Thoughts - Day one of the Impeachment hearings

GoldenBoy89 · Nov 14, 2019

Aldebaran said:
Ever since they had control of it under he-who-shall-not-be-named (and then lost it under him as well)?

Since forever.

I’ll give you an example. California with its ~ 40 million inhabitants gets two votes in the Senate. The Dakotas, both North and South have double the representation in the Senate than California does for their combined 1.6 million inhabitants.

GodLovesCats · Nov 14, 2019

The Senate has two representatives from each state regardless of population sizes. It has been that way since 1783.

In the House of Representatives 21 people are from Califnoria. More represntatives are from California than any other state as a result.

GoldenBoy89 · Nov 14, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
Golden, you obviously never went to high school. The Senate has two representatives from each state, no matter what their populations are. That has been true since 1783.

That’s not a nice way to put it but ok. Thanks for the useless civics lesson I already knew.

If you take a moment and read my comment slowly, you might figure out the point I was trying to make to Aldebaran about the imbalance of the Senate in regards to party control.

Aldebaran · Nov 14, 2019

GoldenBoy89 said:
Since forever.

I’ll give you an example. California with its ~ 40 million inhabitants gets two votes in the Senate. The Dakotas, both North and South have double the representation in the Senate than California does for their combined 1.6 million inhabitants.

That's because the Senate represents the states.

GoldenBoy89 · Nov 14, 2019

Aldebaran said:
That's because the Senate represents the states.

Yes, I know that. I’m not contesting how it all works. Just pointing out the imbalance there is inherent in the system.

A_Thinker · Nov 14, 2019

NightHawkeye said:
Not necessarily.

It depends on whether he's in the house or not. If he hasn't entered the house then, generally speaking, there has not been a crime.

So ... if Trump hadn't made the call
or ... if he hadn't held up Ukraine's military assistance
or ... sent Rudy and his henchmen to apply pressure to Ukraine

... then I guess, there wouldn't be a crime ...

Aldebaran · Nov 14, 2019

GoldenBoy89 said:
Yes, I know that. I’m not contesting how it all works. Just pointing out the imbalance there is inherent in the system.

Well, there are imbalances (depending on how you look at it) in many areas. The Electoral College is an example where California has a much bigger advantage when it comes to democrats. Same for New York. With democrat domination there in states with large numbers of electoral votes, it takes many more states where Republicans have the majority to counter them.

GodLovesCats · Nov 14, 2019

California has more Democrats than other states because of its population so the Electoral College has no effect there. But Florida is not always red or blue and as a swing state, it causes problems for the loser.

Always in His Presence · Nov 14, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
IOW there was quid pro quo because the President has done everything to hide the truth. He can't be trusted.

ChristianForCats said:
What truth are they not accepting?.

no, there was no quid pro quo because there wasn’t one.

the Primary people with FIRST hand knowledge from both sides say so. The FACT that the funds were released (Ukraine didn’t even know they were held up), without them doing anything additional

and that is the plain truth.

GodLovesCats · Nov 14, 2019

People with first-hand knowledge DID say it was quid pro quo.

NightHawkeye · Nov 14, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
People with first-hand knowledge DID say it was quid pro quo.

Incorrect.

GodLovesCats · Nov 14, 2019

Did you watch the hearing yesterday?

Always in His Presence · Nov 14, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
People with first-hand knowledge DID say it was quid pro quo.

No they did not. Trump told Sonderlin and Sonderlin conveyed “The President made it crystal clear, there is no quid pro quo”

The President of Ukraine said there was no pressure

Taylor admitted the best he had was second and third hand knowledge

The funds were released with nothing being received from Ukraine.

Always in His Presence · Nov 14, 2019

Sondland responds that the assertion is “incorrect” about Trump’s intentions. “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind,” he said in the text message.

That is straight from Sondland.

GodLovesCats · Nov 14, 2019

I am looking forward to hearing from Gordon Sondland direclty next week.

whatbogsends · Nov 14, 2019

hislegacy said:
My favorite part of all of yesterday.

their star witness. LOL

Jim Jordan made a sound byte question without much substance to it. Trump supporters ignore the actual testimony and focus on the sound byte. Business as usual.

Kaon · Nov 14, 2019

wing2000 said:
If a robber attempts to steal from your home and gets caught, it's still a crime.

Unless you shoot the homeowner and claim s/he attacked you. As long as you get rid of the people who can live to tell others you tried to rob them, the burden of proof is on those entities accusing you of robbing the homeowner, right? If you live in a "stand your ground" state, you could likely get away with the murder even.

And, there is legal precedence of persons stalking other people, and then evading murder charges when they goad the other party into a confrontation. This is the desensitization and destabilization of the US that has been happening for seven decades. The impeachment is a social and political distraction for a crumbling US, because we know the outcome won't matter; it already doesn't matter. It is tantamount playing the fiddle while the nation burns.

Always in His Presence · Nov 14, 2019

whatbogsends said:
Jim Jordan made a sound byte question without much substance to it. Trump supporters ignore the actual testimony and focus on the sound byte. Business as usual.

That is were we disagree, Jim Jordan asked a series of questions that Taylor had a hard time answering, or answered in a manner that did not follow the narrative from the left.

so the only thing that can be done is criticize it as meaningless because the facts are devastating to their case.

business as usual.

wing2000 · Nov 14, 2019

hislegacy said:
Sondland responds that the assertion is “incorrect” about Trump’s intentions. “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind,” he said in the text message.

That is straight from Sondland.

...after he said "call me"....and later testified...then changed his testimony again....and after yesterday, we'll see if he provides further clarification. And I believe Bill Taylor's aide may be called to testify regarding the call he overheard...that should be interesting.

Trump has one thing going for him though...Sondland has demonstrated he is an unreliable witness.

Belk · Nov 14, 2019

hislegacy said:
That is were we disagree, Jim Jordan asked a series of questions that Taylor had a hard time answering, or answered in a manner that did not follow the narrative from the left.

so the only thing that can be done is criticize it as meaningless because the facts are devastating to their case.

business as usual.

What facts do you feel are most devastating to the case?

Thoughts - Day one of the Impeachment hearings

We're Still Here

Well-Known Member

We're Still Here

NCC-1701-A

We're Still Here

Well-Known Member

NCC-1701-A

Well-Known Member

Jesus is the only Way

Well-Known Member

Work-in-progress

Well-Known Member

Jesus is the only Way

Jesus is the only Way

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Jesus is the only Way

E pluribus unum

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency