• 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!

Congressional Hearings

mrjurrs said:
Today's hearing wasn't about this case, it was about the historical and constitutional parameters of what impeachment is.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. It was merely an opportunity for Democrats to present a few folks who had obviously made up their mind about the situation to voice their opinion. It was little more than a TV version of the 132,000 former US attorneys who signed a letter regarding obstruction after the Mueller report came out. Nobody on that panel was going to be the one to put their career on the line by actually trying the case. They were free to say whatever they wanted and would suffer no repercussions no matter how wrong they turned out to be.
 
Rexedgar said:
Most posters know where my opinions come down as far as the current administration. That being, said, Wednesday’s hearing is dripping with partisanship. Majority members mostly, only engage the three favorable constitutional scholars. Conversely the minority members mostly only engage Turley. IMO, this won’t move the needle, and may in fact move the needle the wrong way. Never underestimate the Democrats ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory......


Parnas’ court proceeding is scheduled for February. The longer this goes on the more advantage goes to the administration.

Unless there are “bombshells”, (I hate that overused term,) to come, I predict a Trump re-election......:shrug:
Click to expand...

It's a testament to how much republicans have perverted the national dialogue that three Constitutional scholars can illustrate what the impeachable offenses are, why they're impeachable and how they impact us as a nation, and you can still come away with the conclusion that this benefits the trump administration and guarantees him re-election.
 
Rexedgar said:
I don’t report anymore. I am also not a dentist. While you fish reflect on your naval career. Maybe you are going only to work on the engine. Happy fishing! Go Army!
Click to expand...

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, stuck in the middle with: WHO?
 
Cardinal said:
It's a testament to how much republicans have perverted the national dialogue that three Constitutional scholars can illustrate what the impeachable offenses are, why they're impeachable and how they impact us as a nation, and you can still come away with the conclusion that this benefits the trump administration and guarantees him re-election.
Click to expand...

You need to drop the rose colored glasses..........today’s hearing did more damage that good in the impeachment process. It’s unfortunately not about content as much as it is about optics. Check the prime-time line up of your local tv stations this week. I stand by my position, that unless there are real relevations exposed in the next few weeks, this will peter out.....
 
Rexedgar said:
You need to drop the rose colored glasses..........today’s hearing did more damage that good in the impeachment process. It’s unfortunately not about content as much as it is about optics. Check the prime-time line up of your local tv stations this week. I stand by my position, that unless there are real relevations exposed in the next few weeks, this will peter out.....
Click to expand...

With all due respect, you've been sucked into a toilet drain of bad faith arguments. They demand new revelations, you show them new revelations, they reject them and demand new revelations, then they reject those, and on and on and on it goes. Think outside their box.
 
RetiredUSN said:
You asked me why I hate women?

A perfect mock to your own mock.

Go ahead and report me, I'm going Snook fishing off of Florida for the next 2 weeks.
Click to expand...
Which coast?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
mrjurrs said:
Today's hearing wasn't about this case, it was about the historical and constitutional parameters of what impeachment is.
Click to expand...
Thats how it was billed but it certainly was about this case. They didnt speak in broad generalities. They spoke to specifics and attempted to frame those specifics in a way that justifies impeaching Trump.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Pam Karlan, as a clerk for Justice Blackmun, was apparently the primary author of one of the best SCOTUS dissents I've ever read in Bowers v. Hardwick.

So she's got that going for her. I hadn't heard much of her before today.
 
Cardinal said:
With all due respect, you've been sucked into a toilet drain of bad faith arguments. They demand new revelations, you show them new revelations, they reject them and demand new revelations, then they reject those, and on and on and on it goes. Think outside their box.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, you better wake up and look around the land. If you think a Democrat is a shoe in at this stage, I’m afraid you are delusional. There needs to be something concrete; better than murder in daylight on 5th Ave.
 
Rexedgar said:
With all due respect, you better wake up and look around the land. If you think a Democrat is a shoe in at this stage, I’m afraid you are delusional. There needs to be something concrete; better than murder in daylight on 5th Ave.
Click to expand...

Nobody said anything about a Democrat being a shoo in, but that doesn't mean you have to be sucked into trump supporter bad faith expectations.

Remember back to the year 2016 when everything that's been happening for the last three months would have been considered apocalyptic for the Republican Party. Now, trump supporters have basically become rock stars in the sense that all that anybody seems concerned with is what could change the minds of people who've made it a point not to have their minds changed.

Forget about them, and snap back into your reality rather than theirs.
 
Rexedgar said:
I don’t report anymore. I am also not a dentist. While you fish reflect on your naval career. Maybe you are going only to work on the engine. Happy fishing! Go Army!
Click to expand...

I had a great time during my Navy career.

No regrets.

What is your fascination about my Navy career exactly?
 
Meanwhile in the Senate 4 more judges confirmed today.....

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
RetiredUSN said:
I had a great time during my Navy career.

No regrets.

What is your fascination about my Navy career exactly?
Click to expand...

As I have posted earlier, I treat every veteran with a certain level of respect that is not due those that haven’t served. Your user name denotes that you are proud of your service, as you should be. Your posts have a certain edge to them that seem to be explained by the facts, posted by you, that you were a career Navy man. I have made many references to your own admissions as to the circumstance of your service that you have evaded. Makes a person wonder what led to a naval career ending as a junior enlisted rating. You have bragged as to what you draw as a pension, but in 2019 those figures don’t exactly lead to a “life of Riley,” good for you that you can fish in Florida for two weeks.....

Enjoy the vacation and catch all that you can, get some sun and maybe some of the anger will subside.......:2wave:
 
Lutherf said:
No it wasn't. It was merely an opportunity for Democrats to present a few folks who had obviously made up their mind about the situation to voice their opinion. It was little more than a TV version of the 132,000 former US attorneys who signed a letter regarding obstruction after the Mueller report came out. Nobody on that panel was going to be the one to put their career on the line by actually trying the case. They were free to say whatever they wanted and would suffer no repercussions no matter how wrong they turned out to be.
Click to expand...

And Turley hadn't made up his mind? You use opinion like R's saying Fiona Hill was offering her 'opinion'.
 
trouble13 said:
Thats how it was billed but it certainly was about this case. They didnt speak in broad generalities. They spoke to specifics and attempted to frame those specifics in a way that justifies impeaching Trump.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't think you heard much of the hearing. Yes this case is the foundation of the discussion, but it was applied through historical, legal and academic lenses.
 
mrjurrs said:
I don't think you heard much of the hearing. Yes this case is the foundation of the discussion, but it was applied through historical, legal and academic lenses.
Click to expand...
You could of stopped at the first 3 words in your post.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
You could of stopped at the first 3 words in your post.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Which is about how much of the hearing you understood I guess.
 
Rexedgar said:
Most posters know where my opinions come down as far as the current administration. That being, said, Wednesday’s hearing is dripping with partisanship. Majority members mostly, only engage the three favorable constitutional scholars. Conversely the minority members mostly only engage Turley. IMO, this won’t move the needle, and may in fact move the needle the wrong way. Never underestimate the Democrats ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory......
Click to expand...

Yesterday was a very bad day for the Democrats.

Those 3 were very bias and Pam Karlan was the worst of the trio. The optics were horrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom