Trump Impeachment 2.0

[Tenhigh]

Just now, daz28 said:

The poll I saw was not very recent and it was 56% for.  I agree it is still very unpopular though, especially with conservatives.  I'm kind of on the fence with it, as the cost of education is the real problem, so why not fix that.

I would be curious to see the results of a poll of people that have already paid the loans back vs the ones still paying.  May not be as much of a conservative/liberal difference as we think.  I paid a LOT, lol.

[All_Pro_Bills]

18 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

Big brother has nothing to do with this, imo. Quite the opposite I think. My guess is that most are against it on principle, as Republicans have always pitched themselves as the party for free markets, personal/fiscal responsibility (but certainly haven't always acted this way) and hand-ups over hand-outs.  Mass loan forgiveness flies in the face of that. Forbes has an decent write up on it if you are interested.  

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2020/11/17/the-case-against-student-loan-forgiveness/

 

 

I'd rather see funds used for some form of scholarship program for low-income people to get degrees in hard sciences like engineering, computer science, and the medical sciences.  That will go towards helping to solve a couple problems.  Income and educational inequalities and provide financially disadvantaged individuals a more equitable chance at success while giving America the skilled graduates needed to compete.

Edited February 14, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills

[Unforgiven]

For extra hilarity watch a second time without sound.

So clearly mentally ill....

[BillStime]

3 minutes ago, Unforgiven said:

For extra hilarity watch a second time without sound.

So clearly mentally ill....

 

OH, OK

 

[BillStime]

 

 

And we will be focused:

 

 

 

And thank you:

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, daz28 said:

Student debt forgiveness won't be easy to pass.  Over 50% of Americans support it though.  I'm just curious why the Republicans are ALWAYS against things popular with Americans.  Last time I checked, they were the group who didn't want a government making big brother decisions for them.  A government of the people should act not just in the interest of the people, but coincidentally with what ideas the people favor and want.  

Your overly emotional characterization that “...republicans  are always against anything things popular” aside, the question itself is fair.  
 

The obvious response for me on your citation that 50% favor it is: perhaps.  Hard to say given the ability of pollsters to manipulate data.  
 

As for why I personally don’t support it while my neighbor might? 
 

It’s a costly proposition, and from what I’ve read it’s less forgiveness and much more a reassignment of debt to a third party.  That’s problematic IMO.  
 

It rewards the people who make poor financial decisions, and in many cases, also rewards the parents who participated in the poor decision to begin with.  Again, the obligation doesn’t disappear, it simply gets shifted ultimately to many many folks who chose a wiser path. 
 

IMO, it’s classic victimization politics, where the person who receives valuable goods and services in exchange for a promise to pay is portrayed as the innocent victim set upon by, what in this case, Big Education?    Never mind that community colleges, virtual learning, SUNY schools, military benefits, trade schools and the like have all been readily available for decades.   
 

It’s discriminatory and creates yet a new class of winners and losers in our country.  The citizens that chose a wise path get boned, the citizens who funded college and higher Ed get boned, and lower socioeconomic groups where college was not an option get boned as well— while other citizens—ironically allegedly more intellectually advanced, benefit greatly and immediately.  
 

I don’t see where all stakeholders are held accountable for their complicity in the creation of the crisis.  Many of the schools that preyed upon the unfortunate educated victim class benefited massively.  High paying jobs, prestige, benefits and massive endowments with hundreds of billions of privately controlled dollars.  Harvard maintains nearly $40,000,000,000 alone, Boston College nearly $4,000,000.   The reality is that this money, if utilized collectively and for the greater good, could put a large dent in debt obligation you believe in excess of 50% of the population want to see transferred.  
 

Finally, in my case, my wife and I made the personal financial decision to assist and fund our children’s education.  We availed ourselves of the readily available information about college costs, the trials and tribulations of student debt, and found a way to make it happen.  We fought through the “I want to go to ——— at $50k per year because ———-“ and cautioned restraint and the need to meet ones obligations.  This college debt thing isn’t new, the challenge simply seems to be that parents who lived it themselves often perpetuated the problem with their own kids.
 

In the end, if Biden Inc is planning to create a pop pop popular “Debt be gone” magic potion, I would personally favor something that doesn’t benefit the perpetually entitled Ivy League crowd first, rather, those struggling to make ends meet with car payments, rent, housing or, ya know, food.   
 

But, that doesn’t compel often the wealthy and highly educated to vote for a dithering old gropey geezer.  The plan was to sweeten the pot by promising goodies, giveaways with a really nice soup kitchen where the educated can feast in peace.   In that regard, convincing people to become glorified wards of the state was a stroke of genius. 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I also had advocated for holding this trial in Federal Court.  And while I think that holding the trial of a former President in the Senate is unconstitutional my main reason is that would have been as fair and impartial a venue as could be possible under the circumstances.   The judicial has long been the arbiter between Congress and the executive branch and as a former President a trial here would have benefited a goal of seeking the truth.  Its just impossible to remove the political motivations from the legal charges in this case.  And a neutral venue following standards of evidence, actual testimony from actual witnesses and actors of Jan 6th, prosecution, defense, and a jury would have served us all better.  Its seems the need to rush things along as fast as possible took priority.  In the end it was just a back and forth of subjective interpretations of communications and words between speaker and the audience and the ambiguity of language under specific circumstances sprinkled in with some suggestions of legal intent (or instructions to riot in this case) without the benefit of any witnesses or testimony.  More like something that would pass as a psychology experiment than the justification for a trial.  The law is supposed to be about objectivity and facts.  From what I heard objectivity and facts from both sides were few and far between through it all.  

 

Which brings me to my final point on this entire topic.  I think from the start everyone paying attention to any of this, whether pro or anti Trump or just indifferent to the whole thing, knew with close to 100% certainty that the "Yes" vote would never reach the 67 needed for a conviction.  The result was pre-determined.  There was no mystery or suspense about the outcome.  And given the Democratic leadership must have known that too the lingering question is what was their real angle here?  I guess we'll find out soon enough.    

You’ve become a favorite poster of mine.  I agree with this pretty much across the board. 

[B-Man]

Your Sunday Clarice..............

 

The 'Insurrection Hallucination' and How We Got There

 

American Thinker, by Clarice Feldman

 

Original Article; https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/02/the_insurrection_hallucination_and_how_we_got_there.html

 

 

 

[daz28]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Your Sunday Clarice..............

 

The 'Insurrection Hallucination' and How We Got There

 

American Thinker, by Clarice Feldman

 

Original Article; https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/02/the_insurrection_hallucination_and_how_we_got_there.html

 

 

 

This article is gold.  It tries to equivocate Trump's criminal enterprise with a handful of nobodies on the left.  Trump pardoned 3x more of his own hand-raised criminals than they cite as questionable nobodies.  A total and complete failure like 98% of B-man's links LOLZ

[BillStime]

 

[Big Blitz]

Omg omg omg

 

Fake Journalist/Democrat Operative murdered on live TV......complete with a mic drop

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha 

 

 

 

[Doc]

If the Repubs take back the House, look for Kammy to be impeached.

[Motorin']

2 hours ago, Doc said:

Student loan debt/tuition became ridiculous after Obama got the government into the student loan business.  Now we need the government to get us out.

You're supposed to blame Clinton. 

[daz28]

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

If the Repubs take back the House, look for Kammy to be impeached.

Somebody has been listening to his girl Lindsey.  lol

One problem with his statement.  He called them rioters, when they haven't even been to court yet.  They're ALLEGED rioters.  Another problem, Thanks for the heads up.  Now the Biden criminal enterprise can add Kamala to its list of pardons when it comes time to pardon all his criminal buddies.  

[Doc]

6 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Somebody has been listening to his girl Lindsey.  lol

One problem with his statement.  He called them rioters, when they haven't even been to court yet.  They're ALLEGED rioters.  Another problem, Thanks for the heads up.  Now the Biden criminal enterprise can add Kamala to its list of pardons when it comes time to pardon all his criminal buddies.  

 

No problem.  Just make up reasons to impeach.

[daz28]

Just now, Doc said:

 

No problem.  Just make up reasons to impeach.

You mean make up a reason to delay the trial, then say you can't remove, because you delayed the trial.

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, daz28 said:

You mean make up a reason to delay the trial, then say you can't remove, because you delayed the trial.

 

Whatever it takes.  Not that there was ever going to be a conviction no matter when the trial occurred.

[daz28]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Whatever it takes.  Not that there was ever going to be a conviction no matter when the trial occurred.

We've learned that impeachment is pretty much useless.  Even if it's a strong case, it's going to be a mostly partisan vote.  That bodes well for any president who would like to do whatever he wants.  They said you can't charge a sitting president with a crime, because that's what impeachment is for.  I guess you add this all up it means a president has immunity to act with impunity.  Pretty sad.

[SoTier]

4 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

There, we agree. Trump has zero interest in being President again. He went to Washington to try and get things done and found out that Washington isn’t built for getting things done. Both sides of the aisle are awash with career politicians who’s central purpose is getting re-elected...not getting things done. At least not for the American middle class anyway. Sad.

 

                                Are you interested in purchasing a recently rehabbed bridge over Chautauqua Lake?  Anybody believing that Trump was ever motivated by anything except his own self interest would certainly jump at the chance to buy my bridge.

