Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 262: Witless Protection

(+) Yeah! (+)

TheRock1525 posted...

It absolutely is.

Slur: a shaming or degrading effect.

Thanks. Now read what I said already and just stop talking.

---

Corrik7 posted...

The ordinary person correlates gender and sex as the same and is referring to biological sex of what they biologically see in front of them when using a pronoun. They aren't trying to interpret what your brain waves say.

Maybe so, but thats still not technically correct, as you claimed it was
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Maybe so, but thats still not technically correct, as you claimed it was

It is correct to what they mean.

---

Murkowski is a no on witnesses, apparently.

---

Yeah no, people shouldn't be offended when people accidentally misgender them, especially when their presentation is non traditional. I find it hard to believe more than 1% of the population would disagree with me.

I know some older people with self acknowledged poor memories that get anxious about it

I don't think this is really a left vs right thing

---

Corrik7 posted...

The ordinary person correlates gender and sex as the same and is referring to biological sex of what they biologically see in front of them when using a pronoun. They aren't trying to interpret what your brain waves say.

See? Singular they/them. Its not so hard!
---

10 post on page 7 good lord

given the posts I do see I take it it's for the best

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Murkowski is a no on witnesses, apparently.

You alrdy knew they had 51. They said it will be an acquittal tomorrow morning.

---

Corrik7 posted...

It is correct to what they mean.

What they mean is technically incorrect though
---

Oh, and by the way the Senate vote is looking is absolutely embarrassing for our country

---

Okay, this discussion is dumb. Can we get back to talking about our glorious swamp drainer's complete and total exoneration?

---

to be fair not seeing much of these pages made it easy to see Tony's near-lone post on this page!

*edit* dammit sep

---

What was the justification for acquitting Bill Clinton? He committed perjury and anyone who thinks he didnt is deluding themselves
---

Can't wait for Donald Trump to be the first President to be impeached twice.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Can't wait for Donald Trump to be the first President to be impeached twice.

First president to be impeached in both terms lol

---

Grimlyn posted...

to be fair not seeing much of these pages made it easy to see Tony's near-lone post on this page!

*edit* dammit sep

I was never heeeeerrrrreeee

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Murkowski is a no on witnesses, apparently.

She should still get primaried for besmirching Innocent Man Brett The Hitman Kavanaugh.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

She should still get primaried for besmirching Innocent Man Brett The Hitman Kavanaugh.

That is an insult to the hitman and you know it

---

oh wow Murkowski isn't just "no witness" but..................... her statement is that there just wouldn't be any fair trial anyways and Congress has failed so why bother

that's gotta be even even worse vote justification than Lamar Alexander's, like what are you even doing in congress

---

Murkowski's rationale is actually really astute. She already sees how terribly the House has embarrassed Congress and this country, and she refuses to vote yes to bring Roberts into this partisan hackery.

https://twitter.com/lisamurkowski/status/1223317119233941506

---

I have no earthly idea how they believe acquitting him is going to reunite this country.

---

"Acquitting the President will reunite our country!"

Narrator: It did not.

---

I also dont know how we are at a low point of division in a country that had an actual civil war
---

You can't just say the house has failed without explaining how. Are you trolling?

Trump obstructed Congress, and congress submitted articles of impeachment including obstruction of Congress. What more do you want?

You have have the least curious mind to think the house is the one in the wrong here.

All presidents should be able to avoid impeachment by just not responding to it, and bogging the process down as much as possible?

That's so obviously unacceptable

---

Grimlyn posted...

oh wow Murkowski isn't just "no witness" but..................... her statement is that there just wouldn't be any fair trial anyways and Congress has failed so why bother

that's gotta be even even worse vote justification than Lamar Alexander's, like what are you even doing in congress

This is incredibly pathetic.

Jakyl25 posted...

What was the justification for acquitting Bill Clinton? He committed perjury and anyone who thinks he didnt is deluding themselves

It's not an impeachable offense. Let's look at the list of impeachable offenses:

Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Perjury is not treason or bribery. So what does "other high crimes and misdemeanors" mean? The word "other" means that "high crimes and misdemeanors" are similar in nature to treason and bribery. Does the word "high" modify "crimes" or "crimes and misdemeanors"? I think it has to be the latter, because 1) otherwise it would be written as "treason, bribery, other high crimes, and misdemeanors" and "misdemeanors" without a modifier are not similar in nature to treason and bribery.

So then we've established that impeachment only applies to offenses that are "high." Is perjury about a sex scandal a high crime? Probably not. So he was correctly acquitted.

---

Get out and vote. Tell your friends to vote. Donate to senate races. Organize. There is only one surefire way to make sure they dont do this again.

---

Well, we'll all be able to say we were there when we became a failed state.

---

Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Does bribing the president of Ukraine for personal gain fall under this category?

---

She also talks a bunch about not wanting to let Chief Justice Roberts be smeared so it sounds like her vote basically comes down to not forcing his tie-break, which might suggest that had Lamar voted For she also would (since that'd be the only way to avoid tie-break)

but knowing all of the GOP Senate that's probably exactly how their votes were whipped so it's not like there was another outcome.

---

banananor posted...

You can't just say the house has failed without explaining how. Are you trolling?

Trump obstructed Congress, and congress submitted articles of impeachment including obstruction of Congress. What more do you want?

You have have the least curious mind to think the house is the one in the wrong here.

All presidents should be able to avoid impeachment by just not responding to it, and bogging the process down as much as possible?

