• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The impeachment catch-22

Should Democrats file articles of impeachment?

  • Total voters
    49
Perotista said:
There you have it, that is exactly what the democrats aren't doing. A decent job of uncovering it in impartial and truly professional fashion. They're doing it, at least coming across as doing it in a very partisan, get Trump at any cost, anyway they can, regardless of the repercussions or what harm is done to the nation in the process. The Democrats leave an impression that they don't care if everything gets destroyed along with Trump, just as long as Trump gets destroyed, gone. That's my impression anyway.

What Pelosi and the Democrats need to do is go back in history and check out how Sam Erwin handled the congressional Watergate investigations. Old Sam did so in a very non-partisan way, always was respectful to the office of the presidency and Nixon himself. One had the notion Erwin was trying to find out the truth, not out to destroy Nixon. Erwin kept partisan politics out of it. By keeping partisan politics out of it, old Sam had amassed the voted for removal in the senate. Nixon had no choice but to resign.

Today, it is all about partisan politics. Perhaps Pelosi and company say they are seeking the truth. But their actions state differently. Today, it all looks like a very partisan political vendetta to remove, destroy Trump than any search for the truth. This is why I think 59% of America oppose impeachment.
Click to expand...

Sam Ervin's star did not rise overnight either.
In fact, in his early career he was a defender of the Jim Crow laws and racial segregation, as the South's "constitutional expert" during the congressional debates on civil rights.

He might have helped to bring down Joe McCarthy in the 1950's but he was not a leftist hero OR any kind of impartial icon by any stretch.
So I am maybe just a wee bit skeptical about any notion that Sam Ervin was impartial.
 
Kobie said:
Why do you continue to lie? Petraeus wasn't fired, he resigned, and Obama wasn't going to do anything to him before the resignation.
Click to expand...

You cannot say things did not happen just because you did not know about them when they did happen.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Just please bear this in mind.
In fact, I hope ALL liberals will bear this in mind:

The Democratic Electorate on Twitter Is Not the Actual Democratic Electorate - The New York Times
Click to expand...

That is one good article. For that I thank you. You wouldn't know that about the Democratic Party if one came away with how they'd viewed the Democrats via what is posted on this site. I suppose one can say the same about the Republican Party.

One does equate each party with the faces shown. For the GOP that is Trump, for the Democrats, it's Pelosi, Schumer, perhaps Sanders and Warren. We stereotype the rest or both parties by the faces we see everyday, the extremes.

Being from Georgia, it is no surprise I started out as a big tent democrat, then became a Reagan Republican before becoming the Perotista I am today. Basically against both major parties. Jimmy Carter was the last Democrat I voted for president, although I continued to vote Democratic at the state and local level until around 2000 or 2002. That was when the last southern conservative Democratic retired or was beaten. Zell Miller, Sam Nunn and Max Cleland were the last. Now it's republican at the state and local levels most of the time and independent, third party for president.

It doesn't help that the democrats down here always go with an Atlanta liberal for statewide office. Which outside of the Atlanta metro area aren't Georgia.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The thing is, it's not bull****, but the present Republicans fear Trump's following too much to be seen to cross him. Being a Repub means supporting Trump even though you know he's a venal moron, because he's YOUR venal moron.
Click to expand...

No, because he's a better choice than YOUR venal moron-ANY ONE of multitude clamoring for the Oval Office.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Exactly which offenses are you referring too? You should be careful about making statements you cannot prove and the Mueller report didn't think any of those accusations were going to be able to be proven. Democratas are going to cry that there is proof yet the investigation didn't bring charges. Trying to impeach after the investigation had no indictments is a fools errand. Go ahead and give Trump some more votes by trying.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read the report: I am no ones water boy.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Sam Ervin's star did not rise overnight either.
In fact, in his early career he was a defender of the Jim Crow laws and racial segregation, as the South's "constitutional expert" during the congressional debates on civil rights.

He might have helped to bring down Joe McCarthy in the 1950's but he was not a leftist hero OR any kind of impartial icon by any stretch.
So I am maybe just a wee bit skeptical about any notion that Sam Ervin was impartial.
Click to expand...

Sam was a Democrat, quite a lot of the solid democratic south in the 40's, 50's, 60's etc were as you described. Not all, but quite a lot. One almost had to be to get elected down here then. At least with the rhetoric. Even Jimmy Carter campaigned with George Wallace when he ran and won the governorship.