 

Trump went to Washington to feed his ego, and promote his "brand".  Trump has NEVER done anything for anybody unless it benefited himself.   It wasn't Washington that "isn't built for getting things done", it was Trump who was too stupid and too lazy to deal with the real problems the country faced.  Trump basked in the rabid support of his radical right zombies and bullied anyone who dared to stand up to him.  Trump's central purpose became remaining in power at any cost.  When he was voted out of office by the American people, the courts wouldn't overturn the election results for him, and he couldn't threaten state officials to change election results, he attempted to send his zombie army to stage a coup d'etat.  He's a traitor. 

 

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Sorry Doc, I could not disagree more.  One of the major challenges with the impeachment process is that it is by definition political.  McConnell’s response was as well.  As I understand it, he could have allowed the impeachment to begin while Trump was in office and chose not to.  He could have voted with the gang of Romney rhinos, but chose a calculated strategy of expressed indignation and  outrage while voting against impeachment. 
 

Besides, the senate vote was what it was.  All senators voted, Trump was acquitted, no smoking gun evidence was ever presented, and the dems folded like a cheap suit on the issue of witnesses testifying under oath.  One would assume with the heart and soul of the nation on the line, and declarations of clear and convincing evidence (again) going nowhere fast (again), the spectacle died with a whimper as we all knew it would.

 

Bi-partisan review lead to a clear acquittal. 
 

You are correct on the loss.  However, I’d add Trump, the Chinese government, death and pandemic, the failed Russia hoax, the first nonsensical impeachment and a desire for a return to status quo politics all conspired to put the new old geez in the WH.   That student loan debt promise played a huge part as well.  
 

 

I thought the House managers made a pretty good case through past comments, past tweets, showing him encouraging people to march on the Capitol building to stop the steal right before the incident, and comments made during the attack about fighting for Trump that he could be directly blamed for the insurrection on the capital building.  All the senators knew it too.  The case against him was MUCH stronger than the quid pro quo impeachment case.  That's why you saw seven Republicans break rank which is unprecedented in modern times.  Zero from Clinton's party voted to convict and only one did (Romney) on one count in Trump's first impeachment trial.

 

I get that McConnell doesn't want to anger Trump's fervent base so him and other Senators used the convenient rationale (unconstitutional to convict a president who is out of office which is in itself a stretch considering he was in office when this happened).  That way they didn't have to defend Trump's conduct.

 

As far as Democrats not calling witnesses, they made the right move in not dragging this out another few months when it was clear Republican Senators weren't going to change their minds.  They have an agenda they need to get to and an aid package is needed to keep the economy afloat during this pandemic.  It will be more difficult now that the Republicans can scream deficit again.

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

14 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I thought the House managers made a pretty good case through past comments, past tweets, showing him encouraging people to march on the Capitol building to stop the steal right before the incident, and comments made during the attack about fighting for Trump that he could be directly blamed for the insurrection on the capital building.  All the senators knew it too.  The case against him was MUCH stronger than the quid pro quo impeachment case.  That's why you saw seven Republicans break rank which is unprecedented in modern times.  Zero from Clinton's party voted to convict and only one did (Romney) on one count in Trump's first impeachment trial.

 

I get that McConnell doesn't want to anger Trump's fervent base so him and other Senators used the convenient rationale (unconstitutional to convict a president who is out of office which is in itself a stretch considering he was in office when this happened).  That way they didn't have to defend Trump's conduct.

 

As far as Democrats not calling witnesses, they made the right move in not dragging this out another few months when it was clear Republican Senators weren't going to change their minds.  They have an agenda they need to get to and an aid package is needed to keep the economy afloat during this pandemic.  It will be more difficult now that the Republicans can scream deficit again.

 

 

The thing is we knew this before the House crafted the changes and voted the articles of impeachment.  So if the objective is to gain a conviction on the charges and you know you can't do that then why pursue the matter in the manner it was pursued unless you've got some other objectives?  It should have gone to the Federal Courts.  The wheels of justice turn slowly.  And taking the court route what's the rush?  If justice is served in 2 weeks or 2 months in the grand scheme of things it will not matter. 

 

Also citing Constitution objections to trying former President is not a convenient rationale but a matter of law.  It is based on credible and likely potentially correct interpretations of the Constitution Article I section 3.  Sure the specific event happened on Jan 6 and the articles were dated before the end of his term but the charges were sent to the Senate after the Biden inauguration.   Waiting until the term expired introduced this "convenient rationale" to the proceedings.  It could have been avoided by presenting the charges to the Senate before Trump's term expired.  But I suspect the House leadership waited until after his term expired because the new Senate gave them the majority. 

 

And it avoided another potential question.  What to do if the Senate trial starts before the term ends and runs through the inauguration.  Does the old Senate continue to only hear the trial they started but the new Senate handles all other matters of business?  Or does the new Senate take over where the old Senate stopped?  Clearly some issues without any known resolution that might drag things out further.  Going to the courts avoids both the path taken and the potential issues of the path's not taken.  Decisions on venue, how and when to proceed, and a lack of proper evidence killed any hope of conviction along with the political nature of the entire event.