General Discussion

FreepFryer

(7,086 posts)

107. What does that have to do with my OP? Your argument is not contradictory to it

Tue May 21, 2019, 02:09 PM

May 2019

Because Speaker Pelosi, nor the Democratic majority House, feels the way about impeachment as I describe in my OP.

Not sure why you don't seem to realize you are arguing with a phantom. I've not argued what you think I've argued - because you appear to misunderstand Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats' positions on impeachment.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

192 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So many posts trying to plant the notion that impeachment is hopeless, meaningless, ill-advised. [View all] FreepFryer May 2019 OP

Amazing how people have different opinions. marylandblue May 2019 #1

Yep, I'm tired of my way or the highway. redstatebluegirl May 2019 #3

Exactly. Me too. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #5

I also haven't seen all of these posts "trying to plant the notion that impeachment is hopeless, StarfishSaver May 2019 #89

Me either. Nuggets May 2019 #93

And i agree 100% with those points you made, except if you haven't seen "its hopeless" posts on DU, FreepFryer May 2019 #98

With drawing comment. I'm away Hortensis May 2019 #103

I continue to hold u in very high esteem, but there are bunches on this post alone... FreepFryer May 2019 #141

What? Laura PourMeADrink May 2019 #175

noted nt Grasswire2 May 2019 #2

Yeah what's up with that? shanny May 2019 #4

Actually, there are more posts that call for immediate impeachment. MineralMan May 2019 #6

This message was self-deleted by its author ehrnst May 2019 #8

Well, the impeachment question is a serious one. MineralMan May 2019 #21

+1000 (nt) ehrnst May 2019 #26

BINGO. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #36

I also don't think people understand disqualification (a vote separate and apart from removal) nt FreepFryer May 2019 #39

+1,001. n/t RichardRay May 2019 #100

This message was self-deleted by its author ehrnst May 2019 #7

Are you saying there's not enough evidence to impeach Trump? coti May 2019 #9

Are you thinking a conviction in the Senate is possible? If so I have a bridge... Demsrule86 May 2019 #17

+1000. (nt) ehrnst May 2019 #20

Thanks Demsrule86 May 2019 #33

I think conviction is unlikely but not impossible. But the point is to be clear about the values coti May 2019 #28

Hitting Trump makes you feel like you are 'doing something' but all that will happen is the Demsrule86 May 2019 #32

No, you're defining him and laying out the evidence for the whole country, in the spectacle and coti May 2019 #35

Oh, so televised hearings that are not part of impeachment procedings don't have enough ehrnst May 2019 #70

Those that don't, Ike Trump are dug in and so is the other side. This is not Demsrule86 May 2019 #167

You don't think that Dems are de-legitimizing him now? ehrnst May 2019 #40

No, apparently he's legitimate enough that people like you won't even support impeaching him coti May 2019 #43

false dilemma for the win... ehrnst May 2019 #60

Great response!!!! Not holding him accountable IS DEFINITELY legitimizing him and Laura PourMeADrink May 2019 #179

WTF Skittles May 2019 #86

We Need to win in 20. If Trump wins again, it will be way worse. Demsrule86 May 2019 #163

and what if we don't impeach and he "wins" anyway? Skittles May 2019 #164

It won't matter. He will still Demsrule86 May 2019 #170

if only for history's sake we need to start impeachment proceedings Skittles May 2019 #171

I know nothing about impeachment so my question is blueinredohio May 2019 #87

If 2/3rds of the Senate doesn't vote to remove, he stays in office, without any penalty... BUT FreepFryer May 2019 #142

Thanks FreepFryer that helped explain a lot. blueinredohio May 2019 #145

He's pushing, imho, because he's 1. egomaniacal, 2. used to goading prosecutors and violating law, & FreepFryer May 2019 #146

Unless he is removed from office, he keeps all his powers. Demsrule86 May 2019 #162

Why are you asking me? I'm not in the House, nor am I a lawyer. ehrnst May 2019 #18

Sure there is. The House can impeach for just about anything. MineralMan May 2019 #30

The Clinton removal vote in the Senate wasn't really all that close. The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #83

