US Politics Thread 2016-2020 - Page 562

u crank · 01-22-20, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDef

Odds are those subpoenas would have been challenged in court and either severely restricted or quashed by a judge.

And of course the same thing would likely happen if the subpoenas were issued by the Senate. And I can't believe that Democrats are dumb enough to not realize that it would go that way. It's a game and Mitch won that round.

Bilge_Rat · 01-22-20, 11:24 AM

This has nothing to do with the trial, the acquittal of Trump is a foregone conclusion.

What the Democrats are doing now is forcing GOP senators to take potentially embarassing votes that can be used in attack ads. The Dems goal is to take back control of the Senate, it is a longshot for 2020, but McSally (AZ), Collins (MA) and Gardner (CO) are all vulnerable.

Aktungbby · 01-22-20, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

This has nothing to do with the trial, the acquittal of Trump is a foregone conclusion.

few weeks ago, U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, a Republican from Louisiana, gave the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump a nickname, using the hashtag #KangarooCourt in a tweet. It’s an evocative phrase, even if you’re not sure what it means, and kangaroo itself is, for English, an unusual word. Kangaroo doesn’t look like many other English words because it comes from the indigenous Australian language Guugu Yimithirr, although it took scholars a long time to accept that. Even now the Oxford English Dictionary doesn’t quite buy it, granting only that kangaroo is “stated to have been the name in an Australian Aboriginal language.”
The doubt arises because British explorers recorded different words for the same animal. In 1770, Captain James Cook landed in northern Australia and wrote down “Kangooroo or Kanguru.” John Hunter mapped land near modern-day Sydney and learned that the word was “patagorong.” Lancelot Threlkeld, a missionary working north of Sydney, heard “mo-a-ne.” Rather than drawing the obvious conclusion, that these are three different words because they come from three different languages, the Oxford English Dictionary prefers to consider the matter unsettled.

Linguists and lexicographers agree, though, that the word’s popular folk etymology is wrong. The story holds that when Cook arrived, he pointed at an animal and asked, “What is this?” His interlocutor responded “kangaroo,” meaning “I don’t understand,” which Cook took to be the animal’s name.

Despite the Australian antecedents of kangaroo, the kangaroo court was originally an American institution. Merriam-Webster defines it as “a mock court” or one “characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures.” No one knows precisely where the term comes from – it might have originated during the lawless days of the California gold rush, when miners had to create their own court system to adjudicate disputes over claim jumping. Another theory speculates that these courts earned the name “kangaroo” because they “jump to conclusions.”

THE DONALD DOES LOOK A LITTLE...GOO-GOO EYED AT THAT

Mr Quatro · 01-22-20, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

This has nothing to do with the trial, the acquittal of Trump is a foregone conclusion.

What the Democrats are doing now is forcing GOP senators to take potentially embarassing votes that can be used in attack ads. The Dems goal is to take back control of the Senate, it is a longshot for 2020, but McSally (AZ), Collins (MA) and Gardner (CO) are all vulnerable.

I saw this in my news feed this morning ... This reason would cause some concern

It is quite obvious that the democrats want the Republicans to think like they do ... How stupid is that

They must be playing this card game to entice new voters to side with them ... Still eight (8) months left to entice them

mapuc · 01-22-20, 03:40 PM

Have just seen some senates name Adam speaking in the Senat.

I was confused now and then

In the bottom of the screen it was written

Rep. Adam Last name (D)

I have learned that Rep is a shortage for Republican and (D) is shortage for District s/he is coming from.

Secondly I have through our news media and in this thread learned they are strictly party voters

But this Rep. Adam so to say attacked Trump...that's why I was confused now and then.

I thought the Rep in the Senate supported President Trump.

Markus

August · 01-22-20, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

This has nothing to do with the trial, the acquittal of Trump is a foregone conclusion.

What the Democrats are doing now is forcing GOP senators to take potentially embarassing votes that can be used in attack ads. The Dems goal is to take back control of the Senate, it is a longshot for 2020, but McSally (AZ), Collins (MA) and Gardner (CO) are all vulnerable.

It's Collins of Maine, (ME not MA) but I have to agree with you, it's all about the upcoming election. I believe control of the Senate and the House are tied to the presidential race. At this point both parties ride on their candidates coat tails. If Trump wins in November then the GoP will also do well and vice versa with the Dems and whoever they nominate. Split ticket voters are going to be few and far between and the result could mean a trifecta win for one party.

u crank · 01-22-20, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

Have just seen some senates name Adam speaking in the Senat.

I was confused now and then

In the bottom of the screen it was written

Rep. Adam Last name (D)

I have learned that Rep is a shortage for Republican and (D) is shortage for District s/he is coming from.

Secondly I have through our news media and in this thread learned they are strictly party voters

But this Rep. Adam so to say attacked Trump...that's why I was confused now and then.

I thought the Rep in the Senate supported President Trump.

Markus

Rep stands for Representative. He is not a Senator or a Republican. He is the U.S. Representative for California's 28th congressional district and is a Democrat.

mapuc · 01-22-20, 05:15 PM

^ Thank you for enlighten me.

After I wrote my last comment I came to the conclusion it can't be Republican.

I also remembered it's the Dem who's presenting their case first.

Edit
Additional thoughts on this impeachment

I see this as some kind of dramatisation or if you prefer a farce.

I have never seen or heard of a trial where one side wasn't allowed to present their strongest evidence(Witness)In this case the Prosecutor which is (D).
While the defence(R) will allowed witness who is a benefit for President Trump to witness
They are in majority and I presume they will vote for the party and the benefit of the President.

