Impeachment failing in battleground states

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states

Post by Maddy » Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:08 am

sophie wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:02 am

Jeez Moda...your lithium levels must be low.
I love this forum. :)
moda0306 wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:59 am
I just ask that professions are honest about the advantages they have and don't scape-goat immigrants and academia for their inability to make a tidy profit.
Huh?
moda0306 wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:59 am
I've had it with boomers (or anyone) trying to lecture Americans on "The Rule of Law." Law is an opinion with a gun.
Now you've managed to display your ignorance of my profession as well. You claim that the "rule of law" is the problem, and then attempt to substantiate that proposition by citing one instance after another in which the law has been bastardized, trampled or thrown entirely by the wayside. You should take ten giant steps back and take a good, critical look at the side you're rooting for.
Last edited by Maddy on Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1729
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states

Post by Cortopassi » Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:26 am

sophie wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:02 am


And, I'm still old-fashioned enough to think that convicting someone for what he might have said during a phone call is not something that should ever happen in the U.S. justice system.
Can someone explain then, why Blago is spending 14 years in federal prison for "trying" and failing at the same thing? Why did the dems roll over on him??

Under the direction of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald,[100] Governor Blagojevich was arrested at his home by federal agents on December 9, 2008, and charged with corruption. The Justice Department complaint alleged that the governor conspired to commit several "pay to play" schemes, including attempting "to obtain personal gain ... through the corrupt use" of his authority to fill the United States Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama following his election as president, claiming that in wiretapped recordings Blagojevich discussed his desire to get something in exchange for an appointment to the seat.

The Illinois House and Senate moved quickly thereafter to impeach the governor for abuse of power and corruption. On January 8, the Illinois House voted 114–1 (with three abstentions) to impeach Blagojevich.[104][105] The charges brought by the House emphasized Blagojevich's alleged abuses of power and his alleged attempts to sell legislative authorizations and/or vetoes, and gubernatorial appointments including that of Obama's vacated Senate seat. Blagojevich was taped by the FBI saying "I've got this thing, and it's fucking golden. I'm just not giving it up for fucking nothing."[106] He was removed from office and prohibited from ever holding public office in the state of Illinois again, by two separate and unanimous votes of 59–0 by the Illinois Senate on January 29, 2009. Blagojevich's lieutenant governor Patrick Quinn subsequently became governor of Illinois.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states

Post by flyingpylon » Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:51 am

Do you honestly think the Blagojevich and Trump situations are equal?
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1729
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states

Post by Cortopassi » Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:26 pm

No, but similar. So, my question would be is if a tape of the phone call Trump had come out and clearly showed he was going to withhold aid, would that make a 100% difference to republicans?

Are they taking their positions simply because there is no specific hard evidence?
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3456
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states

Post by pugchief » Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:52 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:40 am
Ridiculing someone isn't an "Ad Hominem." Yes, it is. From Wikipedia (does that count as an acceptable source since it isn't Glenn Greenwald?) Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

simply to put Trumpanzees in their place. There you go again....

And you're right... you're no-more cartelized than CPA's, and I have plenty of ridicule for my own profession, cartelization of my license, utter reliance on the complexity of our tax code for a rich demand for our services, Maybe you should just charge less then. No one forces you to charge 'obscene' fees.

and don't pretend life is hard cuz immigrants I never made this assertion. Stop putting words in my mouth.
and too many accounting grads Would increasing the number make tax prep cheaper? Maybe you should open another school for the benefit of the US taxpayer ::)

The idea that Prager U operates only in facts, and not priorities, values and opinions, is garbage. Just because they don't align with your world view does not make it garbage.

If you're going to ridicule people for not backing up their posts with facts, quit parading around this place with your partisan factless/sourceless posts and "dental experience." I'm with Sophie. It's not the strong weed, get your Lithium dose checked. And ya, that's Ad Hominem. O0
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7606
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states

Post by moda0306 » Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:05 pm

Maddy wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:08 am
sophie wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:02 am

Jeez Moda...your lithium levels must be low.
I love this forum. :)
moda0306 wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:59 am
I just ask that professions are honest about the advantages they have and don't scape-goat immigrants and academia for their inability to make a tidy profit.
Huh?
moda0306 wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:59 am
I've had it with boomers (or anyone) trying to lecture Americans on "The Rule of Law." Law is an opinion with a gun.
Now you've managed to display your ignorance of my profession as well. You claim that the "rule of law" is the problem, and then attempt to substantiate that proposition by citing one instance after another in which the law has been bastardized, trampled or thrown entirely by the wayside. You should take ten giant steps back and take a good, critical look at the side you're rooting for.
"The Rule of Law" is a problem... not THE problem. Part of the problem is that even if "The Law" could be enforced without the enforcement arm of the state imploding on itself, it still would be just an opinion with a process that is pre-decided by some that was legitimate. Others would likely disagree.

The other part of the problem is that because the system can't enforce all laws without imploding, that huge imbalanced priorities are made about when/how to enforce which laws, and people quickly go from wanting some laws enforced to wanting others not enforced based on moving goalposts of reasoning.

I didn't really give examples, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I more or less said that conservatives and centrists are clownish and hypocritical on "The Rule of Law," just as many on the left are, though not all of them try to communicate "Rule of Law" values as their driving moral force, but some other moral priority.

What "side" do you assume I'm rooting for? I'm not terribly confident on impeachment. I have mixed feelings on it. What I am confident is that Trumpanzees have no f'ing idea what they're talking about, and are hopeless tribal boobs.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7606
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states

Post by moda0306 » Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:36 pm

I wonder, when Trump gives one of his slurred, stroked-out, meandering speeches, does that indicate he might need some sort of deficiency test? ::)

Or is it just senility setting in? I'd love to see a cognitive impairment test on the man...

You Trumpists really are something to behold... but I don't say this with little anger. Just confusion and embarrassment. This place used to have some really damn intelligent conversations going on.

And pug I also attacked your argument... the nicknames were for effect and to call out idiocy when I see it. So there was no "avoidance." I'm not trying to build my conclusion on a premises of insults.

Lastly, the idea that PragerU is way more than just facts isn't a matter of disagreeing with their politics. It would be equally ridiculous to say that Glenn Greenwald is "Just the facts," which I'd never do. PragerU is absolutely dripping with opinion. You may agree with those opinions, but to pretend it's "nothing but facts and education" is idiotic on its face.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states

Post by flyingpylon » Thu Dec 12, 2019 3:05 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:26 pm
No, but similar.
That's interesting, they seem very different to me.

Article of Impeachment: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/96/HR/P ... HR0005.pdf
Cortopassi wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:26 pm
Are they taking their positions simply because there is no specific hard evidence?
Simply?
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1729
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states

Post by Cortopassi » Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:22 pm

I am not saying Blago was a saint. And I don't know anything much more than what was on the news. But even in reading the link you provided, Blago's impeachment points are all "plots" for him to do something illegal, which at least the main one, selling the Senate seat, he failed at. So it was all just talk.

Isn't that like the republicans saying, hey, Trump tried to get them to investigate and stopped the aid for a while but they did get their aid in the end? No harm, no foul?

No harm, no foul, Blago wasn't able to sell the seat, right?

Is that not similar? Trying to do something bad/illegal, but failing? Like I tried to rob a bank but wasn't able to get away with any money, that's apparently not a crime in some weird twisted logic.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states

Post by sophie » Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:09 pm

Taking the Blago and Trump impeachment cases together, it looks to me like the bar for impeachment is a lot lower than it is for a prosecution in a civil court. And come to think of it, Bill Clinton's little lie might not have resulted in a court case either, in the real world.

I don't think that was meant to happen though. Otherwise, the Constitution would describe impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors, or for being an a**hole". I also think that after the Bill Clinton debacle, the Republicans have lost their right to complain now that it's their guy (aka the a**hole) in the hot seat. Gotta remember that they started this, and now they have to live with the consequences: ANY government official facing a hostile legislative body can now be first extensively investigated to find the desired pretext, then impeached.
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2749
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states

Post by doodle » Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:19 am

From sondlands opening testimony it seems like a lot of the Ukraine policy was filtered through Rudy Giuliani. Why does the president involve his private lawyer and a private citizen when conducting government foreign policy? Is Giuliani a firewall? A way to claim attorney client priviledge when conducting foreign affairs in a shady manner? If trump delegates his attorney to carry out foreign policy how does any communication between the two come to light without breaking attorney client priveledges? And if things go south, with any policy directive carried out by Giuliani trump can always throw his attorney under the bus claiming he acted independently of Trump's orders.
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5577
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states

Post by technovelist » Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:48 am

Cortopassi wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:26 pm
No, but similar. So, my question would be is if a tape of the phone call Trump had come out and clearly showed he was going to withhold aid, would that make a 100% difference to republicans?

Are they taking their positions simply because there is no specific hard evidence?
It is part of the job of the President of the United States to try to ensure that foreign aid is not being given to corrupt governments. So long as there was a reasonable suspicion that Ukraine had been acting corruptly, which there was in the infamous bragging by Biden about getting the prosecutor fired, it might be impeachable if Trump had not asked them to look into it.

Here's a good analysis of the whole impeachment situation: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... tion-fight
Post Reply