Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
14 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Well, I thought you would see that point with what I wrote but I can spell it out further. 

 

Your point about most everyone knowing the accused whistle blower's name is agreed to.   Good point.  To say NOT ONE MORE unstable person could be notified by you and others shouting on the internet is incorrect, right.  That number is admittedly small but it is non zero.  The more shouting, the more tiny increments in the possible number of attackers to the whistle blower.  Maybe some fool has been plotting his attack on the Mosque for the last 6 months and your shouting caught his ill informed, deranged ears.  While certainly  unlikely, I view it as possible.  To a small degree you have increased threat odds for reasons that are questionable.

 

Don't know Sandman.   I have admittedly not given much thought to whistle blowers in the past.  Why?  Guess it didn't come up in any issue I was watching.  What did I miss that you wish to point out, anything?

This coupled with your not knowing IG Atkinson tells everyone how up to date you are. I'm sure there's a lot of people here who will have very sheepish grins knowing that they've been debating a person for days who lives under a rock. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
19 hours ago, Foxx said:

to my way of thinking, there is only one fix that would correct the problem. the problem is that it would require a constitutional convention to get it implemented. i think the only way you could remove partisanship from a impeachment inquiry like that that the Libs initiated, would be to require much the same that is required to remove a President. let's make it so that in order to even begin an inquiry, you need to have 2/3rd's of the House. that would put an end the baloney.

Like our founding fathers your plan assumes enough integrity to put country ahead of party.  That level of integrity is not apparent in Congress.

 

Say things are flipped and we have a large Repub majority in the House - just one under the 2/3's, as mentioned in your solution.  Assume too we have a Dem President that in the minds of all Repubs is waaaaay out of line and needs to be checked. 

 

The just under 2/3s In the House might want to impeach but in a super partisan environment, perhaps those Dems in the House will never vote to convict.  Couldn't that allow a vast minority too much control by allowing them to block even charges of wrongdoing, the impeachment? 

Posted
54 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

... Say he starts downing a quart of vodka with breakfast every day and cannot be counted on to be sober or conscious, ever.  IDK, just off the top of the head but that seems intolerable and non criminal.

 

 

that is not impeachable, more 25th amendment material.

Posted
20 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Have you heard about this whistleblower and how he has been treated?  What are your thoughts on protecting his rights as a whistleblower?  

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/18/stefan-halpers-pentagon-contracts-investigation-sh/

 

 

 

If you think it important to uncover government misdeeds, I think whistle blowers are an important tool.  Generally, abusing the people that come forward will surely impact the decisions of potential whistle blowers down the road and so abuse should be discouraged.

 

I have not followed Halpern's case.  My above statements apply I would have to guess. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Like our founding fathers your plan assumes enough integrity to put country ahead of party.  That level of integrity is not apparent in Congress.

 

Say things are flipped and we have a large Repub majority in the House - just one under the 2/3's, as mentioned in your solution.  Assume too we have a Dem President that in the minds of all Repubs is waaaaay out of line and needs to be checked. 

 

The just under 2/3s In the House might want to impeach but in a super partisan environment, perhaps those Dems in the House will never vote to convict.  Couldn't that allow a vast minority too much control by allowing them to block even charges of wrongdoing, the impeachment? 

i seriously doubt we will have a House, or Senate for that matter made up of 2/3rd's of one party (unless of course the Democrat Party actually ceases to exist), so your argument is null and void on it's premise.

Posted
On 1/30/2020 at 10:39 AM, Bob in Mich said:

 

3rd, I think I found a clip of you on the internet.  Henry, if I can call you that, never met you but this MUST be you.

 

And, as a reminder, I haven't seen yet that you replied to my 'simple question', or have you?

 

(Note, not safe for work due to the F word. About 2 minute clip of movie 'Dream Team')

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H7xlkKEJak

Meant to ask, Henry, did you lose your clipboard in the mishap? 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i seriously doubt we will have a House, or Senate for that matter made up of 2/3rd's of one party (unless of course the Democrat Party actually ceases to exist), so your argument is null and void on it's premise.

Oh Foxx,  I was just about to compliment you on your previous point about impeachable vs 25th amendment.....and then you come up with this reasoning.  Do you see that just you thinking it unlikely is not sufficient reason to say it could not happen?  You want to point out bad logic elsewhere.  Do you think it faulty here?

×
×
  • Create New...