Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by mchammer, Sep 24, 2019.
That guy is a bad example. He drove through/around barriers set up by the police.
What are the odds Dems get around to impeaching the Founding Fathers?
Anyone think Portman will join the "convict" crowd? Why else announce at this moment that he won't seek reelection?
Still no chance that 17 R's vote to convict. This will be a party over country vote.
It’s a party over country impeachment, so why should the vote be any different? Even Biden has stated it will not get the votes, so in the end it is just more division for the country lead by democrats.
Impeachment is a political process, as setup by our founders. History will document that one side defended sedition by leaning procedural arguments while the other simply sought accountability. Accountability used to be a Republican mainstay when it was moored to philosophy rather than a person.
Mmmmmk. The democrats are sooo honest and full of independent integrity for the country. This will backfire on the democrats as critical issues remain to be addressed while they continue their TDS.
Speaking of accountability, will the dems lead an investigation into Hunter Biden?
Your words not mine...
Last I checked the FBI had an investigation open on Hunter Biden. That's a legal matter, not a Republican or Democrat matter. He's not a politician.
Recognizing you want Hunter Biden's exploits as leverage against Joe Biden a Republican led Senate committee has already absolved old Joe of any wrongdoing in the Burisma stuff.
I would say Biden is doing quite well at CREATING critical issues.
I'm hoping people will come to their senses and realize that impeaching ex-presidents is hella stupid........ Nah, that'll never happen.
HE'S HITLER!!!! HE'S PUTIN'S PUPPET!!!! AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Biden is such an @$$hole. How could any one vote for someone so crude?
Possibly. I don't think you'll get many who are planning to run again to vote to convict. For most, it's political suicide, and very few are willing to take that kind of gamble.
Those who are willing to do it are in unique positions. I think Romney is willing to do it, because he has colossal clout in Utah politics, and Trump's support there is wide but not deep. Mormons aren't big fans, even if they voted for him over Biden.
Murkowski's name carries enormous weight (because of her dad). Furthermore, she proved in 2010 that she can win without the Republican nomination (won as a write-in after losing the nomination). She doesn't want a primary challenge, but even if she loses in the primary, Alaskan independents and even Democrats (who are probably only slightly to her left anyway) will happily vote for her. She can do whatever she wants.
Collins just got reelected, and I think she likely assumes that she can do what she wants. It'll be 6 years before she has to face the voters again, and though there's a Trump-centric element in the Maine GOP, it's less than in most states. The passage of time as well as her unique electability in a New England state probably secures her to be able to vote to convict without fear.
Other than those who aren't seeking reelection (and quitting electoral politics), I don't think you'll see anyone voting to convict. I saw that Ben Sasse voted against Rand Paul's motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds. Will he take his chances with his reelection six years away? Hard to say. The constitutionality of the process (which I'm honestly conflicted on) is a different issue from conviction.
Hmmm IF it is political suicide for a GOP Senator to vote for impeachment Maybe some consideration should be given to the voters 'views. You know the people they are supposed to represent.
On our present trajectory, it is inevitable that these dummies are going to start going after the FFs. But which one will they start with? I suggest he will, no doubt, be a southerner --
Because the voters aren't always right. A statesman does what's right, not what's politically and personally easy. A GOP senator willing to vote to convict and then seek reelection (especially in 2022) would have balls too big to fit through the doors of the Senate chamber.
Yeah, there is no chance we get to 17 R Senators to vote in favor. Trump's threat of starting his own party (or taking his ball and going home to be reflective of his maturity level) is the threat he's holding over the Republican party. As long as R's don't hit that magic 17-18 number there is little fear of the MAGA Party coming to fruition. So, each of the Senators have to evaluate whether they can be principled, find a technicality to hang their "no" vote on or don't have to rely on any of the Trump base for reelection to make their decision.
I've been getting a heaping spoonful about Ben Sasse from family members in Nebraska. Keep in mind, they are Trump supporters through and through. Like a few posters here, they'd make excuses for Trump if he murdered someone in cold blood in broad daylight on NYC 5th Ave. The argument would be "well if person X hadn't gotten in the way of the bullet...false flag to bring Trump down...what about Hunter Biden." My family is from the rural part of the stat in Western Nebraska so they are not representative of Lincoln/Omaha but they hate Sasse with white hot passion for allowing his principles to get in Trump's way.
Leading vs. following. It's that simple. Example # 2,032 that Trump supporters don't actually want to drain the swamp but merely own it.
That says it all. There's no policy reason not to like Sasse. It is all about style. He's a reliable conservative. Furthermore, he's very smart and an excellent ambassador of the conservative philosophy. However, he's not a ****-flinging monkey and not overly partisan.
The voters aren't always right? And the "statesmen" are?
If a Senator votes against something You think is right do you still call him a statesman?
He's a guy that would be a great candidate in world where principles and not flinging ******** is appreciated.
No, I didn't say that.
I bought his book and really like him as a politician. Sasse is principled, states his biases up front. From my perspective he's a Reagan Republican. Socially conservative but not over-the-top, religious but not willing to push it on others and believes in fiscal conservativism/small government. In a lot of ways he's what I like best of Nebraska. Nebraskans aren't brash and arrogant but rather everyone's friend and generous to a fault. (No comments from the peanut gallery needed.)
In summary, Sasse is the opposite of the "swamp". He's a small college professor, doesn't lean into the politics of division and if he does have POTUS ambition sacrificing his soul to get there isn't on the table.
History will show that a partisan Democrat party twice failed to impeach a President simply because they had a majority in the House. It will show they lied about the need for impeachment to be bipartisan. It will show the Democrats turned a serious process into a circus, and cheapened the purpose of impeachment into a purely partisan political farce.
10% for the big guy. If this was Don Jr. Schiff would be all over it, right? Be honest one time.
The Dems always vote party over country. Why are you surprised?
Meanwhile, Dems gonna Dem
Who decided it was constitutional to impeach a civilian?
Honestly, with how she's losing her marbles, there's a decent chance this really was an honest mistake. I wouldn't give that benefit to most, but I probably would give it to her.
I would describe as a pattern of behavior
So her accountants have lost their marbles too?