I don't condone any of that, but one had to face reality of the times, the context of the times. Racial wise, Georgia never went through what Alabama and Mississippi did. Jimmy Carter who segregationist rhetoric got him elected was smart enough to know to embrace the civil rights laws, not to oppose them and bring Georgia quickly out of the Jim Crowe era without the riots, demonstrations and protests. Every Georgian should be thankful Jimmy did what was needed to get elected and then provided the smooth leadership that was needed.
 
Perotista said:
That is one good article. For that I thank you. You wouldn't know that about the Democratic Party if one came away with how they'd viewed the Democrats via what is posted on this site. I suppose one can say the same about the Republican Party.

One does equate each party with the faces shown. For the GOP that is Trump, for the Democrats, it's Pelosi, Schumer, perhaps Sanders and Warren. We stereotype the rest or both parties by the faces we see everyday, the extremes.

Being from Georgia, it is no surprise I started out as a big tent democrat, then became a Reagan Republican before becoming the Perotista I am today. Basically against both major parties. Jimmy Carter was the last Democrat I voted for president, although I continued to vote Democratic at the state and local level until around 2000 or 2002. That was when the last southern conservative Democratic retired or was beaten. Zell Miller, Sam Nunn and Max Cleland were the last. Now it's republican at the state and local levels most of the time and independent, third party for president.

It doesn't help that the democrats down here always go with an Atlanta liberal for statewide office. Which outside of the Atlanta metro area aren't Georgia.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the rest of the Democratic electorate are either pristine or homogenous, I am only saying that a good many liberals and Dems do not camp out on social media. That's because, like some of their Republican counterparts, they tend to use social media in a different way.
I used to be one of the biggest social media political junkies in existence. But I noticed that it wasn't accomplishing very much.
Then I started joining "political groups" on Facebook. Still no joy.

Groups on Facebook seldom have any real moderation, and even if they did, the tools to moderate effectively in a very large group do not exist. Furthermore, most FB groups are OPEN, which means WIDE open to infiltration.

You know all this Russian stuff that's being talked about? It's REAL...very real. My best friends and I watched, mouths agape, as every single pro-Bernie FB group got inundated over a five or six month period prior to the Democratic primary and it lasted until well after the election.

And even absent that, every moronic yahoo out there has an axe to grind ON Facebook.
Now do Twitter...SAME DAMN situation, only smaller character count, so what, big deal...it's the same problem.

And that's why I seldom do more than check in on FB once a day or every other day, say hi to family or friends, crack a joke and that's it now. Politics on social media is like taking a crap in a 450 mph wind tunnel.
 
smallvoice said:
No, because he's a better choice than YOUR venal moron-ANY ONE of multitude clamoring for the Oval Office.
Click to expand...

Trump is a walking national security hazard. He's already orange as a clue! The Resolute desk is more intelligent than the puppet behind it.

ps Have someone explain to you what my location information tells them.
 
Perotista said:
Sam was a Democrat, quite a lot of the solid democratic south in the 40's, 50's, 60's etc were as you described. Not all, but quite a lot. One almost had to be to get elected down here then. At least with the rhetoric. Even Jimmy Carter campaigned with George Wallace when he ran and won the governorship.

I don't condone any of that, but one had to face reality of the times, the context of the times. Racial wise, Georgia never went through what Alabama and Mississippi did. Jimmy Carter who segregationist rhetoric got him elected was smart enough to know to embrace the civil rights laws, not to oppose them and bring Georgia quickly out of the Jim Crowe era without the riots, demonstrations and protests. Every Georgian should be thankful Jimmy did what was needed to get elected and then provided the smooth leadership that was needed.
Click to expand...

Y'all down there don't realize that the District of Columbia is for all practical purposes a Southern town.
Most of you don't think it is, but it IS, and it always was.
When I was a little boy I remember seeing "Colored Waiting Room" signs.
We did not have the segregated drinking fountains. There just weren't any in "colored parts of town" period, that's all.
Segregation might have been a wee bit quieter in DC in the old days but it was there.

So while I might not have grown up in the Heart of Dixie, that stuff was not unknown to me as a child.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Trump is a walking national security hazard. He's already orange as a clue! The Resolute desk is more intelligent than the puppet behind it.

ps Have someone explain to you what my location information tells them.
Click to expand...

No, it's easy to understand an a wanker.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I'm not saying that the rest of the Democratic electorate are either pristine or homogenous, I am only saying that a good many liberals and Dems do not camp out on social media. That's because, like some of their Republican counterparts, they tend to use social media in a different way.
I used to be one of the biggest social media political junkies in existence. But I noticed that it wasn't accomplishing very much.
Then I started joining "political groups" on Facebook. Still no joy.

Groups on Facebook seldom have any real moderation, and even if they did, the tools to moderate effectively in a very large group do not exist. Furthermore, most FB groups are OPEN, which means WIDE open to infiltration.

You know all this Russian stuff that's being talked about? It's REAL...very real. My best friends and I watched, mouths agape, as every single pro-Bernie FB group got inundated over a five or six month period prior to the Democratic primary and it lasted until well after the election.

And even absent that, every moronic yahoo out there has an axe to grind ON Facebook.
Now do Twitter...SAME DAMN situation, only smaller character count, so what, big deal...it's the same problem.

And that's why I seldom do more than check in on FB once a day or every other day, say hi to family or friends, crack a joke and that's it now. Politics on social media is like taking a crap in a 450 mph wind tunnel.
Click to expand...

I don't belong to facebook, never have. I'm not even sure what twitter is. I'm here and do this because I enjoy it. It's my entertainment. Every once in awhile I get into a good conversation which I learn some things I didn't know. Now there are times I think we take politics way too serious, at least some of us. My life hasn't changed during Trump. It's the same as it was during Obama, during Bush II, Bill Clinton and on back. I'm not one that lives or dies just because an R or a D is elected.

Now I don't care for Trump, didn't vote for him and never will. But there has been so much partisan propaganda coming across from both sides it is impossible for me to sort fact from fiction. So I sit and watch, listen. I'll know if and when the time comes Trump has to go, I think pretty much everyone else will too. But I also think for those of us who aren't avid pro or anti Trumpers, all of this looks like very partisan battles with partisan rhetorical propaganda being spewed from both sides. The prime example is the Mueller report was suppose to be the nail in coffin that proved beyond a shadow of doubt Trump conspired with Russia. His removal was certain. That didn't happen. Now it's on to something else, one can only raise eyebrows and shrug.

The truth will come out at some time as it did with Nixon if its there. As always, time will tell.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Y'all down there don't realize that the District of Columbia is for all practical purposes a Southern town.
Most of you don't think it is, but it IS, and it always was.
When I was a little boy I remember seeing "Colored Waiting Room" signs.
We did not have the segregated drinking fountains. There just weren't any in "colored parts of town" period, that's all.
Segregation might have been a wee bit quieter in DC in the old days but it was there.

So while I might not have grown up in the Heart of Dixie, that stuff was not unknown to me as a child.
Click to expand...

I take what is as is and what is possible, possible. Losers can't effect change or make progress towards a goal. One first has to have the chance to make the changes needed. Reality is a bitch, but it is still reality. One does what is possible in any given situation. Sam Erwin did that, so too Jimmy Carter, you could add Robert Byrd. People change, some for the good, some for the bad, but everyone changes.

I don't give an owls hoot if Northam wore blackface when he was in college, if he's a good governor, keep him. I don't care if Byrd as a grand wizard of the KKK, if he was a good senator and majority leader keep him. I didn't care if Bill Clinton was a womanizer and lied to congress, he was a good president, keep him. I didn't care if he had a BJ in the oval office. What does get my goat are the holier than thou folks. The hypocrites.

It bugged me to the max to see many of those who protected and defended Bill Clinton over his womanizing go after Kavanaugh and Trump. To see those who attacked and condemned Bill to protect and defend Kavanaugh and Trump. put it this way, I expect folks to have one set of standards regardless of the R and the D. Not one set that applies only to the R's and another to the D's. everyone or no one.
 
Perotista said:
I take what is as is and what is possible, possible. Losers can't effect change or make progress towards a goal. One first has to have the chance to make the changes needed. Reality is a bitch, but it is still reality. One does what is possible in any given situation. Sam Erwin did that, so too Jimmy Carter, you could add Robert Byrd. People change, some for the good, some for the bad, but everyone changes.

I don't give an owls hoot if Northam wore blackface when he was in college, if he's a good governor, keep him. I don't care if Byrd as a grand wizard of the KKK, if he was a good senator and majority leader keep him. I didn't care if Bill Clinton was a womanizer and lied to congress, he was a good president, keep him. I didn't care if he had a BJ in the oval office. What does get my goat are the holier than thou folks. The hypocrites.

It bugged me to the max to see many of those who protected and defended Bill Clinton over his womanizing go after Kavanaugh and Trump. To see those who attacked and condemned Bill to protect and defend Kavanaugh and Trump. put it this way, I expect folks to have one set of standards regardless of the R and the D. Not one set that applies only to the R's and another to the D's. everyone or no one.
Click to expand...

A couple of those folks expressed a sincere change of heart at or near the end of their lives, like Byrd, who by 2003 had fully evolved to the point where the NAACP declared that he had become "a champion for civil rights and liberties" and "came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda".

Byrd also said "Barack Obama is a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian, and he has my full faith and support."


As to Kavanaugh, I think that the Democratic Party missed an opportunity to make salient points that had real value.
By standing on ceremony over hearsay with regard to some possibly regrettable events that nevertheless happened well beyond any possible statute of limitations, the Democrats completely skipped over serious allegations as to Kavanaugh's ethical lapses AND his untreated and continuing alcoholism.

And they reaped the whirlwind as a result.
 
Perotista said:
I don't belong to facebook, never have. I'm not even sure what twitter is. I'm here and do this because I enjoy it. It's my entertainment. Every once in awhile I get into a good conversation which I learn some things I didn't know. Now there are times I think we take politics way too serious, at least some of us. My life hasn't changed during Trump. It's the same as it was during Obama, during Bush II, Bill Clinton and on back. I'm not one that lives or dies just because an R or a D is elected.
Click to expand...

Take this seriously or take it with a grain of salt if you wish:

You're exceedingly lucky that your life has not changed much under Trump.
There may be a lot of you out there, but not quite as many as you might be tempted to believe.

Perotista said:
I'll know if and when the time comes Trump has to go, I think pretty much everyone else will too. But I also think for those of us who aren't avid pro or anti Trumpers, all of this looks like very partisan battles with partisan rhetorical propaganda being spewed from both sides. The prime example is the Mueller report was suppose to be the nail in coffin that proved beyond a shadow of doubt Trump conspired with Russia. His removal was certain.
Click to expand...

A lot of people were expecting Mueller to draw a conclusion that recommended legal action against the President but in keeping with his strict ethics, Mueller declined to do so, not because of party politics or because of any opinion he held, but because as a professional he deferred to the rulings of the Office of Legal Counsel, which strictly prohibited him from doing so in any way whatsoever.

Mueller provided a well lit roadmap and left the evidence out in the open for all to see, but in the end he did what he was supposed to do, he left it to CONGRESS.

Mueller's report concludes thusly:

"Dear Congress, do your goddamn job."
 
Skeptic Bob said:
It is all relative, of course. But I don’t find it significant enough for impeachment. If he had colluded that would be more than significant enough. Or if he had obstructed justice to cover up an actual crime that would certainly merit it even aside from the crime he was covering up. But it doesn’t appear he tried to shut down the investigation to cover up a crime. It looks like he tried to shut it down because it was offensive to his ego and a distraction from his perceived greatness. THAT isn’t significant enough for me.
Click to expand...

Does it bother you that he TRIED to commit the crime on multiple occasions? Sometimes he failed because his "best people" refused his orders. Other times he might have succeeded for all we know (yes, despite Mueller conclusively proving it). And what about that time when he explicitly asked Russians to dig up Hillary emails on national TV (and 5 hours later Russians attacked DNC)?

IMO, he might not have even known whether he committed a crime or not.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
A couple of those folks expressed a sincere change of heart at or near the end of their lives, like Byrd, who by 2003 had fully evolved to the point where the NAACP declared that he had become "a champion for civil rights and liberties" and "came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda".

Byrd also said "Barack Obama is a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian, and he has my full faith and support."


As to Kavanaugh, I think that the Democratic Party missed an opportunity to make salient points that had real value.
By standing on ceremony over hearsay with regard to some possibly regrettable events that nevertheless happened well beyond any possible statute of limitations, the Democrats completely skipped over serious allegations as to Kavanaugh's ethical lapses AND his untreated and continuing alcoholism.

And they reaped the whirlwind as a result.
Click to expand...

People do change. I only wish Reid hadn't opened up the nuclear option toothpaste tube. Once out, there is no getting the toothpaste back into the tube. Without Reid's first use setting the precedence, it would have taken 60 votes in the senate to confirm Kavanaugh. What the 60 votes for cloture, filibuster did was ensure some senators from the other party would have to vote to confirm. It also ensured less extreme picks. A president always had to think about the fact he had to get 60 senators to vote for confirmation prior to choosing his nominees.

Now if a president has a majority in the senate, that president can nominate the most extremist candidates knowing full well there is no stopping whomever he nominates. Reid's first use of the nuclear option threw minority party rights out the window. Whether or not the democrats handled the Kavanaugh nomination correctly or not is irrelevant to me. It wouldn't have mattered without the nuclear option.

I hope Reid and Schumer are happy as all get out over what they have wrought. Those two really pushed the nuclear option. I don't know what the heck they were thinking. I suppose you can call it karma, what goes around, comes around.
 
Perotista said:
People do change. I only wish Reid hadn't opened up the nuclear option toothpaste tube. Once out, there is no getting the toothpaste back into the tube. Without Reid's first use setting the precedence, it would have taken 60 votes in the senate to confirm Kavanaugh. What the 60 votes for cloture, filibuster did was ensure some senators from the other party would have to vote to confirm. It also ensured less extreme picks. A president always had to think about the fact he had to get 60 senators to vote for confirmation prior to choosing his nominees.

Now if a president has a majority in the senate, that president can nominate the most extremist candidates knowing full well there is no stopping whomever he nominates. Reid's first use of the nuclear option threw minority party rights out the window. Whether or not the democrats handled the Kavanaugh nomination correctly or not is irrelevant to me. It wouldn't have mattered without the nuclear option.

I hope Reid and Schumer are happy as all get out over what they have wrought. Those two really pushed the nuclear option. I don't know what the heck they were thinking. I suppose you can call it karma, what goes around, comes around.
Click to expand...

While I am tempted to agree with the gist of what you're saying, unlike you I am mindful of what led up to Reid and Schumer's decision. That's not a slam against you, just my snarky way of reminding you what they were being slammed with, record obstructionism.

Sorry, but starting with Gingrich, continuing with the Hastert Rule and going all the way up to McConnell's vow that NONE of the President's business would EVER be held to a vote if he could help it, I hardly think that Reid and Schumer took the decision lightly.
That does not mean I WOULD HAVE agreed with it but it explains why they did it.
If it had been me, I would have taken slush fund monies to disseminate communications in every state so ALL constituents could see what's being done. I would have devoted a record amount of money to educating the voting public to the nature of the GOP's obstructionism.

I also would have leveraged a veritable tsunami of speaking tours and crowdfunding juggernauts to tell the story much the way the Tea Party had been doing at the time. I would have done anything BUT pushing the nuclear option.

But it's here now, and the GOP has now ensured that when the Dems take back the Senate (while keeping the House) they will regret it. Someone is going to ask for a truce. I think it will be the GOP.

I would put a lot of conditions on such a truce.
 
joko104 said:
Democrats in the House of Representatives will do ANYTHING to get ONE Republican to vote for impeachment so that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, the NYT and LA Times all will declare it was a "bipartisan vote."

All of you know that's true too, don't you?
Click to expand...

And the democrats know they have a likely ally in Mittens which will enhance that possibility!
Good old reliable Mittins will find his way to the wrong side of yet another issue.
Since U.S. laws prevent Mormons from having multiple wives, Mittens has decided to have multiple personalities!

Mitt Romney – 1/1024 Republican
Elizabeth Warren – 1/1024 Indian
Beto O'rourke - 1/1024 Mexican
Richard Blumenthal – 1/1024 Vietnam Veteran
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
While I am tempted to agree with the gist of what you're saying, unlike you I am mindful of what led up to Reid and Schumer's decision. That's not a slam against you, just my snarky way of reminding you what they were being slammed with, record obstructionism.

