Do you take joy in causing or seeing emotional trauma in your political opposites?

You asked for a straight 'up' or 'down' answer. So, I voted "yes", although it is not what I preferred -- and I never used to feel this way!

But I think what tipped me over was seeing the way the radical Democrat Party behaved, from Pelosi all the way down, during and after the State of the Union Address. After THAT, now if I see one of these mewling, hyperliberal, America-hating bastards in torment and agony, I cannot help but think their misery is well-deserved!

 

Trump has broken plenty of laws btw. in regards to your signature.

 

So because of what a representative from CA did you now want to cause “well deserved” misery to all Democrats? Interesting

 

The trumpers seem to think that making eeeevil libruls upset means that it's solid policy.

 

Oh? "Trump has broken plenty of laws"...? Then why didn't the radical Democrat 'brain-trust' of Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler, etc. list those LAWS WHICH YOU SAY TRUMP BROKE in their hooptie Articles of Impeachment...?

These House Democrat morons strained and struggled like a boar sh!tting a peach seed to get Trump impeached and removed... so if you're right, why didn't they at least go for what surely would have been an easy 'kill-shot' instead...?!

Conclusion: either these Democrats were indescribably negligent, or, just plain STOOPID....

 

If anyone comes to the internet, talks politics, and then feels emotional trauma, it's because they want to. Clearly folks like that are taking this all too seriously, so maybe this isn't for them. At the end of the day, it's the internet, if you don't know by now you have to take things well salted...

 

It wasn't always like this. In the past there was actual discussion. That requires compromise and both sides willing to back up what they said. Now, with the hyper-partisan environment that's gone. It took years to get where we are now.

Now compromise is weakness, any troll can kill a thread or derail it. But we accept that and often promote it, simply a reflection of the political environment. You just can't take too seriously...

 

All I’ve got right now is my cell, but I will dispel this fairytale upon my return home tomorrow.

With a flick of my mental prowess.

 

Do hurry! I'm utterly breathless in anticipation of whatever explanation you can concoct explaining why, if Trump broke laws, the idiot Democrats didn't go straight ahead and impeach him for doing THAT! This ought to be good....

 

Had to say yes.....I love to see the pundits cry and feign emotion like in 2016. The had ridden the Trump will never win train for a long time. I relish seeing Rachel Maddow cry, Matthews lose the tingle up his leg. It's fun seeing all these commie educated university activists wail and knash their teeth. Am I sick?

 

You aren't alone. There's a wicked part of me which, if it went unrestrained, would have a lot of these America-hating, Constitution-hating, "woke" bastards gnashing their teeth until their teeth broke completely off and fell out.

But, things are coming to a 'head'... and there's a growing danger that what happened in the old German Weimar Republic could happen here. Today it would be the Antifa Left versus the Conservative Right. In Germany in the late 1920's, it was Communists versus National Socialists.

The future is in our own hands -- for now. But we do appear to be actively in the process now of fugging-up what was once the very greatest, most successful, wonderful country on Earth....

 

You’re going to have to wait. My thumbs are not precision tools.

 

We tried to warn them but they are hell bent on harming the Republican party so yeah, it's fun to watch them suffer because of their own failure. Self inflicted pain is the most fun to watch. I am a sadist when it comes to politics.

 

As we became older most of our activities somehow became focused on politics and and thus transformed us to become keyboard political fanatics. Politics is always hyped to stir emotional upheaval, but for me I set it aside sometimes drink my bud while watching football, any of both parties works with me just fine, I'm a self made man.

 

1. A federal "crime" isn't a requirement. This only stands to reason since there was no federal criminal code at the time. Please do some research.

https://apnews.com/a4ac94cbde7e34c953dce82d0f60d0a4

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

"The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

For the more than 200 years since the Constitution was adopted, Congress has seriously considered impeachment only 18 times. Thirteen of these cases involved federal judges. The “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the House charged against these judges included being habitually drunk, showing favoritism on the bench, using judicial power unlawfully, using the office for financial gain, unlawfully punishing people for contempt of court, submitting false expense accounts, getting special deals from parties appearing before the court, bullying people in open court, filing false income tax returns, making false statements while under oath, and disclosing confidential information.

Only three of the 18 impeachment cases have involved a president — Andrew Johnson in 1868, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998. It’s important to take a brief look at these three cases to understand how Congress has interpreted “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

2. Part of the "problem" with what the House was doing was caused directly by the subject of the impeachment inquiry. Bonespurs obstructed Congress by making bad faith arguments (I won't call them "legal arguments", because they seemingly made them up out of thin air).

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-a4c4-d442-a5ef-fee4e04c0000

"DOJ asserts that current and former senior-level presidential aides have “absolute testimonial immunity” from compelled congressional process, as a matter of law; therefore, if the President invokes “executive privilege” over a current or former aides’ testimony—as he has done with respect to McGahn—that aide need not accede to the lawful demands of Congress------

-------- Accordingly, if a duly authorized committee of Congress issues a valid legislative subpoena to a current or former senior-level presidential aide, the law requires the aide to appear as directed, and assert executive privilege as appropriate."

3. The "presuhdint" ordering witnesses not to cooperate with the House and refusing to provide documents is, per se, obstruction of Congress.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-congress-impeachment-and-constitutional-conflict

This is lengthy and dry, but is an excellent discussion concerning the absurdity of Bonesp

 

I guess you weren't that interested after all.

 

You only posted your reply a couple of hours ago... keep your shirt on....

 

No. Hop to.

 

Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 primarily because of the "Tenure of Office Act", which he vetoed, and because he and Congress had entirely different political views on "Reconstruction" mandates in the South. BTW, the "Tenure of Office Act" was thrown out twenty years later anyway.... Anyway, we might agree that the REAL reason he was impeached was not because Johnson really broke a law, but because of partisan politics... does that sound oddly familiar?

By contrast, Bill Clinton did actually break a law -- he lied to a grand jury under oath! And that's a flat-out crime, no matter how you slice-and-dice it.

It is clear that what you on the Left wanted in this Trump impeachment was a lot of ELASTICITY in what permissible criteria for impeachment and removal are. Now, suddenly, in 2019 - 2020, the radical Democrat House bethought itself that impeachment need not necessarily involve a crime, but that other considerations were just as good... right? But if that's really so, then why didn't Hamilton, Jay, et al, move to have the Constitution AMENDED to reflect those theories in what actually does qualify for impeachment and removal...?

Nemesis, this isn't England in 1386, and it's not the U. S. in 1868 right after a civil war, either. Hell, for that matter, it's not 1998. No, so I infer that your faction's concept of Trump being guilty of an 'abuse of power' is wholly subjective and therefore invalid. Why would I say that?

In your faction's view, Trump asking the government of Ukraine for help in unmasking and unearthing corruption and fraud in the handling of hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from the U. S. was deliberate scheming to undo a political rival for no good reason at all. But, in my faction's view, Biden had clearly misused his power and authority as vice-president to garnish privilege and wealth for his own family in return for Biden's amicable performance in making sure the money flowed in abundance to Ukraine... and Trump wasn't going to cease investigating it with more hundreds of millions of American dollars freshly appropriated by Congress, just because Joe Biden was a Democrat candidate!

So, I would submit to you that no matter what 'slant' either of us might take on what Biden did, raw 'SUBJECTIVITY' is not a commanding reason to bring forth articles of impeachment. And although I know you'll disagree, I still say that if (IF) the House Democrats had crafted those articles to indicate clear, easy-to-understand, no-nonsense LAW-BREAKING, it would have been impossible for Republicans not to vote for Trump's removal.

Clearly, impeachment and removal from office is not something we American's should ever treat lightly! Consider: even AFTER Bill Clinton was caught committing the actual CRIME of lying under oath to a grand jury, he still wasn't removed from office!

 

That reflects what you'd prefer the law to be, not what it is. As I've painstakingly pointed out.

The founders borrowed the English notion of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It encompasses not only "crimes", but the abuse of office.

Because of the process, and the fact that it's almost never used, I have no problem with how it has been traditionally applied here.

 

Well, again, in the 21st-century United States, if I had been in charge of drawing up articles of impeachment, and knowing full well that the whole thing would be heavily overshadowed by political partisan combat, I'd have put together articles that were firmly rooted in facts that clearly demonstrated, on-their-face, that LAWS had been broken! But, Schiff, Nadler and the rest of the radical Democrat 'brain-trust' would have it otherwise in their rush to give themselves a 'Christmas present'. -- "Party like it's 1386!"

I wonder how much these little Democrat 'elves' like the hooptie Christmas present they made for themselves now....

 

I just snorted water up the back of my nose. This has got to be the quote of the day....

 

No, rather, your viewpoint reflects the elastic interpretation YOU'D prefer the Constitution to be parsed with. What 'law' are you talking about? Are you referring to the extra-legal musings of Hamilton, et al, again?

You have completely ignored the pivotal question I asked you about the 'opinions' of Hamilton and the others -- and why they weren't leveraged to amend the Constitution. So, I'll put the question before you again:

"Now, suddenly, in 2019 - 2020, the radical Democrat House bethought itself that impeachment need not necessarily involve a crime, but that other considerations were just as good... right? But if that's really so, then why didn't Hamilton, Jay, et al, move to have the Constitution AMENDED to reflect those theories in what actually does qualify for impeachment and removal...?"

Afterthought: too bad Burr didn't kill Hamilton five years earlier than he did....

. "Meh... I was too busy with my dream to create a central banking system to control everything..."

 

They dont care if its not. They would be happy to sacrifice anything in order to "stick it to the libs". I truly believe this. All bad policy will be accepted as long as it triggers liberals. Nothing else is more important to the avg Trump lemming.

 

I have argued with both.

I oppose Liberals on 1) Identity Politics; 2) Censorship.

I oppose Conservatives on 1) Guns -- instruments of murder and suicide; 2) Opposition to Welfare.