Anybody Else Have About Now in the Impeachment Over-Under?

[concha]

2 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

Well, there was a lot of that going around at the time:  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/09/a-house-republican-already-wants-to-impeach-hillary-clinton/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/03/no-honeymoon-for-hillary-congressional-republicans-openly-discussing-impeachment/

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/republicans-are-already-talking-about-impeaching-clinton

 

Of course stupidity doesn't excuse stupidity either.  The question yesterday was about whether or not the president should be impeached (yes), not whether all Democrats are consistent (no).

 

Hillary already had political history.

 

[15yds4gibberish]

2 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

Yep. A similar thing happened in '98.

Most people don't really care whether the President has or hasn't acted appropriately; what they really want is for the Government to stop fighting amongst themselves and to help solve their (the people's) problems. Democrats are looking a bit too politically motivated, just like the Republicans did in '98. 

I've never thought there was all that much equivalence between the Clinton and Trump impeachments, so I don't know if Trump's impeachment will help or hurt him in 2020.  

Trump's actions were at the core of the kind of conduct the Framers drafted the impeachment power to address.  I suspect that the political implications are temporary and will shrink over time.  The constitutional implications are enduring and will grow in importance as the political ones fade away.  Impeaching Trump for this was the right thing to do.  It matters.

[Troll]

8 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

  Impeaching Trump for this was the right thing to do.  It matters.

It "might" have mattered for some, if they had actually called all the witnesses from both sides....

 

But even If he were guilty of 'something' you can't deny the whole mess of the process appears as railroading a vote...

And that probably matters too..

don't you think?

 

 

[zulu1128]

Turns out he’s not even impeached yet lol. Premature self five by gibberish. 

[HSFBfan]

1 hour ago, zulu1128 said:

Turns out he’s not even impeached yet lol. Premature self five by gibberish. 

Nope not impeached 

[Slotback Right]

2 hours ago, zulu1128 said:

Turns out he’s not even impeached yet lol. Premature self five by gibberish. 

Yep, That's true. According to the Dem's House expert witness Noah Feldman.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

[noonereal]

11 hours ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

Who could have possibly foreseen any of this?...

I was thinking about an old thread, so I went back to take a look.  We switched from Rivals to Prepgrid late in 2016 (after the election I think), so much of the lead up discussion to the election isn’t on Prepgrid, but post-election discussion is.  People don’t remember, but before the 2016 election, @noonereal was a Trump advocate.  I believe he did the rare thing and actually changed some minds and votes toward Trump (but I obviously can’t know if that’s true).  It wasn’t until after the election that Nor himself said that he had a voting booth epiphany and changed his mind.

In early Jan 2017, Nor, I, and others, had a discussion about Trump prior to the inauguration.  It’s interesting to look back at that thread now.  The discussion took place before anybody knew there was an FBI investigation, before the Steele Dossier, before all the campaign criminal convictions, and on and on.  Despite all that has come to pass since Trump took office, the underlying themes about his presidency we are discussing today were the same basic themes were discussing then.  At the time, I argued that Trump was too fundamentally corrupt and unfit for office (emoluments, tax returns, inability to understand government and the importance of norms required for a functioning democracy, the serial lying etc.).  Nor told me I was being ‘whimsical,’ ‘self-serving,’ and ‘supercilious…’ 

Maybe, but he caused me to speculate when impeachment hearings would begin…

A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then.  Hard to remember exactly how serious I was 3 years ago with my prediction, but it’s also clear there was enough basic underlying corruption already set in motion that would eventually lead us to today, causing me to speculate at the time.  Please note that while I disagree with nearly every policy of this president (Paris, tariffs, kids in cages, tax cuts for the rich, etc..), I’ve always been pretty clear that policy choices are not impeachable offenses.  My argument hasn’t really changed, my argument has always been about Trump’s fundamental corruption and unfitness for the job.

indeed, I thought the TRump antics was performance art to win the camera. I never dreamed a 70 plus year old could really be so 

emotionally retarded. 

 

 

[Belly Bob]

12 hours ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

I've never thought there was all that much equivalence between the Clinton and Trump impeachments, so I don't know if Trump's impeachment will help or hurt him in 2020.  

