrat (because the Democratic Party tends to favour them over legal citizens). Hence fraud suppression might reduce their voter base. 

Illegals don't vote at all.  Various states and Trump himself have investigated those claims and have come up with nothing.  It's just a myth to sway the gullible.  There have been a hand full of instances where legal aliens have voted because they were allowed to (which they are not) but the number of illegals voting could probably be counted with your fingers.  It's almost like they avoid registering their name and address on government forms for some reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Advisory_Commission_on_Election_Integrity

"In an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law looked at 42 jurisdictions, focusing on ones with large population of noncitizens. Of 23.5 million votes surveyed, election officials referred an estimated 30 incidents of suspected noncitizen voting for further investigation, or about 0.0001% of votes cast. Douglas Keith, the counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program and co-author of the analysis, said, "President Trump has said repeatedly that millions of people voted illegally in 2016, but our interviews with local election administrators made clear that rampant noncitizen voting simply did not occur. Any claims to the contrary make their job harder and distract from progress toward needed improvements like automatic voter registration."

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.