Some registered account users are experiencing password recognition issues. The issue appears to have been triggered by a PHP update last night. If this is occurring, please try logging in and using the "forgot password?" utility. Bear in mind auto-generated password reset emails may appear in your spam folder. If this does not work, please click the "Contact Us" option near the lower right hand corner of the index page to contact me via email.

Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.

The Impeachment

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
km1125
Posts: 3789
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: The Impeachment

Unread post by km1125 »

Robert Faygo wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:09 pm Agreed.

In a country of precedents, this situation is VERY interesting to me.

Setting the precedent that we just look the other way at the end of any Federal term is a dangerous one. We currently don’t have a way, beyond the impeachment process, to determine what’s considered a serious crime or what’s considered a really, really, really serious crime. If Trump isn’t subjected to this test, it sets a dangerous precedent.

What’s the line for you? For someone else? For someone else? The ambiguity is more dangerous than anything else.
I'd have a smidgen more respect for the process if the democrats in the house quickly executed the impeachment discussion in the House, and then immediately delivered the papers to the Senate for consideration. If this was that important of an issue, they should not have been sitting on their hands for a couple weeks.

Now it is purely a political posturing move and really the DNC should be the ones at the prosecution table, not a few members from the House. THAT would be more accurate.
User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 9236
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: The Impeachment

Unread post by audiophile »

Bryce wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:40 am
Rate This wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:19 am
Bryce wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:02 am
Robert Faygo wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:57 am Your stretching is making you look silly here.
No more silly than the stretch being made by the impeachment farce that is currently taking place, which was the intended point of this thread.
The current impeachment is for a legitimate reason. “You’ve gotta fight like hell or you’re gonna lose you’re country” “we’re gonna March down to the Capitol and let our voices be heard”. In fact he mentioned fighting or fight over 25 times in his speech that day...
So happy to have an opinion offered by the "worlds foremost" (hat tip to Craig) who evidently isn't aware of the various definitions of the word fight.
b(1): to attempt to prevent the success or effectiveness of
the company fought the takeover attempt
(2): to oppose the passage or development of
fight a bill in Congress

3: to struggle to endure or surmount
Ouch!
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 16584
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: The Impeachment

Unread post by Rate This »

km1125 wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:26 pm
Robert Faygo wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:09 pm Agreed.

In a country of precedents, this situation is VERY interesting to me.

Setting the precedent that we just look the other way at the end of any Federal term is a dangerous one. We currently don’t have a way, beyond the impeachment process, to determine what’s considered a serious crime or what’s considered a really, really, really serious crime. If Trump isn’t subjected to this test, it sets a dangerous precedent.

What’s the line for you? For someone else? For someone else? The ambiguity is more dangerous than anything else.
I'd have a smidgen more respect for the process if the democrats in the house quickly executed the impeachment discussion in the House, and then immediately delivered the papers to the Senate for consideration. If this was that important of an issue, they should not have been sitting on their hands for a couple weeks.

Now it is purely a political posturing move and really the DNC should be the ones at the prosecution table, not a few members from the House. THAT would be more accurate.
At the time they didn’t have the senate. Then a power sharing arrangement had to be worked out and McConnell agreed to the date.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 16584
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: The Impeachment

Unread post by Rate This »

Bryce wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:40 am
Rate This wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:19 am
Bryce wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:02 am
Robert Faygo wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:57 am Your stretching is making you look silly here.
No more silly than the stretch being made by the impeachment farce that is currently taking place, which was the intended point of this thread.
The current impeachment is for a legitimate reason. “You’ve gotta fight like hell or you’re gonna lose you’re country” “we’re gonna March down to the Capitol and let our voices be heard”. In fact he mentioned fighting or fight over 25 times in his speech that day...
So happy to have an opinion offered by the "worlds foremost" (hat tip to Craig) who evidently isn't aware of the various definitions of the word fight.
b(1): to attempt to prevent the success or effectiveness of
the company fought the takeover attempt
(2): to oppose the passage or development of
fight a bill in Congress

3: to struggle to endure or surmount
They were going to March down there and have tea and discuss this reasonably? That was gonna be their fight? No way.