Trump's actions were at the core of the kind of conduct the Framers drafted the impeachment power to address.  I suspect that the political implications are temporary and will shrink over time.  The constitutional implications are enduring and will grow in importance as the political ones fade away.  Impeaching Trump for this was the right thing to do.  It matters.

I wouldn't know all the ways in which the two events are different. I haven't paid much attention to this one and I didn't pay much attention to the last one. My point was just that Clinton's approval rating increased during his impeachment.

If you're correct about the nature of Trump's actions and about the long-term consequences of the event, then I'm sure you're also correct that it was the right thing to do, even if it ends up helping him politically in the short term. 

[15yds4gibberish]

17 hours ago, zulu1128 said:

Turns out he’s not even impeached yet lol. Premature self five by gibberish. 

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5:  "The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

H.Res 755  'resolves'... (i) "That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors."...

The combination of the two things above make me skeptical of the Politico argument..  It seems like a fairly academic debate at this point since we all saw the vote, but if it makes you feel better to tell yourself that he isn't impeached yet, then you do you.  I'm gonna go with either the commonly understood "impeached," or "*impeached," because if he isn't already impeached, then there isn't a term for what he is, and at a minimum he certainly forever has earned an asterisk next to his name.

But since you seem to be in a word parsing mood, and wish to be very precise, my 'self five' referred to the quote I wrote three years ago which read as follows:

On 1/9/2017 at 9:20 AM, 15yds4gibberish said:

...

What's the over under on when impeachment hearings will begin?  2-3 years?  I might want a piece of that action.

No matter what Politco says about  *impeachment, impeachment hearings  as I wrote back in early 2017 did in fact begin a couple of months ago.  They were on TV and everything, although some said they lacked pizzazz, so you may not have seen them.  Premature self five?  Nope.  Unseemly self five?  Probably....

[HSFBfan]

12 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5:  "The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

H.Res 755  'resolves'... (i) "That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors."...

The combination of the two things above make me skeptical of the Politico argument..  It seems like a fairly academic debate at this point since we all saw the vote, but if it makes you feel better to tell yourself that he isn't impeached yet, then you do you.  I'm gonna go with either the commonly understood "impeached," or "*impeached," because if he isn't already impeached, then there isn't a term for what he is, and at a minimum he certainly forever has earned an asterisk next to his name.

But since you seem to be in a word parsing mood, and wish to be very precise, my 'self five' referred to the quote I wrote three years ago which read as follows:

No matter what Politco says about  *impeachment, impeachment hearings  as I wrote back in early 2017 did in fact begin a couple of months ago.  They were on TV and everything, although some said they lacked pizzazz, so you may not have seen them.  Premature self five?  Nope.  Unseemly self five?  Probably....

Bill clinton has that same asterisk. Hes out there making millions of dollars. 

[World Citizen]

17 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

No matter what Politco says about  *impeachment, impeachment hearings  as I wrote back in early 2017 did in fact begin a couple of months ago.  They were on TV and everything, although some said they lacked pizzazz, so you may not have seen them.  Premature self five?  Nope.  Unseemly self five?  Probably....

I guess it is ok to cite Politico now?  I thought they were only for the left.  Progress?

IMO I thought the hearings were very pizzazzy, one just had to actually watch it. 

Btw, have you heard of one single argument in defense of what Trump did that brought us to impeachment?  I haven't yet and don't think it's possible to have one while Trump maintains that he did nothing wrong and it was a perfect phone call.  I thought they would go with 'it was wrong but not impeachable' but Trump won't let them do that if he won't admit he did anything wrong.  They boxed themselves in and left little room for any semblance of a reasonable argument.  

I guess it doesn't really matter at this point.  Two different realities going on and very little hope that our elected will take their oaths seriously.  They haven't taken it seriously for quite some time now so I shouldn't be surprised.  

Hope all is well brother and hope you have a great holiday.

I was extremely impressed with the Spartans last weekend.  Outstanding effort and loved how they opened up the playbook.  Looked like they have been running that all year.  

[zulu1128]

43 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5:  "The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

H.Res 755  'resolves'... (i) "That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors."...

The combination of the two things above make me skeptical of the Politico argument..  It seems like a fairly academic debate at this point since we all saw the vote, but if it makes you feel better to tell yourself that he isn't impeached yet, then you do you.  I'm gonna go with either the commonly understood "impeached," or "*impeached," because if he isn't already impeached, then there isn't a term for what he is, and at a minimum he certainly forever has earned an asterisk next to his name.

What Politico argument? I'm referring to the Bloomberg piece written by star democrat impeachment witness Noah Feldman...where he pretty clearly states that no one is impeached until the HOR transmits the articles to the Senate.

I mean I obviously meant it mostly as a joke...I guess I underestimated how important the self-five was to you lol.

43 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

But since you seem to be in a word parsing mood, and wish to be very precise, my 'self five' referred to the quote I wrote three years ago which read as follows:

Again, it was a joke, dude. But by all means, take that self-five. You've certainly earned it lol.

 

43 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

No matter what Politco says about  *impeachment, impeachment hearings  as I wrote back in early 2017 did in fact begin a couple of months ago.  They were on TV and everything, although some said they lacked pizzazz, so you may not have seen them.  Premature self five?  Nope.  Unseemly self five?  Probably....

Again...Noah Feldman. You haven't forgotten him already, right?

I mean as I said, it's obviously important enough to you to go back almost three years looking for it...so by all means take that victory lap lol.

[Troll]

46 minutes ago, World Citizen said:

Btw, have you heard of one single argument in defense of what Trump did that brought us to impeachment?

Two different realities going on ….

So which side of the Biddy Son is private citizen non-politician fence are you on???

Is it Relevant for  politics/votes/election ….

  or not  ???         

 

66 Can't seem to answer......but maybe you have your thinking cap on...

[15yds4gibberish]

48 minutes ago, zulu1128 said:

What Politico argument? I'm referring to the Bloomberg piece written by star democrat impeachment witness Noah Feldman...where he pretty clearly states that no one is impeached until the HOR transmits the articles to the Senate.

I mean I obviously meant it mostly as a joke...I guess I underestimated how important the self-five was to you lol.

Again, it was a joke, dude. But by all means, take that self-five. You've certainly earned it lol.

 

Again...Noah Feldman. You haven't forgotten him already, right?

I mean as I said, it's obviously important enough to you to go back almost three years looking for it...so by all means take that victory lap lol.

 

Yup, my bad.  I was also referring to the Bloomberg piece linked earlier -- Not sure why I wrote Politico.  I know who Feldman is, and I'm skeptical of his argument in this case for the reasons stated.  I realize disagreeing with someone on "your side," might be a strange concept to you, but it happens...  As I stated before, the debate about whether or not Trump is impeached right this second seems fairly arcane and academic (but I reserve the right to change my mind if more information comes to light), but the argument seemed important enough to you for you to bring it up and say I was wrong because Donald Trump isn't impeached.  Given the piling on after your post, and the Fox News I saw about it, it seems pretty important to the right wing-o-sphere too.

I didn't really see any indications you were joking, like an emoji or anything actually funny, but if you insist, people can read the thread and decide for themselves.

 

[Troll]

4 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

  As I stated before, the debate about whether or not Trump is impeached right this second seems fairly arcane and academic

 

🤣 I agree 

kind of makes the rest there meaningless as well...

[15yds4gibberish]

16 hours ago, noonereal said:

indeed, I thought the TRump antics was performance art to win the camera. I never dreamed a 70 plus year old could really be so 

emotionally retarded. 

 

 

Welcome to team supercilious.  😉

[noonereal]

1 minute ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

Welcome to team supercilious.  😉

fair enough

[noonereal]

17 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

disagreeing with someone on "your side," might be a strange concept to you, but it happens

it is healthy as hell

but sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo few do it

 

[Troll]

Posted 1 minute ago

20 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

disagreeing with someone on "your side," might be a strange concept to you, but it happens

 

2 minutes ago, noonereal said:

it is healthy as hell

but sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo few do it

 

You are both late to the dance …...🤣

I just posted that the other day....😁

 

...Nuance...

[World Citizen]

41 minutes ago, Troll said:

So which side of the Biddy Son is private citizen non-politician fence are you on???

Is it Relevant for  politics/votes/election ….

  or not  ???         

 

66 Can't seem to answer......but maybe you have your thinking cap on...

Hunter Biden was irrelevant during 2017 when Trump gave aid to Ukraine.  Hunter Biden was irrelevant during 2018 when Trump gave aid to Ukraine.  I'm to believe Hunter Biden is relevant in 2019 because of Ukrainian corruption now?  I have decided that I'm not an idiot who would believe such nonsense but you do you.  I'm to believe Trump gives 2 shits about corruption when he gives money Israel and Bibi's corrupt ass.  Saudi Arabia= corrupt, NK and Kim= corrupt (and they are in love), Russia=corrupt.  Trump has met all those leaders and didn't raise any concern about corruption.  Hell he told the Russians that he could care less about them interfering in our elections.  He asked Ukraine and China to interfere in our elections on tv.  That doesn't bother you at all does it?  

You don't answer any of my questions so why should I answer yours.  Besides I lose brain cells every time I talk with you.  You make no sense, don't answer questions, accuse others of bs and have no idea of what your talking about.  Oh and a conspiracy nut who believes whatever lies that are told to you.  

[Belly Bob]

3 hours ago, zulu1128 said:

What Politico argument? I'm referring to the Bloomberg piece written by star democrat impeachment witness Noah Feldman...where he pretty clearly states that no one is impeached until the HOR transmits the articles to the Senate.

I mean I obviously meant it mostly as a joke...I guess I underestimated how important the self-five was to you lol.

Again, it was a joke, dude. But by all means, take that self-five. You've certainly earned it lol.

 

Again...Noah Feldman. You haven't forgotten him already, right?

I mean as I said, it's obviously important enough to you to go back almost three years looking for it...so by all means take that victory lap lol.

That's a lot of effort defending what was "mostly" a joke lol. 

[Belly Bob]

2 hours ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

[...] I'm gonna go with either the commonly understood "impeached," or "*impeached," because if he isn't already impeached, then there isn't a term for what he is, and at a minimum he certainly forever has earned an asterisk next to his name.

[...]

I've seen distinctions like this before, but not on this forum. It makes me wonder...

[Troll]

56 minutes ago, World Citizen said:

Hunter Biden was irrelevant during 2017 when Trump gave aid to Ukraine.  Hunter Biden was irrelevant during 2018 when Trump gave aid to Ukraine.  I'm to believe Hunter Biden is relevant in 2019 because of Ukrainian corruption now?  I have decided that I'm not an idiot who would believe such nonsense but you do you.  

Just to be VERY CLEAR......

You believe Hunter as a grown man private citizen was irrelevant in 2017, 2018, and 2019....and SHOULD be irrelevant today (politically speaking)....

Correct?

 

[Troll]

58 minutes ago, World Citizen said:

  Besides I lose brain cells every time I talk with you.  You make no sense...

 

[15yds4gibberish]

1 hour ago, Belly Bob said:

I've seen distinctions like this before, but not on this forum. It makes me wonder...

I'm gonna guess that what it makes you wonder is if we've crossed paths on another forum.  That depends, do you like the other poster?  😉 If so, sure, why not, it could be me.  If not, I doubt you found any alter-ego HalfTheDistanceToTheGoal4gibberish's running around.

The particular point you referenced actually came from a line in the Bloomberg (Not Politico damnit!) piece that got me thinking :

• "As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, “TRUMP IMPEACHED,” those are a media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement."

I started wondering what if the author is right, and Trump isn't technically impeached just yet, then what do we call his current state of affairs - Not impeached but also not not impeached?  We don't have a name for that.   I mentioned this to a friend of mine, and he joked about the baseball stat asterisk. So  I stole the idea from him -- There aren't a lot of maps for this infrequently traveled territory.

What are you doing cheating on us in other forums anyway?  😀