RE: The ignorance of liberals

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: The ignorance of liberals

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The ignorance of liberals

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/14/2014 10:15:57 PM

njlauren

Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Absolutely correct. I should have been clearer here, to wit, there's no point in impeachment because conviction in the Senate is impossible.

If there is a strong case for impeachment, outside of petty political bickering, they should impeach asap. There is zero reason to not impeach. If there is strong evidence that proves the articles of impeachment to be correct, We the People will see it, and the Democrats in the Senate will end up with egg on their face if they don't find the President guilty.

I think the House is "suing" just for grandstanding and the GOP leadership don't believe they have a strong case to bring forth Articles of Impeachment.

If conviction is impossible articles of impeachment would only be used to "prove" that the Reps are extremists no matter how strong the case. See the Clinton impeachment when Dem senators like Byrd said the charges were impeachable and that he was clearly guilty but voted to acquit because there was less than 2 years left in his term. And as you see it is an article of faith that it was a purely political impeachment.
"If you strike at the King you must kill him" (don't impeach unless you can win)

Byrd's statement was that the impeachment was too blatantly partisan and that 2/3rds of the American people did not want Clinton removed from office so he would not vote to convict.
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/byrd.html

But you nuts go ahead and try, try again. You're never going to be satisfied till you actually do get a Democrat. So keep trying.

He said that perjury is an impeachable offense and that he had no doubt that Clinton was guilty. The rest was window dressing. If it was guilty that is all that matters.
As for the rest of your BS, you will never hear me saying that Nixon should have been acquitted even though there was massive political motivation in his prosecution.
You should also note that it was Sen Baker (R TN) who asked the definitive question in the hearings "what did the President know and when did he know it?" Also Nixon resigned because Goldwater and two other Rep Sen told him to.
If Clinton had been a Republican I would have favored impeachment and it would have been successful because some Republican Senators would have voted guilty.

Politics in the Nixon prosecution? You've lost it. There was no prosecution to start with. There was an investigation. An investigation that so disgusted the Senate Republicans that they told him he was going to get convicted so he resigned rather than face the inevitable.

Honestly I think a lot of what is wrong today traces back to Nixon. Not actually RMN but the true believers who had it stick in their craw that their guy, their precious anti communist guy, was a paranoid who broke the law with impunity and was simply not worthy of the office. So they set out to prove that it was the Democrats fault somehow someway and that hatred has taken hold 2 generations later in ways I don't think you guys even understand.

You either did not watch the hearings or as always remember it different than it happened.
This is quite possible since you already forgot that I said I didn't defend Nixon.
Republicans had the character to go against a sitting Republican President, in the Clinton affair no Democrat did. Both times the Dems voted a straight party line.

Nixon was guilty. You understand that, right.

Clinton's impeachment was much like Johnson's. it was strictly a matter of politics. Civil suits against sitting Presidents shouldn't be allowed to proceed while they are in office. The conflicts are enormous and of course the President's political enemies will try and get involved which will sully what is supposed to be an impartial hearing. We will never know whether Paula Jones was actually harassed since she let herself get tied up with the fringe nuts who think the Clinton are serial killers amongst many other wild accusations.

2/3rds of the country believed the Clinton impeachment was political and that he should not have been impeached. Which ultimately is what will drive any successful future impeachment. Whatever crime the President does has got to convince the overwhelming majority of Americans that he has got to go. It is insufficient that the right wing echo chamber believes it. You have to convince the ret of us and that simply didn't happen then and isn't happening now..

Impeachment is supposed to be about high crimes and misdemeanors which is about malfeasance in performing his duties. Clinton getting a blowjob from that pathetic woman was repugnant, but impeachable? A high crime is generally defined as treason, and a high misdemeanor would be something like accepting bribes, or bribing people, or otherwise subverting the government. Nixon's crimes were many, the whole watergate break in was just one part of things, he used the power of the government to harass political enemies, the secret bombing of Cambodia, which congress had forbidden, was another one; his administration, with his knowledge, also paid off people to keep them quiet, and in several cases suborned perjury, basically paid people off to lie, and all of them are major offenses. His actions were truly criminal, whereas Clinton's was primarily an embarassment.

The IRS caper is nowhere near that level, among other things, there is zero proof that anyone told the IRS to do what they did, and in some ways it appears that the IRS personnel who took the action did so because they felt that tea party groups and such were more likely to misuse the filing, which was wrong but didn't seem to fall into criminal intent, it was more like doing the wrong thing, even if there reasons were not malicious.

(in reply to DomKen)