Jump to content

If the Senate vote were secret, Trump would already be history.


Scout
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

The Republican Party decided it would NOT offend

its base no matter what evidence is revealed.

As McConnell vocalized on their behalf,

they had no intention of being IMPARTIAL.

 

If the base didn't know how the Republican HOUSE or SENATE members voted, the vote

would be FAR different then it was last Wednesday in the House or in the future. 

The fault, dear Brutus,  can be found in the Republican members of the Congress.

  

By claiming that a vote must be bipartisan it is saying,

IF Congress is sufficiently CORRUPT, the President should be given a pass for crimes.

That isn't what Pelosi or I believe should occur in a nation of laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, Scout said:

I'm pleased that no rightwingers can defend the stance that impeachment and removal from office

would be a sure thing were senators able to vote secretly.

 

I'm pleased that you leftists are proposing secret ballots to circumvent the will of the people.   It's so ... totalitarian.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, leftwinger said:

 

How is a secret vote in the Senate "totalitarian?"

  He doesn't know.

 All it takes is 3 senators to not agree with mitch's rules to change it to secret ballot.

 It is very possible and that way trump or the deplorables won't be able to retaliate against them.

 Win,win for the nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Scout said:

 

 

 

The Republican Party decided it would NOT offend

its base no matter what evidence is revealed.

As McConnell vocalized on their behalf,

they had no intention of being IMPARTIAL.

 

If the base didn't know how the Republican HOUSE or SENATE members voted, the vote

would be FAR different then it was last Wednesday in the House or in the future. 

The fault, dear Brutus,  can be found in the Republican members of the Congress.

  

By claiming that a vote must be bipartisan it is saying,

IF Congress is sufficiently CORRUPT, the President should be given a pass for crimes.

That isn't what Pelosi or I believe should occur in a nation of laws.

 

16 minutes ago, Squatchman said:

  He doesn't know.

 All it takes is 3 senators to not agree with mitch's rules to change it to secret ballot.

 It is very possible and that way trump or the deplorables won't be able to retaliate against them.

 Win,win for the nation.

 

Because they are elected to represent their constituents. If they can vote in secret then the whole body becomes a repugnant, corrupt enterprise with no consent of the people. This undermines the entire democratic process of elections because the constituents would have no idea what their elected officials are doing with their money and whether they need to be removed or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeAChooser said:

 

I'm pleased that you leftists are proposing secret ballots to circumvent the will of the people.   It's so ... totalitarian.  

 

Obviously BAC doesn't know that totalitarianism has nothing to do with secret ballots.  This is common for him.

 

If a secret ballot brings the nation the outcome it desires, then it is indeed a very good thing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kking said:

 

 

Because they are elected to represent their constituents. If they can vote in secret then the whole body becomes a repugnant, corrupt enterprise with no consent of the people. This undermines the entire democratic process of elections because the constituents would have no idea what their elected officials are doing with their money and whether they need to be removed or not.

 

No, if a secret ballot brings the nation the outcome it desires (unlike the Electoral College's results), then a secret ballot is a very good thing on occasion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scout said:

I'm pleased that no rightwingers can defend the stance that impeachment and removal from office

would be a sure thing were senators able to vote secretly.

 


Nothing to defend yet! Coward (or liar) Piglosi is sitting on the articles.  She is obstructing the Senate from doing is constitutional responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BatteryPowered said:

Nothing to defend yet! Coward (or liar) Piglosi is sitting on the articles.  She is obstructing the Senate from doing is constitutional responsibility.

 

There must be some reason she's doing that?   Why it's almost as if she knows the charges have no merit. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scout said:

 

No, if a secret ballot brings the nation the outcome it desires (unlike the Electoral College's results), then a secret ballot is a very good thing on occasion. 

No, it's not. It removes all responsibility and accountability from our elected officials. It will allow for wars and coups and authoritarian laws to be passed without anyone having to answer for it. Take a step back and reconsider your proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BatteryPowered said:


Nothing to defend yet! Coward (or liar) Piglosi is sitting on the articles.  She is obstructing the Senate from doing is constitutional responsibility.

 

They have lots of bills awaiting Senate action.  Republicans lazy work ethic. Typical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scout said:

I'm pleased that no rightwingers can defend the stance that impeachment and removal from office

would be a sure thing were senators able to vote secretly.

 

It would remove the politics from the decision while allowing jurors to be impartial. I think it would probably be a 50% chance Trump would be removed then, some Republicans will certainly still vote no regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scout said:

 

No, if a secret ballot brings the nation the outcome it desires (unlike the Electoral College's results), then a secret ballot is a very good thing on occasion. 

Are you serious?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, fourputt said:

It would remove the politics from the decision while allowing jurors to be impartial. I think it would probably be a 50% chance Trump would be removed then, some Republicans will certainly still vote no regardless.

 

I think it would be higher.  Republicans senators DEPLORE Trump and dream of him being impeached.

But as Republicans, courage isn't a requirement for their job.  They require anonymity to act morally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, kking said:

No, it's not. It removes all responsibility and accountability from our elected officials. It will allow for wars and coups and authoritarian laws to be passed without anyone having to answer for it. Take a step back and reconsider your proposal.

 

10 minutes ago, Scout said:

Yes.  If that is the only way cowardly Republicans will vote for the better interests of the nation. 

 You want a government with no accountability or responsibility for their actions? That is almost an exact definition of authoritarianism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kking said:

 

 You want a government with no accountability or responsibility for their actions? That is almost an exact definition of authoritarianism. 

Nah, it isn't. 

A base that has no ability to think for itself, just follows a corrupt leader is far closer to authoritarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scout said:

Nah, it isn't. 

A base that has no ability to think for itself, just follows a corrupt leader is far closer to authoritarianism.

The base makes their own bed and has no genuine authority without responsible and accountable representatives in government. The same isn't true of the reps themselves, who DO have authority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/27/2019 at 2:34 PM, Scout said:

 

 

 

The Republican Party decided it would NOT offend

its base no matter what evidence is revealed.

As McConnell vocalized on their behalf,

they had no intention of being IMPARTIAL.

 

If the base didn't know how the Republican HOUSE or SENATE members voted, the vote

would be FAR different then it was last Wednesday in the House or in the future. 

The fault, dear Brutus,  can be found in the Republican members of the Congress.

  

By claiming that a vote must be bipartisan it is saying,

IF Congress is sufficiently CORRUPT, the President should be given a pass for crimes.

That isn't what Pelosi or I believe should occur in a nation of laws.

Imagine that, representatives fearing those they are supposed to represent. Perhaps they need to be primaried? Most never Trump Republicans retired with Flake and Ryan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NeoConvict said:

Most never Trump Republicans retired with Flake and Ryan.

 

They thought by giving the DemocRATS the House, they could get rid of Trump.

 

Didn't work and now REAL republicans are likely to come out even stronger in 2020.

 

Strong enough to perhaps let Trump push some real MAGA through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/27/2019 at 3:34 PM, Scout said:

 

 

 

The Republican Party decided it would NOT offend

its base no matter what evidence is revealed.

As McConnell vocalized on their behalf,

they had no intention of being IMPARTIAL.

 

If the base didn't know how the Republican HOUSE or SENATE members voted, the vote

would be FAR different then it was last Wednesday in the House or in the future. 

The fault, dear Brutus,  can be found in the Republican members of the Congress.

  

By claiming that a vote must be bipartisan it is saying,

IF Congress is sufficiently CORRUPT, the President should be given a pass for crimes.

That isn't what Pelosi or I believe should occur in a nation of laws.

Well, if you actually had some evidence that would be nice. So far, hearsay and speculation which won’t be allowed in a trial. 
 

That means only one witness at this point and he’ll be asked one question: 

 

Did Trump ask you for a quid pro quo? 
 

No. 

p.s. Your premise is likely shit too. No one in the senate wants to see a sitting president removed based on speculation and hearsay unless it benefits them politically. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

They thought by giving the DemocRATS the House, they could get rid of Trump.

 

Didn't work and now REAL republicans are likely to come out even stronger in 2020.

 

Strong enough to perhaps let Trump push some real MAGA through.

Could happen. Democrats have overplayed their resistance role to unprecedented levels which might motivate moderates to look elsewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...