Foxx Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 48 minutes ago, Albwan said: Something I find very troubling is the left and the media keep repeating the phrases 'undisputed' or 'uncontested' in regards to 'facts' about what they feel Trump has done....This to me is more of their mask slipping, because what they are saying is Trump, his voters and Republicans are completely dismissed as nothing. I keep thinking that this whole thing is heading on a seriously dangerous trajectory. don't forget all the talking points when it comes to allegations against anything Dem... 'debunked' is my favorite but we also have 'unproven' and 'conspiracy theories' amongst others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Albwan said: Something I find very troubling is the left and the media keep repeating the phrases 'undisputed' or 'uncontested' in regards to 'facts' about what they feel Trump has done....This to me is more of their mask slipping, because what they are saying is Trump, his voters and Republicans are completely dismissed as nothing. I keep thinking that this whole thing is heading on a seriously dangerous trajectory. Yes, the word smithing may well push beyond simple declarations of confidence such as with "undisputed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 7 hours ago, Albwan said: Something I find very troubling is the left and the media keep repeating the phrases 'undisputed' or 'uncontested' in regards to 'facts' about what they feel Trump has done....This to me is more of their mask slipping, because what they are saying is Trump, his voters and Republicans are completely dismissed as nothing. I keep thinking that this whole thing is heading on a seriously dangerous trajectory. They also like to use the phrase "without evidence" whenever anyone challenges the "undisputed" and "uncontested" "debunkings" of any argument they don't like. Of course, just don't ask them to prove these "undisputed" things with actual evidence... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 5:02 PM, Foxx said: right, two thirds of the complete Senate are needed to convict. however.... there is a little known loophole here that not too many are aware of. only two thirds of senators in attendance at the vote is required to convict. thus, 67 is not the immovable object everyone might think. if only 75 Senators show up to vote, a mere 50 votes are required to convict. not that i think that will/would happen but, i do have a severe distrust of all things elite so.... The Impeachment Loophole No One’s Talking About 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: The Impeachment Loophole No One’s Talking About I saw another post somewhere that if a Senator did not attend the trial, they could be arrested. ?♀️ That article was in reference to Bernie and Lizzy campaigning instead of attending the trial, but I assume the same would apply to any Republicans trying to duck the trial. Now, I am not sure Mitch would send out the Sergeant at Arms to round up anyone, but you never know... Here's an article about Harry Reid considering it: </snip> In rare circumstances, the majority leader can request a "live" quorum call because he actually wants all senators present for debate. If a majority of senators are not present in the chamber, the majority leader can make a motion, which if agreed to by a plurality of senators, would direct the sergeant at arms to request the presence of absent senators. Usually this works, and a majority of senators come to the floor. If it doesn't work, however, that's where things get dicey. The Senate can then direct the sergeant at arms to compel — or even arrest — senators to bring them to the floor. </snip> 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 9, 2019 Author Share Posted December 9, 2019 I’d pay good money to see Mitt frog-marched into the Senate Chamber. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Nanker said: I’d pay good money to see Mitt frog-marched into the Senate Chamber. I'm in for $20 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 32 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I saw another post somewhere that if a Senator did not attend the trial, they could be arrested. ?♀️ That article was in reference to Bernie and Lizzy campaigning instead of attending the trial, but I assume the same would apply to any Republicans trying to duck the trial. Now, I am not sure Mitch would send out the Sergeant at Arms to round up anyone, but you never know... Here's an article about Harry Reid considering it: </snip> In rare circumstances, the majority leader can request a "live" quorum call because he actually wants all senators present for debate. If a majority of senators are not present in the chamber, the majority leader can make a motion, which if agreed to by a plurality of senators, would direct the sergeant at arms to request the presence of absent senators. Usually this works, and a majority of senators come to the floor. If it doesn't work, however, that's where things get dicey. The Senate can then direct the sergeant at arms to compel — or even arrest — senators to bring them to the floor. </snip> from the linked article: ...And the Senate could, in theory, exercise its power for compulsory attendance, directing the sergeant-at-arms to arrest fugitive senators and haul them back to the chamber for the vote. But such power is only used in cases where a quorum is missing—to go from, say, 49 to 51—but never from 70 to 100, making its use in such a scenario unprecedented, and likely an abuse of power. (Frumin thinks it would violate the rules.) Of course, that hasn’t stopped Mitch McConnell before. But any measure to enlist the sergeant-at-arms would require a majority of the senators who were—well, present. (See how useful this word is?) If 30 members were absent, Democrats would presumably defeat the motion to compel the missing senators’ attendance, 47-23. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 On 12/7/2019 at 9:00 AM, 3rdnlng said: Trump's lawyers did send a letter about 4:30 pm to the House basically telling them to ***** off and we'll all see how it goes in a fair Senate trial. Dems are like moths drawn to the flame of impeachment. Sorry to tell you this, but Nancy is incapable of blinking. I mean really, she can't physically blink. She would make a great Jeff Dunham dummy though if he could get up the courage to have her sit on his lap. Wouldn't it be simpler and more direct if the President's lawyer's simply sent a very short letter that says: "***** Off"? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Why hasn't Trump called for his own witnesses to testify? Oh that's right, they would have incriminating evidence, that's why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 9 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Why hasn't Trump called for his own witnesses to testify? Oh that's right, they would have incriminating evidence, that's why Why should he? If this gets to a trial in the Senate, that's when both sides will call people who are actual witnesses. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Foxx said: from the linked article: ...And the Senate could, in theory, exercise its power for compulsory attendance, directing the sergeant-at-arms to arrest fugitive senators and haul them back to the chamber for the vote. But such power is only used in cases where a quorum is missing—to go from, say, 49 to 51—but never from 70 to 100, making its use in such a scenario unprecedented, and likely an abuse of power. (Frumin thinks it would violate the rules.) Of course, that hasn’t stopped Mitch McConnell before. But any measure to enlist the sergeant-at-arms would require a majority of the senators who were—well, present. (See how useful this word is?) If 30 members were absent, Democrats would presumably defeat the motion to compel the missing senators’ attendance, 47-23. ... This article I linked to reported when it was utilized in the past. Obviously in the days before the outrage media and the internet. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 52 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: Wouldn't it be simpler and more direct if the President's lawyer's simply sent a very short letter that says: "***** Off"? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Egg Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: Why hasn't Trump called for his own witnesses to testify? Oh that's right, they would have incriminating evidence, that's why A self portrait of ones own brain exploding, hope all is well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, I am the egg man said: A self portrait of ones own brain exploding, hope all is well. There really isn't all that much to blow up. That is a picture of what was seen under the microscope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, I am the egg man said: A self portrait of ones own brain exploding, hope all is well. You are a stupid idiot. Have you ever made any decent contribution to this board? No, you are just a parasite 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: There really isn't all that much to blow up. That is a picture of what was seen under the microscope. Lol, I'm way smarter than you, but I don't really need to point that out Trump supporters trying to say regular people are not that smart. Unreal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You are a stupid idiot. Have you ever made any decent contribution to this board? No, you are just a parasite Lol, I'm way smarter than you, but I don't really need to point that out LOL? I thought you saved that for dead Americans who were killed by terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Egg Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 7 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You are a stupid idiot. Have you ever made any decent contribution to this board? No, you are just a parasite Still hoping for that participation trophy for most comments in a forum ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: LOL? I thought you saved that for dead Americans who were killed by terrorists. 6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: LOL? I thought you saved that for dead Americans who were killed by terrorists. 6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: LOL? I thought you saved that for dead Americans who were killed by terrorists. Lol, still repeating that lie? Trump was born from lies and you were made for each other. Lies 4 minutes ago, I am the egg man said: Still hoping for that participation trophy for most comments in a forum ? Wow, you are so funny, not. Go away d-bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 HAHA Gator is claiming that he didn't laugh at the Benghazi deaths of Americans. Wow. Does anyone know how that could be true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts