Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, craig said:

Agreed, though it would be hard to argue that the Warren Commission wasn't part of that particular problem

I think that a small disagreement in a country far away would have had a more deleterious affect on his health. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Thinker said:

I'm guessing you didn't read that very thoroughly.

 

The link is to Politifact which is a completely objective fact-checking website. They're simply assessing whether Jake Tapper's statement that the second presidential impeachment of Donald Trump was “the most bipartisan impeachment in American history" checks out. It does, for the reasons they've presented, regardless of how much Tapper makes you lol.

There are also potentially other factors at play though.  Yes, given the numbers it is the most bipartisan impeachment - but that still doesn't negate the almost guaranteed fact that Republicans voting this way were doing out of self-preservation.  The timing of the impeachment i.e. less than two weeks until the Republican President is superceded by a Democratic President - and given the animosity towards Trump - meant that Republicans could, for the most part, vote without fear of the party dragging them into line - it also will likely allow them to sit on the right side of history.

 

Would Clinton's impeachments have been any different if he were a lame duck President ?  I don't know the answer.  But statistics prove what you want them to prove - they also need context.  Could I be wrong ?  Absolutely.  But is it plausible that the timing of the impeachment meant that more Republicans voted in favour than would otherwise ?  I would say so.

 

The impeachment does little - and the Democrats know that.  They are using it as a) a stick to beat down the Republicans b) a way in which to have the whole "voter fraud" issue be swept under the carpet and, as @ranger_syntaxsuggested, the real prize is to ensure that Trump can't run again.  Though, to be fair, Trump likely wouldn't run again now anyway - last week's events probably ensured that - though also depends on what comes out from the charges.  Not much I would imagine given John Sullivan (Antifa/BLM) was taken into custody and swiftly released.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, craig said:

There are also potentially other factors at play though.  Yes, given the numbers it is the most bipartisan impeachment - but that still doesn't negate the almost guaranteed fact that Republicans voting this way were doing out of self-preservation.  The timing of the impeachment i.e. less than two weeks until the Republican President is superceded by a Democratic President - and given the animosity towards Trump - meant that Republicans could, for the most part, vote without fear of the party dragging them into line - it also will likely allow them to sit on the right side of history.

 

Would Clinton's impeachments have been any different if he were a lame duck President ?  I don't know the answer.  But statistics prove what you want them to prove - they also need context.  Could I be wrong ?  Absolutely.  But is it plausible that the timing of the impeachment meant that more Republicans voted in favour than would otherwise ?  I would say so.

 

The impeachment does little - and the Democrats know that.  They are using it as a) a stick to beat down the Republicans b) a way in which to have the whole "voter fraud" issue be swept under the carpet and, as @ranger_syntaxsuggested, the real prize is to ensure that Trump can't run again.  Though, to be fair, Trump likely wouldn't run again now anyway - last week's events probably ensured that - though also depends on what comes out from the charges.  Not much I would imagine given John Sullivan (Antifa/BLM) was taken into custody and swiftly released.....

Making a president unimpeachable during the transition period would seem, to the observer, imprudent, as this would permit the incumbent to do as he damned well pleased. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bill said:

No one knows, everything is opinion and interpretation. My own view is this is a single issue affair. Impeachment is about deflecting from voter fraud, nothing else. 

Good for you.

What evidence have you seen?

I think that you should share it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, craig said:

There are also potentially other factors at play though.  Yes, given the numbers it is the most bipartisan impeachment - but that still doesn't negate the almost guaranteed fact that Republicans voting this way were doing out of self-preservation.  The timing of the impeachment i.e. less than two weeks until the Republican President is superceded by a Democratic President - and given the animosity towards Trump - meant that Republicans could, for the most part, vote without fear of the party dragging them into line - it also will likely allow them to sit on the right side of history.

 

Would Clinton's impeachments have been any different if he were a lame duck President ?  I don't know the answer.  But statistics prove what you want them to prove - they also need context.  Could I be wrong ?  Absolutely.  But is it plausible that the timing of the impeachment meant that more Republicans voted in favour than would otherwise ?  I would say so.

 

The impeachment does little - and the Democrats know that.  They are using it as a) a stick to beat down the Republicans b) a way in which to have the whole "voter fraud" issue be swept under the carpet and, as @ranger_syntaxsuggested, the real prize is to ensure that Trump can't run again.  Though, to be fair, Trump likely wouldn't run again now anyway - last week's events probably ensured that - though also depends on what comes out from the charges.  Not much I would imagine given John Sullivan (Antifa/BLM) was taken into custody and swiftly released.....

The number of Republicans that voted to impeach is irrelevant.

 

There is a majority of Democrats in the house of representatives.

 

I wouldn't consider them votes for survival.  The medium term prospects for the Republican party are very uncertain in the event of a conviction.  It could allow them to move on.  Alternatively it could infuriate tens of millions of the electorate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Uilleam said:

Good for you.

What evidence have you seen?

I think that you should share it.

Didn’t you read my post? I’ll repeat it. It’s all just opinion. That was mine. Happy to have shared it again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.