Pelosi: House will move to transmit impeachment articles next week

[W_Heisenberg]

She doesn't need Ukraine. She has the deep state.

Oh, the same deep state that Trump promoted last week to support his illegal attack on Iran is now bad again. Gotcha.

 

[jmotivator]

Again, your hatred for Democrats isn't in dispute. It's just that nothing you say is relevant or true.

It is perfectly true. The Democrats didn't follow any established protocol in the House and idiots kept swearing back then they the dip****s didn't have to because "impeachment is political" and now those dip****s get to watch their stupid purely political impeachment get utterly destroyed in a purely political fashion.

That is the truth. As is the truth that the Democrats will eat ****.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

It is perfectly true. The Democrats didn't follow any established protocol in the House and idiots kept swearing back then they the dip****s didn't have to because "impeachment is political" and now those dip****s get to watch their stupid purely political impeachment get utterly destroyed in a purely political fashion.

That is the truth. As is the truth that the Democrats will eat ****.

Instead of acting like a jerk why don't you try to put forward a logical argument as to why you think the witnesses who can provide first-hand testimony of what transpired, witnesses who have been blocked by Trump, should not be allowed to testify during the Senate trial?

 

[Chomsky]

We already know what would happen because we saw how House Republicans used their time to "question" relevant witnesses whose testimony wasn't helpful to them: scream at them for five minutes each in order to create soundbites for Fox.

Obviously neither of the Bidens are relevant to the impeachment inquiry, but that little fact won't stop Republicans from yelling at them for fifteen hours anyway, and it won't stop Fox News from running those videos over and over again so that trump supporters can repost them here.

Yes, and no. Because the Dem Senators get to pose their questions, and Roberts will get to rule. So I still think it's a dangerous move for them. Remember, the GOP didn't have a choice in witnesses in the House. So with Dems bringing the witnesses, they had no choice but to attack. But in the Senate they can avoid the hostile witnesses completely, which makes more sense to me.

 

[Cardinal]

It is perfectly true. The Democrats didn't follow any established protocol in the House and idiots kept swearing back then they the dip****s didn't have to because "impeachment is political" and now those dip****s get to watch their stupid purely political impeachment get utterly destroyed in a purely political fashion.

That is the truth. As is the truth that the Democrats will eat ****.

Are you afraid I won't see that you hate Democrats?

 

[Chomsky]

Why do you think that? The squinting bible boy from Indiana is hardly a magnetic political figure. He was highly unpopular as governor. I think Dem's would take him over Trump in a heartbeat. But this is all academic. It'll be Trump vs a Dem. I am beginning to think Biden, simply because he's had a really long run as the putative favorite and shows no sign of slipping.

The fact that there isn't much "dirt" on Pence is hardly important. Trump is under 20 miles of s**t and it doesn't hurt him a bit with his True Believers.

Yeah, I'm beginning to think so (Biden).

The only real question is, who will be his running-mate? I'd love Buttigieg, but two Caucasion males is not going to be the preferred ticket. That's where Harris I think would have made a decent Veep choice. So, maybe Warren? I dunno.

But regardless, I think Buttigieg earned his place in the party, and is very much the future of the party.

 

[Cardinal]

Yes, and no. Because the Dem Senators get to pose their questions, and Roberts will get to rule. So I still think it's a dangerous move for them. Remember, the GOP didn't have a choice in witnesses in the House. So with Dems bringing the witnesses, they had no choice but to attack. But in the Senate they can avoid the hostile witnesses completely, which makes more sense to me.

You are holding to an antiquated idea of what is "dangerous." If wasting everybody's time by yelling at the witnesses was "dangerous," then it would have been "dangerous" for House Republicans to do that, it would have been "dangerous" for Republican Senators to coordinate with the White House during impeachment hearings, and it would have been "dangerous" for McConnell to announce in advance that the trial would be deep-sixed the instant it began.

The fact is that what's dangerous for Democrats isn't dangerous for Republicans, and the simple explanation for that is the Republican Party is founded on a populist movement fueled entirely by grievance.

But all I was doing is speculating on what Republican Senators would do if they brought in the Bidens. I agree that McConnell has no intention of following the Clinton impeachment rules like he says, and in fact there will be no witnesses at all.

 

[jpn]

Yeah, I'm beginning to think so (Biden).
The only real question is, who will be his running-mate? I'd love Buttigieg, but two Caucasion males is not going to be the preferred ticket. That's where Harris I think would have made a decent Veep choice. So, maybe Warren? I dunno.
But regardless, I think Buttigieg earned his place in the party, and is very much the future of the party.

I agree that Buttigieg has a bright future. I think the VP has to be a woman if Biden's the nominee. Fortunately there are a couple excellent ones to choose from--Warren and Klobuchar. Of the two, Warren will help keep the left energized, whereas Klobuchar will help with the Midwest vote.

 

[Perotista]

Pelosi: House will move to transmit impeachment articles next week | Fox News

Yesterday, she pronounced she'll send them over when she's "ready". Wonder what suddenly made Nancy ready? Sounds like pressure from those in her own party convinced her that she had better stop stalling, crap on the pot or get off!

Perhaps trying to gain leverage was the reason she with held the articles. Now I'm of a mind that has been bandied around that she with held the articles hoping that more folks would climb on the impeach and remove bandwagon over the holidays. That failed to happen. The numbers are approximately the same as they were back when the House first passed the articles. Back on 18 Dec it was 47% for removal, 48% against, today it is a 47-47 tie. considering RCP averages contains a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points, one can say there hasn't been any movement for nor against.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Trump Impeachment and Removal From Office: Support/Oppose

What we have here is a very partisan affair, 90% of Democrats for impeachment and removal, 90% of Republicans opposed with a plurality of independents against 46-42. Again, basically the same numbers when the articles were passed. almost the same numbers when the hearing began back in November. No one has changed their mind.

 

[Moon]

What was your source of materials for the post I responded to originally then?

I honestly don’t remember, I tend to look at a bunch of different sites during the day, but I’ve never been to the two sites you mentioned.

 

[trixare4kids]

That’s almost certainly not going to happen.

Probably not. eace

 

[trixare4kids]

Pelosi got dealt a weak hand, bluffed, and eventually had to fold.

Good way of putting it. :yes:

 

[trixare4kids]

All of what she is doing is to influence the upcoming election. She does not want him to be removed by the Senate.

Bingo!
I think even the most partisan Democrats would admit to the above.

 

[Chomsky]

I agree that Buttigieg has a bright future. I think the VP has to be a woman if Biden's the nominee. Fortunately there are a couple excellent ones to choose from--Warren and Klobuchar. Of the two, Warren will help keep the left energized, whereas Klobuchar will help with the Midwest vote.

That's a tough decision. But I think Biden will do well enough in the Midwest and also with African-Americans, so I think we need Warren to pull the Bernie vote.

As to Klobuchar, I really like her Midwestern sensibilities, but don't think she has the energy and pizazz many voters look for. Which is a shame ...

 

[Dittohead not!]

She doesn't need Ukraine. She has the deep state.

Oh, yes, there's the deep state.

And leprechauns, and unicorns, don't forget the unicorns.

You do know that the deep state was behind the attack of 9/11, don't you

 

[Perotista]

Yeah, I'm beginning to think so (Biden).

The only real question is, who will be his running-mate? I'd love Buttigieg, but two Caucasion males is not going to be the preferred ticket. That's where Harris I think would have made a decent Veep choice. So, maybe Warren? I dunno.

But regardless, I think Buttigieg earned his place in the party, and is very much the future of the party.

I was going over the national numbers for the Democratic nomination. What stands out is Biden has the support of 50% of black voters to Sanders 15% and Warren 9%. One has to remember blacks make up one third of the Democratic primary voters. If those numbers hold, it's hard to see someone other than Biden winning the nomination. FYI, among white Democratic primary voters it's Warren 28%, Biden 20%, Sanders 17%.

If Biden wins the nomination, he still has to hang onto those black voters and there is a long way to go. Biden could go with a VP choice that brings regional balance, a women for gender equity, a black or Hispanic or someone from a swing state that would be able to deliver that swing state into the Democrats column. Klobuchar meets two of those requirements. Hillary won Minnesota by just a point and a half. Your Harris being black and a woman also meets two, but California is a foregone conclusion. Warren and Sanders are from the Northeast, that's the last region the Democrats need strengthening. The Northeast is theirs with the possible exception of New Hampshire.

Buttigieg is interesting, but I doubt he could deliver Indiana. Being a numbers guy, I'd look south. Is there someone from Florida, North Carolina, Texas that might be able to swing those Trump states into the Democratic column? O'Rourke Texas might be interesting, but he couldn't beat Cruz who was very unpopular. Maybe a bit of thinking out of the box is in order. How about a little know state representative who came within a runoff of defeating the Republican candidate for Georgia governorship. Stacey Abrams, a woman, black, would bring regional balance and most important, very well could deliver Georgia to the Democrats. Crazy, I know I am. Abrams has a reputation of working with Republicans in our state legislature to get things done. Now that might work against her. Then again, Biden had a history as senator and as VP for working across the aisle. Perhaps a duo like that is exactly what this country needs due to the division, polarization and ultra high partisanship that reigns today.

Four years as VP would in my opinion make Abrams the favorite for 2024 presidency.

 

[smallvoice]

Instead of discovering the truth, Republicans choose to grow the swamp. What a sad day for our country.

What's saddest for the country is when a leftist has to hide behind the tag "centrist" because the left is so bad.

 

[Taylor]

This was always a mistake. Best for Pelosi and her party to recognize that and move on.

 

[smallvoice]

The passing of such a resolution would not have looked too good.

It looks as good as the kangaroo court the House held....

 

[bubbabgone]

If the impeachment charges need more witness testimony in order to be considered corroborated, they shouldn't even have been voted on in the House without it.

 

[trixare4kids]

I'm Shameless!

Lol! Do you watch it regularly?

 

[bubbabgone]

I was going over the national numbers for the Democratic nomination. What stands out is Biden has the support of 50% of black voters to Sanders 15% and Warren 9%. One has to remember blacks make up one third of the Democratic primary voters. If those numbers hold, it's hard to see someone other than Biden winning the nomination. FYI, among white Democratic primary voters it's Warren 28%, Biden 20%, Sanders 17%.

If Biden wins the nomination, he still has to hang onto those black voters and there is a long way to go. Biden could go with a VP choice that brings regional balance, a women for gender equity, a black or Hispanic or someone from a swing state that would be able to deliver that swing state into the Democrats column. Klobuchar meets two of those requirements. Hillary won Minnesota by just a point and a half. Your Harris being black and a woman also meets two, but California is a foregone conclusion. Warren and Sanders are from the Northeast, that's the last region the Democrats need strengthening. The Northeast is theirs with the possible exception of New Hampshire.

Buttigieg is interesting, but I doubt he could deliver Indiana. Being a numbers guy, I'd look south. Is there someone from Florida, North Carolina, Texas that might be able to swing those Trump states into the Democratic column? O'Rourke Texas might be interesting, but he couldn't beat Cruz who was very unpopular. Maybe a bit of thinking out of the box is in order. How about a little know state representative who came within a runoff of defeating the Republican candidate for Georgia governorship. Stacey Abrams, a woman, black, would bring regional balance and most important, very well could deliver Georgia to the Democrats. Crazy, I know I am. Abrams has a reputation of working with Republicans in our state legislature to get things done. Now that might work against her. Then again, Biden had a history as senator and as VP for working across the aisle. Perhaps a duo like that is exactly what this country needs due to the division, polarization and ultra high partisanship that reigns today.

Four years as VP would in my opinion make Abrams the favorite for 2024 presidency.

"Billionaire Tom Steyer's long-shot candidacy for the Democratic nomination received a boost this week when a Fox News poll indicated he has surged to second place in South Carolina."
Why Tom Steyer suddenly looks competitive in South Carolina - CBS News

Dems are in a wicked pickle.
They're desperate to find someone who isn't Biden or a whackdoodle socialist.
Ain't anyone like that running right now.

 

[trixare4kids]

What's saddest for the country is when a leftist has to hide behind the tag "centrist" because the left is so bad.

I did that myself until I could barely stand how far the loony left took this country.
I look at the Dems who are running for president and simply smh.

 

[Chomsky]

Lol! Do you watch it regularly?

Unfortunately, no. I didn't have Showtime. But I do catch the old runs from time to time. It depicts a totally dysfunctional Canaryville family (~ 43rd & Halsted - Eddie Burke's old 14th ward directly south of Bridgeport).

 

[Chomsky]

"Billionaire Tom Steyer's long-shot candidacy for the Democratic nomination received a boost this week when a Fox News poll indicated he has surged to second place in South Carolina."
Why Tom Steyer suddenly looks competitive in South Carolina - CBS News

Dems are in a wicked pickle.
They're desperate to find someone who isn't Biden or a whackdoodle socialist.
Ain't anyone like that running right now.

Hah! I guess if Bloomberg wanted to cover the entire economic continuum, he could run Warren as his Veep! :2razz: