ChatterBank2 mins ago
Well That Was A Waste Of Time!
61 Answers
https:/
just an act of spite from the Trump haters. Go Donald....
just an act of spite from the Trump haters. Go Donald....
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Indeed not. But that's partly because a system that was meant to rely on various bodies being in competition with each other has simply broken down. The purpose of impeachment is so that the President can be held to account for his actions. Whether or not that was appropriate here is, to some extent, irrelevant. The fact is that Republicans had no intention of voting to remove their de facto leader -- because to do otherwise would have been to enrage their voters -- and that Democrats had little choice but to vote to remove him, for the exact same reason. That makes a mockery of an institution that is meant to provide a balance against potential abuses of, or misconduct in, high office. The evidence one way or another was irrelevant. Cassa and others may have evaluated it honestly and determined that there was no case to answer, and I'll take that on reasonable faith, but it's simply blinkered to pretend that this was anything like the decision-making process of the Senate.
Consider, for example, Marco Rubio's statement prior to his voting to acquit Trump:
" Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office... the truth of the allegations [is] not needed for my analysis, which [assumes] that all the allegations made are true."
Or those of Murkowski:
"The President's behaviour was shameful and wrong... degrading the office by actions or even name-calling weakens it for future presidents and it weakens our country.
"The Senate should be ashamed by the rank partisanship that has been on display here ... Some have been calling for the President to be impeached for years; others in this chamber saw little need to even consider the arguments from the House before stating their intentions to acquit."
She went on to condemn the House (as in, the Democrats) for pushing forward, and ultimately voted to acquit as she thought, quite fairly, that "there would be no fair trial".
There speak two Republicans -- yes, Murkowski is to the left of the Party, but the US left is the UK centre-right -- who at least saw in their assessment that, all other things being equal, the was a case for Trump to answer.
Consider, for example, Marco Rubio's statement prior to his voting to acquit Trump:
" Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office... the truth of the allegations [is] not needed for my analysis, which [assumes] that all the allegations made are true."
Or those of Murkowski:
"The President's behaviour was shameful and wrong... degrading the office by actions or even name-calling weakens it for future presidents and it weakens our country.
"The Senate should be ashamed by the rank partisanship that has been on display here ... Some have been calling for the President to be impeached for years; others in this chamber saw little need to even consider the arguments from the House before stating their intentions to acquit."
She went on to condemn the House (as in, the Democrats) for pushing forward, and ultimately voted to acquit as she thought, quite fairly, that "there would be no fair trial".
There speak two Republicans -- yes, Murkowski is to the left of the Party, but the US left is the UK centre-right -- who at least saw in their assessment that, all other things being equal, the was a case for Trump to answer.
Haha I have to laugh at the deliberate glossing over of the obvious, if uncomfortable, truth. It is about who makes the "rules" and decides on convention at any given time. The lefties like to quote the "rules" but reserve the right to change them, without notice preferably, and to interpret them differently if you please for anyone that they consider to be "one of them". For our own good don't you know?
"What we have here is a failure to communicate".
"What we have here is a failure to communicate".
Like I say, though: Murkowski, Rubio, Collins, Mitt Romney, and then Lindsey Graham and most of the Republican Party four years ago, are patently not lefties.
It's a shame that people can apparently no longer see beyond perceptions of other's politics in order to actually discuss the arguments they're making.
It's a shame that people can apparently no longer see beyond perceptions of other's politics in order to actually discuss the arguments they're making.
George W Bush said, : This peachment is darn unamerican, and the president is like a fish that er tries to swim when the swimming ain't so good, but the evidence is not evidence if the evidence is not like the fish, and is in presentations list if y'all know what ah kin surely say if saying was a fish then he should keep on swimming in final understand demand. :
"Question: is it possible for *anyone* to criticise Trump and retain their honour, or is that credit reserved only for his defenders?"
Of course it is, and there are plenty of things to criticise. But it needs to be done so it doesn't look like a petulant child. The Dems never accepted the result, much like the same political leanings here refused to accept the result of the referendum. This continual tring to get Trump impeached has been ridiculous. They would have been far better to have regrouped found a leader they could get behind and raise genuine concerns with Trump that would resonate with normal American voters. Appealing to your own hard core is pointless - as COB found out.
Of course it is, and there are plenty of things to criticise. But it needs to be done so it doesn't look like a petulant child. The Dems never accepted the result, much like the same political leanings here refused to accept the result of the referendum. This continual tring to get Trump impeached has been ridiculous. They would have been far better to have regrouped found a leader they could get behind and raise genuine concerns with Trump that would resonate with normal American voters. Appealing to your own hard core is pointless - as COB found out.
Like a comedy show out there at the moment. Hillary refuses to say that she doesn't fancy being Vice President. Alarm bells ringing in the heads of all the current Dem. nominees for President obviously. Arkanside being very much on their minds no doubt. Meanwhile in Iowa a recount is yet again called for by the Democrat National Committee (DNC) chairman Tom Perez, bur rejected by The Iowa Democrat Party themselves. Two candidates are claiming victory in the confusion and I am convinced that the lefties over there have got a version of our very own leftie adder upper Dianne Abacus doing the count. What can be relied upon though is the account in the New York Times who report that " results published on Wednesday were riddled with mistakes and inconsistencies. In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts.”
They even had the brass neck to call the company that was to "collect the results" Shadow In.
They even had the brass neck to call the company that was to "collect the results" Shadow In.
Latest Posts
Sport21 mins ago
ChatterBank22 mins ago
Wimbledon To Mill Hill Broadway
Travel34 mins ago
