|
Post by lar on Oct 8, 2019 8:31:22 GMT -5
I've tried hard to imagine accepting a job only to find on the first day that my co-workers hate me and want me fired and locked up. Would that affect the way I relate to them? Would I become angry and paranoid knowing that quite a large group of people want to get rid of me and they don't seem to be too concerned about how they do it?
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Oct 8, 2019 9:06:49 GMT -5
I've tried hard to imagine accepting a job only to find on the first day that my co-workers hate me and want me fired and locked up. Would that affect the way I relate to them? Would I become angry and paranoid knowing that quite a large group of people want to get rid of me and they don't seem to be too concerned about how they do it? Maybe that might prompt some introspective self evaluation in the mind of a reasonably well balanced individual as to whether they were really qualified for the task at hand and prompt engagement with the experienced coworkers as to their concerns. No wait, publicly insult and degrade those coworkers and brag about how much smarter you are. There you go, a brilliant strategy straight out of the largest brain in history.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 8, 2019 9:14:52 GMT -5
I've tried hard to imagine accepting a job only to find on the first day that my co-workers hate me and want me fired and locked up. Would that affect the way I relate to them? Would I become angry and paranoid knowing that quite a large group of people want to get rid of me and they don't seem to be too concerned about how they do it? Trump went to war on what he calls the "deep state" (i.e., the federal civil service) during the campaign, way before he was elected. So it wasn't a sudden discovery that he had built up a certain level of uncertainty, if not animosity, among those who've sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution day-in and day-out, and who are restrained by law from involvement in partisan politics. (That is, campaigning for candidates, for example.) I think he's the only Republican president in modern times who has come into office with such a level of hatred of the federal civil service. I'm guessing that if it weren't for civil service protection, he would have fired every last one of them by now, down to filing clerks. Just like he's treated his own cabinet members. (Except for Ben Carson of course, who I guess now occupies the role of Senior Sycophant.)
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 8, 2019 9:15:09 GMT -5
I've tried hard to imagine accepting a job only to find on the first day that my co-workers hate me and want me fired and locked up. Would that affect the way I relate to them? Would I become angry and paranoid knowing that quite a large group of people want to get rid of me and they don't seem to be too concerned about how they do it? Maybe that might prompt some introspective self evaluation in the mind of a reasonably well balanced individual as to whether they were really qualified for the task at hand and prompt engagement with the experienced coworkers as to their concerns. No wait, publicly insult and degrade those coworkers and brag about how much smarter you are. There you go, a brilliant strategy straight out of the largest brain in history. The task at hand is restoring the country to its constitution and he's doing a pretty fair job at that. He's a New Yorker, counter-puncher. Your side would have tried to destroy anyone who beat Hillary and most wouldn't have been able to survive the attack but he has and will probably continue to survive. Not my guy during the election but I'm getting used to him. I'm leery about the Syrian pull out but I understand his reasoning that we can't be the world's police force forever. That used to be your side's opinion and he used to be a Democrat so I guess he still feels that way. As he says, "We'll see".
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 8, 2019 9:37:19 GMT -5
So it wasn't a sudden discovery that he had built up a certain level of uncertainty, if not animosity, among those who've sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution day-in and day-out, and who are restrained by law from involvement in partisan politics. (That is, campaigning for candidates, for example.) The modern Administrative State isn't mentioned in the Constitution in any way. What exactly is it they are sworn to uphold again?
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 8, 2019 9:59:26 GMT -5
There is no doubt that Trump is a controversial and divisive figure. He was that way in business and that's carried over into his presidency. He's easy prey for anyone that believes he deserves whatever he gets.
At the same time, doesn't someone need to be the adult in the room?
The Democrats in congress couldn't wait for the Mueller report to come out because that was going to be proof positive that Trump and/or his team engaged in a conspiracy with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 elections. The report came out. The Democrats weren't satisfied with that. They had to talk to Mueller personally and hear him repeat what he had written in his report. Apparently that wasn't enough either because to date no articles of impeachment have been filed based on what's in the Mueller report.
