the house launches impeachment hearings

[NewCreation435]

I didn't say anything about how they feel about the Democrats themselves. What I said was their manipulation is not appreciated because they're wasting tax dollars and time.

So you don't think that Congress has done that with past Presidents also?

 

[Albion]

So you don't think that Congress has done that with past Presidents also?

Waste tax dollars, yes. Devote an entire presidential term of four years to preventing anything from getting done, no.

While the expense of government goes on as usual, the things that could have been accomplished are consciously sidetracked lest the president get any credit for them. And now that it has been decided that the whole of the coming year will be devoted to talking about impeachment, it is guaranteed that nothing will be accomplished.

 

[Lamb]

So you don't think that Congress has done that with past Presidents also?

You mean gone to the extreme to find ways to remove him from office since before he was even inaugurated? No. This is not something for America to be proud of. There is still a country that needs leaders and they've abandoned us to fulfill their own agenda.

 

[tango]

You mean gone to the extreme to find ways to remove him from office since before he was even inaugurated? No. This is not something for America to be proud of. There is still a country that needs leaders and they've abandoned us to fulfill their own agenda.

It would be really nice if the so-called leaders who don't actually want to lead would be kind enough to relinquish their salaries and generous benefits while they squabble.

 

[Arsenios]

Denying the existence of a rake in the yard the Dems have stepped on the rake, bloodied their nose on the handle, and continue to deny the existence of the rake, heading straight into the sham of impeachment when there will be NO VOTE to impeach, for it will not pass that vote...

Business as usual for the Dems...

Sham scams...


A.

 

[Arsenios]

Biden IS the PREDICATE...

A.

 

[Josiah]

Obviously, the Democrats not only hate Trump.....but fear he will be re-elected. We are already in the election cycle.... how we deal with presidents who are not appreciated is we don't re-elect them.

This is round 3. The liberals (and their puppets, the mass-media) tried to undo the election by insisting Trump caused Russia to interfere with the 2016 election. That went on for some 18 months and got NOWHERE, turns out it was just a witch hunt. Then by claiming Trump impeded justice. That went on for months and got NOWHERE, turns out that was just a witch hunt. Now this.

MEANWHILE, what have the liberals DONE? I mean beside start 3 witch hunts to try to get ride of a president they obviously hold they can't defeat in 2020 Can anyone name ONE THING they've done? ONE OTHER THING the Democrats have accomplished since 'taking back" the Congress?


I'm sick of it. I don't think I'm alone.

 

[psalms 91]

I think that if Trump would quit making his own problems then I could sympathize with that position but the fact is that whether he has done anything wrong or not he has certainly had a lot of smoking guns laying around. He is his own worst enemy

 

[Albion]

I think that if Trump would quit making his own problems then I could sympathize with that position but the fact is that whether he has done anything wrong or not he has certainly had a lot of smoking guns laying around. He is his own worst enemy

Given a little time to think about it, almost every ordinary activity that he or we ourselves engage in can be made by the coup plotters to seem like a smoking gun. They have failed at about a half-dozen attempts so far (someone on TV came up with a much longer list, but the point remains the same), and yet now we see their latest which is "He talked to another head of state"...

and immediately a bunch of Congresspersons announced for impeachment without even knowing who the "whistleblower" is, if there actually is one, what was said between the two heads of state, or much else!

 

[tango]

Obviously, the Democrats not only hate Trump.....but fear he will be re-elected. We are already in the election cycle.... how we deal with presidents who are not appreciated is we don't re-elect them.

This is round 3. The liberals (and their puppets, the mass-media) tried to undo the election by insisting Trump caused Russia to interfere with the 2016 election. That went on for some 18 months and got NOWHERE, turns out it was just a witch hunt. Then by claiming Trump impeded justice. That went on for months and got NOWHERE, turns out that was just a witch hunt. Now this.

MEANWHILE, what have the liberals DONE? I mean beside start 3 witch hunts to try to get ride of a president they obviously hold they can't defeat in 2020 Can anyone name ONE THING they've done? ONE OTHER THING the Democrats have accomplished since 'taking back" the Congress?


I'm sick of it. I don't think I'm alone.

Maybe they are hoping the people will figure that if a Democrat is put in the White House in 2020 all the silliness will stop and things can be done again, and hoping the people don't decide they are sick of the silliness and sweep a load of Democrats out of their seats so that something can be done again.

Truth be told the way things are going neither option is very attractive, the Democrats have swung so far left lately I worry where things will lead if they do gain much power but a demolition of any meaningful opposition to some of the Republican excesses doesn't look like an attractive proposition either.

 

[Albion]

Maybe they are hoping the people will figure that if a Democrat is put in the White House in 2020 all the silliness will stop and things can be done again, and hoping the people don't decide they are sick of the silliness and sweep a load of Democrats out of their seats so that something can be done again.

Truth be told the way things are going neither option is very attractive, the Democrats have swung so far left lately I worry where things will lead if they do gain much power but a demolition of any meaningful opposition to some of the Republican excesses doesn't look like an attractive proposition either.

and that is very much along the lines of what will happen if they win in 2020.

Having broken new ground in American political history by impeaching for no reason other than that the person won election...and having shown that if a party loses an election it can paralyze the government for years on end without suffering a huge backlash from the voters....

the same people will quickly move to secure the fruits of their victory by sidelining the Constitution (without following the amendment process) and making the changes in election laws necessary for converting this country to a one-party state (theirs).

 

[Josiah]

and that is very much along the lines of what will happen if they win in 2020.

Having broken new ground in American political history by impeaching for no reason other than that the person won election...and having shown that if a party loses an election it can paralyze the government for years on end without suffering a huge backlash from the voters....

the same people will quickly move to secure the fruits of their victory by sidelining the Constitution (without following the amendment process) and making the changes in election laws necessary for converting this country to a one-party state (theirs).

The Libs have tried this ploy TWICE BEFORE..... they'd be very embarrassed except the press (their mouthpiece) won't hold them responsible for two failed attempts at this ploy.


Yes, I think this is a very dangerous road for the Libs to pave... and no doubt will come back to bite them in the _________.


As I understand the history here.... The impeachment and removal clauses in the Constitution clearly were meant to be for "high crimes" - NOT a political thing. Thus, for nearly 100 years, with a political climate WORSE than today's, it was never used by either "side" of the political war because it's not about politics or policies or personalities or elections - it's about HIGH CRIMES. THEN.... the Democrat, pro-slavery VP of Lincoln comes to office just AFTER the Civil war. He WAS impeaced on drummed up reasons that clearly were political and to "undo" the election that made him VP (and now president). The REACTION was to denounce that! The response (eventually) was to realize that's WRONG, it can only be done for HIGH CRIMES. Fast forward to Bill Clinton. While I don't think he should have been impeached, he did intentionally lie to a grand jury - a serious felony - and that was undeniable. This was a clear case of commiting a FELONY WHILE in office - technically more seri0us than what Nixon did (and resigned over before impeachment hearings could begin; in Nixon's case, it had nothing to do with the next election since he could not run again). IMO, the ISSUE wasn't serious enough for this but yeah, it was a FELONY and one can argue that, by definition, is a high crime. This too had nothing to do with the next election since he too could not run again. I think we've "fudging" on the HIGH CRIMES issue... and the lesson learned in the 1860's..... But the now 3 attempts by the Dems here is clearly a return to that 1860's mistake - perhaps worse. Setting this precidence: impeaching a president because he won the election and probably will be re-elected...that could bite the Democrats at some future point just as easily. Do they REALLY want to create that? Pelosi I think did not.... but now the pressure is on to do it. Some new, very radical, VERY short-sighted liberals are now gaining control of that Party


MEANWHILE, the Dems are doing NOTHING else.... and getting the focus off the reality that they aren't even attempting to do anything (Trump has had to veto very little)... and perhaps get the attention OFF the radical views of the Democrats trying to get the nomination.


IMO, this OBSESSION with impeaching Trump - AGAIN - while getting NOTHING done on any front, about anything - I think the American public will respond negatively to this.




.

 

[NewCreation435]

The Libs have tried this ploy TWICE BEFORE..... they'd be very embarrassed except the press (their mouthpiece) won't hold them responsible for two failed attempts at this ploy.


Yes, I think this is a very dangerous road for the Libs to pave... and no doubt will come back to bite them in the _________.