That's right. MineralMan May 2019 #91

Trump being named a co-conspirator in a felony watoos May 2019 #10

What is the point of impeachment without conviction? In fact the Senate will exonnerate him. Demsrule86 May 2019 #14

What about disqualification? Have you ever researched that? FreepFryer May 2019 #59

What about it? Disqualification is your point. You need to make it and explain it. Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #76

No, that's not my OP's point. THe point is that simplistic (mis)understandings and horserace denials FreepFryer May 2019 #112

Thank you, but not in your OP or the post I replied. Interesting. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #116

You're impugning my motives for articulating my argument? It surprises me that you would attack me FreepFryer May 2019 #119

Sorry, no impugning, no attack. I was explaining why I simply did not see your 'other' post. Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #127

It's cool - I'm obv getting some friction for the post, and I have a lot of respect for you... FreepFryer May 2019 #130

The Senate run by McConnell is not going to disqualify Trump. Demsrule86 May 2019 #165

So you think Trump can be 'disqualified like a horse? Nothing in the constitution Demsrule86 May 2019 #161

Then he'll gloat and claim victory redstateblues May 2019 #110

He's doing that *right now* durablend May 2019 #158

But after the Senate exonerated him , it will be worse. Demsrule86 May 2019 #166

That is what I think. Demsrule86 May 2019 #160

Anyone thinking that impeachment is the only way to make a case against him ehrnst May 2019 #29

+1. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #77

+1! (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #147

That's absolutely not what I'm saying. FreepFryer May 2019 #19

Thank you for the clarification. I misread the OP. ehrnst May 2019 #23

No worries, I really appreciate the acknowledgment - my post was rather strident. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #34

Clarification? RichardRay May 2019 #106

It's not a lesser count - it's a separate vote, as described in the Senate overview document. FreepFryer May 2019 #108

You are misunderstanding this. The disqualifiction vote only occurs after conviction. bornskeptic May 2019 #181

Personally, I don't want impeachment unless it goes all the way... cynatnite May 2019 #11

Not necessarily true - a disqualification vote, if held in the Senate, requires only simple majority FreepFryer May 2019 #31

The mechanism is weak without both chambers willing to impeach... cynatnite May 2019 #42

If a disqualifying vote passed in the Senate, Trump couldn't run in 2020, and we wouldn't get Pence. FreepFryer May 2019 #51

In a repub senate??? cynatnite May 2019 #52

How is a simple majority in the Senate impossible? A 2/3rds majority perhaps, but a simple majority? FreepFryer May 2019 #53

I'm declaring it impossible because of who is in charge and has majority already. n/t cynatnite May 2019 #54

Read about the Nixon hearings and how many Republicans seemed in lockstep in June 1972, Feb 1974... FreepFryer May 2019 #56

Nixon had tapes.... cynatnite May 2019 #58

And when did we learn about those tapes? July, 1973. AFTER HEARINGS HAD BEGUN. FreepFryer May 2019 #61

Hey, I'm not looking to change minds here... cynatnite May 2019 #67

Someone on the side of reality constructs arguments based on facts, not opinion. FreepFryer May 2019 #71

Fact: Repubs have the senate and the WH. Period. n/t cynatnite May 2019 #82

Mkay! EXCLAMATION POINT n/t FreepFryer May 2019 #84

A simple majority? How does that magically appear? redstateblues May 2019 #192

Republicans held both houses in 1998 and 1999 NewJeffCT May 2019 #62

They stole the presidency in 2000 Trumpocalypse May 2019 #156

Al Gore NewJeffCT May 2019 #157

The truth is in the middle. maxsolomon May 2019 #12

Exactly. Me too. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #22

Oh you can impeach...no issue. But then the Senate declares him innocent and he goes on his Demsrule86 May 2019 #13

Impeach him again. maxsolomon May 2019 #15

+1 uponit7771 May 2019 #148

If we win this election, give thanks...it is going to be very tough. Demsrule86 May 2019 #169

Oh, I will. maxsolomon May 2019 #182

I know. Demsrule86 May 2019 #191

don't impeach and he declares himself exonerated by the Mueller investigation...and blames democrats spanone May 2019 #25

