DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[BigRedBuster]

23 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Conservatives wtout heart and compassion don't deserve the name.  No reason one cannot be conservative and think rightly about the betterment of everyone. 

I just don’t get why bigotry and racism is part of conservatism. It makes no sense to me. 

 

As it turns out, it’s part of being Republican....not conservative. 

 

Problem is, republicans think it’s the same thing. 

[BigRedBuster]

I’m interested in knowing what is confusing about that. 

[TGHusker]

On 3/9/2019 at 12:47 PM, BigRedBuster said:

I just don’t get why bigotry and racism is part of conservatism. It makes no sense to me. 

 

As it turns out, it’s part of being Republican....not conservative. 

 

Problem is, republicans think it’s the same thing. 

Bingo

[TGHusker]

It is a badge of honor to get an eye roll ^^^ when one is on the correct side of the debate.  The eye roller could come out of the shadows and join the discussion.... if they had something intelligent to contribute.

[TGHusker]

Pelosi says impeachment not worth the trouble.  She must expect to defeat Trump at the polls in 2020.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/im-not-for-impeachment-pelosi-says-potentially-roiling-fellow-democrats/ar-BBUDZTQ

[commando]

17 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Pelosi says impeachment not worth the trouble.  She must expect to defeat Trump at the polls in 2020.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/im-not-for-impeachment-pelosi-says-potentially-roiling-fellow-democrats/ar-BBUDZTQ

so what if the house impeaches....it's meaningless unless the senate follows suit and they are not going to convict no matter what evidence they are shown.   

[TGHusker]

14 hours ago, commando said:

so what if the house impeaches....it's meaningless unless the senate follows suit and they are not going to convict no matter what evidence they are shown.   

very true.  That is a reality San Fran Nan probably sees - so why waste the political capital of giving the GOP an issue that will fortify their base.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

very true.  That is a reality San Fran Nan probably sees - so why waste the political capital of giving the GOP an issue that will fortify their base.

This is the reason so many people hate politicians. Pelosi is weighing whether to impeach based on party politics instead of the merits of the case. If there's evidence to move forward with impeachment, then do it based on the evidence not on what she believes will happen with future elections.

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

This is the reason so many people hate politicians. Pelosi is weighing whether to impeach based on party politics instead of the merits of the case. If there's evidence to move forward with impeachment, then do it based on the evidence not on what she believes will happen with future elections.

Bingo.  If the evidence is there, they are responsible to the Constitution & to the voters to do what is correct.  No different than a DA not prosecuting a potential felon because he has cancer and may be dead soon (yea bad comparison but you should get my point).   The DA and Pelosi have a fiduciary responsibility to prosecute if the evidence is there. Nothing less is dereliction of the duty that the job requires.  She and the Dems can no longer point the finger at do nothing Paul Ryan or the GOP sitting on their hands.

[Fru]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

This is the reason so many people hate politicians. Pelosi is weighing whether to impeach based on party politics instead of the merits of the case. If there's evidence to move forward with impeachment, then do it based on the evidence not on what she believes will happen with future elections.

 

19 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Bingo.  If the evidence is there, they are responsible to the Constitution & to the voters to do what is correct.  No different than a DA not prosecuting a potential felon because he has cancer and may be dead soon (yea bad comparison but you should get my point).   The DA and Pelosi have a fiduciary responsibility to prosecute if the evidence is there. Nothing less is dereliction of the duty that the job requires.  She and the Dems can no longer point the finger at do nothing Paul Ryan or the GOP sitting on their hands.

 

So Pelosi has to champion a crusade that will go nowhere and would very likely backfire? 

[Ratt Mhule]

The way to get at Trump is through his kids.  If Don Jr. gets indicted than Trump might resign.  Other than that, the republicans don't care what he does, so they will not go along with impeachment.  Democrats need to try and beat him in the election.

[TGHusker]

9 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

 

So Pelosi has to champion a crusade that will go nowhere and would very likely backfire? 

No Pelosi needs to look at all of the evidence - do the hard work - and then make the decision instead of deciding now that there should be no impeachment.  As SF says above, it could be taken out of her hands if someone like Don Jr gets indicted.  But let it play out before you give up. 

[RedDenver]

9 minutes ago, Fru said:

So Pelosi has to champion a crusade that will go nowhere and would very likely backfire? 

She and the rest of Congress is supposed to hold the President accountable, so her choosing to not impeach on future political possibilities is irresponsible and poor government. Doing the right thing even if it could backfire is what people with integrity do.

 

But even if she's going to weasel out politically, she messed that up too. What she should have said was that the investigation is still going and she's waiting for all the evidence. Or made a case why Trump shouldn't be impeached on the evidence (or lack thereof) or some legal precedence.

[Danny Bateman]

Senate Republicans might vote to impeach him if he were unpopular with their voters. But he's not, particularly in red states. He's still got an 85+% approval rating with the base.

 

So he won't be convicted either, also on the basis of politics, regardless of the evidence.

 

If Pelosi is waiting on Mueller to drop his findings to use them as the basis for impeachment, good. That's what should happen. If she's flat out decided against it because she thinks he's beatable next year at the polls, that's a poor leadership if there's evidence he committed crimes.

[Fru]

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

She and the rest of Congress is supposed to hold the President accountable, so her choosing to not impeach on future political possibilities is irresponsible and poor government. Doing the right thing even if it could backfire is what people with integrity do.

 

But even if she's going to weasel out politically, she messed that up too. What she should have said was that the investigation is still going and she's waiting for all the evidence. Or made a case why Trump shouldn't be impeached on the evidence (or lack thereof) or some legal precedence.

 

I think an argument could be made that putting on a show, just for the sake of it, and delivering another 4 years of Trump would be pretty irresponsible.

 

I agree with the second part. All questions about impeachment should be met with "The investigation is still ongoing, we will address that at a later time."