So much effort to impeach Trump

[fromderinside]

OK. So where do I go to let off political pfarts now. Huh? Huh? Where?

 

[Elixir]

So much effort to impeach Trump


"So much effort"?
Not that much effort - it's a slam dunk case. And what else would you have had the House be doing?
The House has passed literally hundreds of bills during the process culminating in impeachment, many or most of which are bi-partisan, and all of which are dead on Moscow Mitch's desk. So you think they should have dropped the little impeachment thingy and passed more bills for Moscow Mitch to sit on?

I disagree.

Impeachment is what happens - and what should happen - when a rogue president acts against the interests of the country. Here are the uncontested facts:
Cheato publicly solicited the governments of Russia, China and Ukraine to undermine the integrity of the US electoral process and has instructed everyone involved to refuse congressional subpoenas.
THOSE ARE UNCONTESTED FACTS

So his guilt as charged is not at issue. The only "issue" is whether we, as a country, approve of such behavior. Moscow Mitch, Lindsey "Windsock" Graham and most of the rest of the Republican Senate have made it clear that they approve. The House has made it clear that most of them disapprove. We'll see what the voters think in 2020, if there's anything left of the electoral process by then.

 

[James Brown]

Do we complain when umpires spend "so much effort" calling balls and strikes?

Do we complain when detectives spend "so much effort" investigating crimes?

Do we complain when traffic cops send "so much effort" reducing automobile deaths?

 

[Lion IRC]

I should apply that same standard of mistrust to aspiring rulers?
Can we really trust the motives of those who want to replace Trump?

Like I said...
What's normal and acceptable seems to be the frequent threats of impeachment as a partisan political tactic.

So what makes you think this impeachment against Trump is as groundless as the others? Other than, "It's the Democrats doing it and that makes it wrong" of course.

Doing what?

…It appears as though you disapprove of the impeachment process being implemented towards Trump.

On the contrary. I said it appears to be quite normal - business as usual - partisan politics.
You agreed with me. Every president for the last forty years you said.
So I was right to think it will probably happen again - to whoever the next POTUS turns out to be.

…So what exactly is your issue with Trump being impeached?

That it makes a farce of the word impeach.
He walks like a duck. He quacks like a duck. He got elected for being the most popular (least unpopular) duck. Now folks say let's impeach that person because he is being a duck.

 

[ZiprHead]

I should apply that same standard of mistrust to aspiring rulers?
Can we really trust the motives of those who want to replace Trump?

So what makes you think this impeachment against Trump is as groundless as the others? Other than, "It's the Democrats doing it and that makes it wrong" of course.

Doing what?

…It appears as though you disapprove of the impeachment process being implemented towards Trump.

On the contrary. I said it appears to be quite normal - business as usual - partisan politics.
You agreed with me. Every president for the last forty years you said.
So I was right to think it will probably happen again - to whoever the next POTUS turns out to be.

…So what exactly is your issue with Trump being impeached?

That it makes a farce of the word impeach.
He walks like a duck. He quacks like a duck. He got elected for being the most popular (least unpopular) duck. Now folks say let's impeach that person because he is being a duck.

No. He is being impeached because he committed criminal acts while in office.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I should apply that same standard of mistrust to aspiring rulers?
Can we really trust the motives of those who want to replace Trump?

So what makes you think this impeachment against Trump is as groundless as the others? Other than, "It's the Democrats doing it and that makes it wrong" of course.

Doing what?

…It appears as though you disapprove of the impeachment process being implemented towards Trump.

On the contrary. I said it appears to be quite normal - business as usual - partisan politics.
You agreed with me. Every president for the last forty years you said.
So I was right to think it will probably happen again - to whoever the next POTUS turns out to be.

…So what exactly is your issue with Trump being impeached?

That it makes a farce of the word impeach.
He walks like a duck. He quacks like a duck. He got elected for being the most popular (least unpopular) duck. Now folks say let's impeach that person because he is being a duck.

Partisan politics? Yes. Business as usual? No. Not by a long shot. Nothing compares to this blatant disregard of his oath of office. What Trump is doing is without precedent.