As I understand the history here.... The impeachment and removal clauses in the Constitution clearly were meant to be for "high crimes" - NOT a political thing. Thus, for nearly 100 years, with a political climate WORSE than today's, it was never used by either "side" of the political war because it's not about politics or policies or personalities or elections - it's about HIGH CRIMES. THEN.... the Democrat, pro-slavery VP of Lincoln comes to office just AFTER the Civil war. He WAS impeaced on drummed up reasons that clearly were political and to "undo" the election that made him VP (and now president). The REACTION was to denounce that! The response (eventually) was to realize that's WRONG, it can only be done for HIGH CRIMES. Fast forward to Bill Clinton. While I don't think he should have been impeached, he did intentionally lie to a grand jury - a serious felony - and that was undeniable. This was a clear case of commiting a FELONY WHILE in office - technically more seri0us than what Nixon did (and resigned over before impeachment hearings could begin; in Nixon's case, it had nothing to do with the next election since he could not run again). IMO, the ISSUE wasn't serious enough for this but yeah, it was a FELONY and one can argue that, by definition, is a high crime. This too had nothing to do with the next election since he too could not run again. I think we've "fudging" on the HIGH CRIMES issue... and the lesson learned in the 1860's..... But the now 3 attempts by the Dems here is clearly a return to that 1860's mistake - perhaps worse. Setting this precidence: impeaching a president because he won the election and probably will be re-elected...that could bite the Democrats at some future point just as easily. Do they REALLY want to create that? Pelosi I think did not.... but now the pressure is on to do it. Some new, very radical, VERY short-sighted liberals are now gaining control of that Party


MEANWHILE, the Dems are nothing NOTHING else.... and getting the focus off the reality that they aren't even attempting to do anything (Trump has had to veto very little)... and perhaps get the attention OFF the radical views of the Democrats trying to get the nomination.

Trump has had to veto very little because the Senate Leader won't put forward what is voted on in the House. He doesn't even bring it to the Senate to vote on. The House has passed hundreds of bills which have been ignored by a Republican led Senate

 

[Arsenios]

I think that if Trump would quit making his own problems then I could sympathize with that position but the fact is that whether he has done anything wrong or not he has certainly had a lot of smoking guns laying around. He is his own worst enemy

Bitter medicine is sorely needed...

He loves America...

The radical left take-over attempt hates America...

They embody the politics of hate...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

rump has had to veto very little because the Senate Leader won't put forward what is voted on in the House.
He doesn't even bring it to the Senate to vote on.
The House has passed hundreds of bills which have been ignored by a Republican led Senate

Proving the Goodness of God for all doubters!!

The Left has embraced Evil...

God help US if they get their hands on the USA as they have California...


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

Trump has had to veto very little because the Senate Leader won't put forward what is voted on in the House. He doesn't even bring it to the Senate to vote on. The House has passed hundreds of bills which have been ignored by a Republican led Senate

That is the way it has gotten to be lately--a Democratic house of Congress won't vote on Republican legislation and a Republican-controlled branch won't vote on legislation passed in the Democrat-controlled branch. However, Trump has been much, much less inclined to veto any legislation reaching his desk than any of his predecessors. The numbers speak for themselves.

 

[Albion]

As I understand the history here....[/B] The impeachment and removal clauses in the Constitution clearly were meant to be for "high crimes" - NOT a political thing. Thus, for nearly 100 years, with a political climate WORSE than today's, it was never used by either "side" of the political war because it's not about politics or policies or personalities or elections - it's about HIGH CRIMES. THEN.... the Democrat, pro-slavery VP of Lincoln comes to office just AFTER the Civil war. He WAS impeaced on drummed up reasons that clearly were political and to "undo" the election that made him VP (and now president). The REACTION was to denounce that! The response (eventually) was to realize that's WRONG, it can only be done for HIGH CRIMES. .

Yes, well, Nixon did apparently break the law and Clinton was convicted of doing so. Therefore, Trump would be the first to be impeached simply for being unlikeable.

 

[NewCreation435]

That is the way it has gotten to be lately--a Democratic house of Congress won't vote on Republican legislation and a Republican-controlled branch won't vote on legislation passed in the Democrat-controlled branch. However, Trump has been much, much less inclined to veto any legislation reaching his desk than any of his predecessors. The numbers speak for themselves.

yes, he has because they haven't reached his desk

 

[Lamb]

Trump has had to veto very little because the Senate Leader won't put forward what is voted on in the House. He doesn't even bring it to the Senate to vote on. The House has passed hundreds of bills which have been ignored by a Republican led Senate

Are you sure the House has passed "hundreds of bills"? Passed?

 

[NewCreation435]

Are you sure the House has passed "hundreds of bills"? Passed?

Yes, a representative was on a Sunday morning talk show talking about it this last weekend.