You don't understand the difference between engaging in illegal acts to block an investigation and exercising a constitutional power to veto a bill?
False equivalence fallacy.
Trump signals he will use executive privilege to block Bolton testimony in Senate
- Thread starter Cinnabar
- Start date
You don't understand the difference between engaging in illegal acts to block an investigation and exercising a constitutional power to veto a bill?
False equivalence fallacy.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
They should be open minded about it, not totally reject and fight any evidence with prejudice. They were not trying to make up their minds. They were trying to defend him. They were not fulfilling their Constitutional obligation to take impeachment seriously. There is no oath to defend the president, show allegiance to him. But that is exactly what Republicans did. They were the partisans.
They should be open minded about it, not totally reject and fight any evidence with prejudice. They were not trying to make up their minds. They were trying to defend him. They were not fulfilling their Constitutional obligation to take impeachment seriously. There is no oath to defend the president, show allegiance to him. But that is exactly what Republicans did. They were the partisans.
Agreed, but no more partisan than the Democrats. Posters on JPP have been calling for Trump's impeachment for three years. Every week they had a new issue that was sure to impeach him.
Democrats introduced articles of impeachment in the House on 5/17/2017 and voted on this issue 12/6/2017, 1/19/2018, 7/17/2019. When the impeachment proceedings started did you ever think he might not be guilty or did you want him impeached even prior to the articles being written?
cawacko
Well-known member
I've followed none of this impeachment process. Have paid no attention. But the idea that anyone in Congress is impartial about any of this is laughable to me. Just as there are Republicans who will fight to their dying day to defend Trump some of these Democrats who have hated him and wanted him gone from Day One now professing principled and non prejudicial positions in backing impeachment is a joke.
The final result was determined before it started. We all knew he would probably be impeached but acquitted in the Senate.
If the Ukraine had agreed to investigate (which Zelensky did) that would have much produced very little or no news; instead, all kinds of publicity has been generated about the Bidens. Trump couldn't have benefited more if he had planned it.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
It would be disingenuous to hold Speaker Nancy Pelosi responsible for internet chat room posts. She rather famously RESISTED any calls for impeachment, despite very strong evidence which could have certainly been used in an impeachment. She did not pick the timing, which is particularly bad for Democrats. She chose to go forward because it was her Constitutional duty after having been shown this serious evidence that Trump solicited a foreign intervention to try to rig the 2020 election with bribery.
And Pelosi rejected all of them. The mistake being made in claiming 'what Democrats did' is treating all Democrats the same, (just as bad as trying to hold Pelosi responsible for chat room posts,) lumping them all in together and treating them as one. That's stereotyping, and it is a mistake, a misrepresentation of reality, an oversimplification which omits crucial facts. It does not represent reality accurately, which is why it is disingenuous. Stereotyping does not tell the whole story. It changes the story. It becomes fictitious.
Democrats have not been acting with partisanship. Democrats have been doing their sworn Constitutional duty. And the proof of nonpartisanship is that some Democrats voted with the Republicans. Republicans, OTOH cannot make such a claim. They have been totally partisan, afraid to speak out against Trump* for fear of being tweet-slapped.
It would be disingenuous to hold Speaker Nancy Pelosi responsible for internet chat room posts. She rather famously RESISTED any calls for impeachment, despite very strong evidence which could have certainly been used in an impeachment. She did not pick the timing, which is particularly bad for Democrats. She chose to go forward because it was her Constitutional duty after having been shown this serious evidence that Trump solicited a foreign intervention to try to rig the 2020 election with bribery.
And Pelosi rejected all of them. The mistake being made in claiming 'what Democrats did' is treating all Democrats the same, (just as bad as trying to hold Pelosi responsible for chat room posts,) lumping them all in together and treating them as one. That's stereotyping, and it is a mistake, a misrepresentation of reality, an oversimplification which omits crucial facts. It does not represent reality accurately, which is why it is disingenuous. Stereotyping does not tell the whole story. It changes the story. It becomes fictitious.
Democrats have not been acting with partisanship. Democrats have been doing their sworn Constitutional duty. And the proof of nonpartisanship is that some Democrats voted with the Republicans. Republicans, OTOH cannot make such a claim. They have been totally partisan, afraid to speak out against Trump* for fear of being tweet-slapped.
Into the Night
Contributor
No. You are trying to make a difference where there is none. False dichotomy fallacy.
Into the Night
Contributor
He didn't block the investigation.
Into the Night
Contributor
What crime?
He prohibited many from testifying and would not permit them to release any documentation. That is blocking and stonewalling. He ordered that nobody should honor subpoenas and court orders. He blocked his ass off.
Into the Night
Contributor
Not at all. Many here have been echoing her exact statements through the years.
No, she didn't. She held the vote for impeachment.
She did exactly that.
It is that, true.
What evidence?
No such evidence. A piece of fiction dreamed up by the Democrats.
Nope. She held the impeachment vote, formed the various kangaroo committees, etc.
If the Democrats are one thing, they are unified in their hatred of Trump and their hatred of the Constitution of the United States.
I would say she is. Many here echo her statements verbatim.
Completely legitimate here.
Nope. It's what Democrats are.
Define 'reality'. Buzzword fallacy.
Such as?
Buzzword fallacy.
Void conclusion.
Nope. It IS the story. It is not fiction.
Yes they have!
The duty does not include forming kangaroo committees, spending 3+ years trying to overturn the 2016 election, or trying to control the Presidency or the Senate.
Not a proof.
Not a proof either.
Why would they speak out against Trump? Twitter doesn't control them.
Into the Night
Contributor
Just his staff. Not illegal. The investigation continued.
Again, not illegal. The investigation continued.
Not illegal. The investigation continued.
The House doesn't have authority to issue a subpoena.
There was no court order.
He doesn't have to submit every little document to the House, dude. He doesn't have to submit ANY document to the House.
I don't think I said anything about Pelosi. I was speaking of the party officials and supporters as a whole. If there was very strong evidence which could have been used in an impeachment those should have been included in the articles. Although Nancy might have resisted it, you can't deny many Democratic officials and JPP posters (representing the views of many Trump haters) have been calling for impeachment for three years.
It is a big stretch to claim she had a constitutional duty to bring impeachment proceedings (what constitutional provision?). Claiming a constitutional duty is just an attempt to disguise a partisan political decision as something patriotic. Nothing wrong with partisan political decisions--we elect our officials on a partisan basis and expect them to make partisan decisions (we just don't like to admit it). That is akin to Trump claiming he had an obligation to care about corruption in the Ukraine.
I think most readers assume by Democrats we are talking about most (in this case an overwhelming majority). I think you know I don't mean 100% just as you (probably) don't mean 100% when referring to Republicans. When 229 Democrats voted for impeachment and 2 voted against (a third voted against one article) it is an accurate generalization to say Democratic House members supported impeachment. That is a stereotype, but stereotypes can be accurate.
They do not have a sworn duty to impeach. If you say the duty is to uphold the Constitution, both sides make this same claim. It is not proof of non-partisanship when 2 of 229 vote to impeach. It was especially partisan for those two who voted against because they are in swing districts that voted for Trump--so they are seeking to save their seats.
I am not so critical of their actions except it is a waste of time since they know the impeachment cannot result in conviction. It is entirely partisan because it attempts to keep negative stories about Trump in the news with an upcoming election. That is a completely normal activity for political parties, they just shouldn't pretend it is because of a constitutional duty. On one day Nancy said it is a solemn occasion and the next she said she was walking with a "spring in her step."
Americans find using political power distasteful so we have to pretend it is something more high-minded.
Getin the ring
Verified User
America is awake, economy running on all cylinders, everything trump touches is working, and the party of the idiots want's to throw him out
stay tuned liberal nut**bags, your days are numbered
stay tuned liberal nut**bags, your days are numbered
"He?" I thought we were talking about the difference between an illegal act of blocking a congressional investigation versus a presidential veto.
You made the false equivalence fallacy that those two things are the same confusing legal and illegal acts.
False equivalency fallacy when you think a constitutional action is the same as an illegal act.
Into the Night
Contributor
He didn't block the investigation.
Into the Night
Contributor
What illegal act?
Do you mean Trump? I did not say he did (or did not) block anything. But you can't compare anybody illegally blocking a procedure with a veto. I said nothing about Trump in my posts regarding that topic.
It is illegal to block or impede a congressional investigation. Anyone who commits that act can be charged with contempt.
In the unlikely event the Senate votes to convict then Trump will be convicted contempt of Congress.