That Impeachment Thing....

Eorzea Time
 
 
 
Langues: JP EN FR DE
500 users online
Forum » Everything Else » Politics and Religion » That impeachment thing....
That impeachment thing....
First Page 2 3 ... 28 29 30 ... 60 61 62
Offline
Posts: 14707
By Viciouss 2020-01-16 11:07:27
Link | Citer | R
 
Asura.Saevel said: »
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »
Viciouss said: »
On top of that, Lindsey Graham was being pressured to call Schiff to testify, and he flat out said no, we are not doing that, full stop. So there is 4 no votes.
Interesting. This I didn't know, nor am I really following it.

Why is he still talking votes? There is no vote on who to call, the defense either can or can not call witness's. Prosecutors, Judges and Juries do not vote on who the Defense can call as it's witness's. Rules are set before the whole thing begins and then it's off to the races. The only real limitation is that the witness's testimony must be relevant to the matter at hand. They can't call Clinton to testify on Benghazi during an Impeachment trial for President Trump for example.

The only correct thing in this whole post is the witness testimony must be relevant. Therefore, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Nellie Ohr, Adam Schiff won't be called, because they don't have any relevant testimony. Other than that, yes, there will be votes on witnesses. Mitch McConnell will not have the sole power to call whomever he wants. That is a ridiculous, baseless, and most importantly, source-less assertion.
Offline
Posts: 14707
By Viciouss 2020-01-16 11:24:05
Link | Citer | R
 
fonewear! its been approximately FOREVER since we saw you on Shiva! YOU SUCK!
[+]
Offline
Posts: 35076
By fonewear 2020-01-16 11:27:42
Link | Citer | R
 
I can log on Shiva sometime. It's been a bit yet.
 Ragnarok.Ozment
Offline
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: ozment
Posts: 672
By Ragnarok.Ozment 2020-01-16 23:12:06
Link | Citer | R
 
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 11797
By Bahamut.Ravael 2020-01-17 03:13:06
Link | Citer | R
 
I'm actually surprised that this whole Lev Parnas thing isn't getting more coverage. Not that I think there's anything to it, but simply because I thought that the media would be trying harder to make something of it. It's hardly a blip on CNN's front page now. WaPo seems to care a little more, but MSNBC seems like the only major mainstream outlet that's making a huge deal out of it still. Some of the more centrist outlets like Reuters, RCP, and the AP barely have anything about it on their politics pages.

I want to believe that they have finally realized that the nonstop "Drump is Done" news reports never actually go anywhere, but I'm too cynical for that. For now, this is yet another too good to be true angle for the Democrats to salivate over as Trump marches steadily towards acquittal.
[+]
 Ragnarok.Ozment
Offline
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: ozment
Posts: 672
By Ragnarok.Ozment 2020-01-17 07:32:28
Link | Citer | R
 
Oh, here's a few blips to the Parnas thing:

ABC News

Politico

NYT

Independent

Business Insider
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 11797
By Bahamut.Ravael 2020-01-17 09:15:57
Link | Citer | R
 
I think you completely missed my point.
[+]
 Garuda.Chanti
Online
Serveur: Garuda
Game: FFXI
user: Chanti
Posts: 9164
By Garuda.Chanti 2020-01-17 10:20:48
Link | Citer | R
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »
...
Asura.Saevel said: »
Adam Schiff would have the most damage done to him, he's involved and thus the Senate has grounds to question him about his involvement with Eric and how all this crap started. He would either tell the truth and make all the Democrat candidates look worse then they already do, he would commit perjury and be on the hook for it.
That's what I am thinking. Tho is it still Perjury if done in the Senate and not a Court? ...
Its only perjury if its a Democrat. Republicans are never called out for perjury no mater how much they lie.
Greetings, ambassador from Bizarro World. Tell us more about your home.
In my home there are two perjurers on the supreme court. Both are republicans.

Admittedly Joe Biden REALLY helped install the first one.
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 7549
By Asura.Saevel 2020-01-17 12:38:45
Link | Citer | R
 
Garuda.Chanti said: »
In my home there are two perjurers on the supreme court. Both are republicans.

This is all we need to know to realize how bad Chanti's TDS is.
[+]
 Ragnarok.Ozment
Offline
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: ozment
Posts: 672
By Ragnarok.Ozment 2020-01-17 12:58:12
Link | Citer | R
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
I think you completely missed my point.

I'm not interested in your point. I was merely posting some links in case you missed what the Parnas thing was about. I was just trying to be helpful but like they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
 Carbuncle.Skulloneix
Offline
Serveur: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 14785
By Carbuncle.Skulloneix 2020-01-17 13:04:20
Link | Citer | R
 
Garuda.Chanti said: »
In my home there are two perjurers on the supreme court. Both are republicans.
Just to be clear, in your state/locality thing? Or on SCOTUS?
[+]
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 7549
By Asura.Saevel 2020-01-17 14:35:53
Link | Citer | R
 
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
In my home there are two perjurers on the supreme court. Both are republicans.
Just to be clear, in your state/locality thing? Or on SCOTUS?

It's one of those "Not my President" things. Libs still can't accept he won the election.
Offline
By DirectX 2020-01-17 14:42:08
Link | Citer | R
 
I wonder if Dems got in they'd try and change elections to a majority vote based on people's actual votes.
 Carbuncle.Skulloneix
Offline
Serveur: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 14785
By Carbuncle.Skulloneix 2020-01-17 14:46:17
Link | Citer | R
 
Asura.Saevel said: »
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
In my home there are two perjurers on the supreme court. Both are republicans.
Just to be clear, in your state/locality thing? Or on SCOTUS?

It's one of those "Not my President" things. Libs still can't accept he won the election.
Maybe but it just seems worded odd. Giving benefit of doubt maybe it's in her state Supreme Court or Circuit Court and Biden may have recommended to then President Obama to nominate them there or something?

I don't disagree they can't accept he won the election. I mean wow, super important super serious Impeachment! Why wait 1 month to send over the charges? Why use so many pens on something somber and serious while smiling like the cat that ate the canary? Almost like....the words and actions don't line up...

/ponders
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 11797
By Bahamut.Ravael 2020-01-17 15:11:30
Link | Citer | R
 
DirectX said: »
I wonder if Dems got in they'd try and change elections to a majority vote based on people's actual votes.

They might try, but they would have to pass a constitutional amendment to do it. There is no way they could get 2/3 of the Senate to go along with it in the current political environment, so it’s a pipe dream.
[+]
 Carbuncle.Skulloneix
Offline
Serveur: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 14785
By Carbuncle.Skulloneix 2020-01-17 15:41:54
Link | Citer | R
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
DirectX said: »
I wonder if Dems got in they'd try and change elections to a majority vote based on people's actual votes.

They might try, but they would have to pass a constitutional amendment to do it. There is no way they could get 2/3 of the Senate to go along with it in the current political environment, so it’s a pipe dream.
I think that is the exact reason the Senate holds the trial. So whims of load vocal masses don't easily sway things. I mean look what happens when you give into the will of the masses, Robespierre found out.
[+]
 Shiva.Zerowone
Offline
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Zerowone
Posts: 334
By Shiva.Zerowone 2020-01-17 16:00:06
Link | Citer | R
 
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »
Asura.Saevel said: »
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
In my home there are two perjurers on the supreme court. Both are republicans.
Just to be clear, in your state/locality thing? Or on SCOTUS?

It's one of those "Not my President" things. Libs still can't accept he won the election.
Maybe but it just seems worded odd. Giving benefit of doubt maybe it's in her state Supreme Court or Circuit Court and Biden may have recommended to then President Obama to nominate them there or something?

I don't disagree they can't accept he won the election. I mean wow, super important super serious Impeachment! Why wait 1 month to send over the charges? Why use so many pens on something somber and serious while smiling like the cat that ate the canary? Almost like....the words and actions don't line up...

/ponders

Lets expand the our horizons by thinking outside of box of our modern day horse race partisan politics paradigm shall we.

Bullet points are fun right?

  • Chanti is old, lives in Washington State.

  • Joe Biden is old, represented Delaware.

  • There are Supreme Court Justice Nominees that have had to go through Confirmation hearings headed by Sen. Joe Biden



Heres two names you may or may not recognize:

Robert Bork - Not Confirmed.
Clarence Thomas - Confirmed

Hopefully this helps bring just a little clarity. But if it doesn't its OK she is no way inferring that Biden is reponsible for Kavanaugh by way of Anthony Kennedy by the denial of Robert Bork... or is she?
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 7549
By Asura.Saevel 2020-01-17 16:12:25
Link | Citer | R
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
DirectX said: »
I wonder if Dems got in they'd try and change elections to a majority vote based on people's actual votes.

They might try, but they would have to pass a constitutional amendment to do it. There is no way they could get 2/3 of the Senate to go along with it in the current political environment, so it’s a pipe dream.

Think its something like 2/3 or 3/4 of the States to agree to it. That's even harder then a regular supermajority law.
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 11797
By Bahamut.Ravael 2020-01-17 16:54:35
Link | Citer | R
 
Asura.Saevel said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
DirectX said: »
I wonder if Dems got in they'd try and change elections to a majority vote based on people's actual votes.

They might try, but they would have to pass a constitutional amendment to do it. There is no way they could get 2/3 of the Senate to go along with it in the current political environment, so it’s a pipe dream.

Think its something like 2/3 or 3/4 of the States to agree to it. That's even harder then a regular supermajority law.

They gave it a good shot fifty years ago when Nixon was President. It passed the House by a huge margin but fell apart in the Senate. I’m glad it ended up that way, but the voting was interesting. I guess the congressmen of each party didn’t walk in lockstep like they do nowadays. I imagine that the Founders didn’t intend for minority/majority leaders to rule with an iron fist and threaten/bribe their own people into submission, but here we are....
[+]
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 7549
By Asura.Saevel 2020-01-17 18:16:55
Link | Citer | R
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Asura.Saevel said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
DirectX said: »
I wonder if Dems got in they'd try and change elections to a majority vote based on people's actual votes.

They might try, but they would have to pass a constitutional amendment to do it. There is no way they could get 2/3 of the Senate to go along with it in the current political environment, so it’s a pipe dream.

Think its something like 2/3 or 3/4 of the States to agree to it. That's even harder then a regular supermajority law.

They gave it a good shot fifty years ago when Nixon was President. It passed the House by a huge margin but fell apart in the Senate. I’m glad it ended up that way, but the voting was interesting. I guess the congressmen of each party didn’t walk in lockstep like they do nowadays. I imagine that the Founders didn’t intend for minority/majority leaders to rule with an iron fist and threaten/bribe their own people into submission, but here we are....

During that era politics were far more local. People elected who they felt would represent them the most. Now the centralized parties are so controlled by billionaire money that they choose who wins the primaries based on loyalty. It's a simple choice of serve the party or get replaced by someone who will.
[+]
 Garuda.Chanti
Online
Serveur: Garuda
Game: FFXI
user: Chanti
Posts: 9164
By Garuda.Chanti 2020-01-17 21:07:27
Link | Citer | R
 
Constitutional Amendment Process
It is difficult.

Aside: they are on SCOTUS.
 Garuda.Chanti
Online
Serveur: Garuda
Game: FFXI
user: Chanti
Posts: 9164
By Garuda.Chanti 2020-01-17 21:09:06
Link | Citer | R
 
Asura.Saevel said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Asura.Saevel said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
DirectX said: »
I wonder if Dems got in they'd try and change elections to a majority vote based on people's actual votes.
They might try, but they would have to pass a constitutional amendment to do it. There is no way they could get 2/3 of the Senate to go along with it in the current political environment, so it’s a pipe dream.
Think its something like 2/3 or 3/4 of the States to agree to it. That's even harder then a regular supermajority law.
They gave it a good shot fifty years ago when Nixon was President. It passed the House by a huge margin but fell apart in the Senate. I’m glad it ended up that way, but the voting was interesting. I guess the congressmen of each party didn’t walk in lockstep like they do nowadays. I imagine that the Founders didn’t intend for minority/majority leaders to rule with an iron fist and threaten/bribe their own people into submission, but here we are....
During that era politics were far more local. People elected who they felt would represent them the most. Now the centralized parties are so controlled by billionaire money that they choose who wins the primaries based on loyalty. It's a simple choice of serve the party or get replaced by someone who will.
Gerrymandered districts have a LOT to do with that as well.
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 7549
By Asura.Saevel 2020-01-17 21:21:57
Link | Citer | R
 
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Asura.Saevel said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Asura.Saevel said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
DirectX said: »
I wonder if Dems got in they'd try and change elections to a majority vote based on people's actual votes.
They might try, but they would have to pass a constitutional amendment to do it. There is no way they could get 2/3 of the Senate to go along with it in the current political environment, so it’s a pipe dream.
Think its something like 2/3 or 3/4 of the States to agree to it. That's even harder then a regular supermajority law.
They gave it a good shot fifty years ago when Nixon was President. It passed the House by a huge margin but fell apart in the Senate. I’m glad it ended up that way, but the voting was interesting. I guess the congressmen of each party didn’t walk in lockstep like they do nowadays. I imagine that the Founders didn’t intend for minority/majority leaders to rule with an iron fist and threaten/bribe their own people into submission, but here we are....
During that era politics were far more local. People elected who they felt would represent them the most. Now the centralized parties are so controlled by billionaire money that they choose who wins the primaries based on loyalty. It's a simple choice of serve the party or get replaced by someone who will.
Gerrymandered districts have a LOT to do with that as well.

