Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why not? Worse yet much of this may become public knowledge now.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pelosi holds vote Thursday
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, not "hearsay". From a person that testified yesterday what he heard. In case you did not know when the President makes this sort of phone call there are quite a few people listening in on it.
No, if the Republicans are being obviously dishonest the Democrats will have a tool to deal with them. Look at who has been acting like a baby throughout this investigation. Or have you forgotten the storming of a secure meeting where both Republicans and Democrats were hearing testimony?
I got evidence. You said there was no evidence. Obviously there is evidence.
Reasonable people might disagree about how persuasive the evidence is, but to suggest there is no evidence is just absurd.
The fact that he may be vulnerable to criminal charges in no way implies he is immune to impeachment charges, or vice versa.
esmith
Veteran Member
I can see that this discussion has no possibility of changing anyone's mind (yeah really insane of me to think otherwise, should save my arguments for discussions having concrete evidence).
Therefore will bow to " “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
I will just wait until after the 2020 elections to see who the American people believe is right.
Therefore will bow to " “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
I will just wait until after the 2020 elections to see who the American people believe is right.
Riders
Well-Known Member
Thats a saying in 12 Step recovery meetings!
From what I heard the full House vote does make a difference in these areas. And added is allowing the Committee members to have staff lawyers also to ask questions which has not been allowed in other hearings.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It could be discussed but charges could not be presented. Recommendations could be made for what could be charged after Trump is out of office, but that's about as far as they could go.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Ya, Trump does this a lot.
BTW, I give Pelosi a lot of credit by not rushing into this next stage, and Bob Woodward may have had a lot to do with that as he told her that his sources told him that there's a lot more about Trump's actions that will be coming out, and that was a couple of weeks ago. It appears that he was right, and I do believe more will be surfacing as these hearings move on as Trump has not been able to stop his former or current staff from testifying. Plus, unlike Trump, she's intelligent, has a lot of political experience, and is a basically moral person.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Lol. Last edited 4 hours ago at the time of this posting by some person called
Shbert.
Yea. ROFLMAO!!!!!!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So? Wiki is often edited. Most editors are trying to be honest since false edits can cause one to lose the ability to edit at Wikipedia. When an article on Wikipedia is affected by breaking news it is apt to get edited. I am sure that the historic House vote will cause it to be edited several times today alone. I read in one article on Wikipedia that studies have shown that contrary to public opinion the more often an article is edited the more accurate it tends to be.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
i love it when someone does not understand the source that they are using.
Wikipedia is familiar with its own weaknesses. As a result they try to minimize them. Unlike Bible literalists that try to use the Bible to prove the Bible causing endless circular insanity Wikipedia demands that writers go to outside sources.
in Wikipedia's early days they were often the victim of vandalism. Not so much anymore. And your complaining about a process that makes Wikipedia more accurate is self defeating ignorance. I once got into a similar debate with a person that had a Wiki account. He tried to refute the claim that Wiki was accurate by editing an article. The problem was that he made a valid edit. When I pointed out to show that Wiki was unreliable he had to put a clearly false edit in an article. He was not willing to do that. He valued his membership to highly to risk it. And this was a person known to be quite the troll.
Wiki's ease of editing is a strength not a weakness. People that make false edits are caught and their membership revoked. Articles tend to get more and more accurate as a result of editing. In 2005 Wikipedia was already as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. It has only improved since then:
How Accurate Is Wikipedia?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'm impressed! First thing since the election, they actually did something on schedule.
Anyways what are the socialists gonna do now being they are on a roll now?
Make things public and transparent ?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
i was not surprised that it did not get any Republican votes. Though the Republicans claimed to want an open process they were clearly being just a little bit less than honest when they made those claims.
The Democrats gave the Republicans almost exactly what they demanded. Why did they vote against it?
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
I was wrong. It happened--and I'm glad. I would have voted against it if I were a Republican congress member, mind you, because of the proposed rules.
I'm not a bit happy about the rules. As it happens, the democrats can subpoena anything and demand anything...but the Republicans must request permission to subpoena anything, and the chair of the committee can veto any request/subpoena that the Republicans ask for. It's not even remotely an even playing field.
It wasn't a bit difficult to spot that. It's on the first page of the submitted draft voted on today. I spotted it, and later more than one commentator spotted the same thing.
I would call that really underhanded....and sneaky....and typical of the current Democrats up there at the moment.
Still, it's better than the way things have been handled so far, and if the Dems go too far with the veto thing, even the most partisan of their base should see something off. I say 'should,' but I'm afraid they won't. (sigh)
At least now the Republicans will have SOME ability to defend/react/examine things, where before today they had absolutely none.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Likely because there wasn't any real point to it.i was not surprised that it did not get any Republican votes. Though the Republicans claimed to want an open process they were clearly being just a little bit less than honest when they made those claims.
The Democrats gave the Republicans almost exactly what they demanded. Why did they vote against it?
Republicans are not going to waste their time. There's more important matters to attend to like running the country.