That's so obviously unacceptable

I think shes actually using Congress here in the both houses of Congress manner
---

banananor posted...

Does bribing the president of Ukraine for personal gain fall under this category?

Of course it does. If the House believes the President did that they need to fulfill their duty and charge it.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Get out and vote. Tell your friends to vote. Donate to senate races. Organize. There is only one surefire way to make sure they dont do this again.

Until Trump determines that he doesn't like California's voting machines and decides for voting integrity to have all their votes thrown out.

After all even though he greatly benefits from it, as long as he believes that the country benefits as well then its a-ok.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

"Acquitting the President will reunite our country!"

Narrator: It did not.

She's saying acquittal will stop further division, not encourage unity. Big difference.

---

red sox 777 posted...

It's not an impeachable offense. Let's look at the list of impeachable offenses:

Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Perjury is not treason or bribery. So what does "other high crimes and misdemeanors" mean? The word "other" means that "high crimes and misdemeanors" are similar in nature to treason and bribery. Does the word "high" modify "crimes" or "crimes and misdemeanors"? I think it has to be the latter, because 1) otherwise it would be written as "treason, bribery, other high crimes, and misdemeanors" and "misdemeanors" without a modifier are not similar in nature to treason and bribery.

So then we've established that impeachment only applies to offenses that are "high." Is perjury about a sex scandal a high crime? Probably not. So he was correctly acquitted.

Oxford comma strikes again

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

She's saying acquittal will stop further division

And she's decisively wrong.

Actual witnesses stood to benefit Republicans, mostly because they could pull Hunter Biden into the spotlight like they want.

Instead 75% of the country wanted witnesses and they aren't going to get it. So maybe it unifies the country in favor of hating the GOP. They did a bang up job convincing people not to vote for them when they tried to repeal Obamacare.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

And she's decisively wrong.

Actual witnesses stood to benefit Republicans, mostly because they could pull Hunter Biden into the spotlight like they want.

Instead 75% of the country wanted witnesses and they aren't going to get it. So maybe it unifies the country in favor of hating the GOP. They did a bang up job convincing people not to vote for them when they tried to repeal Obamacare.

The longer the president isn't front and center in the news due to impeachment, the less bickering will happen IRL.

---

"Congress has failed"

...So you're going to help it fail further by voting against witnesses?

---

Grimlyn posted...

She also talks a bunch about not wanting to let Chief Justice Roberts be smeared so it sounds like her vote basically comes down to not forcing his tie-break, which might suggest that had Lamar voted For she also would (since that'd be the only way to avoid tie-break)

but knowing all of the GOP Senate that's probably exactly how their votes were whipped so it's not like there was another outcome.

It sounds to me like she was negatively influenced by Warrens question asking if the process besmirches Chief Justice Roberts, because as far as Im aware, thats the only time its been mentioned.

---

the idea that Murkowski was actually affected by anything is laughable tbqh

---

heck Murkowski & Alexander both flashed their ultimate "stance" with their last question together

"Isnt it true that the allegations still would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, and that therefore for this and other reasons his testimony would add nothing to the case?" - Lamar Alexander & Lisa Murkowski question

where Lamar comes out to "yeah he did it but who cares" and Lisa to "nothing is gonna happen what's the point"

---

Jakyl25 posted...

What was the justification for acquitting Bill Clinton? He committed perjury and anyone who thinks he didnt is deluding themselves

Well, Marco Rubio (hear me out!) justified his vote today by saying that even if a president commits an impeachable offense, it's not necessarily in the best interest to impeach and remove them.

Now, I don't think this actually applies to the current impeachment, but do you think this could be generally true? I don't know enough about the Bill Clinton impeachment but it seems like a similar situation.

---

Wait guys, what if this is code, and Murkowski's gonna show up with her eyes darkened, tell people they've failed this Congress, and start slinging arrows?

I feel this impeachment trial should be delayed until we can be sure all access to bows and CW streaming services have been safely removed.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

It sounds to me like she was negatively influenced by Warrens question asking if the process besmirches Chief Justice Roberts, because as far as Im aware, thats the only time its been mentioned.

I mean the GOP absolutely does not want it to go to Roberts for a tiebreaker anyways, which it would have done with her yes votes.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

It sounds to me like she was negatively influenced by Warrens question asking if the process besmirches Chief Justice Roberts, because as far as Im aware, thats the only time its been mentioned.

You mean something backfired after Warren couldn't keep her self-serving mouth shut?

---

On the subject of the Clinton impeachment it seems like the Rubio defense was the prevailing one, with some Dems advocating for a censure instead. NYT article from 1999 with special guest Susan Collins:



---

Ahh censuring. The ultimate form of virtue signaling.

---

God damn virtue signallers.

---

The Senate should immediately censure Hillary Clinton.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

It sounds to me like she was negatively influenced by Warrens question asking if the process besmirches Chief Justice Roberts, because as far as Im aware, thats the only time its been mentioned.

That was a super dumb question. Everything thats happened so far reflects poorly on the Senate Republicans, not on Roberts or the Supreme Court.

Not that Murkowski couldnt have found another way to justify her vote (I doubt that actually was what changed her mind), but it was pretty clear that Warren was trying to generate a moment and an impeachment trial is not the place to do that; the stakes are too high. (The real risk imo is that it could have pissed off Roberts and made him less likely to allow witnesses were there actually a tie; I dont think that was very likely anyway, but if it pushes it down from 10% to 5% or something that would have been a dumb thing to do for no reason).

---