Some Republicans are discussing their plans for President Clinton — starting with impeachment

[boomerangutang]

You may have heard of Michael Moore's new movie "Trumpland"  
     Here it is on Youtube. . . . . (1 hr, 11 minutes )

 

 

[WaywardWind]

On 11/4/2016 at 5:54 PM, Pinot said:

 

Well, there are two things that can't happen. Want to try for a third? She can't be pardoned because she's not charged with anything and she can't pardon herself. 

 

Oh you WERE JOKING, that's funny. I always have trouble getting the right wing jokes. 

 

Wingnuts. 

 

Carry on.

Actually, that is not true.

 

President Obama could pardon her for any crimes that might arise from her connection to the Clinton Foundation, or any other identifiable issue, even though she has not been criminally charged.

 

Look to Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon in 1974 for your precedent.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

Actually, that is not true.

 

President Obama could pardon her for any crimes that might arise from her connection to the Clinton Foundation, or any other identifiable issue, even though she has not been criminally charged.

 

Look to Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon in 1974 for your precedent.

Or to George H.W. Bush's pardon of Caspar Weinberger and some CIA officials for their involvement in Iran Contra.

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use has been removed.  

[Publicus]

2 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

That is ok....an indictment and incarceration will be fine too. 

 

I'm sure I'd read this thread a couple of years ago.

 

We've been reading these same indictment posts for several years now for sure, whatever the thread or the date of the thread or topic.

 

The word 'indictment' with a quick word either side of it. 'Criminal' with a pronoun and an article preceded by a verb. Nothing fancy by any means. Just the same wrong and dismissed terms with the same basics that make for the habitually glib hit and run routine.

[Pinot]

Wingnuts have been waiting for the imminent indictment of Clinton for 25 years now. 

 

Still waiting. It's like a dog waiting in front of abandoned home for them to return. Sorry Rover, they've moved on. 

[Opl]

Trump supporters think he will go crazy on his opponent and not them..

If ever he gets elected, he already said he'll abuse powers of the Presidency.

With great power, comes great insanity, and Trump offers a fertile soil.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Opl

[coma]

It is sure going to be one hell of a mess if she does get elected. A blatant 'lame duck' president will become of her. Hopefully the electorate will see that a vote for her in not in their best interests and vote against her.

[boomerangutang]

Three Trump supporters. . . . .

 

 

 

[boomerangutang]

35 minutes ago, coma said:

It is sure going to be one hell of a mess if she does get elected. A blatant 'lame duck' president will become of her. Hopefully the electorate will see that a vote for her in not in their best interests and vote against her.

 

        She may be somewhat of a 'lame duck' in her 2nd term, but for this first term, it looks likely the Dems will get 50/50 in the Senate (Kaine will the the tie-breaker) or an outright majority.  The House will likely stay Rep dominated, which translates to intransigence + ignorance + taking lots of time off to play hooky.

In other words, HRC's first term will be somewhat like Obama's 2nd term with Republicans blocking everything (including Supreme Court nominee) ....as they're so adept at doing.

 

       One of the many differences between HRC and Trump is:  Hillary knows how to get things done legislatively, and she has a lot of friends; domestically and overseas.  Trump thinks he can just announce an edict, and it will be done.  Thankfully, there are processes, plus checks & balances. So even if Trump became prez, he couldn't do as much damage as he unwittingly would do if he could rule like he wanted to: in his Mussoliniesque way.

 

[coma]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

 

     Hillary knows how to get things done legislatively, 

 

 

She may do. But my point is she will be to busy fighting off said impeachment and any and all other forms of legal proceedings the Republican can throw at her. Making her a less than effective commander in chief. Much like the period when her husband started having to deal with such issues. Lost all credibility. I am sure Tim Kaine is quietly hoping she does get brought down by the ' Republican army'. As I said. Quite a mess

[JHolmesJr]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

 

        She may be somewhat of a 'lame duck' in her 2nd term, but for this first term, it looks likely the Dems will get 50/50 in the Senate (Kaine will the the tie-breaker) or an outright majority.  The House will likely stay Rep dominated, which translates to intransigence + ignorance + taking lots of time off to play hooky.

 

 

Ur already dreaming of a second term…the mind boggles.

[attrayant]

Nobody is seriously using the word 'impeachment' except a few Tea Baggers and associated wingnuts  who carelessly throw the term around whenever they don't get their way.  

 

Hillary won't need to waste any time with it because they will never get the 17 Dem votes in the senate that would be needed for a conviction.  

[attrayant]

3 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Ur already dreaming of a second term…the mind boggles.

 

Some minds are more easily boggled than others.

[JHolmesJr]

especially the ones affected by dementia and bingo player syndrome.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Win or loose, she'll be in handcuffs and doing the perp-walk within a year ?

Edited November 6, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[Silurian]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

In other words, HRC's first term will be somewhat like Obama's 2nd term with Republicans blocking everything (including Supreme Court nominee) ....as they're so adept at doing.

 

If the Dems control the Senate, then they can call a recess of the Senate and Hillary can appoint a Supreme Court justice by recess appointment. Obama couldn't do a recess appointment as the current Senate would never have a recess. The Senate would have some member come in an convene for 30 seconds and then gavel out. They did this repeatedly so the Senate was never "officially" in recess.

 

[dcutman]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

       One of the many differences between HRC and Trump is:  Hillary knows how to get things done legislatively, and she has a lot of friends; domestically and overseas.

Yeah all big banks, the fat cats on Wall St, and defense contractors that have donated 100'of millions of dollars to get her elected, they indeed have been very good friends , I am sure she will be most friendly right back at them. Just as all those foreign friends of hers and her foundation that have poured the money into her campaign and foundation, she is most indebted to that "friendship". Never mind many of these are dictators and sponsors of terror, just as long as they are friends of Hillary and they get things done for her, that has got to be good for American interests. Right?

 

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

        She may be somewhat of a 'lame duck' in her 2nd term, but for this first term, it looks likely the Dems will get 50/50 in the Senate (Kaine will the the tie-breaker) or an outright majority.  The House will likely stay Rep dominated, which translates to intransigence + ignorance + taking lots of time off to play hooky.

In other words, HRC's first term will be somewhat like Obama's 2nd term with Republicans blocking everything (including Supreme Court nominee) ....as they're so adept at doing.

 

       One of the many differences between HRC and Trump is:  Hillary knows how to get things done legislatively, and she has a lot of friends; domestically and overseas.  Trump thinks he can just announce an edict, and it will be done.  Thankfully, there are processes, plus checks & balances. So even if Trump became prez, he couldn't do as much damage as he unwittingly would do if he could rule like he wanted to: in his Mussoliniesque way.

 

You mean like healthcare reform...that worked out well under Hillary didn't it...and it only took a one-term senator president to get that done ???

 

I'm at a loss to name ANY other of her legislative accomplishments . 

[dcutman]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

Nobody is seriously using the word 'impeachment' except a few Tea Baggers and associated wingnuts  who carelessly throw the term around whenever they don't get their way.  

 

Hillary won't need to waste any time with it because they will never get the 17 Dem votes in the senate that would be needed for a conviction.  

Of course why should Americans concern themselves with a little corruption, national security and the rule of law. All that little petty shiit just gets in the way of properly running a country.

Edited November 6, 2016 by dcutman

[Boon Mee]

14 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

You mean like healthcare reform...that worked out well under Hillary didn't it...and it only took a one-term senator president to get that done ???

 

I'm at a loss to name ANY other of her legislative accomplishments . 

She got Muammar Gaddafi whacked...

[OMGImInPattaya]

Just now, Boon Mee said:

She got Muammar Gaddafi whacked...

Always scored low in reading compression I take it...let me help you. She was Secretary of State when she birthed that fiasco, not a legislator, and even Democrats run like mad from that "accomplishment." Try again ?

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, coma said:

 

She may do. But my point is she will be to busy fighting off said impeachment and any and all other forms of legal proceedings the Republican can throw at her. Making her a less than effective commander in chief. Much like the period when her husband started having to deal with such issues. Lost all credibility. I am sure Tim Kaine is quietly hoping she does get brought down by the ' Republican army'. As I said. Quite a mess

Bill Clinton lost all credibility, did he?  In fact he left office with high approval rating. And the midterms elections for the Republicans were not exactly a success. In fact, the results led to Newt Gingrich's resignation.  I do hope that the Republicans are stupid enough to go ahead with impeachment.

[attrayant]

19 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

You mean like healthcare reform...that worked out well under Hillary didn't it...and it only took a one-term senator president to get that done ???

 

I'm at a loss to name ANY other of her legislative accomplishments . 

 

And I'm at a loss to name the Japanese dynasties.  I guess that means there weren't any, right?  Appeals to ignorance are the best, aren't they?

[OMGImInPattaya]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

And I'm at a loss to name the Japanese dynasties.  I guess that means there weren't any, right?  Appeals to ignorance are the best, aren't they?

I wouldn't expect the average person, even a Japanese, to be conversant in a specialized field of knowledge you mention. However, the accomplishments of someone who's been in the public eye for 30 years, running for President for more than a decade, and actively campaigning for the office and touting her accomplishments ad nauseam for over a year, it's rather strange her supporters can seem to find one worthy thing or accomplishment she's done to pin on the board. Maybe because there aren't any...other than being "Hillary."

[CaptHaddock]

46 minutes ago, Silurian said:

 

If the Dems control the Senate, then they can call a recess of the Senate and Hillary can appoint a Supreme Court justice by recess appointment. Obama couldn't do a recess appointment as the current Senate would never have a recess. The Senate would have some member come in an convene for 30 seconds and then gavel out. They did this repeatedly so the Senate was never "officially" in recess.

 

 

No need for a recess appointment.  The new Senate will eliminate the filibuster enabling the Dem majority to fill the Court vacancy, the so-called "nuclear option."  In the past they only restricted the filibuster on non-Court judiciary appointments.  They hesitated to go all the way for fear of provoking retribution from the Repubs when they control the Senate.  However, since the Repubs have now enunciated a doctrine of total obstruction with the Garland nomination, the gloves come off.  I just hope that there will be more vacancies to fill in the first two years of HRC's first term.  Reid is now urging that the filibuster be eliminated.  Schumer looks likely to do it.

 

As long as the economic polarization of the country persists, and likely increases, the political polarization will increase also.  This is the America Reagan left us.

[ilostmypassword]

14 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

No need for a recess appointment.  The new Senate will eliminate the filibuster enabling the Dem majority to fill the Court vacancy, the so-called "nuclear option."  In the past they only restricted the filibuster on non-Court judiciary appointments.  They hesitated to go all the way for fear of provoking retribution from the Repubs when they control the Senate.  However, since the Repubs have now enunciated a doctrine of total obstruction with the Garland nomination, the gloves come off.  I just hope that there will be more vacancies to fill in the first two years of HRC's first term.  Reid is now urging that the filibuster be eliminated.  Schumer looks likely to do it.

 

As long as the economic polarization of the country persists, and likely increases, the political polarization will increase also.  This is the America Reagan left us.

I think the time for the filibuster gone. Actually, long gone. Whether Republicans or Democrats are in control.  The US needs to become a bit more like a parliamentary democracy with straight up or down votes by simple majority rule.

[CaptHaddock]

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I think the time for the filibuster gone. Actually, long gone. Whether Republicans or Democrats are in control.  The US needs to become a bit more like a parliamentary democracy with straight up or down votes by simple majority rule.

 

The filibuster, or the voluntary, non-constitutional requirement of a super-majority to pass major legislation or appointments is not an accident.  It's an expression of the basic conservatism embodied in the the structure of US government.  This includes the Senate itself that gives disproportional weight to voters in states with small populations, the Electoral College, which is an artifact of slavery designed to translate the over-representation of the South in the Congress to the presidential election,, the winner-take-all counting of electoral votes in nearly all the states, the requirement of Senate approval of Cabinet and other officers, and so on. 

 

It's a national disgrace that the Democrats have so far acquiesced in the perpetuation of the filibuster which has mostly been used by the reactionary Republicans against progress. 

[Boon Mee]

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Always scored low in reading compression I take it...let me help you. She was Secretary of State when she birthed that fiasco, not a legislator, and even Democrats run like mad from that "accomplishment." Try again ?

Heh...was referring to any accomplishments. 

[Publicus]

3 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I wouldn't expect the average person, even a Japanese, to be conversant in a specialized field of knowledge you mention. However, the accomplishments of someone who's been in the public eye for 30 years, running for President for more than a decade, and actively campaigning for the office and touting her accomplishments ad nauseam for over a year, it's rather strange her supporters can seem to find one worthy thing or accomplishment she's done to pin on the board. Maybe because there aren't any...other than being "Hillary."

 

The Republican Party base to include severely and long term alienated Right Sector extremists have adopted this burn it down attitude and posture, which has become irreversible.

 

The Democratic Party base which outnumbers the Republican base and which continues to expand, to include the great majority of Millennials, has never considered such alien notions or desires, i.e., burn down what needs changing within the parameters of the Constitution.

 

The Mad Max charging head down mindset of smash it up is not viable in any respect, especially when it comes to the stability and security of a nation. It is the age of nuclear weapons, not of the flintlock musket. The Russian Revolution of 1917 and Mao's 1949 takeover of China were the last events of their kind, anywhere, any time, under any circumstances.

 

The Second Amendment is the opposite of what the extremist Right Sector insists and asserts it to be.