An open community 
of Macintosh users,
for Macintosh users.

FineTunedMac Dashboard widget now available! Download Here

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 20 of 21 1 2 18 19 20 21
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
artie505 #57673 01/25/21 06:23 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 14
Offline

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 14
Originally Posted by artie505
I suspect that they're squirming because they've seen the fallout from the House vote and are scared to death of having to commit one way or the other.
Sort of like the way Trump would respond....you only consider how it may affect you personally, instead of asking yourself what is best for the country.


ryck

"What Were Once Vices Are Now Habits" The Doobie Brothers

iMac (Retina 5K, 27", 2020), 3.8 GHz 8 Core Intel Core i7, 8GB RAM, 2667 MHz DDR4
OS Ventura 13.6.3
Canon Pixma TR 8520 Printer
Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner c/w VueScan software
TM on 1TB LaCie USB-C
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
Ira L #57674 01/25/21 06:24 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Offline

Joined: Aug 2009
Re: "All they have to do is not show up for the vote!"


------


I am thinking the opposite, Ira. If Republicans do NOT show up . . . and lots of Democrats do . . . then Democrats easily would account for "2/3 of those present." (Or have I missed something else here?)

Last edited by MG2009; 01/25/21 06:26 PM.

Many thanks,
MG2009
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
MG2009 #57676 01/26/21 03:25 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
You and Ira may be thinking in the same direction.

Enabling a conviction by not being there for the vote differs technically and numerically from voting for one, but in the end, they're both pronouncements of guilt by people who'd rather not make any pronouncements.


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
MG2009 #57678 01/26/21 06:44 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 8
Offline

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 8
Originally Posted by MG2009
Re: "All they have to do is not show up for the vote!"


------


I am thinking the opposite, Ira. If Republicans do NOT show up . . . and lots of Democrats do . . . then Democrats easily would account for "2/3 of those present." (Or have I missed something else here?)

Yes, that is what I was saying since the posting I quoted in my post referenced nervous Republicans.


On a Mac since 1984.
Currently: 24" M1 iMac, M2 Pro Mac mini with 27" BenQ monitor, M2 Macbook Air, MacOS 14.x; iPhones, iPods (yes, still) and iPads.
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
ryck #57694 01/28/21 05:27 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Offline

Joined: Aug 2009
In less than a month, the attack on the USA government went from the “most heinous domestic attack since the Civil War” to “Meh, no big deal.”

I remember well all the fuss that was made about Clinton’s impeachment in the 90s because he lied about his marital infidelities. I realize, grammatically speaking, erection and insurrection may sound very similar to the untrained ear. But even the dimmest Republican senator must be able to see the vast differences between the former and the latter with regard to the actual impact upon the nation - whether looking from within or outside its borders.

A conviction, IMHO, is a “must do” if they hope to salvage whatever is left of a party in shambles. Siding with Trump - which, in effect, is what a “not guilty” verdict would show - would only prolong his influence and delay any kind of recovery for the party. Do Republicans not see this or, as of last count, do 45 politicians just not care about anything other than their individual careers?

It boggles the mind.

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
MG2009 #57695 01/28/21 05:29 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 7
Offline

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 7
Originally Posted by MG2009
Do Republicans not see this or, as of last count, do 45 politicians just not care about anything other than their individual careers?
The answer is obvious.


Jon

macOS 11.7.10, iMac Retina 5K 27-inch, late 2014, 3.5 GHz Intel Core i5, 1 TB fusion drive, 16 GB RAM, Epson SureColor P600, Photoshop CC, Lightroom CC, MS Office 365
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
jchuzi #57696 01/28/21 05:33 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Offline

Joined: Aug 2009
Re: "The answer is obvious."


-----


Maybe, yes; maybe, no.


grin grin

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
MG2009 #57698 01/28/21 06:58 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
That initial vote was to try to weasel out of having to vote aye or nay on conviction.

Now that they're obligated to vote on conviction, I wonder if some of those 45 will flip and vote their consciences?

I hope an abstention counts as a "nay" in the eyes of corporate contributors. (Conviction, I believe, requires 2/3 of those present, not those voting.)


