Author Topic: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread  (Read 68425 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1710 on: January 13, 2021, 10:19:57 PM »

Online Tr1boy

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24878
  • Tommy Points: 739
Delete
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 12:44:26 AM by Tr1boy »

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1711 on: January 14, 2021, 01:18:50 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17244
  • Tommy Points: 1909


Ouch

It still defies reality to me that 435 people who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution can look at the same information and then draw conclusions so based on party lines.  This is not policy. It's not progressive v. conservative ideology. The issues are -- are the items cited in the articles impeachable, and did DJT do what the articles suggest he did.  I get that some may see it differently from others.  I do not get that 425 of 435 side with their party.  Leads me to feel that the 10 republicans are the only members of congress that I trust as fair and impartial.

if the 10 republicans that voted for impeachment are fair and impartial why arent the Democrats that voted fro impeachment,

I think that what NG is saying is that if you ask 230 people for their opinion on a matter on which reasonable minds can disagree, it’s unlikely that all 230 would come to the same conclusion.

Yes. Thanks.

And I’m not saying no one else is fair and impartial, just that this vote only provided evidence for 10. 

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1712 on: January 14, 2021, 01:36:55 AM »

Offline Ogaju

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14199
  • Tommy Points: 1447


Ouch

It still defies reality to me that 435 people who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution can look at the same information and then draw conclusions so based on party lines.  This is not policy. It's not progressive v. conservative ideology. The issues are -- are the items cited in the articles impeachable, and did DJT do what the articles suggest he did.  I get that some may see it differently from others.  I do not get that 425 of 435 side with their party.  Leads me to feel that the 10 republicans are the only members of congress that I trust as fair and impartial.

if the 10 republicans that voted for impeachment are fair and impartial why arent the Democrats that voted fro impeachment,

I think that what NG is saying is that if you ask 230 people for their opinion on a matter on which reasonable minds can disagree, it’s unlikely that all 230 would come to the same conclusion.

Yes. Thanks.

And I’m not saying no one else is fair and impartial, just that this vote only provided evidence for 10.

why should reasonable minds disagree on incitement of insurrection being an impeachable offense.

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1713 on: January 14, 2021, 02:07:51 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43736
  • Tommy Points: -27028
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .


Ouch

It still defies reality to me that 435 people who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution can look at the same information and then draw conclusions so based on party lines.  This is not policy. It's not progressive v. conservative ideology. The issues are -- are the items cited in the articles impeachable, and did DJT do what the articles suggest he did.  I get that some may see it differently from others.  I do not get that 425 of 435 side with their party.  Leads me to feel that the 10 republicans are the only members of congress that I trust as fair and impartial.

if the 10 republicans that voted for impeachment are fair and impartial why arent the Democrats that voted fro impeachment,

I think that what NG is saying is that if you ask 230 people for their opinion on a matter on which reasonable minds can disagree, it’s unlikely that all 230 would come to the same conclusion.

Yes. Thanks.

And I’m not saying no one else is fair and impartial, just that this vote only provided evidence for 10.

why should reasonable minds disagree on incitement of insurrection being an impeachable offense.

Read Brandenburg v. Ohio regarding incitement.  Reasonable minds can disagree on whether there was incitement.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1714 on: January 14, 2021, 04:09:10 AM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Marcus Smart
  • Posts: 184
  • Tommy Points: 20


Ouch

It still defies reality to me that 435 people who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution can look at the same information and then draw conclusions so based on party lines.  This is not policy. It's not progressive v. conservative ideology. The issues are -- are the items cited in the articles impeachable, and did DJT do what the articles suggest he did.  I get that some may see it differently from others.  I do not get that 425 of 435 side with their party.  Leads me to feel that the 10 republicans are the only members of congress that I trust as fair and impartial.

Given what we know about certain factions of the people who went into the Capitol last week, you should consider that some of the people who did not vote for impeachment may be concerned about their personal safety and/or future electability, rather than ideology.
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1715 on: January 14, 2021, 07:37:39 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17244
  • Tommy Points: 1909


Ouch

It still defies reality to me that 435 people who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution can look at the same information and then draw conclusions so based on party lines.  This is not policy. It's not progressive v. conservative ideology. The issues are -- are the items cited in the articles impeachable, and did DJT do what the articles suggest he did.  I get that some may see it differently from others.  I do not get that 425 of 435 side with their party.  Leads me to feel that the 10 republicans are the only members of congress that I trust as fair and impartial.

Given what we know about certain factions of the people who went into the Capitol last week, you should consider that some of the people who did not vote for impeachment may be concerned about their personal safety and/or future electability, rather than ideology.

Not that I don’t have compassion for people who’ve been threatened, but they swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution.  Not a small or trivial obligation.  If they voted based on intimidation they’ve broken their oath.  If democracy at its highest levels is mob-run then we have no democracy.  So I’d be interested to know if congresspeople made their decision based on perceived threats (understandable) v.  actual direct threats.  If the latter, are they being investigated?    If not, our congresspeople not only have been successfully intimidated but are withholding information about criminal behavior. 

Re: future electability as a factor.  Yes I get that it is, but if being fair and impartial is the standard, I don’t think electability should enter into the  equation.  Though I know it does. 

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1716 on: January 14, 2021, 07:49:18 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43736
  • Tommy Points: -27028
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Not that I don’t have compassion for people who’ve been threatened, but they swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution.  Not a small or trivial obligation.  If they voted based on intimidation they’ve broken their oath.  If democracy at its highest levels is mob-run then we have no democracy.

I very much agree, although it’s just a more visceral version of a DC norm:  voting out of self-interest.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1717 on: January 14, 2021, 07:57:40 AM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Marcus Smart
  • Posts: 184
  • Tommy Points: 20
Sure, but at what point do we hit the Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite* stage?

If the members of the government are afraid of the constituency in a literal sense, rather than an electoral sense (and certainly not in the Gadsen flag/Boston Tea Party sense)**, at some point this has to be at the feet of the constituency, no?

*every nation gets the government it deserves

**edit: to clarify, these people broke in to contest election results. This isn't because of taxes or rights but a refusal to accept the outcome of a cornerstone of the democratic process.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 08:08:17 AM by Kernewek »
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1718 on: January 14, 2021, 08:22:32 AM »

Offline gift

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2943
  • Tommy Points: 231
Sure, but at what point do we hit the Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite* stage?

If the members of the government are afraid of the constituency in a literal sense, rather than an electoral sense (and certainly not in the Gadsen flag/Boston Tea Party sense)**, at some point this has to be at the feet of the constituency, no?

*every nation gets the government it deserves

**edit: to clarify, these people broke in to contest election results. This isn't because of taxes or rights but a refusal to accept the outcome of a cornerstone of the democratic process.

I agree with this. Sure, we have institutions designed to manipulate the populace. But at some point it is up to the populace not to be manipulated. 

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1719 on: January 14, 2021, 09:37:09 AM »

Online Tr1boy

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24878
  • Tommy Points: 739
Quote
Newly-elected Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene plans to file articles of impeachment against Biden on first day as President

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/534178-marjorie-taylor-greene-says-she-will-introduce-impeachment-articles-against

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1720 on: January 14, 2021, 09:41:44 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33269
  • Tommy Points: 1570
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
Quote
Newly-elected Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene plans to file articles of impeachment against Biden on first day as President

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/534178-marjorie-taylor-greene-says-she-will-introduce-impeachment-articles-against


You know, I was going to say something, but I got nothing.   Absolutely nothing about the absurdity of this. 

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1721 on: January 14, 2021, 09:45:40 AM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26938
  • Tommy Points: 1308
  • What a Pub Should Be
Quote
Newly-elected Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene plans to file articles of impeachment against Biden on first day as President

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/534178-marjorie-taylor-greene-says-she-will-introduce-impeachment-articles-against


You know, I was going to say something, but I got nothing.   Absolutely nothing about the absurdity of this.

She's a Q nutjob and also a bonafide racist. 


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1722 on: January 14, 2021, 09:54:37 AM »

Online Tr1boy

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24878
  • Tommy Points: 739
Quote
Newly-elected Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene plans to file articles of impeachment against Biden on first day as President

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/534178-marjorie-taylor-greene-says-she-will-introduce-impeachment-articles-against


You know, I was going to say something, but I got nothing.   Absolutely nothing about the absurdity of this.

She's a Q nutjob and also a bonafide racist.

How did she even get voted in?

Doesnt sound like this is going to be a smooth transition of power

Not sure if Joe knew about what his son was doing...but it doesnt seem like it was "clean".   

Now republicans are planning their revenge

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1723 on: January 14, 2021, 10:22:08 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43736
  • Tommy Points: -27028
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Now republicans are planning their revenge

Good old politics.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1724 on: January 14, 2021, 11:14:49 AM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Marcus Smart
  • Posts: 184
  • Tommy Points: 20
https://twitter.com/jonallendc/status/1349469273870249987

Ouch

It still defies reality to me that 435 people who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution can look at the same information and then draw conclusions so based on party lines.  This is not policy. It's not progressive v. conservative ideology. The issues are -- are the items cited in the articles impeachable, and did DJT do what the articles suggest he did.  I get that some may see it differently from others.  I do not get that 425 of 435 side with their party.  Leads me to feel that the 10 republicans are the only members of congress that I trust as fair and impartial.

Given what we know about certain factions of the people who went into the Capitol last week, you should consider that some of the people who did not vote for impeachment may be concerned about their personal safety and/or future electability, rather than ideology.

Not that I don’t have compassion for people who’ve been threatened, but they swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution.  Not a small or trivial obligation.  If they voted based on intimidation they’ve broken their oath.  If democracy at its highest levels is mob-run then we have no democracy.  So I’d be interested to know if congresspeople made their decision based on perceived threats (understandable) v.  actual direct threats.  If the latter, are they being investigated?    If not, our congresspeople not only have been successfully intimidated but are withholding information about criminal behavior. 

Re: future electability as a factor.  Yes I get that it is, but if being fair and impartial is the standard, I don’t think electability should enter into the  equation.  Though I know it does.

Not really adding to the discussion much, but to confirm, this indeed appears to be at least some of the thought process behind the Republicans who have voted for impeachment, at least:

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1349747027438153734
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.