Sorry, but starting with Gingrich, continuing with the Hastert Rule and going all the way up to McConnell's vow that NONE of the President's business would EVER be held to a vote if he could help it, I hardly think that Reid and Schumer took the decision lightly.
That does not mean I WOULD HAVE agreed with it but it explains why they did it.
If it had been me, I would have taken slush fund monies to disseminate communications in every state so ALL constituents could see what's being done. I would have devoted a record amount of money to educating the voting public to the nature of the GOP's obstructionism.

I also would have leveraged a veritable tsunami of speaking tours and crowdfunding juggernauts to tell the story much the way the Tea Party had been doing at the time. I would have done anything BUT pushing the nuclear option.

But it's here now, and the GOP has now ensured that when the Dems take back the Senate (while keeping the House) they will regret it. Someone is going to ask for a truce. I think it will be the GOP.

I would put a lot of conditions on such a truce.
Click to expand...
There's one tiny little problem with Perotista's premise: logic.

His whole premise rests on the idea that McConnell would have allowed a once in a lifetime chance to nab partisan control of the SCOTUS, by returning the faith extended to him by Reid and the Democrats, and not stab them in the back.

Unfortunately, such a premise is insane. McConnell would not have let such a grand opportunity to stack the courts by held back be good faith and fair play, and would not have thought twice about stabbing the Democrats in the back like he has a million times before. McConnell would never have thought "Well, gee, the Democrats let me keep the filibuster, I guess I have to return the favor. Oh well, I guess I'll have to settle for a moderate on the SCOTUS. "

McConnell has broken so many promises, it's laughable to think he wouldn't have broken another in the name of the holy grail of his agenda. Hell, the guy has gone on record as saying that if a seat opened up on the court in Trump's last year, he wouldn't invoke his "rule" to let the public have a voice, so that goes to show you that he plays by no real rules, and only seeks power.

Republicans like McCain and Cruz boasted that even if Clinton won, they'd STILL hold the SCOTUS seats hostage.

These Republicans are lawless, without character and good will, seek nothing but control, and will use political WMD's to get it. When the hell will people get this?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
While I am tempted to agree with the gist of what you're saying, unlike you I am mindful of what led up to Reid and Schumer's decision. That's not a slam against you, just my snarky way of reminding you what they were being slammed with, record obstructionism.

Sorry, but starting with Gingrich, continuing with the Hastert Rule and going all the way up to McConnell's vow that NONE of the President's business would EVER be held to a vote if he could help it, I hardly think that Reid and Schumer took the decision lightly.
That does not mean I WOULD HAVE agreed with it but it explains why they did it.
If it had been me, I would have taken slush fund monies to disseminate communications in every state so ALL constituents could see what's being done. I would have devoted a record amount of money to educating the voting public to the nature of the GOP's obstructionism.

I also would have leveraged a veritable tsunami of speaking tours and crowdfunding juggernauts to tell the story much the way the Tea Party had been doing at the time. I would have done anything BUT pushing the nuclear option.

But it's here now, and the GOP has now ensured that when the Dems take back the Senate (while keeping the House) they will regret it. Someone is going to ask for a truce. I think it will be the GOP.

I would put a lot of conditions on such a truce.
Click to expand...

Good morning, I would say you laid out the Democratic point of view very nicely. Republicans would disagree with you of course and lay all the blame on the Democrats. Normal partisan politics. I do agree that this party first and taking revenge on the other party began with the Hastert rule. Most folks don't know Gingrich was working behind closed doors with Bill Clinton to get things done and the deficit lowered. Gingrich was ousted for just that.

I would say we had adult leaders in the senate until Reid and McConnell took over. From my view point, both put party first over the country. Both along with Schumer today in my book are just working for the good of the party and not the nation. Boehner is another Speaker removed because he would have liked to work with Obama, his Republican caucus wouldn't let him and finally replaced him. His fellow Republicans in the house considered Boehner too weak. Ah, political intrigue.

Personally I hope Schultz runs as an independent and wins. I know little to nothing about him, but I think the our two major parties need a wake up call to end all this very partisan vindictiveness against each other. We need to return to adult leaders in Washington like Lott and Daschle, Mitchell and Dole were in the senate. Not the likes of Schumer, Reid and McConnell. All party firsters.
 
If Democrats pursue impeachment it will cost them the election.
 