What's your qualifier for impeachment? Trump's actions appear to be handcrafted for impeachment.
The duck was not the least unpopular. The duck got fewer votes. If the Electoral College did it's job, the duck's win would have never been certified. Were it not for partisan politics and a Personal Attorney General, the duck would already be out of office and likely had his passport traded for an ankle bracelet.

 

[Patooka]

I should apply that same standard of mistrust to aspiring rulers?
Can we really trust the motives of those who want to replace Trump?

So what makes you think this impeachment against Trump is as groundless as the others? Other than, "It's the Democrats doing it and that makes it wrong" of course.

Doing what?

…It appears as though you disapprove of the impeachment process being implemented towards Trump.

On the contrary. I said it appears to be quite normal - business as usual - partisan politics.
You agreed with me. Every president for the last forty years you said.
So I was right to think it will probably happen again - to whoever the next POTUS turns out to be.

So you approve of the impeachment process being implemented towards Trump then? And if you are of the opinion that this current impeachment is just business as usual why then can you not " help but wonder that all the effort spent trying to impeach Trump could have been better spent"? You appear to be complaining about stuff that you already know the answer to.

…So what exactly is your issue with Trump being impeached?

That it makes a farce of the word impeach.
He walks like a duck. He quacks like a duck. He got elected for being the most popular (least unpopular) duck. Now folks say let's impeach that person because he is being a duck.

How can it be a farce? Congress is a legislative body leveling charges against an elected official. That is the very definition of impeachment. It can't happen any other way. And as TV and credit cards pointed out, this particular duck was not the most popular or even least unpopular duck. And even if that were the case. Being elected doesn't/shouldn't give you carte blanche and immunity for four years in everything you do.

You never commented on my analogy here. Straight up, is this a scenario you would be fine with? I suspect not, and ultimately that is why impeachment is going ahead.

 

[Lion IRC]

I have very low expectations of politicians.
Lemme go read your commentary and I'll get back to you.

 

[fromderinside]

I start by pointing out that Trump takes his authority from article II of the constitution. It is preceded by article I. He cannot establish or disestablish anything specified in article !. By declaration in article II he is subject to impeachment. He has limited power which he denies. That in itself is impeachable.

 

[Tigers!]

Pretty certain you have never voted for the PM of Australia either. If you don't mind me asking, what electorate do you live in?

Of course I (and you) have never voted for the PM of Australia. We have a different system (praise God for that).
You tell me your electorate and I'll tell you mine.

 

[Tigers!]

Well, It looks like y'all did a good job of explaining to Tigers why the impeachment was necessary.

.

And when in the future a Democrat gets in then the impeachment circus will roll on unimpeded. The Republicans will throw up impeachment claims, spurious or otherwise.
Unfortunately you yanks seem have got yourselves into a state of perpetual outage where good governance is a distant memory.

Don't get me wrong Trump is an knave and a fool and should never have been elected. But he was.
I still cannot believe that a nation of > 300 million people could throw up two, so totally unfit in their own unique way, persons for president.
I could not have voted for either. Where was a plausible 3rd alternative?

Why do you believe Hillary was unfit?

It came down to 3 things
1. Her presumption that it was time for a women and she was a woman
2. i am a Clinton and its my turn
3. 'Deplorables'

In a first-past-the-post voting system. It will naturally come down to two factions.  Duverger's law

It comes to how many horses are in the race. You system appears to generally, but not always i.e. Ross Perot, end up with 2 horses

 

[Tigers!]

Stuffed up a reply big time.
Those nested quotes can be lethal. i will try again.

 

[Tigers!]

Well, It looks like y'all did a good job of explaining to Tigers why the impeachment was necessary.

.

And when in the future a Democrat gets in then the impeachment circus will roll on unimpeded. The Republicans will throw up impeachment claims, spurious or otherwise.

There's no "in the future" about it. This is history.

It is worth noting that the most recent impeachment quest began when President Clinton was implicated in a shady real estate deal.

When that accusation didn't gain traction, the Republicans moved on to marital infidelity and sexual harassment.

Shady real estate deals. Marital infidelity. Sexual harassment. Smells a bit familiar for some reason...

Yes it does sound familiar. Some of your presidents cannot keep their pants up. And love to mistreat women.