In a real court every evidence shall be presented from both side-evidence who may tie the accused to the crime and evidence who's a benefit for the accused.

End of Edit

Markus

Rockstar · 01-22-20, 06:24 PM

Congress had all the time in the world to present evidence and EYE witnesses accounts during the impeachment hearing, they never did. The articles of impeachment were sent to the Senate anyways.

IMO this has been a highly divisive and politically motivated farce from the get go.

August · 01-23-20, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

I have never seen or heard of a trial where one side wasn't allowed to present their strongest evidence(Witness)In this case the Prosecutor which is (D).
While the defence(R) will allowed witness who is a benefit for President Trump to witness

What you mean like when the Democrats refused to allow the Republicans to call any witnesses during the Impeachment hearings? You mean that kind of farce?

Buddahaid · 01-23-20, 08:23 PM

You mean those witnesses that would just talk about Biden and ignore the subject called Trump?

August · 01-23-20, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

You mean those witnesses that would just talk about Biden and ignore the subject called Trump?

That only plays if you believe that Biden is immune from any sort of investigation of criminal behavior as long as he's, well he's not actually running against the president yet, just one of the 20 or so Democratic candidates vying for their parties nomination. What was that Pelosi saying nobody is above the law? Guess she actually meant only Republicans.

Buddahaid · 01-23-20, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

That only plays if you believe that Biden is immune from any sort of investigation of criminal behavior as long as he's, well he's not actually running against the president yet, just one of the 20 or so Democratic candidates vying for their parties nomination. What was that Pelosi saying nobody is above the law? Guess she actually meant only Republicans.

Agreed. I'm not defending Biden so he may very well have his time, or not, but he is not the President, and what that means is what this is all about. Trump may want to drain the swamp but the swamp has always been there and isn't going away in his lifetime, or mine. It's why we are arguing about it anyway so it must be working or there is no argument, no freedom.

Onkel Neal · 01-23-20, 10:56 PM

Well, if the Democrats were not trying to impeach Trump from day 1, maybe I could take this partisan circus seriously, but... this fool was on it from the get-go.

August · 01-24-20, 10:34 PM

I'm just waiting for the next attempt once this one goes down in flames. Ukraine can't be the Democrats last shot. Given the way the senate trial is going there's likely to be time afterwards for one more invented scandal before the election and I figure the they must have something teed up. Can't wait to see what it is.

01-22-20, 11:24 AM	#8417
Bilge_Rat Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: standing watch... Posts: 3,856 Downloads: 344 Uploads: 0	This has nothing to do with the trial, the acquittal of Trump is a foregone conclusion. What the Democrats are doing now is forcing GOP senators to take potentially embarassing votes that can be used in attack ads. The Dems goal is to take back control of the Senate, it is a longshot for 2020, but McSally (AZ), Collins (MA) and Gardner (CO) are all vulnerable. __________________

01-22-20, 05:15 PM	#8423
mapuc CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 20,563 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	^ Thank you for enlighten me. After I wrote my last comment I came to the conclusion it can't be Republican. I also remembered it's the Dem who's presenting their case first. Edit Additional thoughts on this impeachment I see this as some kind of dramatisation or if you prefer a farce. I have never seen or heard of a trial where one side wasn't allowed to present their strongest evidence(Witness)In this case the Prosecutor which is (D). While the defence(R) will allowed witness who is a benefit for President Trump to witness They are in majority and I presume they will vote for the party and the benefit of the President. In a real court every evidence shall be presented from both side-evidence who may tie the accused to the crime and evidence who's a benefit for the accused. End of Edit Markus Last edited by mapuc; 01-22-20 at 06:09 PM.

01-23-20, 08:23 PM	#8426
Buddahaid Shark above Space Chicken Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 9,332 Downloads: 162 Uploads: 0	You mean those witnesses that would just talk about Biden and ignore the subject called Trump? __________________ "However vast the darkness, we must provide our own light." Stanley Kubrick "Tomorrow belongs to those who can hear it coming." David Bowie

01-22-20, 03:40 PM	#8420
mapuc CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 20,563 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	Have just seen some senates name Adam speaking in the Senat. I was confused now and then In the bottom of the screen it was written Rep. Adam Last name (D) I have learned that Rep is a shortage for Republican and (D) is shortage for District s/he is coming from. Secondly I have through our news media and in this thread learned they are strictly party voters But this Rep. Adam so to say attacked Trump...that's why I was confused now and then. I thought the Rep in the Senate supported President Trump. Markus

01-22-20, 06:24 PM	#8424
Rockstar In the Brig Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 12,614 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Congress had all the time in the world to present evidence and EYE witnesses accounts during the impeachment hearing, they never did. The articles of impeachment were sent to the Senate anyways. IMO this has been a highly divisive and politically motivated farce from the get go.

01-23-20, 10:56 PM	#8429
Onkel Neal Born to Run Silent Join Date: Jan 1997 Location: Cougar Trap, Texas Posts: 21,385 Downloads: 541 Uploads: 224	Well, if the Democrats were not trying to impeach Trump from day 1, maybe I could take this partisan circus seriously, but... this fool was on it from the get-go.

01-24-20, 10:34 PM	#8430
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,227 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I'm just waiting for the next attempt once this one goes down in flames. Ukraine can't be the Democrats last shot. Given the way the senate trial is going there's likely to be time afterwards for one more invented scandal before the election and I figure the they must have something teed up. Can't wait to see what it is.