Nixon was at 60% when impeachment began, 21 months after Watergate. He resigned when the tide turned FreepFryer May 2019 #27

Seriously? This is not 1973. There will be no turning of tides. Both sides are dug in. Demsrule86 May 2019 #168

The tide will not turn. Demsrule86 May 2019 #190

There is no proof of this Rambling Man May 2019 #189

Bullying people because they don't think the same as you sucks wasupaloopa May 2019 #16

Doesn't it? It's getting really beyond tiresome being attacked for supporting the rule of law. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #24

Well, see, the law says that the House decides whether or not to impeach. MineralMan May 2019 #38

The House of Representatives IS us, just once removed by election. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #41

That is correct. And we vote again next year on the entire MineralMan May 2019 #44

True enough! Again, the Nixon process tells us much re the tectonic shifts impeachment can enable... FreepFryer May 2019 #49

Nixon wasn't impeached. He resigned before impeachment proceedings started. MineralMan May 2019 #65

I'm well aware. I'm an historian. FreepFryer May 2019 #66

As we live in a republic, they are not us. Kaleva May 2019 #45

No but they are We The People. (nt) FreepFryer May 2019 #50

The Founding Fathers had concerns about the tyranny of the majority. Kaleva May 2019 #68

Is it that or "the tyranny of the demos qua plebs" to which you object? FreepFryer May 2019 #69

I don't object to anything. Kaleva May 2019 #73

NO- they have a RESPONSIBILITY to protect and defend our constitution and democracy nt coti May 2019 #48

You're saying that Democratic leaders are NOT protecting and defending our constitution and ehrnst May 2019 #72

That's what they are doing rather than Nuggets May 2019 #97

No, this is appeasement. nt coti May 2019 #102

Appeasement does not mean what you think it does. Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #123

No, your definition is far too narrow. It's making any explicit or implied deal beneficial to an coti May 2019 #172

No. The Ds (realists) have no expectation tRump would ever stop attacking. So they aren't appeasing. Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #187

No, it's not. (nt) ehrnst May 2019 #173

Yes it is. nt coti May 2019 #174

Nope, it's not. ehrnst May 2019 #176

I'm quite certain it is. coti May 2019 #177

Actually no, it's not. ehrnst May 2019 #178

If there were any "logical" (I assume you mean "well-reasoned") arguments or "data" coti May 2019 #180

You present only your opinion as though it is data. ehrnst May 2019 #185

They are carrying out that responsibility. But you seem to look for reasons to ehrnst May 2019 #186

One thing that has given me hope.... is the uptick in impeachment talk over the last couple dewsgirl May 2019 #37

Same here. The wheel is turning, and we don't want it flying off the wagon as we start moving. n/t FreepFryer May 2019 #46

Exactly. dewsgirl May 2019 #47

Yes. There has to be lots of talk first before the public scares the Republicon Senators. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #81

I can't keep up with everything like before..to much happening. dewsgirl May 2019 #94

I Haven't Seen Hopeless Me. May 2019 #55

Here's a fresh example of 'hopeless' FreepFryer May 2019 #57

There's a difference between "it's hopeless" TwilightZone May 2019 #132

Assuming removal is the only possible binary outcome (and despairing its failure) is the error. FreepFryer May 2019 #133

It is the only binary outcome. TwilightZone May 2019 #134

You clearly didn't read post 128, nor do u understand impeachment as well as u think u do (nt) FreepFryer May 2019 #135

The point is MFM008 May 2019 #184

I personally think we are working up to impeachment but until the Thugs appleannie1943 May 2019 #63

Is it merely cowardly, fear-based defeatism... Fiendish Thingy May 2019 #64

Impeachment is not removal Stinky The Clown May 2019 #74

indeed, it is not - if you notice above I make the exact same point - uncriminally. FreepFryer May 2019 #78

I don't think he misread it at, the OP is "anybody who disagrees with me is an idiot" ... marble falls May 2019 #96

That's an inattentive mischaracterization of the OP, perhaps brought on by fatigue. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #99

And I think the OP was meant to provke a fight. I pay very close attention to this sort of post ... marble falls May 2019 #101

I support SpkrPelosi 100%. She made NONE of those arguments. Again, u r being inattentive to my post FreepFryer May 2019 #104

Speaker Pelosi has not been looking to impeachment as a solution to the Trump problem ... marble falls May 2019 #105

What does that have to do with my OP? Your argument is not contradictory to it FreepFryer May 2019 #107

Your proposition is: 'anyone against impeaching the Orange Shitgibbon in in the sway ... marble falls May 2019 #111

No it's exactly NOT what i've said - you 100% misunderstand my OP and are resistant to dialogue. FreepFryer May 2019 #115

I am precluding anymore of your dancing around the issue. You want an immediate impeachment ... marble falls May 2019 #118

I do NOT want immediate impeachment, as described elsewhere in this OP. You're COMPLETELY WRONG(n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #121

Keep dancing. marble falls May 2019 #122

LOL. Read my comments here and you might see you are arguing against an inverse of my argument. FreepFryer May 2019 #125

... and a five, six, seven, eight ..... marble falls May 2019 #131

"Amazing how these waves of similar-sounding crap just seem to lap at our shores." brooklynite May 2019 #124

Good luck with that! marble falls May 2019 #126

Your amazed that some DU members disagree with you? GulfCoast66 May 2019 #75

So many posts calling a mere difference of opinion and analysis "crap" as well. LanternWaste May 2019 #79

Exactly right - and a terrible lack of facts and context. History and law versus horseraces. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #80

I think we are headed in the right direction... BlueJac May 2019 #85

Yes, agreed - but since power is based on the perception of power, it's a careful balance between... FreepFryer May 2019 #88

Do you know that they are not being as tough as possible? (nt) ehrnst May 2019 #90

+1. I agreed that we are moving in the right direction, I reject that Democrats are not being tough. FreepFryer May 2019 #95

I don't think it's so much ill advised. . . . BigDemVoter May 2019 #92

Agreed! Vinnie From Indy May 2019 #109

Or perhaps people have opinions which differ from yours jberryhill May 2019 #113

It certainly is - this is not a simple matter of opinion, it's about misunderstanding impeachment FreepFryer May 2019 #114

Are you saying that I part of some external trolling effort? brooklynite May 2019 #117

It's not as if those folks make a difference. fescuerescue May 2019 #120

MIGHT WANNA READ AND UNDERSTAND MY ARGUMENT BEFORE INVERTING OR TWISTING IT FreepFryer May 2019 #128

Your OP doesn't make an argument. TwilightZone May 2019 #137

It has everything to do with my OP, but I appreciate the feedback! FreepFryer May 2019 #138

Then you should have made those points in the OP. TwilightZone May 2019 #139

Indeed - thanks again for the feedback, it's not just about me - we should all use Windex! FreepFryer May 2019 #140

I actually go back and forth. Most of the time I think it absolutely must happen, Dream Girl May 2019 #129

That's probably the most well-adapted psychological posture for surviving this craziness :) FreepFryer May 2019 #144

Amazing indeed malaise May 2019 #136

I'm particularly fascinated by the people who take my OP personally... very revealing indeed. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #143

Can anybody name the 20 Republican Senators Locutusofborg May 2019 #149

Me neither. We'd only need 4 for disqualification, however. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #150

I've posted the info about disqualification in the Senate from comms 19, 31, 128, etc. to a new post FreepFryer May 2019 #151

There would have to have been a guilty verdict first Locutusofborg May 2019 #152

Patently incorrect. Cite your Const. interpretation. I cited the Senate's own overview, which reads: FreepFryer May 2019 #153

Here's another interpretation from US Law Justia supporting my argument. Can I see one for yours? FreepFryer May 2019 #154

Please see this post, wherein FreepFryer eats fried crow. :) thanks all, this was very educational! FreepFryer May 2019 #155

What I'm hearing is that the waiting Ilsa May 2019 #159

How are you going to get 20 GOP Senators to vote to remove? Gothmog May 2019 #183

I notice the opposite.. stillcool May 2019 #188