It then became necessary to continue to investigate Trump on the theory that sooner or later something would turn up. As of this moment there are various subpoenas and lawsuits centered around obtaining Trump's tax returns not because there is something known to be wrong with them but based on the idea that he MUST have engaged in some tax skulduggery at some point in time.
Finally, the whistle blower filed a complaint and the Democrats have decided that this is the charge that should be used to bring down the Trump presidency. I could be wrong but asking the Ukraine to investigate Biden doesn't seem like the biggest crime Trump could have committed. It seems to pale in comparison to the obstruction of justice charges thought were available to them as the result of the Mueller report. Yet Ukraine is what the Democrats have chosen to hang their hat on.
In my opinion we could save a lot of time, money, and political rhetoric if we just string Trump up now because he's a jerk and it's clear that sometime during the past 70 years or so he has to have been guilty of something. Why waste taxpayer dollars trying to figure out what it was while the country goes to hell because nobody's paying attention?
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Oct 8, 2019 11:07:00 GMT -5
In my opinion we could save a lot of time, money, and political rhetoric if we just string Trump up now because he's a jerk and it's clear that sometime during the past 70 years or so he has to have been guilty of something. Why waste taxpayer dollars trying to figure out what it was while the country goes to hell because nobody's paying attention? This is acceptable to me.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 8, 2019 11:36:41 GMT -5
In my opinion we could save a lot of time, money, and political rhetoric if we just string Trump up now because he's a jerk and it's clear that sometime during the past 70 years or so he has to have been guilty of something. Why waste taxpayer dollars trying to figure out what it was while the country goes to hell because nobody's paying attention? This is acceptable to me. Well, that's a start.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 8, 2019 11:49:56 GMT -5
In my opinion we could save a lot of time, money, and political rhetoric if we just string Trump up now because he's a jerk and it's clear that sometime during the past 70 years or so he has to have been guilty of something. Why waste taxpayer dollars trying to figure out what it was while the country goes to hell because nobody's paying attention? This is acceptable to me. C'mon out. He's just over the hill about 80 miles to the east. But I doubt you'll make it that far.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 8, 2019 13:24:58 GMT -5
In my opinion we could save a lot of time, money, and political rhetoric if we just string Trump up now because he's a jerk and it's clear that sometime during the past 70 years or so he has to have been guilty of something. Why waste taxpayer dollars trying to figure out what it was while the country goes to hell because nobody's paying attention? This is acceptable to me. From this I am assuming you wish to be taken seriously but not literally?
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Oct 8, 2019 17:21:25 GMT -5
I wonder why 'his generals' gave up on him?
From what I've read, Mattis' departure is when active military lost hope.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 8, 2019 17:41:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 8, 2019 17:57:42 GMT -5
I wonder why 'his generals' gave up on him? From what I've read, Mattis' departure is when active military lost hope. I don't know where you dug that turd up, but my wife works for the Army and those folks love Trump. Probably because Trump has actually treated them like they matter, unlike that douche bag Obama. Same invitation I made to Rob, c'mon out and try to take Trump down. But don't say I didn't warn you.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 8, 2019 19:06:15 GMT -5
“ The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment.“
That there is some pretty black-and-white constitutional language for you all.
Trump is saying that these words, apparently, are meaningless. He refuses to cooperate. Says it is yet another witch hunt.
Wondering about the reactions of those here who are pretty literal about the Constitution?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 8, 2019 19:18:59 GMT -5
“ The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment.“ That there is some pretty black-and-white constitutional language for you all. Trump is saying that these words, apparently, are meaningless. He refuses to cooperate. Says it is yet another witch hunt. Wondering about the reactions of those here who are pretty literal about the Constitution? The house can impeach him but the Senate would have to find him guilty and put him out of office. Impeach is like an indictment in regular court but the house gets to be the grand jury. Lawyers say you can indict a ham sandwich. The grand jury only sees the prosecution's evidence. The defense gets in at the trial and that's the part that counts. Don't hold your breath, or maybe in your case I'll make an exception, go ahead and hold your breath.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 8, 2019 19:38:14 GMT -5
“ The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment.“ That there is some pretty black-and-white constitutional language for you all. Trump is saying that these words, apparently, are meaningless. He refuses to cooperate. Says it is yet another witch hunt. Wondering about the reactions of those here who are pretty literal about the Constitution? I'll let you know when those gutless shit Democrats get around to having a vote to open a real impeachment inquiry.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 8, 2019 19:43:51 GMT -5
“ The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment.“ That there is some pretty black-and-white constitutional language for you all. Trump is saying that these words, apparently, are meaningless. He refuses to cooperate. Says it is yet another witch hunt. Wondering about the reactions of those here who are pretty literal about the Constitution? I'll let you know when those gutless shit Democrats get around to having a vote to open a real impeachment inquiry. Why did he bother to refuse to cooperate with what I guess you would call a “phony” impeachment inquiry? Speaking of “gutless shit,” his main golfing pal in the Senate, Lindsey Graham, led the GOP’s courageous inquiry into Clinton. He said failure to comply with Congressional subpoenas alone was cause for impeachment. I wonder if he will make the same distinction that this time it is “gutless shit” (which, by the way, I can’t find anywhere in the Constitution. Maybe “gutless shit” shows up in the Federalist Papers?)
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 8, 2019 19:45:06 GMT -5
“ The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment.“ That there is some pretty black-and-white constitutional language for you all. Trump is saying that these words, apparently, are meaningless. He refuses to cooperate. Says it is yet another witch hunt. Wondering about the reactions of those here who are pretty literal about the Constitution? The house can impeach him but the Senate would have to find him guilty and put him out of office. Impeach is like an indictment in regular court but the house gets to be the grand jury. Lawyers say you can indict a ham sandwich. The grand jury only sees the prosecution's evidence. The defense gets in at the trial and that's the part that counts. Don't hold your breath, or maybe in your case I'll make an exception, go ahead and hold your breath. You seem nice.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 8, 2019 20:06:20 GMT -5
I'll let you know when those gutless shit Democrats get around to having a vote to open a real impeachment inquiry. Why did he bother to refuse to cooperate with what I guess you would call a “phony” impeachment inquiry? Speaking of “gutless shit,” his main golfing pal in the Senate, Lindsey Graham, led the GOP’s courageous inquiry into Clinton. He said failure to comply with Congressional subpoenas alone was cause for impeachment. I wonder if he will make the same distinction that this time it is “gutless shit” (which, by the way, I can’t find anywhere in the Constitution. Maybe “gutless shit” shows up in the Federalist Papers?) With Clinton the Republicans at least had the balls to vote for an impeachment inquiry. Or didn't they teach you that in school?
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 9, 2019 8:58:26 GMT -5
Why did he bother to refuse to cooperate with what I guess you would call a “phony” impeachment inquiry? Speaking of “gutless shit,” his main golfing pal in the Senate, Lindsey Graham, led the GOP’s courageous inquiry into Clinton. He said failure to comply with Congressional subpoenas alone was cause for impeachment. I wonder if he will make the same distinction that this time it is “gutless shit” (which, by the way, I can’t find anywhere in the Constitution. Maybe “gutless shit” shows up in the Federalist Papers?) With Clinton the Republicans at least had the balls to vote for an impeachment inquiry. Or didn't they teach you that in school? It's not apples and apples. The investigations in the Clinton impeachment were farmed out to Ken Starr. Due to changes in the Special Council law, Mueller did not have the same charge as Starr. The courageous Republicans initiated their impeachment during the lame duck session after the 1998 elections. The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. That hasn't changed. The President is adding Obstruction of Justice to the articles that will be introduced. BTW- Condescension ("Or didn't they teach you that in school?") adds nothing to your argument.
|
|