This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
stui magpie wrote:It's too late this time around, but for 2024 if the Democrats are smart (which, let's face it, they aren't but....) they'll try to tap into the outsider energy and groom a left wing celebrity to run. People are tired of the establishment, on all sides of politics, looking out for themselves. They wan't someone who isn't beholden to the establishment, That's how they got Trump, that's why Bernie won't get the nomination and someone else will lose to Trump in 2020 and why the Democrats need a Robert De Niro or similar for 2024.
I think you're on the money there; to win in a circus tent you need an entertainer.
Psychologically, Trumps and Brexits are a flailing in the face of a loss of control. This sense of insecurity is heightened everytime people look at a screen. Hopefully, nothing blows up while the system adapts and certain groups lurch full fundamentalist in a bid to cope (nationalist/racist/religionist/environmentalist/animal rightsist/white supremacist, etc.) .
Hard to see Bernie landing knockout blows on candidates like Trump did in the Republican debates and in a brokered convention he gets rolled every time.
Wokko wrote:No new witnesses can be called. Senate trial drawing to a close and the Democrat House hasn't managed to convince anyone really that Trump's guilty.
Acquittal in the next couple of days.
Factually incorrect. The republicans have chosen not to allow witnesses. Far different than “failed to convince anyone”.
Trump obviously has a lot to hide. Wonder what his tax records show. He is the President of the United States. He has made Russia, China and Iran great again: well done him .... perhaps not
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
The senate voted largely on party lines not to have witnesses at the "trial" just as it voted on party lines in the house to conduct the inquiry and prepare the articles of impeachment.
Wanting to call witnesses was only ever a stalling tactic designed to drag the process out as long as possible, in the favour of the Democrats.
There was zero chance some new evidence was going to suddenly appear that would result in the Senate upholding the impeachment, and pretty sure his Tax records are utterly irrelevant to this, it's been a party lines sham since day 1.
Wokko wrote:No new witnesses can be called. Senate trial drawing to a close and the Democrat House hasn't managed to convince anyone really that Trump's guilty.
watt price tully wrote:
Factually incorrect. The republicans have chosen not to allow witnesses. Far different than “failed to convince anyone”.
Trump obviously has a lot to hide. Wonder what his tax records show. He is the President of the United States. He has made Russia, China and Iran great again: well done him .... perhaps not
The Senate hasn't allowed new witnesses, voting lines aren't really relevant to the information being correct.
The Democrats haven't met the high bar of Treason, Bribery, High Crimes or Misdemeanors, the rest is just CNN (or Guardian in your case) inspired fluff.
Republicans fear giving Trump his day in court and fear evidence. What’s the POTUS got to hide, I mean he’s got such a good record with disclosure: his taxes for example, oops, his military record oops, Trump University..oops
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
A different Republican take on the Trump impeachment.
Trump acted inappropriately but this doesn't qualify as a high crime and the people can cast their judgement on Trump in 10 months:
thesoretoothsayer wrote:A different Republican take on the Trump impeachment.
Trump acted inappropriately but this doesn't qualify as a high crime and the people can cast their judgement on Trump in 10 months:
However, crime is not the sole determinant for impeachment, never was. This is a simple misdirection.
For example: Russia might attack though bombing the US. The POTUS might react by not doing anything. However given defending one’s citizens is a primary function of the POTUS then he could indeed should be impeached: nothing illegal was done by the POTUS as it were.
The argument has no weight and is merely a subterfuge
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
thesoretoothsayer wrote:A different Republican take on the Trump impeachment.
Trump acted inappropriately but this doesn't qualify as a high crime and the people can cast their judgement on Trump in 10 months:
However, crime is not the sole determinant for impeachment, never was. This is a simple misdirection.
For example: Russia might attack though bombing the US. The POTUS might react by not doing anything. However given defending one’s citizens is a primary function of the POTUS then he could indeed should be impeached: nothing illegal was done by the POTUS as it were.
The argument has no weight and is merely a subterfuge
Wrong, the scope for impeachment is incredibly narrow.
Treason (which your example would be), Bribery, High Crimes and Misdemeanors. That's it.
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | 
