Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Winterborn wrote:

Ibanez wrote: 1) That will never happen
2) That would be a slap in the face to everyone. Wasting time and money and you're going to do NOTHING. Plus, their base would be livid. And it'd only validate the Republican argument against.

That would be the dumbest thing they could do.

Based on the what they have been doing since Trump was elected I wouldn't bet against them screwing up a wet dream.

Like Cid said, there is a few things they could be doing to show that they are willing to still do their jobs and put the country first, while maintaining the push to impeach Trump. But so far they have been acting like teenage boys seeing their first pair of

That hits upon one of the chief falsehoods being spouted by Republicans. It's the idea that the Democrats haven't been doing anything because they are after Trump. They have been passing all sorts of bills. Here is an article on that from this past November: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/24/18637163/ ... s-congress.

Now, you can say you are glad the Republicans in the Senate aren't acting on House bills. But this crap about the House not doing anything is just that: crap. The chokepoint is in the Senate. Lots of bills are being passed. The Senate is snuffing them.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Winterborn wrote:
Based on the what they have been doing since Trump was elected I wouldn't bet against them screwing up a wet dream.

Like Cid said, there is a few things they could be doing to show that they are willing to still do their jobs and put the country first, while maintaining the push to impeach Trump. But so far they have been acting like teenage boys seeing their first pair of

That hits upon one of the chief falsehoods being spouted by Republicans. It's the idea that the Democrats haven't been doing anything because they are after Trump. They have been passing all sorts of bills. Here is an article on that from this past November: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/24/18637163/ ... s-congress.

Now, you can say you are glad the Republicans in the Senate aren't acting on House bills. But this crap about the House not doing anything is just that: crap. The chokepoint is in the Senate. Lots of bills are being passed. The Senate is snuffing them.

Snuffing them because they suck.

Ivytalk wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
That hits upon one of the chief falsehoods being spouted by Republicans. It's the idea that the Democrats haven't been doing anything because they are after Trump. They have been passing all sorts of bills. Here is an article on that from this past November: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/24/18637163/ ... s-congress.

Now, you can say you are glad the Republicans in the Senate aren't acting on House bills. But this crap about the House not doing anything is just that: crap. The chokepoint is in the Senate. Lots of bills are being passed. The Senate is snuffing them.

Snuffing them because they suck.

Well, that's fine if you believe that. But this thing about the House not doing anything is just objectively false. We have a situation in which the House is controlled by Democrats and the Senate is controlled by Republicans. The House is doing plenty of things but they are splatting on the windshield of the Republican Senate. If someone wants to complain about nothing getting done they need to realize that the Republicans are at least as responsible for that as the Democrats are. And it has nothing to do with the Trump impeachment thing.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Now I think the best scenario for the Democrats would be to have the Republicans vote not to have witnesses. That way they can spend the next 9 months talking about how corrupt the Republicans are. It'd be especially effective if Bolton doesn't testify then his book comes out and has stuff about Trump withholding aid for the purpose of getting the Ukrainians to investigate Biden and/or announce an investigation of Biden.

It would create an excellent opportunity to cast the Republicans as covering up; trying to prevent information that would shed light on the question from coming out.

The longer this goes without witness testimony and factual evidence the more it hurts the Republicans.

As noted it will be particularly bad for the Republicans if there are no witnesses then Bolton's book says some damaging things. Hard to say if that would happen though because Bolton's book has to go through a process of being vetted for "national security" stuff. With the corrupt Administration in place stuff about Trump doing what he did could be ruled classified, etc. Unfortunately we are in a time when we cannot rely upon anybody in the Executive Branch to act in an ethical way. I realize that it may be like that to some extent at any time. But it's particularly bad right now. We have what I think is the most corrupt Administration of my lifetime in place.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:
The longer this goes without witness testimony and factual evidence the more it hurts the Republicans.

As noted it will be particularly bad for the Republicans if there are no witnesses then Bolton's book says some damaging things. Hard to say if that would happen though because Bolton's book has to go through a process of being vetted for "national security" stuff. With the corrupt Administration in place stuff about Trump doing what he did could be ruled classified, etc. Unfortunately we are in a time when we cannot rely upon anybody in the Executive Branch to act in an ethical way. I realize that it may be like that to some extent at any time. But it's particularly bad right now. We have what I think is the most corrupt Administration of my lifetime in place.

I’m not sure it’s more corrupt. It’s just more brazen about it. That...in the long run might be a good thing.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Now I think the best scenario for the Democrats would be to have the Republicans vote not to have witnesses. That way they can spend the next 9 months talking about how corrupt the Republicans are. It'd be especially effective if Bolton doesn't testify then his book comes out and has stuff about Trump withholding aid for the purpose of getting the Ukrainians to investigate Biden and/or announce an investigation of Biden.

It would create an excellent opportunity to cast the Republicans as covering up; trying to prevent information that would shed light on the question from coming out.

The longer this goes without witness testimony and factual evidence the more it hurts the Republicans.

The Republicans are defending too many Senate seats to not call for witnesses now. How about the balls on Nancy Pelosi and the way she avoided having subpoenas stall the process until after the election?

She knew all the time that Bolton would have to man up and talk. She is in a political battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Like Einstein trying to explain general relativity to Koko the gorilla in sign language.

Ivytalk wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
That hits upon one of the chief falsehoods being spouted by Republicans. It's the idea that the Democrats haven't been doing anything because they are after Trump. They have been passing all sorts of bills. Here is an article on that from this past November: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/24/18637163/ ... s-congress.

Now, you can say you are glad the Republicans in the Senate aren't acting on House bills. But this crap about the House not doing anything is just that: crap. The chokepoint is in the Senate. Lots of bills are being passed. The Senate is snuffing them.

Snuffing them because they suck.

Reading over the list of failed bills so far this session, I would say that you summed it up very succinctly.

Per govtrack.us, there has been 18 bills that haven't passed for the 116th Congress. And while I will agree that is a bit ahead of the average for a session, overall the list is pretty ho-hum.

Failed Cloture - 6
Failed Under Suspension - 2
Failed Senate - 4
Failed House - 6

Somebody a bit more familiar with Congressional proceedings can correct me if I am wrong, "Failed Under Suspension" is a House proceeding, while "Failed Cloture" is a Senate proceeding. And with that in mind, 8 have failed in the house and 10 in the Senate. Seems pretty even to me.



https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/ ... 0,12,13,14

Yeah, I see that the House is rushing to repeal Taft-Hartley to end state right-to-work laws, so the Donks can reward their union goon handlers. That won't pass the Senate. But our boy JSO would be happy to see it go through. Because he’s a conservative.

Ivytalk wrote:Yeah, I see that the House is rushing to repeal Taft-Hartley to end state right-to-work laws, so the Donks can reward their union goon handlers. That won't pass the Senate. But our boy JSO would be happy to see it go through. Because he’s a conservative.

They're pandering to the unions hoping it will help them in PA, OH, MI & WI.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:
The longer this goes without witness testimony and factual evidence the more it hurts the Republicans.

As noted it will be particularly bad for the Republicans if there are no witnesses then Bolton's book says some damaging things. Hard to say if that would happen though because Bolton's book has to go through a process of being vetted for "national security" stuff. With the corrupt Administration in place stuff about Trump doing what he did could be ruled classified, etc. Unfortunately we are in a time when we cannot rely upon anybody in the Executive Branch to act in an ethical way. I realize that it may be like that to some extent at any time. But it's particularly bad right now. We have what I think is the most corrupt Administration of my lifetime in place.

Why didn't Nancy subpoena Bolton?

Answer that, and you understand why its a big nothingburger. Donks with egg on their faces again.

What's Bolton going to say? Again, we already know everything, we know Trump wanted to hold up the money until the Burisma and Biden connection was looked into. Bolton would just confirm what we already know. We're in the theater part of this now, if we weren't already. Does this conduct warrant removal from office or not? That's all that needs to be answered right now. Most are going to vote not. Bring on the November elections.

GannonFan wrote:What's Bolton going to say? Again, we already know everything, we know Trump wanted to hold up the money until the Burisma and Biden connection was looked into. Bolton would just confirm what we already know. We're in the theater part of this now, if we weren't already. Does this conduct warrant removal from office or not? That's all that needs to be answered right now. Most are going to vote not. Bring on the November elections.

Obstruction was enough to pursue impeachment against Nixon. And Clinton.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GannonFan wrote:What's Bolton going to say? Again, we already know everything, we know Trump wanted to hold up the money until the Burisma and Biden connection was looked into. Bolton would just confirm what we already know. We're in the theater part of this now, if we weren't already. Does this conduct warrant removal from office or not? That's all that needs to be answered right now. Most are going to vote not. Bring on the November elections.

Theater indeed. All the maneuvers now are with an eye toward to the election. You just strike me as more of a law and order let justice run its course vs political expediency guy.

Ibanez wrote:

GannonFan wrote:What's Bolton going to say? Again, we already know everything, we know Trump wanted to hold up the money until the Burisma and Biden connection was looked into. Bolton would just confirm what we already know. We're in the theater part of this now, if we weren't already. Does this conduct warrant removal from office or not? That's all that needs to be answered right now. Most are going to vote not. Bring on the November elections.

Obstruction was enough to pursue impeachment against Nixon. And Clinton.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This obstruction charge is one of the most “trumped” up ones I have ever seen. If Trump is guilty of obstruction in this case then so is every President who has ever claimed executive privilege. In fact, the House had the option of issuing subpoenas to all witnesses and chose not to. If they had, then they couldn’t have their obstruction article. It is a completely unnecessary own-goal by the House.

If Trump is guilty of something in this area it is for not sending Nancy Pelosi a gilded hand signed letter claiming privilege with liberal use of the word “madam”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AZGrizFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
As noted it will be particularly bad for the Republicans if there are no witnesses then Bolton's book says some damaging things. Hard to say if that would happen though because Bolton's book has to go through a process of being vetted for "national security" stuff. With the corrupt Administration in place stuff about Trump doing what he did could be ruled classified, etc. Unfortunately we are in a time when we cannot rely upon anybody in the Executive Branch to act in an ethical way. I realize that it may be like that to some extent at any time. But it's particularly bad right now. We have what I think is the most corrupt Administration of my lifetime in place.

Why didn't Nancy subpoena Bolton?

Answer that, and you understand why its a big nothingburger. Donks with egg on their faces again.

Remember, jellybelly told us the House was going to subpoena him after some court ruling...

...then the ruling happened and he wasn't subpoena'd...

...and here we are...

...and jellybelly is still wrong...

Sounds like McConnell lacks the votes to halt witnesses.

Winterborn wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Snuffing them because they suck.

Reading over the list of failed bills so far this session, I would say that you summed it up very succinctly.

Per govtrack.us, there has been 18 bills that haven't passed for the 116th Congress. And while I will agree that is a bit ahead of the average for a session, overall the list is pretty ho-hum.

Failed Cloture - 6
Failed Under Suspension - 2
Failed Senate - 4
Failed House - 6

Somebody a bit more familiar with Congressional proceedings can correct me if I am wrong, "Failed Under Suspension" is a House proceeding, while "Failed Cloture" is a Senate proceeding. And with that in mind, 8 have failed in the house and 10 in the Senate. Seems pretty even to me.



https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/ ... 0,12,13,14

Click the "All" button.

CID1990 wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Obstruction was enough to pursue impeachment against Nixon. And Clinton.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This obstruction charge is one of the most “trumped” up ones I have ever seen. If Trump is guilty of obstruction in this case then so is every President who has ever claimed executive privilege. In fact, the House had the option of issuing subpoenas to all witnesses and chose not to. If they had, then they couldn’t have their obstruction article. It is a completely unnecessary own-goal by the House.

If Trump is guilty of something in this area it is for not sending Nancy Pelosi a gilded hand signed letter claiming privilege with liberal use of the word “madam”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you think there has ever been another President who said that everything was off the table because of Executive Privilege no matter what? You know: Nobody is going to testify. There won't be any documents. We're not going to make arguments on a case by case basis. We're just not going to provide any information at all.

Again: If this situation illustrates ANYTHING it illustrates the point that this "Executive Privilege" idea has got to go. It's not in the Constitution. But if we need to Amend the Constitution to make sure that the Courts don't say it exists we need to Amend the Constitution. It's got to go. It's is OBVIOUS that it can be used to engage in cover up. It's not a good idea.

JohnStOnge wrote:Again: If this situation illustrates ANYTHING it illustrates the point that this "Executive Privilege" idea has got to go. It's not in the Constitution. But if we need to Amend the Constitution to make sure that the Courts don't say it exists we need to Amend the Constitution. It's got to go. It's is OBVIOUS that it can be used to engage in cover up. It's not a good idea.

I am totally anti-unitary.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Winterborn wrote:
Reading over the list of failed bills so far this session, I would say that you summed it up very succinctly.

Per govtrack.us, there has been 18 bills that haven't passed for the 116th Congress. And while I will agree that is a bit ahead of the average for a session, overall the list is pretty ho-hum.

Failed Cloture - 6
Failed Under Suspension - 2
Failed Senate - 4
Failed House - 6

Somebody a bit more familiar with Congressional proceedings can correct me if I am wrong, "Failed Under Suspension" is a House proceeding, while "Failed Cloture" is a Senate proceeding. And with that in mind, 8 have failed in the house and 10 in the Senate. Seems pretty even to me.



https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/ ... 0,12,13,14

Click the "All" button.

Don't need to, as the site gives the total in each stage next to the option. I did miss six bills that were vetoed (1 House and 5 Senate). So 23 out 8,829 (as of this time).

One can't really blame the Senate for slowing down on reading/voting on bills. After all an impeachment of this magnitude is serious business. The House probably had a backlog to get through, that it is catching up on now while it debated the articles of Impeachment, since it started that back on the 18th of December.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Again: If this situation illustrates ANYTHING it illustrates the point that this "Executive Privilege" idea has got to go. It's not in the Constitution. But if we need to Amend the Constitution to make sure that the Courts don't say it exists we need to Amend the Constitution. It's got to go. It's is OBVIOUS that it can be used to engage in cover up. It's not a good idea.

I am totally anti-unitary.

I didn't know you knew Quantum Mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiunitary_operator

JohnStOnge wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
This obstruction charge is one of the most “trumped” up ones I have ever seen. If Trump is guilty of obstruction in this case then so is every President who has ever claimed executive privilege. In fact, the House had the option of issuing subpoenas to all witnesses and chose not to. If they had, then they couldn’t have their obstruction article. It is a completely unnecessary own-goal by the House.

If Trump is guilty of something in this area it is for not sending Nancy Pelosi a gilded hand signed letter claiming privilege with liberal use of the word “madam”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you think there has ever been another President who said that everything was off the table because of Executive Privilege no matter what? You know: Nobody is going to testify. There won't be any documents. We're not going to make arguments on a case by case basis. We're just not going to provide any information at all.

Don't play your silly mental gymnastics with me, John

The President claims privilege

The House issues subpoenas

The White House challenges the subpoenas in court

A judge decides if privilege can be asserted.

That is not what happened here. Claims of executive privilege ARE a thing and they do have to be examined on a case by case basis. The House didn't want to follow the rules because they wanted their articles before the holidays. The obstruction charge is pure BS and I'll guarantee you without looking that independents largely agree on that.

Winterborn wrote:

kalm wrote:
I am totally anti-unitary.

I didn't know you knew Quantum Mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiunitary_operator

Richard Feynman said nobody understands QM.

GannonFan wrote:What's Bolton going to say? Again, we already know everything, we know Trump wanted to hold up the money until the Burisma and Biden connection was looked into. Bolton would just confirm what we already know. We're in the theater part of this now, if we weren't already. Does this conduct warrant removal from office or not? That's all that needs to be answered right now. Most are going to vote not. Bring on the November elections.

That isn't exactly true - what they wanted was an announcement of an investigation - which goes to your point about theater and the donk's point about Trump not being interested in corruption in Ukraine other than as a campaign issue.