Perotista said:
Good morning, I would say you laid out the Democratic point of view very nicely. Republicans would disagree with you of course and lay all the blame on the Democrats. Normal partisan politics. I do agree that this party first and taking revenge on the other party began with the Hastert rule. Most folks don't know Gingrich was working behind closed doors with Bill Clinton to get things done and the deficit lowered. Gingrich was ousted for just that.

I would say we had adult leaders in the senate until Reid and McConnell took over. From my view point, both put party first over the country. Both along with Schumer today in my book are just working for the good of the party and not the nation. Boehner is another Speaker removed because he would have liked to work with Obama, his Republican caucus wouldn't let him and finally replaced him. His fellow Republicans in the house considered Boehner too weak. Ah, political intrigue.

Personally I hope Schultz runs as an independent and wins. I know little to nothing about him, but I think the our two major parties need a wake up call to end all this very partisan vindictiveness against each other. We need to return to adult leaders in Washington like Lott and Daschle, Mitchell and Dole were in the senate. Not the likes of Schumer, Reid and McConnell. All party firsters.
Click to expand...

When Schumer explained he will do anything and everything "the intelligence community" wants he should have been removed from office. His oath of office is NOT "to protect and defend the intelligence community." When he admitted he is just a shill for the intelligence community he admitted he does not follow his oath of office and does not serve the people of his district. He serves as an employee of the NSA, CIA, DOJ and FBI, nothing else.

Of anything any politician has said in recent years, that CONFESSION by Chuck Schumer was THE most significant - and most ignored - because many or most members of Congress appear to agree they are mere employees of "intelligence" agencies - that same agencies that told the deliberate outright lies that lead to almost every war we got into - WW1, Spanish American War, Vietnam - for starters. All started on outright lies by "the intelligence community."
 
joko104 said:
When Schumer explained he will do anything and everything "the intelligence community" wants he should have been removed from office. His oath of office is NOT "to protect and defend the intelligence community." When he admitted he is just a shill for the intelligence community he admitted he does not follow his oath of office and does not serve the people of his district. He serves as an employee of the NSA, CIA, DOJ and FBI, nothing else.

Of anything any politician has said in recent years, that CONFESSION by Chuck Schumer was THE most significant - and most ignored - because many or most members of Congress appear to agree they are mere employees of "intelligence" agencies - that same agencies that told the deliberate outright lies that lead to almost every war we got into - WW1, Spanish American War, Vietnam - for starters. All started on outright lies by "the intelligence community."
Click to expand...

There are always many different ways to interpret raw intelligence data. In the end it boils down to what one thinks it means. Your meaning and my meaning of the raw intelligence data could be different, you analyst could end up being totally opposite of mine. No one nor any agency gets it right 100% of the time. One can only make their best guess to what it all means.

hindsight is always 20-20. It's easy to pick out the bits and pieces of what foretold of an event or happening once it is over. Very hard to piece it altogether prior.
 
Perotista said:
Good morning, I would say you laid out the Democratic point of view very nicely. Republicans would disagree with you of course and lay all the blame on the Democrats. Normal partisan politics. I do agree that this party first and taking revenge on the other party began with the Hastert rule. Most folks don't know Gingrich was working behind closed doors with Bill Clinton to get things done and the deficit lowered. Gingrich was ousted for just that.

I would say we had adult leaders in the senate until Reid and McConnell took over. From my view point, both put party first over the country. Both along with Schumer today in my book are just working for the good of the party and not the nation. Boehner is another Speaker removed because he would have liked to work with Obama, his Republican caucus wouldn't let him and finally replaced him. His fellow Republicans in the house considered Boehner too weak. Ah, political intrigue.

Personally I hope Schultz runs as an independent and wins. I know little to nothing about him, but I think the our two major parties need a wake up call to end all this very partisan vindictiveness against each other. We need to return to adult leaders in Washington like Lott and Daschle, Mitchell and Dole were in the senate. Not the likes of Schumer, Reid and McConnell. All party firsters.
Click to expand...

I agree that both party's need a wake up call. Not sure Schultz is the one, but most definitely the big two need to understand we don't care about their party allegiance nearly as much as we care about allegiance to the citizens they represent. Not interested in cartel's, I vote party blind when considering the performance of my representative's in Tallahassee and Washington.
Maybe a strong or successful third party is needed.
Regards,
CP
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom