President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

notobtuse

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

So that gives Mitch the right to block these and 300 other bills from going to the Senate? It doesn't automatically mean that they get approved, you know.

Don't be moaning here that the dems focus on nothing but the impeachment since they took over the house when there are literally hundreds of bills passed by Congress on Mitch's desk.

That's what the Senate always has done when it's controlled by the opposite party of the House. I complained when a Democrat controlled Senate did it and Democrats now complain when a GOP Senate does it. The difference IMO is Republicans in the House knew it and focused on things that mostly would get through the Senate. Of course there were always those instances that were different and gained the most media attention.

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

That's what the Senate always has done when it's controlled by the opposite party of the House. I complained when a Democrat controlled Senate did it and Democrats now complain when a GOP Senate does it. The difference IMO is Republicans in the House knew it and focused on things that mostly would get through the Senate. Of course there were always those instances that were different and gained the most media attention.

So bi partisan bills that get to the Senate are not allowed to be voted on on the whim of one man. Is this democracy?

Gwen Cooper

notobtuse wrote: »

That's what the Senate always has done when it's controlled by the opposite party of the House. I complained when a Democrat controlled Senate did it and Democrats now complain when a GOP Senate does it. The difference IMO is Republicans in the House knew it and focused on things that mostly would get through the Senate. Of course there were always those instances that were different and gained the most media attention.

Ok, but would you agree when I say that the whole spiel about "The Democrats spend their time doing nothing but focusing on the impeachment" is a total BS, proved by the pile of bills waiting to go to Senate?

It would be like me not approving the reports people send me and then telling everyone that people who work for me doing absolutely nothing, while I am the one holding their reports back. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

notobtuse

kilns wrote: »

So bi partisan bills that get to the Senate are not allowed to be voted on on the whim of one man. Is this democracy?

I laugh when you see the claim 'bi-partisan bills.' 4 or 5 votes out of some 200 is not really bi-partisan.

woohoo!!!

GOP senators know they're putting their neck on the line for trump. The latest revelation re Bolton, really leaves them hanging, they were not kept in the loop.

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1221789190725283840?s=19

notobtuse

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Ok, but would you agree when I say that the whole spiel about "The Democrats spend their time doing nothing but focusing on the impeachment" is a total BS, proved by the pile of bills waiting to go to Senate?

It would be like me not approving the reports people send me and then telling everyone that people who work for me doing absolutely nothing, while I am the one holding their reports back. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Not doing things that are effective is the same as doing nothing in my eyes.

Take The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, for example. If Democrats would have left it as it was it would have flown through the Senate. But they just had to stick in their sacred cow of gun control into the act. I guess gun control is more important to them than women.

notobtuse

woohoo!!! wrote: »

GOP senators know they're putting their neck on the line for trump. The latest revelation re Bolton, really leaves them hanging, they were not kept in the loop.

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1221789190725283840?s=19

'Per sources' Never any names to go with the sensational headlines by the mealy mouthed weasels at the NYT. Without names I guess it gives the NYT cover when they once again are proved wrong.

Gwen Cooper

notobtuse wrote: »

Not doing things that are effective is the same as doing nothing in my eyes.

Take The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, for example. If Democrats would have left it as it was it would have flown through the Senate. But they just had to stick in their sacred cow of gun control into the act. I guess gun control is more important to them than women.

As a woman who had her life threatened, and as a friend of two women who survived a violent attack by their partner by pure chance, I have no other response to this than a confused stare that is asking you if you're serious.

How the hell is stopping people with history of abuse from buying a gun even debatable? Is this the real world? It's exactly like you said, gun control is more important to them than women. As long as people can buy their guns with minimum effort and as long as money keeps coming from NRA and similar organisations, nobody will give a damn about women.

woohoo!!!

notobtuse wrote: »

'Per sources' Never any names to go with the sensational headlines by the mealy mouthed weasels at the NYT. Without names I guess it gives the NYT cover when they once again are proved wrong.

The point is, they're under pressure. If Bolton testifies in accordance with the reports, that's a huge problem. So, Bolton as a villain theme is already doing the rounds.

Bolton and Rudy are the two we need to hear from.

Boggles

manual_man wrote: »

Obstruction of Congress is a bogus charge invented out of thin air. Democrats declined to issue a subpoena

Again back in reality, they issued several subpoenas, which were ignored.

No president in the history of the country has ever blanket refused to cooperate with an Impeachment inquiry.

Not even Nixon.

manual_man

There's an important factor that people choose to ignore - or perhaps are unaware of - in regards to Senate business: and that is judicial nominations. Traditionally these nominations have been approached in good faith by both parties and the nominations go through smoothly, except maybe in the case of what might seen to be an extremely controversial nomination. Since Trump has been in power, however, Senate Democrats have taken the unprecedented step of slow-walking almost all of Trump's nominations. This has not only taken up an inordinate amount of the Senate's time, but it has also (understandably) angered Senate Republicans. Democrats can shout and scream all they want, but their obstructive approach to judicial nominations all but ensured partisan hostility in the Senate.

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

I laugh when you see the claim 'bi-partisan bills.' 4 or 5 votes out of some 200 is not really bi-partisan.

So you refuse to call it undemocratic?

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

Not doing things that are effective is the same as doing nothing in my eyes.

Take The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, for example. If Democrats would have left it as it was it would have flown through the Senate. But they just had to stick in their sacred cow of gun control into the act. I guess gun control is more important to them than women.

Did this even go to a vote?

Dytalus

manual_man wrote: »

There's an important factor that people choose to ignore - or perhaps are unaware of - in regards to Senate business: and that is judicial nominations. Traditionally these nominations have been approached in good faith by both parties and the nominations go through smoothly, except maybe in the case of what might seen to be an extremely controversial nomination. Since Trump has been in power, however, Senate Democrats have taken the unprecedented step of slow-walking almost all of Trump's nominations. This has not only taken up an inordinate amount of the Senate's time, but it has also (understandably) angered Senate Republicans. Democrats can shout and scream all they want, but their obstructive approach to judicial nominations all but ensured partisan hostility in the Senate.

Merrick Garland.

And others.

kilns

manual_man wrote: »

There's an important factor that people choose to ignore - or perhaps are unaware of - in regards to Senate business: and that is judicial nominations. Traditionally these nominations have been approached in good faith by both parties and the nominations go through smoothly, except maybe in the case of what might seen to be an extremely controversial nomination. Since Trump has been in power, however, Senate Democrats have taken the unprecedented step of slow-walking almost all of Trump's nominations. This has not only taken up an inordinate amount of the Senate's time, but it has also (understandably) angered Senate Republicans. Democrats can shout and scream all they want, but their obstructive approach to judicial nominations all but ensured partisan hostility in the Senate.

Are you serious????:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

You either have a short memory or playing ignorant, does the name Merrick Garland mean anything to you

Boggles

manual_man wrote: »

Traditionally these nominations have been approached in good faith by both parties

If you listen carefully I think you can hear Merrick Garland gut laughing!!!

:rolleyes:

kilns

manual_man wrote: »

There's an important factor that people choose to ignore - or perhaps are unaware of - in regards to Senate business: and that is judicial nominations. Traditionally these nominations have been approached in good faith by both parties and the nominations go through smoothly, except maybe in the case of what might seen to be an extremely controversial nomination. Since Trump has been in power, however, Senate Democrats have taken the unprecedented step of slow-walking almost all of Trump's nominations. This has not only taken up an inordinate amount of the Senate's time, but it has also (understandably) angered Senate Republicans. Democrats can shout and scream all they want, but their obstructive approach to judicial nominations all but ensured partisan hostility in the Senate.

This is the logic most normal people have to put with and try and argue with. Its laughable

Boggles

Collins says Bolton's book strengthens the case for witnesses.

manual_man

Boggles wrote: »

Again back in reality, they issued several subpoenas, which were ignored.

No president in the history of the country has ever blanket refused to cooperate with an Impeachment inquiry.

Not even Nixon.

Subpoenas are subpoenas. House Democrats have issued more of them than they have passed legislation (a hilarious fact that speaks to their Trump Derangement Syndrome). What's important though is that whenever the administration has challenged them (as is their right), in almost every case the Democrats have withdrawn their subpoenas. Why, you ask? Well I think we know the answer. It's all been for show.

notobtuse

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

As a woman who had her life threatened, and as a friend of two women who survived a violent attack by their partner by pure chance, I have no other response to this than a confused stare that is asking you if you're serious.

How the hell is stopping people with history of abuse from buying a gun even debatable? Is this the real world? It's exactly like you said, gun control is more important to them than women. As long as people can buy their guns with minimum effort and as long as money keeps coming from NRA and similar organisations, nobody will give a damn about women.

I know women who have been victims of abuse… my wife for one with her ex husband. I also know men who have had the lives upturned by vindictive women… me for one. Bottom line… ‘Federal law already bars convicted abusive spouses from purchasing guns, the new bill would take away Second Amendment rights for things that aren’t felonies and aren’t considered domestic violence.’ The new part of the bill dealing with protection orders would allow judges to effectively strip people’s rights away without proper due process. And I think most people know that some accusers lie and seldom are called to account for it or pay a price for it.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

I know women who have been victims of abuse… my wife for one with her ex husband. I also know men who have had the lives upturned by vindictive women… me for one. Bottom line… ‘Federal law already bars convicted abusive spouses from purchasing guns, the new bill would take away Second Amendment rights for things that aren’t felonies and aren’t considered domestic violence.’ The new part of the bill dealing with protection orders would allow judges to effectively strip people’s rights away without proper due process. And I think most people know that some accusers lie and seldom are called to account for it or pay a price for it.

Explain to me how a judge can do anything without due process? they are due process.

notobtuse

kilns wrote: »

Are you serious????:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

You either have a short memory or playing ignorant, does the name Merrick Garland mean anything to you

Big mistake on the part of the GOP, I admit. What goes around comes around. I’m sure the Democrats will be arguing a president who is impeached shouldn’t be allowed to nominate a SCOTUS judge, or if the impeachment trial goes on for awhile and the acquittal happens somewhat close to the election that trump shouldn’t be allowed to nominate someone for retiring RBG this year so close to an election. Of course Midnight Mitch will ignore those calls, as it's just politics.

kilns

manual_man wrote: »

Subpoenas are subpoenas. House Democrats have issued more of them than they have passed legislation (a hilarious fact that speaks to their Trump Derangement Syndrome). What's important though is that whenever the administration has challenged them (as is their right), in almost every case the Democrats have withdrawn their subpoenas. Why, you ask? Well I think we know the answer. It's all been for show.

As of Nov 15 over 400 bills had been passed, how many subpeonas have been issued. if you going to state something dont lie

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

Big mistake on the part of the GOP, I admit. What goes around comes around. I’m sure the Democrats will be arguing a president who is impeached shouldn’t be allowed to nominate a SCOTUS judge, or if the impeachment trial goes on for awhile and the acquittal happens somewhat close to the election that trump shouldn’t be allowed to nominate someone for retiring RBG this year so close to an election. Of course Midnight Mitch will ignore those calls, as it's just politics.

It was a big mistake and it was a power play to stack the supreme court with opinions that do not represent the majority of Americans. Its as undemocratic as you can get

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Explain to me how a judge can do anything without due process? they are due process.

A woman goes to court to get a restraining order by a liberal judge from an ex boyfriend just because she claims that she feels threatened. The judge issues the order merely on the word of the woman and a police officer goes to the man's house to take away any guns he might have, who knows nothing of what has transpired.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

A woman goes to court to get a restraining order by a liberal judge from an ex boyfriend just because she claims that she feels threatened. The judge issues the order merely on the word of the woman and a police officer goes to the man's house to take away any guns he might have, who knows nothing of what has transpired.

yeah that is exactly how it happens. as simple as that. :rolleyes:

DrumSteve

manual_man wrote: »

Subpoenas are subpoenas. House Democrats have issued more of them than they have passed legislation (a hilarious fact that speaks to their Trump Derangement Syndrome). What's important though is that whenever the administration has challenged them (as is their right), in almost every case the Democrats have withdrawn their subpoenas. Why, you ask? Well I think we know the answer. It's all been for show.

There are certain words or phrases that automatically make me completely disregard someones opinion.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah that is exactly how it happens. as simple as that. :rolleyes:

It would with what the Democrats stuck into the act.

Gwen Cooper

notobtuse wrote: »

A woman goes to court to get a restraining order by a liberal judge from an ex boyfriend just because she claims that she feels threatened. The judge issues the order merely on the word of the woman and a police officer goes to the man's house to take away any guns he might have, who knows nothing of what has transpired.

Have you ever heard of any of the many women who went to ask the authorities for help, saying that they are feeling threatened by their partner/ex-partner, were told that there's nothing that can be done until the partner actually does something, and within a few weeks these women are murdered? Because that's the stories I hear coming from the States, I don't think I've ever seen anyone getting as much as a restraining order just because they feel threatened.

notobtuse

kilns wrote: »

It was a big mistake and it was a power play to stack the supreme court with opinions that do not represent the majority of Americans. Its as undemocratic as you can get

LOL. Since the GOP had the majority they can make the rules. That is about as democratic as you can get.