TTH wrote:
TTH? wrote:
Like Obama with Healthcare, calling it Obamacare, kinda like that?
The ACA being coined as Obamacare came from the right.
So not "like".
Not entirely true, Obama did coin it first (ego), but I meant that the Republicans went along with it.
I see you were right. So it's "positive". Good catch, I misread my sources wrong. Obamacare was coined by Obama.
I see you were right. So it's "positive". Good catch, I misread my sources wrong. Obamacare was coined by Republicans.
-- I mistyped. Correction above.
TTH wrote:
TTH wrote:
The ACA being coined as Obamacare came from the right.
So not "like".
Not entirely true, Obama did coin it first (ego), but I meant that the Republicans went along with it.
No. None other than Mitt Romney appears to have first used the term Obamacare. Before Obama was even President, and before there was an ACA.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/who-coined-obamacare/335745/Fat hurts wrote:
I don't think the founders meant for impeachment to be a means to make a political statement.
It should be used judiciously and only if you are truly prepared to remove the president.
I don't follow you there.
Impeaching a president for crimes he committed is not making a political statement.
Those who would vote for impeachment are totally prepared to remove the president.
You're saying don't do it unless you have the 67 Senate votes.
You can't know the votes until you have the trial.
Sometimes guilty criminals get off but it doesn't mean they should not have been put on trial.
The crimes are there. The precedent is there.
TTH wrote:
I see you were right. So it's "positive". Good catch, I misread my sources wrong. Obamacare was coined by Democrats.
-- I mistyped. Correction above.
Flagpole wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Even so, I don't think the shutdown has anything to do with impeachment.
Impeachment is a waste of time if it's not going to result in Tiny's removal from office.
It's better to spend that time doing investigation and oversight to prepare the public for Tiny's indictment.
I agree with what Pelosi said yesterday on Impeachment..."we shouldn't be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn't avoid impeachment for a political reason."
I think you have to look at this as fulfilling a duty or not. If the President of the United States has committed "impeachable offenses" (I am fine with waiting until more evidence is available -- Mueller report, etc.), then it is the DUTY of the House to draw up articles of impeachment, regardless of what may or may not happen in the Senate. It is ok to WISH it weren't that way, but there really should be NO OPTION to avoid the impeachment process if it is shown Trump committed impeachable offenses, even if the Senate comes to the House and says they won't get the votes to remove him.
While I say impeachment should happen just based on evidence, I also say that a Senate who SAYS they won't vote to convict before the House impeaches is different then from being on the line after said impeachment and after they see what voters have to say.
No one thought Bucky Dent would be remembered for hitting a big home run either.
Democrats right now are like an old woman who haven’t had sex in years and they finally have the opportunity. All this stuff that they want to initiate like destroy the electoral college, tax returns public , and impeachment will just get struck down in the senate.
TTH wrote:
I see you were right. So it's "positive". Good catch, I misread my sources wrong. Obamacare was coined by Republicans.
-- I mistyped. Correction above.
there are so many trump crimes that today they had to extend the Mueller Grand Jury.
COME ON TRUMP, show us what you got. The legal justice system is ready and loaded for bear.
L L wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I don't think the founders meant for impeachment to be a means to make a political statement.
It should be used judiciously and only if you are truly prepared to remove the president.
I don't follow you there.
Impeaching a president for crimes he committed is not making a political statement.
Those who would vote for impeachment are totally prepared to remove the president.
You're saying don't do it unless you have the 67 Senate votes.
You can't know the votes until you have the trial.
Sometimes guilty criminals get off but it doesn't mean they should not have been put on trial.
The crimes are there. The precedent is there.
Yes you can know the votes before the trial. We know that if impeachment happened today it would go nowhere in the senate.
And your "guilty criminal" example is a good metaphor. Even if a prosecutor knows the criminal is guilty, he does not indict if he doesn't think he can get a conviction. It would just waste everyone's time and money. You don't hold a trial just to make a point.
The House has a lot of important things to do. They need to do whatever they can to remove this dangerous president. This includes investigations, hearings, and protecting Mueller.
Impeachment should not happen until and unless there is a decent chance the president will be found guilty. To proceed before that would be irresponsible.
Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:
Democrats right now are like an old woman who haven’t had sex in years and they finally have the opportunity. All this stuff that they want to initiate like destroy the electoral college, tax returns public , and impeachment will just get struck down in the senate.
Democrats don't need the senate to get Tiny's tax returns. The law already allows the chairman of the house Ways and Means committee to obtain a copy of anyone's returns directly from the Treasury Department. It would just be up to the courts to decide if the request was lawful. It might be a little messy, but the Democrats would almost certainly prevail.
I'll be very surprised if we don't see those returns some time later this year.
Does it really need to be debated on who this shutdown should be blamed on? Didn’t someone say that they’d be proud to shutdown the government then vetoed a bill that would keep the govt open? Then 2 weeks into the shutdown said they would keep “it” going as long as they needed? Where is the argument? Why doesn’t the president own his actions? He believes it is worth it then own it.
Fat hurts wrote:
Yes you can know the votes before the trial. We know that if impeachment happened today it would go nowhere in the senate.
See, that's ridiculous.
What you are saying (and I agree) is that Republicans will vote as a whole in favor of their party member no matter what crime or ethics violation they may commit.
But you have to have that vote on record.
Trump has weakened our airport security. He needs to demand Trillions of $$$ for a 50,000 foot tall air wall to encompass the USA. Hawaii will become a series beautiful ocean mega-silos; but not more sunlight.
Hundreds of TSA screeners, working without pay, calling out sick at major airports
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/shutdown-tsa-screening/index.html
Wasted Energy wrote:
Does it really need to be debated on who this shutdown should be blamed on? Didn’t someone say that they’d be proud to shutdown the government then vetoed a bill that would keep the govt open? Then 2 weeks into the shutdown said they would keep “it” going as long as they needed? Where is the argument? Why doesn’t the president own his actions? He believes it is worth it then own it.
Yes, he believes it is worth it. And he absolutely owns it. He has foolishly framed this as "president takes a stand".
If he were taking a real stand on a real principle then he might get away with it. But a useless wall doesn't rise to the level of moral imperative. That's painfully obvious to all but the most fierce anti-immigrant activists.
So the longer the shutdown continues the worse it will get for the president. The stories of how this affects real people will just continue to hammer away at public opinion until Tiny finally has to cave.
L L wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Yes you can know the votes before the trial. We know that if impeachment happened today it would go nowhere in the senate.
See, that's ridiculous.
What you are saying (and I agree) is that Republicans will vote as a whole in favor of their party member no matter what crime or ethics violation they may commit.
But you have to have that vote on record.
Holding a vote just to get politicians on the record is political game-playing. I know that it is done all the time, but you don't do it for something as serious as impeachment. It would backfire on the Democrats.
Fat hurts wrote:
Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:
Democrats right now are like an old woman who haven’t had sex in years and they finally have the opportunity. All this stuff that they want to initiate like destroy the electoral college, tax returns public , and impeachment will just get struck down in the senate.
Democrats don't need the senate to get Tiny's tax returns. The law already allows the chairman of the house Ways and Means committee to obtain a copy of anyone's returns directly from the Treasury Department. It would just be up to the courts to decide if the request was lawful. It might be a little messy, but the Democrats would almost certainly prevail.
I'll be very surprised if we don't see those returns some time later this year.
Agree.
Fat hurts wrote:
So the longer the shutdown continues the worse it will get for the president. The stories of how this affects real people will just continue to hammer away at public opinion until Tiny finally has to cave.
Especially if the shutdown starts holding up IRS refunds which, if the shutdown lasts, it will eventually.
TTH wrote:
TTH wrote:
I see you were right. So it's "positive". Good catch, I misread my sources wrong. Obamacare was coined by Democrats.
-- I mistyped. Correction above.
TTH wrote:
TTH wrote:
I see you were right. So it's "positive". Good catch, I misread my sources wrong. Obamacare was coined by Republicans.
-- I mistyped. Correction above.