Impeachment hearings

[_Some Schmo]

One thing that's kind of fun is listening to all the damned hair fire and whining people on the right doing over Romney.

Whiny damned bitches. They really can't stand it when one of their own acknowledges reality. It's like it "F"s them all up because they just aren't used to it.

Integrity is regarded a disease in the GOP cult.

[_Some Schmo]

Honestly, I don't see the country recovering from any of this until Trump dies. That is the only resolution.

Where's a good dose of cancer when you need it? Stroke? Heart Attack? I mean, come on, KFC... throw us a bone here.

[_EAllusion]

EAllusion, it worked perfectly well, it did not allow a partisan impeachment, just as it did with Clinton and Johnson. Iwould have worked equally well if Nixon did not resign, in that the votes were there for a bi-partisan impeachment.

Wait. You think "checks and balances" refers to a system designed to prevent partisan impeachment? That's all kinds of wrong. Partisanship as a modern phenomenon didn't exist until well after the Constitution was ratified. That arises in the Jacksonian era. Early American political parties didn't have the same machinery developed yet. Partisanship, political factionalism, as experienced in the late 1700's was something Constitutional architects were trying to avoid and warned about. They didn't want bipartisan impeachment. They wanted non-partisan impeachment administered by a non-partisan Senate. That didn't work out almost immediately after the government formed because they misjudged how politics work in a democracy. "Checks and balances" has nothing to do with any of that. That's a reference to how power is distributed among the 3 branches of the Federal government to reduce the risk of concentration of power and the communicant abuse of power that comes with it. It's meant to make democratic decision making more diffuse to make it more efficient and accountable. What Trump did is supposed to be "checked" by having the impeachment power located in Congress, but that was neutralized by partisanship.

Checks and balances failed here because the kind of corruption the President displayed, and specifically was a concern among Constitutional framers, was supposed to be stopped via impeachment because Congress would naturally want to guard its power against the power of the executive. Unfortunately, this system wasn't designed to handle a political party spanning the political branches having interests that supersede the interests of each branch. So a partisan group was able to shield a corrupt President from accountability for attacking democracy because the President belongs to their group.

Help me out here...who would you consider to be lie free...

A common question on psychological profiles asks people to agree or disagree with the statement, "I never lie." It's a test of psychopathy because people high in psychopathy measures are commonly the ones who claim to never, ever lie under any circumstances. We normally don't make a habit out of calling every person a "liar." We reserve that term for people who tell frequent and/or serious lies. Once you clear up that confusion, people like Adam Schiff absolutely are not "liars" and you only think so because you read hack sources that are literally lying to you.

"Intent of lying" ???? I have to ask you to expound on that a bit in the context of this conversation?

Some people lie to spare hurt feelings. Either people lie to get away with a string of crimes. Why they're lying tells us something about how big of a deal it is that they're doing so and whether we can trust them in other circumstances.

[_EAllusion]

The glass half-full picture of the Nixon resignation sometimes in history textbooks and cribbed from the era is that it showed "the Constitution works." I don't think that's true, and we have a very clear example of how it really doesn't. A sufficiently robust partisanship, as we are seeing right now, nullifies the impeachment power. Because of other powers accrued to the Presidency, this gives the President the freedom to act as a virtual despot and do things like corrupt election integrity to undermine the foundations of the Republic. The historical lesson here is that the Constitution doesn't work and it's time to have a plan in mind to fix it in case there ever is an opportunity to do so.

[_EAllusion]

Honestly, I don't see the country recovering from any of this until Trump dies. That is the only resolution.

It's not just Trump. It's the party. And it's not at all obvious what trend is going to happen to make the party get better rather than stay the same or get even worse. Parties like this usually don't go away until they bumble their country into a war they lose or there's a revolution brought upon by economic hardship while they have a grip on power. Neither of those seem to be on the horizon, and we shouldn't want to see either of those things happen.

There's some lucky scenarios I can imagine, but I think the hard truth is that it's probably choppy waters ahead for a bit. Even if Trump somehow loses the next election, the party of Trump isn't going to vanish over night.

[_Some Schmo]

Honestly, I don't see the country recovering from any of this until Trump dies. That is the only resolution.

It's not just Trump. It's the party. And it's not at all obvious what trend is going to happen to make the party get better rather than stay the same or get even worse. Parties like this usually don't go away until they bumble their country into a war they lose or there's a revolution brought upon by economic hardship while they have a grip on power. Neither of those seem to be on the horizon, and we shouldn't want to see either of those things happen.

There's some lucky scenarios I can imagine, but I think the hard truth is that it's probably choppy waters ahead for a bit. Even if Trump somehow loses the next election, the party of Trump isn't going to vanish over night.

I agree with all of this, but it seems to me that what we're dealing with is a cult of personality that will only have its current juice while its "charismatic" leader is alive. Others have tried to run as a Trump clone, and nobody can pull it off. He's the moron whisperer. Who can replace him to carry on his brand?

Frankly, I think all kinds of people will come out of the woodwork in short order after his death to condemn his BS. I expect all kinds of fractures within the party once the head is cut off. There will still be Trumptards, but they won't have nearly the same juice.

I also agree it'll get worse before it gets better, but the sooner the band-aid is ripped off, the sooner the pain will abate.

[_Jersey Girl]

You say that he didn't get the DOJ to investigate simply because he did not need to.

If he didn't need the DOJ to investigate then why did he need to ask the Ukraine to investigate Biden and make a public announcement that they were doing so?

Because their is evidence that the Biden's are dirty, Hunter and others associated with him are getting millions for nothing, from a company owned by a "mobster" that is receipting taxpayer money from Joe Biden. There is more if you read my links.

If there is evidence that the Biden's are dirty why didn't he get the DOJ to investigate?

]

and make a public announcement that they were doing so?

CFR, be more specific. If you are asking why Trump announced it...give me the quote of what he said and when and I will opine, again be more spicific.

Let's look at sentence structure of that question.

If he didn't need the DOJ to investigate then why did he need to ask the Ukraine to investigate Biden and make a public announcement that they were doing so?

So what is your answer to the latter part of the question?

[_Jersey Girl]

This thread is a testament to the cult the GOP has become.

damned brainwashed lemmings.

Yep, we're screwed.

Majorly.

[_Jersey Girl]

If you view Tish as more worthy of your interaction, then why haven't you responded to her either her questions or her assessment of your responses?

I never said she is more worthy, I said she is sharp and you are less capable of formulating a narrative or original thought. Whether you believe it or not I care about you and everyone here, and if you knew me beyond this forum, you would understand that.

I did answer her, in a post to you, I gave her the link...I have three folks asking me the same non question, and I replied to it to you in full detail.

Now answer my questions if you will.

I have to go to work, have a project working a night...that will give you plenty of time to figure out where you are going to go with Trish's question...

Love ya
Mark

According to Tish you have not answered her question.
v
v
v
v
v
v

But once again, I must ask my question that you are avoiding answering: WHY DIDN"T Trump HAVE THE DOJ INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS?

I did...here viewtopic.php?p=1215137#p1215137

If you have another view...let me know, and I will opine.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=1215161

You absolutely did not.


But your commitment to evading the question is almost impressive.

viewtopic.php?p=1215163#p1215163

[_EAllusion]

Corporate boards all over the place are loaded with vanity posts held by a cabal of connected elites. It's how corporate governance actually works. I've worked for a decent sized corporation, and half the board were just people with political and personal connections and no discernible skills aside from that. They had official jobs, of course, but lol to the idea that they somehow were uniquely deserving of them.

It's fascinating to me to have this specific situation wake conservatives up and make them think this situation is unacceptable and ipso facto evidence of, if not felonious behavior, then corruption. It's everywhere.

Smashing this practice would be the dream of the most hardcore leftists, but it is so ingrained they dare not imagine it. Maybe you should vote for Elizabeth Warren Markk. Seems like your best bet to make a dent into cesspool of incestuous corporate governance through the power of the state.