General Discussion

redstateblues

(10,565 posts)

102. Nothing

Reply to ehrnst (Reply #16)

Sat Jul 27, 2019, 11:23 AM

Jul 2019

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

There are 235 Dems in the House. It takes 218 to impeach. Only 90 or so have called for it. [View all] ehrnst Jul 2019 OP

It's all Pelosi's fault!!11 mcar Jul 2019 #1

Damn Uppity Woman! WhiteTara Jul 2019 #4

Nevertheless, she persists. She doesn't seem to care that she's not LIKED by ehrnst Jul 2019 #10

There were enough votes for funding Trumps concentration camps but not for impeachment? That's a uponit7771 Jul 2019 #2

So are you saying that there are more "yes" votes than the article talks about? ehrnst Jul 2019 #9

Yes, bout every person and then some from the CBC will vote yes for impeachment but might not be uponit7771 Jul 2019 #11

What 'votes for Trumps concentration camps' by Dems are you referring to? ehrnst Jul 2019 #14

I added the word funding to the post, there was enough votes for funding the concentration camps uponit7771 Jul 2019 #21

..and THEN it has to pass the Senate....:( samnsara Jul 2019 #3

We don't need the Senate to hurt Red Don and gop politically and uphold constitution uponit7771 Jul 2019 #12

So what does impeachment do to "hurt" him? ehrnst Jul 2019 #16

The same thing it has done to the party and president of the last 3 were impeachment process's uponit7771 Jul 2019 #17

Again... the last three POTUS who were impeached were in the second consecutive ehrnst Jul 2019 #19

Party and president ... you left out the party part in your reply uponit7771 Jul 2019 #23

No, I didn't - here it is again.... ehrnst Jul 2019 #94

The party of the impeached lost Congress too!! Come on e ... Pay attention uponit7771 Jul 2019 #108

Actually Trumpocalypse Jul 2019 #86

Gaining seats is not the goal, gaining control of congress goal in this context. Gore ran away from uponit7771 Jul 2019 #88

Don't move the goal posts Trumpocalypse Jul 2019 #89

In the context of controlling the government, I typed that and it's an important part of the uponit7771 Jul 2019 #90

Ok but Trumpocalypse Jul 2019 #91

Yes it is and its damn near impossible for the party of the impeached uponit7771 Jul 2019 #109

What evidence is there Trumpocalypse Jul 2019 #123

Um... ehrnst Jul 2019 #97

This is false, you take house and Senate if you have majority! You can lose seats and still have...j uponit7771 Jul 2019 #111

Actually you can't get a majority if you don't "take seats" ehrnst Jul 2019 #115

Post removed Post removed Jul 2019 #118

It's pointless... techne7319 Jul 2019 #128

It hurt Bill Clinton and Hillary !!! larwdem Jul 2019 #81

Nothing redstateblues Jul 2019 #102

Facts of history say different uponit7771 Jul 2019 #112

Impeachment won't hurt Trump. When the Senate fails to convict redstateblues Jul 2019 #101

I think she'd move if she had the votes in the House StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #27

I am going to copy and paste a few points you made. sheshe2 Jul 2019 #80

A small detail that some Pelosi bashers seem to neglect. Regardless how the speaker feels, in the still_one Jul 2019 #5

But I have heard that a simple OK from her will turn both public and congress to WANT ehrnst Jul 2019 #7

That is the argument I have heard also ehrnst. I believe the strategy of the Democrats is a step still_one Jul 2019 #29

You are so right! StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #35

Believe it or not Starfish, I have gained a lot of insights from you posts still_one Jul 2019 #36

Impeachment goes nowhere. Vote him out! redstateblues Jul 2019 #6

With what? A free and fair election? thx in advance uponit7771 Jul 2019 #13

And just how will impeachment change election security? ehrnst Jul 2019 #41

Who said it has to? tia uponit7771 Jul 2019 #43

You brought it up, as though impeachment would somehow be an alternative ehrnst Jul 2019 #44

No I didn't "bring it up" and :rolleyes: .... lol uponit7771 Jul 2019 #60

This is you, yes? ehrnst Jul 2019 #68

Yes, we can have a secure election that's still not free and fair so I didn't even bring it up in uponit7771 Jul 2019 #69

I think you to divert to other topics that you want to discuss, and it gets confusing ehrnst Jul 2019 #100

Ima poli-sci know nothing, and I ain't bashing Madame Speaker, sprinkleeninow Jul 2019 #82

I trust Madam Speaker PBC_Democrat Jul 2019 #8

We don't vote for representatives to just trust them uponit7771 Jul 2019 #15

First off, our reps voted for Pelosi to be speaker, not you. They trust her. ehrnst Jul 2019 #22

We don't vote for representatives to just trust them, your reply didn't address that fact. uponit7771 Jul 2019 #24

You ignored my post - and my questions. Here they are again... ehrnst Jul 2019 #32

You ignored mine first, address my child thread and we can go from there. I'm not into rabbit holes uponit7771 Jul 2019 #33

Anything to avoid having to rebut my points. ehrnst Jul 2019 #39

Again, you didn't address my statement 1st... starting to see a patter E ... and :rolleyes: .... lol uponit7771 Jul 2019 #42

I did. I think you're the one trying to "go down the rabbit hole" now. ehrnst Jul 2019 #45

I don't read where you addressed my post reply, I could be wrong. uponit7771 Jul 2019 #46

Twice - here is the second attempt.... ehrnst Jul 2019 #50

OK, that's fair. Then my reply is "We can trust and speak up when we don't agree with... uponit7771 Jul 2019 #53

No one was saying otherwise... ehrnst Jul 2019 #58

I answered that it was vague in context and intimated trusting was the end of the matter uponit7771 Jul 2019 #59

You said that your answer meant... ehrnst Jul 2019 #64

I disagree, "I trust [name]" in context of criticism intimates trust is the end of the matter uponit7771 Jul 2019 #66

I have no idea what that means. ehrnst Jul 2019 #67

Intimate - The related verb intimate means to hint or suggest. (link inside) uponit7771 Jul 2019 #70

About 90% of the time we do just trust them treestar Jul 2019 #114

Sadly close to yes,. .. I got a's in civics... Don't judge uponit7771 Jul 2019 #116

I'm not, you are quite unusual treestar Jul 2019 #117

I read the Mueller report . I can see why the average American can't read legalese uponit7771 Jul 2019 #119

Pelosi is all powerful enough to force 140 Members to vote a certain way StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #18

The speaker is cleary against impeachment. She squelches any pro impeachment CentralMass Jul 2019 #20

So you are saying that she does have this total power over the will of Democratic Reps? ehrnst Jul 2019 #25

The articles i referenced regarding two ranking nembers speak for themselves as well as the speakers CentralMass Jul 2019 #30

Did you read the OP? ehrnst Jul 2019 #34

When she stated those words, I hope she had an ulterior motive. sprinkleeninow Jul 2019 #83

She doesn't show her hand. Apparently that leads some people to think she isn't even in the game... ehrnst Jul 2019 #96

+1, No impeachment is not an option but must time for best impact during election. I think she uponit7771 Jul 2019 #26

So how does impeaching him mitigate voting him out in 2020 ehrnst Jul 2019 #47

Impeachment has never been a positive for the party of the impeached regarding control of the ... uponit7771 Jul 2019 #48

You think that impeachment will cause "rioting?" That's your hope for it? ehrnst Jul 2019 #49

No uponit7771 Jul 2019 #51

That's what your post communicated. Care to clarify? ehrnst Jul 2019 #52

My post did not communicate what you claim uponit7771 Jul 2019 #61

I'm not asking you what it communicated, I'm telling you how it was percieved. ehrnst Jul 2019 #62

No you didn't, you mentioned nothing about perception. Either way, No ... that's my reply uponit7771 Jul 2019 #63

Wow, kuddos to you! Been through the ringer :))) Laura PourMeADrink Jul 2019 #75

Impeachment does nothing redstateblues Jul 2019 #103

Agreed techne7319 Jul 2019 #129

When is it the duty for the U.S. congress to impeach? YOHABLO Jul 2019 #28

Post removed Post removed Jul 2019 #31

So how do you explain the 90 who are not "in lockstep"with "Dear Leader" Pelosi? ehrnst Jul 2019 #38

When 218 of them say it is, as per the Constitution. (nt) ehrnst Jul 2019 #37

Oh it's gonna happen. YOHABLO Jul 2019 #73

You asked, "when it is the duty" and I answered. (nt) ehrnst Jul 2019 #95

Worse than Mueller findings Laura PourMeADrink Jul 2019 #76

When our leadership call for impeachment, those officially supporting Hortensis Jul 2019 #40

Yep, cilla4progress Jul 2019 #54

Impeachment was designed to require broad citizen support, [checks and balances]. empedocles Jul 2019 #55

You are probably right. And we will never know if Laura PourMeADrink Jul 2019 #77

I understand the hope, been there myself, that one big bang thing would get rid of trump. empedocles Jul 2019 #85

Okkkkk. "House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler pushed to launch impeachment proceedings against Nevermypresident Jul 2019 #56

Perhaps you should write the author of the article as to their naivete. ehrnst Jul 2019 #57

Excellent point! You can really tell too that the judiciary Laura PourMeADrink Jul 2019 #79

I wrote my congressman already. Looks like it's time to make a visit ecstatic Jul 2019 #65

Some in red districts moondust Jul 2019 #71

Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Have The Votes To Impeach Trump Gothmog Jul 2019 #72

102 now. It's inching up. nt tblue37 Jul 2019 #74

I saw it was up to 102. dawg day Jul 2019 #78

105 is going on half the democrats... MFM008 Jul 2019 #84

It has to be 218 of the total congress. ehrnst Jul 2019 #93

First of all MFM008 Jul 2019 #124

First of all... ehrnst Jul 2019 #125

You dont get it MFM008 Jul 2019 #130

I think I'm the one that gets it, and you don't. ehrnst Jul 2019 #131

frankly i do not believe we will keep the house MFM008 Jul 2019 #135

They're so angry the House hasn't impeached yet, they'll put Republicans back in charge StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #136

So have you written the head of the DCCC about this "inaction?" ehrnst Jul 2019 #137

Pelosi could do enough arm twisting to get an impeachment conviction. Joe941 Jul 2019 #87

You mean threaten other Democrats? ehrnst Jul 2019 #92

You don't understand StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #98

I know - still getting whiplash from the both ways thinking. ehrnst Jul 2019 #99

+1 treestar Jul 2019 #113

It's called negotiating. Joe941 Jul 2019 #106

You said "armtwisting" that's not the same as negotiating. ehrnst Jul 2019 #107

It's also known as I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine... Joe941 Jul 2019 #120

No - you are trying to blur the distinction between terms. ehrnst Jul 2019 #121

The House does not convict. The Senate does and It won't redstateblues Jul 2019 #104

Yes. It's important that people know what they are talking about before lecturing others. (nt) ehrnst Jul 2019 #122

What does that mean? treestar Jul 2019 #110

It only takes 217 because there are two vacancies. Tactical Peek Jul 2019 #105

There is another way to look at this, watoos Jul 2019 #126

You don't think that they can come to their own conclusions like the 101? ehrnst Jul 2019 #127

But when they come around ... kentuck Jul 2019 #132

"Come around?" ehrnst Jul 2019 #133

Neither kentuck Jul 2019 #134