For all their braying about the Democrats just looking for something - anything - with which to impeach Trump, fact is the GOP did the exact same thing with Clinton in the 90s. They were poised to do the same thing should Hillary Clinton had won in 2016. In fact they'd pre-loaded the impeachment with their endless investigations into Benghazi and her emails. Had she won, they would have continued, yet oddly the "we'll never stop until we get to the bottom of this" investigation into Benghazi was shut down within a month of the 2016 election results coming in.

Coincidence? I think not.


The Republicans struck the mold for impeachment when they went after Clinton in the 1990s. Decide you want to remove a President from office, and then relentlessly investigate until you find something. The difference this time around is that they actually found something worthy of impeachment.

I thought that Clinton was impeached for perjury?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looking on from Australia I cannot help but wonder that all the effort spent trying to impeach Trump could have been better spent devising new policies, preparing the ground for 2020 etc.

Some digging on the internet found that Texas Rep. Al Green seems to have been the first to call for Trump's impeachment in May 2017.
Trump had been in office just 4 months. What had he done in 4 months to justify a call for impeachment other than defeating Clinton?

You mean committing obstruction of justice in the firing of James Comey?

 

[Patooka]

Pretty certain you have never voted for the PM of Australia either. If you don't mind me asking, what electorate do you live in?

Of course I (and you) have never voted for the PM of Australia. We have a different system (praise God for that).
You tell me your electorate and I'll tell you mine.

No problem. I live in the seat of Mitchell. It sometimes moves between Mitchell and Hornsby when redistricting occurs, but currently Alex Hawke is my MP. He's a fucking moron, but I've got a better chance of getting a blowjob from a unicorn then seeing my electorate vote anyway other than Liberal.

 

[Elixir]

What had he done in 4 months to justify a call for impeachment other than defeating Clinton?

Can you say "Mike Flynn"?
I knew you could!

 

[Gun Nut]

Looking on from Australia I cannot help but wonder that all the effort spent trying to impeach Trump could have been better spent devising new policies, preparing the ground for 2020 etc.

Some digging on the internet found that Texas Rep. Al Green seems to have been the first to call for Trump's impeachment in May 2017.
Trump had been in office just 4 months. What had he done in 4 months to justify a call for impeachment other than defeating Clinton?

Since then our news bulletins in Oz have had a dreary train of impeachment calls.

Don't you yanks have other things to occupy your time and efforts?

Americans don't take kindly to the sorts of criminality that Australia, the criminal shithole of the world, view as "culture". The world has been abandoning their criminals on your little island for millenia, so of course when you see high crimes and misdemeanors, you would say, "meh. finders keepers".

 

[Tigers!]

Pretty certain you have never voted for the PM of Australia either. If you don't mind me asking, what electorate do you live in?

Of course I (and you) have never voted for the PM of Australia. We have a different system (praise God for that).
You tell me your electorate and I'll tell you mine.

No problem. I live in the seat of Mitchell. It sometimes moves between Mitchell and Hornsby when redistricting occurs, but currently Alex Hawke is my MP. He's a fucking moron, but I've got a better chance of getting a blowjob from a unicorn then seeing my electorate vote anyway other than Liberal.

I live in Lalor. As a fan of neither side my vote is usually a forlorn hope.
I used to be Gellibrand but the redistribution 2 elections ago put me in Lalor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is a large pile of paper.
Unfortunately that does not mean they all are worthy of being passed.

They should be decided on their own merits, not just left.

I'd like to see a rule that if one house passes something and the other doesn't vote on it within 30 days it's automatically passed by the other house. The fact that one side passed it says it has enough merit to at least be worth considering.

 

[Elixir]

That is a large pile of paper.
Unfortunately that does not mean they all are worthy of being passed.

They should be decided on their own merits, not just left.

I'd like to see a rule that if one house passes something and the other doesn't vote on it within 30 days it's automatically passed by the other house. The fact that one side passed it says it has enough merit to at least be worth considering.

In the current situation, that would put a big pile of paper on tRump's desk, and he would have to find someone to read it all to him, or just let Steven Miller veto it all for him. Either way, it would mean bad optics for the Trump cabal. So no, that ain't gonna happen.