As far as precedent goes there are already a couple of examples of judges being impeached once out of office.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7178
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: The Impeachment

Unread post by Bryce »

Robert Faygo wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:09 pm Agreed.

In a country of precedents, this situation is VERY interesting to me.

Setting the precedent that we just look the other way at the end of any Federal term is a dangerous one. We currently don’t have a way, beyond the impeachment process, to determine what’s considered a serious crime or what’s considered a really, really, really serious crime. If Trump isn’t subjected to this test, it sets a dangerous precedent.

What’s the line for you? For someone else? For someone else? The ambiguity is more dangerous than anything else.
There are any number of options in place to try citizens for the, pardon the pun, trumped up charges, Trump is accused of. The main reason these aren't being considered is because they would be laughed out of court.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
km1125
Posts: 3789
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: The Impeachment

Unread post by km1125 »

Rate This wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:31 pm
km1125 wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:26 pm
Robert Faygo wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:09 pm Agreed.

In a country of precedents, this situation is VERY interesting to me.

Setting the precedent that we just look the other way at the end of any Federal term is a dangerous one. We currently don’t have a way, beyond the impeachment process, to determine what’s considered a serious crime or what’s considered a really, really, really serious crime. If Trump isn’t subjected to this test, it sets a dangerous precedent.

What’s the line for you? For someone else? For someone else? The ambiguity is more dangerous than anything else.
I'd have a smidgen more respect for the process if the democrats in the house quickly executed the impeachment discussion in the House, and then immediately delivered the papers to the Senate for consideration. If this was that important of an issue, they should not have been sitting on their hands for a couple weeks.

Now it is purely a political posturing move and really the DNC should be the ones at the prosecution table, not a few members from the House. THAT would be more accurate.
At the time they didn’t have the senate. Then a power sharing arrangement had to be worked out and McConnell agreed to the date.
Thanks for proving my point! If there were truly impeachable offenses it would not matter who held the Senate (or the House!)
User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7178
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: The Impeachment

Unread post by Bryce »

Rate This wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:33 pm
They were going to March down there and have tea and discuss this reasonably? That was gonna be their fight? No way.

As far as precedent goes there are already a couple of examples of judges being impeached once out of office.
That march was pre planned and started well before Trump was finished speaking. By your logic, Bernie Sanders should be impeached because one of his supporters shot up a softball practice.

Judges. Judges are not presidents. Retired judges can preside over judicial matters.
(b)Any judge of the United States who has retired from regular active service under section 371(b) or 372(a) of this title shall be known and designated as a senior judge and may continue to perform such judicial duties as he is willing and able to undertake, when designated and assigned as provided in subsections (c) and (d).
(c)Any retired circuit or district judge may be designated and assigned by the chief judge or judicial council of his circuit to perform such judicial duties within the circuit as he is willing and able to undertake. Any other retired judge of the United States may be designated and assigned by the chief judge of his court to perform such judicial duties in such court as he is willing and able to undertake.
Impeachment is a vehicle to keep less than honorable judges from doing so and completely removing them from "office".

As far as President's go..
Article II
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Pretty clear. If a President is not in office, one can not be removed from office.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
User avatar
Robert Faygo
Posts: 737
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:26 pm
Location: Van Down By The River
Contact:

Re: The Impeachment

Unread post by Robert Faygo »

Agreed again, and not up for debate.

What is up for debate is if he would be qualified to hold office again under the 14th Amendment (and thus the trial). I'm not smart enough to answer definitively one way or the other which is why I'm in favor of the process playing out and hoping it gets a hearing before the SCOTUS.