Which is another thing that should be very VERY illegal. Both sides mess with congressional redistricting in order to maximize how many districts they win.
 Garuda.Chanti
Online
Serveur: Garuda
Game: FFXI
user: Chanti
Posts: 9164
By Garuda.Chanti 2020-01-17 21:25:20
Link | Citer | R
 
Asura.Saevel said: »
Which is another thing that should be very VERY illegal. Both sides mess with congressional redistricting in order to maximize how many districts they win.
But it has the effect of making the elected subservient to the party rather than their district.

I suppose the parties see that as a good thing...
 Ragnarok.Ozment
Offline
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: ozment
Posts: 672
By Ragnarok.Ozment 2020-01-19 21:48:17
Link | Citer | R
 
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 11797
By Bahamut.Ravael 2020-01-19 22:03:30
Link | Citer | R
 
With the thread on hiatus for two days, I was hoping that a new post meant that something interesting had happened. Such a letdown.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 1118
By kireek 2020-01-20 04:05:22
Link | Citer | R
 
Quote:
Presumption of innocence

The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty.

In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted.

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

It is a human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty of anything, any accusation has to be proven before consequences follow. Almost everyone agrees this should be the case, accusations should never ruin anyones life.

Someone accuse you of stealing their car, killing their cat, murder, sexual abuse but you were asleep in bed all night when these things happened? You can't prove you are innocent, sucks for you!

Democrats and the left in general do not agree with people being innocent until being proven guilty, they take the exact opposite outlook of the world in-fact. They see you as guilty until you can prove you are innocent on mere accusation from anyone...anywhere. Anyone can accuse you of anything and they will support you being guilty (if they don't like you or your group) unless you can prove otherwise, whether it is in law, in terms of you being fired from your job, in terms of slander...anything. This is their outlook on the world and given they want power over your country and everyone in it this is not a good thing.

Is this really the world we want to live in, where some random person can accuse you of something and you have to prove them wrong? Where a group in the house can pass anything because they have more of their group there and they vote along party lines?

Donald Trump has the same rights as anyone else, if they have accusations they have to prove them and not just rely on larger numbers of Democrats in the house to pass anything they want.

The test of a persons or groups character is how they treat the people they hate the most, no matter how much you hate someone they deserve the same rights as everyone else. Right now they are using this against Trump, who will be next? People fired from their jobs over accusations, people removed from college over accusations, people put in prison over accusations?

If someone accuse you of doing something wrong, they have to prove it and if they cannot prove you did wrong you are as innocent as before they made the accusation. Also they don't then get to say that "you are not exonerated" either, because you were always innocent until proven otherwise.

Ultimately this isn't about actually impeaching Trump because they know it's impossible on the flimsy accusations they have, ultimately this is nothing more than hatred, anger and PR.







Oh and the real reason Nanci took so long to pass this to the senate, her gold plated "Trump impeachment" souvenir pens weren't ready.



Meanwhile at CNN:

>Homeless man shouts about Donald Trump eating his cat and killing it 10 times
>CNN journalist "Anonymous source tells a CNN reporter that Donald Trump has a long history of animal abuse!"
[+]
 Garuda.Chanti
Online
Serveur: Garuda
Game: FFXI
user: Chanti
Posts: 9164
By Garuda.Chanti 2020-01-20 09:23:50
Link | Citer | R
 
Rav, On weekends people aren't at work and taking a break ****posting here. Also less news out of DC. So why should a new post be significant?

Kiteek, this is not a criminal trial. Not that our president hasn't committed crimes, its just that he is not on trial for them. That will come after he is out of office I hope.

Souvenir Pens From Clinton’s Impeachment Had To Be Reprinted After Spelling Error

Quote:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took criticism for handing out souvenir impeachment signing pens — but similar pens, with a slight error in spelling, made an appearance two decades earlier.

Former Democratic Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, on hand Wednesday for MSNBC’s coverage of the transmission of the articles of impeachment, said that the commemorative pens handed out during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment contained a spelling error. The word “united” was incorrectly printed “untied.” ...
Offline
Posts: 1118
By kireek 2020-01-20 09:40:02
Link | Citer | R
 
Everyone should always be considered innocent until proven otherwise, if you wanted to get someone fired you could accuse them of anything and they would be fired (and the left is fully embracing this lately with cancel culture and social media). That's not how things should be.

This same argument was used about Kavanaugh with that crazy old woman accusing him of sexual assault. It was a crock there, just as it is here.

Also the left are so hateful of late that when Trump leaves office, you better believe they will attempt to take legal action on him for ANYTHING and they will make up the laws to do it.

That level of hatred knows no restrictions.
[+]
First Page 2 3 ... 28 29 30 ... 60 61 62