The Impeachment Thread

#25,901
#25,901
Bill Barr Indicts 8 For Illegally Funneling Foreign Money To Adam Schiff And Multiple Dem Senators

Bill Barr just dropped the hammer on the hypocritical Democrats and this wound will take years to heal.
Bill Barr just broke up a massive scheme to illegally funnel foreign money into darn near every Democratic political candidate and organization.
The list of the Dem organizations taking this illegal money is astounding – almost every Dem state organization and many super PAC’s including the big one Priorities USA.
All of the leading names in the Democratic party took in this money including Adam Schiff and Ted Lieu, Jon Tester, Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton, etc.
A real rogues gallery if ever there was.
To add insult to Adam Schiff’s injury, one of those charged is George Nader a key witness in the Mueller investigation.
...
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#25,903
#25,903
McDad said:
And I fail to see how my position eludes your grasp.
You want me to start from they work for us or skip to the soap opera de jour?
Click to expand...
No. It’s the part in the middle that doesn’t make sense. They are inconsistent ideas. There should be some articulable transition.

For instance, I believe in an ideal of limited government. However, there are some government functions that I agree with (I.e. the military). To get from point A (limited government) to point B (government programs) I would cite to the benefits of said programs.

“They work for us” is an ideal that assumes “they” will be held accountable.
Impeachment is the constitutional mechanism for that accountability.
“Impeachment is a soap opera” etc. is dismissive of any effort at accountability.

I’m asking you how you reconcile those two ideas. I don’t know how else to ask it.
 
#25,905
#25,905
RockyTop85 said:
No. It’s the part in the middle that doesn’t make sense. They are inconsistent ideas. There should be some articulable transition.

For instance, I believe in an ideal of limited government. However, there are some government functions that I agree with (I.e. the military). To get from point A (limited government) to point B (government programs) I would cite to the benefits of said programs.

“They work for us” is an ideal that assumes “they” will be held accountable.
Impeachment is the constitutional mechanism for that accountability.
“Impeachment is a soap opera” etc. is dismissive of any effort at accountability.

I’m asking you how you reconcile those two ideas. I don’t know how else to ask it.
Click to expand...
Impeachment is accountability in action. It is the mechanism. We agree. Im not dismissing the mechanism. Im dismissing its bastardization of that mechanism as a political tool.
If a leader is corrupt enough to warrant impeachment, shouldn't they be removed? If not, then why impeach? Will Trump be removed at the end of this? Will his power be reduced?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85 and 0nelilreb
#25,907
#25,907
Mick said:
Hillary made a mistake by not sending in more troops. Un-presidential if you ask me.
Click to expand...
She took responsibility in an interview. And then followed that moment of nobility with "what difference does it make now". Meh, statesmen/women will never be in power again anyway.
 
#25,909
#25,909
McDad said:
Pretty much. Mick came at me half cocked with assumptions rather than simply asking questions. But we recovered.
Enjoying the discussion with rockytop too even though he's trying hard to parse everything.

Septic's "humor" has challenged my zen, though.
Click to expand...

I had to wait on you to load your gun.
 
#25,919
#25,919
McDad said:
Impeachment is accountability in action. It is the mechanism. We agree. Im not dismissing the mechanism. Im dismissing its bastardization of that mechanism as a political tool.
If a leader is corrupt enough to warrant impeachment, shouldn't they be removed? If not, then why impeach? Will Trump be removed at the end of this? Will his power be reduced?
Click to expand...

Why do you assume he will not be removed? Because support for removal is insufficient in red states? Or do you think support among likely republican primary voters is the governing factor?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top