I could give a rats patootie about the actual humans and their parties involved. I'm enthralled by the Constitutional aspect of it all.
Wellllll... la de frickin da
User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7178
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: The Impeachment

Unread post by Bryce »

audiophile wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:27 pm
Bryce wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:40 am
Rate This wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:19 am
Bryce wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:02 am
Robert Faygo wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:57 am Your stretching is making you look silly here.
No more silly than the stretch being made by the impeachment farce that is currently taking place, which was the intended point of this thread.
The current impeachment is for a legitimate reason. “You’ve gotta fight like hell or you’re gonna lose you’re country” “we’re gonna March down to the Capitol and let our voices be heard”. In fact he mentioned fighting or fight over 25 times in his speech that day...
So happy to have an opinion offered by the "worlds foremost" (hat tip to Craig) who evidently isn't aware of the various definitions of the word fight.
b(1): to attempt to prevent the success or effectiveness of
the company fought the takeover attempt
(2): to oppose the passage or development of
fight a bill in Congress

3: to struggle to endure or surmount
Ouch!
Not so sure it was viewed as damaging as you clearly see it.

Image
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
User avatar
Honeyman
Posts: 6905
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: The Impeachment

Unread post by Honeyman »

Image
The censorship king from out of state.
User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7178
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: The Impeachment

Unread post by Bryce »

But you CAN shout fire in a crowded theater if there's actually a fire...
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
User avatar
Honeyman
Posts: 6905
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: The Impeachment

Unread post by Honeyman »

Bryce wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:25 pm But you CAN shout fire in a crowded theater if there's actually a fire...
If you continue to drink the kool-aid that this was a fraudulent election, then the thread should end right here.
The censorship king from out of state.
User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7178
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: The Impeachment

Unread post by Bryce »

Honeyman wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:29 pm
Bryce wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:25 pm But you CAN shout fire in a crowded theater if there's actually a fire...
If you continue to drink the kool-aid that this was a fraudulent election, then the thread should end right here.
I will stop believing so when someone explains to me why the last minute changes made to the election process in several of the key swing states, that was NOT approved by the state legislators, holds muster with this.
Article I
Section 4
Clause 1
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 16584
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: The Impeachment

Unread post by Rate This »

Bryce wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:52 pm
Rate This wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:33 pm
They were going to March down there and have tea and discuss this reasonably? That was gonna be their fight? No way.

As far as precedent goes there are already a couple of examples of judges being impeached once out of office.
That march was pre planned and started well before Trump was finished speaking. By your logic, Bernie Sanders should be impeached because one of his supporters shot up a softball practice.

Judges. Judges are not presidents. Retired judges can preside over judicial matters.
(b)Any judge of the United States who has retired from regular active service under section 371(b) or 372(a) of this title shall be known and designated as a senior judge and may continue to perform such judicial duties as he is willing and able to undertake, when designated and assigned as provided in subsections (c) and (d).
(c)Any retired circuit or district judge may be designated and assigned by the chief judge or judicial council of his circuit to perform such judicial duties within the circuit as he is willing and able to undertake. Any other retired judge of the United States may be designated and assigned by the chief judge of his court to perform such judicial duties in such court as he is willing and able to undertake.
Impeachment is a vehicle to keep less than honorable judges from doing so and completely removing them from "office".

As far as President's go..
Article II
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Pretty clear. If a President is not in office, one can not be removed from office.
The crux of it is disqualification from future office holding. That was the point of trying the judges after the fact as well.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 16584
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: The Impeachment

Unread post by Rate This »

Bryce wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:57 pm
Honeyman wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:29 pm
Bryce wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:25 pm But you CAN shout fire in a crowded theater if there's actually a fire...
If you continue to drink the kool-aid that this was a fraudulent election, then the thread should end right here.
I will stop believing so when someone explains to me why the last minute changes made to the election process in several of the key swing states, that was NOT approved by the state legislators, holds muster with this.
Article I
Section 4
Clause 1
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Because in those states the legislature further distilled the practical operations of the elections to the Secretaries of State. It’s not like they have to review every minute change in elections and approve it with a bill. Some of this can be delegated to other elected officials that directly oversee things.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
Post Reply