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
artie505 #57700 01/29/21 04:33 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 14
Offline

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 14
Originally Posted by artie505
Now that they're obligated to vote on conviction, I wonder if some of those 45 will flip and vote their consciences?
Consciences? What consciences? This is the party that has a Marjorie Taylor Greene, a denier of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, who has claimed that it was a hoax. About the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre, she said it was staged. Instead of turfing her out of the party, the Republicans have appointed her to a key congressional panel - the Education Committee.

Consciences? I don't think so. The Republican Party has mostly become a gang of weasels.

Last edited by ryck; 01/29/21 04:34 PM.

ryck

"What Were Once Vices Are Now Habits" The Doobie Brothers

iMac (Retina 5K, 27", 2020), 3.8 GHz 8 Core Intel Core i7, 8GB RAM, 2667 MHz DDR4
OS Ventura 13.6.3
Canon Pixma TR 8520 Printer
Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner c/w VueScan software
TM on 1TB LaCie USB-C
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
ryck #57704 01/29/21 08:11 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Speaking of "no conscience," A Truth Reckoning: Why We’re Holding Those Who Lied For Trump Accountable is a scathing denunciation of Trump's press secretaries and Kellyanne Conway.
Originally Posted by Forbes
Let it be known to the business world: Hire any of Trump’s fellow fabulists above, and Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie. We’re going to scrutinize, double-check, investigate with the same skepticism we’d approach a Trump tweet. Want to ensure the world’s biggest business media brand approaches you as a potential funnel of disinformation? Then hire away.

("Weasel" is the term I use to describe Jared Kushner. He looks like he sleeps in a burrow, rather than a bed, and acts the part.)


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
artie505 #57725 02/01/21 11:20 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Can anyone either clarify or direct me to clarification why in the only instances in history of impeachment of an official who's no longer in office - as discussed in Is Trump's Senate Trial Constitutional? There Is Precedent, From 145 Years Ago (and other articles I've read) - the Senate has passed judgement on the constitutionality of the impeachment on its own, rather than taking it to the Supreme Court...the constitutionally appointed arbiter of constitutionality?

What enables such a self-serving end run around the separation of powers that's inherent in and so important to our system to govern the situation, i.e. why wasn't Paul v. Schumer taken to the Court for settlment one way or the other for once and for all?

It would either force the individual senators to take a stand on the grounds for impeachment or get them off the hook altogether.

More: Doesn't allowing the Senate to pass judgement on the constitutionality of its own action set a dangerous precedent?

Last edited by artie505; 02/01/21 02:39 PM. Reason: More

The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
artie505 #57813 02/08/21 11:51 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
I've got to revisit my last post.

At this point, I've read innumerable articles about the pre-impeachment trial maneuvering in an assortment of venues, and not a one of them has even gone as far as "Perhaps you're wondering why the question of the constitutionality of the impeachment trial hasn't been taken to the Supreme Court."

The lack of so much as a reference has now got me wondering if there's some ridiculously obvious joke that I'm missing.

Is the answer that apparent that the question doesn't even need to be addressed?

Heartening, but in the end probably meaningless, reading


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
artie505 #57814 02/08/21 04:01 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
Moderator
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
Originally Posted by artie505
Is the answer that apparent that the question doesn't even need to be addressed?
The options available to the senate (censure, removal from office, preventing future office holding) are political in nature and an essential element of the checks and balances in the constitution. However, as these are political actions entirely within the government, so even a conviction in the senate would not cause double jeopardy to be attached or preclude further criminal or civil action against Trump. The Biden DoJ is carefully building irrefutable cases against leaders of the insurrection and there is nothing prevent them from indicting Donald J Trump and members of his family on criminal and/or civil charges as well. Whether to seek indictment or not would be a difficult call. While Trump's words, and the actions resulting from them, are inarguable, the question would be how intent and intent is notoriously difficult to prove in a court of law. Personally I think Trump knew exactly what he was doing but I would not want to be on that jury. It will be a lot easier for New York State to nail Trump, his son, and son-in-law on fraud charges and at his age Trump would be unlikely to live out the sentence. A fitting end to his term in office.


If we knew what it was we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?

— Albert Einstein
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
joemikeb #57815 02/08/21 05:41 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Thanks.

That's an insightful response, but not to the question I posed.


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
artie505 #57821 02/08/21 06:43 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 8
Offline

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 8
Originally Posted by artie505
I've got to revisit my last post.

At this point, I've read innumerable articles about the pre-impeachment trial maneuvering in an assortment of venues, and not a one of them has even gone as far as "Perhaps you're wondering why the question of the constitutionality of the impeachment trial hasn't been taken to the Supreme Court."

The lack of so much as a reference has now got me wondering if there's some ridiculously obvious joke that I'm missing.

Is the answer that apparent that the question doesn't even need to be addressed?

Heartening, but in the end probably meaningless, reading

Doesn't the Supreme Court have to have an issue brought to it by an outside party? The Court can not just step in and offer an opinion. Maybe so far no one has sought the Court's opinion, and those Senators questioning the constitutionality of the impeachment trial may not want the undesired definitive answer from the Court. Otherwise they would have to deal with the facts.

And yes, a very heartening article.


On a Mac since 1984.
Currently: 24" M1 iMac, M2 Pro Mac mini with 27" BenQ monitor, M2 Macbook Air, MacOS 14.x; iPhones, iPods (yes, still) and iPads.
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
Ira L #57828 02/08/21 11:22 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
Moderator
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
Originally Posted by Ira L
Doesn't the Supreme Court have to have an issue brought to it by an outside party? The Court can not just step in and offer an opinion. Maybe so far no one has sought the Court's opinion, and those Senators questioning the constitutionality of the impeachment trial may not want the undesired definitive answer from the Court. Otherwise they would have to deal with the facts.

And yes, a very heartening article.
Not just a third party, but a third party with legal standing in the issue.


If we knew what it was we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?

— Albert Einstein
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
Ira L #57831 02/09/21 01:19 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Responding to both you and joemike...

No, the Court can't just step in - but I suspect that McConnell and Schumer, all 50 Senators, perhaps, have got standing to bring this case before the Court - and as you've pointed out, the Republicans have got nothing to gain and everything to lose from taking the issue to the Court, but with the preponderance of opinion going in favor of the Democrats, I must wonder why they haven't done so? If they lose, all they lose is the show, because they're likely to lose the decision anyhow, but if they win, the Republicans will no longer be able to hide from the reality of the situation.

As things stand, we've got a curious situation in which separation of powers is being thrown under the bus, because the Senate is not only usurping the Court's authority in passing judgement on constitutionality, it's then using that unauthoritative...very possibly, if not probably, faulty judgement as a basis for passing judgement - avoiding passing judgement, actually - in one of the most important trials in US history.

And the perplexing question of why none of this has been addressed in the media remains. (Politico is soliciting questions for on-air discussion during their coverage of tomorrow's proceedings, and I've submitted this one, but unless they contact me, I'll never know how my submission ends up.)

Note: The Senate is going to vote on constitutionality again tomorrow, and I'm surprised that McConnell is allowing it in view of the fact that he can't possibly win, and if a couple of Senators flip their votes it could open the floodgates.

I can't wait to hear how that goes!


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
artie505 #57908 02/14/21 12:22 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 14
Offline

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 14
Well, I didn't watch all of the proceedings (although my wife did) but I watched a fair amount and thought the Democrats did an incredible job of presenting their case. They provided beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump was guilty and, at the conclusion, even Mitch McConnell agreed... even though he voted to acquit. The whole event was almost like a lesson in law.

As a bonus it was also a lesson in anatomy. When it came time to vote, I learned that 43 Republicans are invertebrates.


ryck

"What Were Once Vices Are Now Habits" The Doobie Brothers

iMac (Retina 5K, 27", 2020), 3.8 GHz 8 Core Intel Core i7, 8GB RAM, 2667 MHz DDR4
OS Ventura 13.6.3
Canon Pixma TR 8520 Printer
Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner c/w VueScan software
TM on 1TB LaCie USB-C
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
ryck #57909 02/14/21 12:41 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Offline

Joined: Aug 2009
Dear Lisa and Susan:

Would you please return our b**ls to us now that the vote is done.

Love and Kisses,

Ted, Lindsey, Josh, Mitch, Rand and Marco.

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
MG2009 #57910 02/14/21 01:05 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 7
Offline

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 7
Originally Posted by MG2009
Dear Lisa and Susan:

Would you please return our b**ls to us now that the vote is done.

Love and Kisses,

Ted, Lindsey, Josh, Mitch, Rand and Marco.
What makes you think that they ever had them? The women Republican senators who voted to convict have them!

Last edited by jchuzi; 02/14/21 01:05 AM.

Jon

macOS 11.7.10, iMac Retina 5K 27-inch, late 2014, 3.5 GHz Intel Core i5, 1 TB fusion drive, 16 GB RAM, Epson SureColor P600, Photoshop CC, Lightroom CC, MS Office 365
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
ryck #57912 02/14/21 01:31 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
So now, 47 spineless wimps who took it upon themselves to pass politically expedient judgement on the constitutionality of the trial have prevented it from reaching a facts-based verdict on which the Supreme Court could pass actual constitutionally authoritative judgement.

What's wrong with that picture?

Doesn't anyone other than me see it as possibly being a grotesque perversion of the system? ("Possibly," because I've got to concede that perhaps the question couldn't be taken to the Court in advance.)

If only 10 more Republicans had had the integrity to vote on the charges alone, he'd have been found guilty, and the Court would have been set up to reverse the decision on appeal if it found that the trial was indeed unconstitutional.

But under any circumstances, I"m still at a total loss as to why the question hasn't even been touched on in so much as one of the 1,000,002 articles I've read. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I somehow don't think that this trial ended in a manner that the founding fathers would find acceptable!

More: So are we destined to never know if the trial was constitutional unless someone is found guilty in similar circumstances and appeals?

That just doesn't sound right!

Last edited by artie505; 02/14/21 03:24 AM. Reason: More

The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
artie505 #57922 02/15/21 07:12 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 8
Offline

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 8
Let us never forget that the entire undertaking was a political one, not a legal one, in the sense that impeachment does not preclude other legal sanctions being imposed on the individual. McConnell spinelessly after the fact said as much in his condemnation of the ex-president. I would also imagine that the Democrats juggled political implications as well, something along the lines of the desire and need to get Biden's agenda up and running as quickly as possible.

As much as I would like to see Trump as the only president to ever pull a trifecta/hat trick [1.) win Electoral College, lose popular vote; 2.) impeached twice; 3.) convicted], I would much rather see him in civil and criminal courts for the rest of his life and get moving on some of Biden's agenda.


On a Mac since 1984.
Currently: 24" M1 iMac, M2 Pro Mac mini with 27" BenQ monitor, M2 Macbook Air, MacOS 14.x; iPhones, iPods (yes, still) and iPads.
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
Ira L #57927 02/16/21 11:10 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by Ira L
As much as I would like to see Trump as the only president to ever pull a trifecta/hat trick [1.) win Electoral College, lose popular vote; 2.) impeached twice; 3.) convicted], I would much rather see him in civil and criminal courts for the rest of his life....
Personally, as opposed to seeing Trump tied up in court for the rest of his life, I'd prefer to see him tied up in wet sheets, but be that as it may, I've yet to run across a single instance of somebody questioning whether he can actually get a fair trial.

He is so much a polarizing figure that I wouldn't be willing to bet that a fair and impartial jury could be found anywhere in the US or, for that matter, in the entire world.

Oh, well, at least we're back to business as close to usual as it will ever again be...for the next two years anyhow.

I'm already beginning to agonize over the mid-terms and wonder whether McConnell will actually go toe to toe with Trump.


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
artie505 #57928 02/16/21 12:22 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Adam Kinzinger denounced by family over Trump impeachment vote...

More than for the ignorant, mindless vitriol it reports, the article is notable for calling attention to the fact that "one brother wore blue...one brother wore grey" is no longer a distant memory of the Civil War. frown

"TO ARMS!" The redcoats are coming!!!

It's a SAD, SAD day for America. mad


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...
artie505 #57964 02/18/21 02:35 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by artie505
"TO ARMS!" The redcoatshats are coming!!!


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Page 20 of 21 1 2 18 19 20 21

Moderated by  alternaut, cyn 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4
(Release build 20200307)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.33 Page Time: 0.046s Queries: 65 (0.035s) Memory: 0.7232 MB (Peak: 0.9073 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-29 11:17:49 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS