IDBillzFan Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 It boggles the mind how many Democrats are repeating the lie that there were no witnesses and no evidence. Anyone who repeats this is either lying or brain-dead stupid. Embarrassing days to be a Democrat. Brutally embarrassing. 4
Foxx Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 30 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: We are done but I did explain the reasoning - it could happen so plan for possibilities. A minority could hold the vast majority hostage. Your reasoning sucks pal...and your constant insults are surely signs of a personality defect. Look into it. Do some online searches. Perhaps it is correctable. Generally speaking, and no need to reply but, what is the purpose of berating anyone that holds a different opinion? If you are not in favor of discussions, why be on a discussion board? Your posting style surely drives away potential posters and ideas. You are way too quickly obnoxious and insulting to those that will not see it your way. Would you be that way to a guy a few seats away at the bar that you just met? And before Henry pipes up, You folks should ask yourself, should people that don't know everything be allowed to post on a topic? Should questions be allowed? Can posters be partisan? Can posters be less intelligent than you? Can a poster state something that has been mentioned on the web prior to them stating it here? If a poster makes an error should they be banned? What do you want out of this place, discussion or only agreement? As before, not looking for replies as much as to ask yourself. If you like this setup and like to push to drive away disagreement, then nothing to consider I guess. being bored Bob, i did the work i asked you to do... i went back through the different iterations of congress under the current amount of Reps, which is 435. a bit to my surprise, there were 8 different congresses that held a 2/3rd's majority. House Majorities that surpass 2/3rd's majority (292 seats in a 435 seat House): 95th Congress ('77 to '79)- 292 D's to 143 R's 94th Congress ('75 to '77)- 291 D's to 144 R's 89th Congress ('65 to '67)- 295 D's to 140 R's 75th Congress ('37 to '39)- 334 D's to 88 R's and 9 Progressives and 5 Farmer-Labor 74th Congress ('35 to '37)- 322 D's to 103 R's and 7 Progressives and 3 Farmer-Labor 73th Congress ('33 to '35)- 313 D's to 117R's and 5 Farmer-Labor 67th Congress ('21 to '23)- 302 R's to 131 D's and 1Independent Republican and 1 Socialist 63th Congress ('13 to '15)- 291 D's to 134 R's and 9 Progressives and 1 Independent. of note is that here was only one House where the R's held the 2/3rd's majority. as i said above, i was a bit surprised that this was the case so i do apologize for my assertion that your premise was faulty. while i do know that there were certain historical events surrounding some of these majorities, the fact remains that there were these super majorities. so with the assertion that your premise is valid, i can move on to the rest of your assertion. again apologies, i have no problem admitting when i am wrong. on to the rest of your assertion. ..."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?" how is this different than the threshold to remove a president? if your argument held true, under the current rules it could still be a partisan endeavor. my premise is to raise the level to a level that prevents what we are seeing today, a partisan impeachment borne out of purely partisan politics. it works against and for both sides. it raises the bar for all. and just to be clear, i don't know if this is the ultimate solution that would correct what the Democrats have just made of the constitutional impeachment process it is just an idea. it may be that nothing needs to be done but with the mockery the Dems have made of the whole process, it might be wise to possibly look at some possible solutions. 1
snafu Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 Schiff's theory at this point: he knows he's not going to get the President removed, so he excoriates the Senate. Same for Val Demmings. At the outset, she was good, but as the proceedings went along and she knew that fate of the President wasn't going to be removed, her tone became more angry every time she got to the podium. 2
Bob in Mich Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 11 minutes ago, Foxx said: being bored Bob, i did the work i asked you to do... i went back through the different iterations of congress under the current amount of Reps, which is 435. a bit to my surprise, there were 8 different congresses that held a 2/3rd's majority. House Majorities that surpass 2/3rd's majority (292 seats in a 435 seat House): 95th Congress ('77 to '79)- 292 D's to 143 R's 94th Congress ('75 to '77)- 291 D's to 144 R's 89th Congress ('65 to '67)- 295 D's to 140 R's 75th Congress ('37 to '39)- 334 D's to 88 R's and 9 Progressives and 5 Farmer-Labor 74th Congress ('35 to '37)- 322 D's to 103 R's and 7 Progressives and 3 Farmer-Labor 73th Congress ('33 to '35)- 313 D's to 117R's and 5 Farmer-Labor 67th Congress ('21 to '23)- 302 R's to 131 D's and 1Independent Republican and 1 Socialist 63th Congress ('13 to '15)- 291 D's to 134 R's and 9 Progressives and 1 Independent. of note is that here was only one House where the R's held the 2/3rd's majority. as i said above, i was a bit surprised that this was the case so i do apologize for my assertion that your premise was faulty. while i do know that there were certain historical events surrounding some of these majorities, the fact remains that there were these super majorities. so with the assertion that your premise is valid, i can move on to the rest of your assertion. again apologies, i have no problem admitting when i am wrong. on to the rest of your assertion. ..."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?" how is this different than the threshold to remove a president? if your argument held true, under the current rules it could still be a partisan endeavor. my premise is to raise the level to a level that prevents what we are seeing today, a partisan impeachment borne out of purely partisan politics. it works against and for both sides. it raises the bar for all. and just to be clear, i don't know if this is the ultimate solution that would correct what the Democrats have just made of the constitutional impeachment process it is just an idea. it may be that nothing needs to be done but with the mockery the Dems have made of the whole process, it might be wise to possibly look at some possible solutions. Foxx, I appreciate the reply. Apology accepted but I think we each view the other as pretty much out of any more second chances. If you have problems with my post, point out the flaws specifically. By all means. Doing so without belligerence will lead to a better idea exchange...with me and with most people. I thought it was interesting to try to think of ways to improve the current impeachment setup given what we just witnessed. I was trying to point out that minority 'rule' could happen with respect to even charging a president. Has that been considered? Is it OK with you? In the spirit of a discussion, I was throwing that out there
RoyBatty is alive Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 FYI all you politicos, Rush Limmbaugh has advanced lung cancer 2
Bob in Mich Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 22 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: If you see a false equivalency I can live with that. I don’t see it. I’m going to let you slide on your suggestion that “Trump supporters have gall to claim someone else’s lies are wrong”. Question for you. What are the top three lies from the Trump Admin as you see it, and the top three from the reign of Barrack O as you see it? Len, top lies in what sense? Lies that affected my life personally, lies that seemed to be the most egregious to the country generally, lies that I see as most troublesome to all of us, or what? And, while I am looking for more clarity, where are you going with this.....what point is out there in the distance?
Foxx Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said: Foxx, I appreciate the reply. Apology accepted but I think we each view the other as pretty much out of any more second chances. If you have problems with my post, point out the flaws specifically. By all means. Doing so without belligerence will lead to a better idea exchange...with me and with most people. I thought it was interesting to try to think of ways to improve the current impeachment setup given what we just witnessed. I was trying to point out that minority 'rule' could happen with respect to even charging a president. Has that been considered? Is it OK with you? In the spirit of a discussion, I was throwing that out there i don't think it rises to minority rule. rather it makes the bar high, to be not an item of novelty and one to not be used lightly. this is the standard in the Senate, does that mean that there is minority rule there? even with the Clinton impeachment, the vote of which was 258–176 in favor of beginning an inquiry it would have failed, under my suggestion. on a personal note, i don't think Clinton should have been impeached for what he was originally investigated for and he ultimately wasn't. he was impeached for the process crime of perjury, of which had there been no witch hunt he would not have committed. again, i don't know that my suggestion would be the answer. but what the Democrats have done should never be done again, i don't care which party is doing it. the founders expressed their greatest fear was a partisan impeachment and we just witnessed one. Edited February 3, 2020 by Foxx 1
B-Man Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 WATCH THEM CHANGE THEIR TUNE WHEN THE BARR/DURHAM PROSECUTIONS BEGIN: House Democrat's Closing Argument: Only Guilty People Assert Their Rights And Insist On Judicial Review, Or Something. . . 3
Nanker Posted February 3, 2020 Author Posted February 3, 2020 1 hour ago, RoyBatty is alive said: FYI all you politicos, Rush Limmbaugh has advanced lung cancer I think he smokes cigars. Too bad for him. Hope he can get it cured. Can't wait to hear the good wishes piling in from the Left. 1
RoyBatty is alive Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 Just now, Nanker said: I think he smokes cigars. Too bad for him. Hope he can get it cured. Can't wait to hear the good wishes piling in from the Left. Yeah big cigar guy, I thought you dont enhale Cigar or am I wrong. Maybe stil get lung cancer.
IDBillzFan Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 1 hour ago, RoyBatty is alive said: FYI all you politicos, Rush Limmbaugh has advanced lung cancer This is genuinely too bad, regardless of who you are. On the other hand, I'll be curious to see the number of leftists on social media celebrating this. I'm sure they're out in big numbers. 1
4merper4mer Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 1 hour ago, B-Man said: WATCH THEM CHANGE THEIR TUNE WHEN THE BARR/DURHAM PROSECUTIONS BEGIN: House Democrat's Closing Argument: Only Guilty People Assert Their Rights And Insist On Judicial Review, Or Something. . . Those prosecutions start on the 12th right?
fansince88 Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 24 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said: Yeah big cigar guy, I thought you dont enhale Cigar or am I wrong. Maybe stil get lung cancer. He quit 10+ years ago. Thus the "right here in my formally nicotine stained fingers" statement he makes. Shame.
B-Man Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 TRUMP: Pelosi Didn’t Want Impeachment, Acquittal Is ‘Her Worst Nightmare.’ Pelosi can’t twist arms the way she used to, now that the Wacko Wing has a firm grip on her party’s rudder. .
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 ...imagine if Schifty was your defense lawyer.......who gets to use "insanity plea" FIRST?..........
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 Manchin is calling for Censure, if Republicans say this was wrong, but don’t care if he cheats in elections, then censure him.
Foxx Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 2 hours ago, RoyBatty is alive said: FYI all you politicos, Rush Limmbaugh has advanced lung cancer https://twitter.com/AKA_RealDirty/status/1224429563192782848 1
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 2 hours ago, IDBillzFan said: It boggles the mind how many Democrats are repeating the lie that there were no witnesses and no evidence. Anyone who repeats this is either lying or brain-dead stupid. Embarrassing days to be a Democrat. Brutally embarrassing. The Democrat’s argument that there were no witnesses and no evidence is damning to Democrats, not to Republicans. If there was neither witnesses nor evidence, on what grounds, exactly, did the House vote to impeach? 6
Deranged Rhino Posted February 3, 2020 Posted February 3, 2020 2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Len, top lies in what sense? Lies that affected my life personally, lies that seemed to be the most egregious to the country generally, lies that I see as most troublesome to all of us, or what? And, while I am looking for more clarity, where are you going with this.....what point is out there in the distance? Never has his cowardice been on display more than this post. I think he donated his nuts to science long ago. Waste. Of. Carbon. 1
Recommended Posts