Poor Little Dem's Mad: Taking Their Ball and Going Home

[Subduction Zone]

Of course. Cuomo was referring to the 'extreme' Republicans. Right?

Here's Cuomo's quote you probably saw from the article....

"… You’re seeing that play out in New York. … The Republican party candidates are running against the SAFE Act – it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are".

Yet the article continues.....

But Cuomo crossed a line by saying anyone who supports traditional marriage or is against abortion is not welcome in New York. While no one would mistake New York for Utah, there’s certainly lots of diversity and “traditional values” in the state, ranging from ultra orthodox Jewish communities in the Big Apple to Amish in upstate New York. It reinforces stereotype of liberals as tolerant … as long as people are speaking views they agree with.

He was referring to people with immoral views for the most part. Party affiliation should really not apply unless you want to claim that Republicans are immoral.

 

[shmogie]

Poor nowhere man wouldn't recognize impartiality if it kick him in the groin. The fact that he claims Democrats aren't impartial is the epitome of ironic.

If democrats were impartial, they wouldn,t be democrats

 

[shmogie]

As you have already pointed out, congress isn't a court of law, so congress had absolutely no authority to convict him of perjury. What they DID have the authority to do was determine if his 'crimes' were sufficient reason to boot him from office. And what they concluded was that his crimes were against his wife and his marriage and not crimes against the nation.

Regardless of what the Constitution says, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If democrats were impartial, they wouldn,t be democrats

Please, you are supposedly a Christian. Remember the Ninth Commandment. That is as foolish as saying:

"If the Republicans were not stupid they would not be Republicans."

Biased arguments make one look biased.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Regardless of what the Constitution says, right?

You appear to be quite confused here.. That phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" still a bit too difficult to suss out.

 

[Revoltingest]

Who do you imagine convicted whom of infidelity?

No one I know of.
That seems a non sequiter.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I live in the people's republic of New York.

The Socialist Democrats here live in their own planet of their making , and will listen to nobody but themselves.

Oh by the way. This little juicy tidbit from Chairman Cuomo....


Conservatives aren't welcome in New York, according to Governor Cuomo | Heather Long

And yep. He said that.

Stop huffing the laughing gas bub. ;0)

Socialist Democrats are partisan and partial as it gets.

Good for you. It's STILL not nearly as bad as half the red states, where ignorant voters say they'd rather vote for a communist than a Democrat. Quit deluding yourself BUB. .

 

[QuestioningMind]

If democrats were impartial, they wouldn,t be democrats

We're comparing their impartiality to REPUBLICANS, genius. You know, the REPUBLICANS who are the least impartial party out there.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Regardless of what the Constitution says, right?

Actually GENIUS it's exactly what the constitution says.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No one I know of.
That seems a non sequiter.

They have no authority to convict of real crimes,
but they have it for infidelity (which isn't illegal)?

Your previous question suggest otherwise, since I never suggested that they had the authority to convict for infidelity.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hey fellas, let's keep it sporting and not let this devolve into a mere food fight.

I'll take my share of the blame to the extent I've failed to do my part in that regard.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which reasons specifically are "no basis" for impeachment?

All of'm.
Each on its own is weak for various reasons.
Some are worth of continued investigation, eg, the Ukraine-Biden thingie.

Please keep in mind, as I said, I am not claiming the reasons pre-Ukraine scandal were necessarily a basis for impeachment. I am saying they were a legitimate basis to openly consider, though ultimately reject acting on, impeachment. Even Lindsay Graham and John Kelly spoke of the possibility of impeachment - was that due to their "bias confirmation out of intense hatred" or because of specific actions Trump took (such as firing Comey and attempting to fire Mueller)?

We should bear in mind that opinions of other Pubs aren't evidence.
Moreover, Pubs don't seem to have liked him from the get go.

Surely if you are honest, and actually listen to what I am claiming you cannot disagree: you don't think Trump's actions have nothing to do with why there has been talk of his impeachment, and why he is now impeached?

Don't call me Shirley.

Btw, if you're honest & actually reading y posts, you'd realize that I said
Trump's impeachment is reasonable. But "reasonable" doesn't mean
that it's proceeded in the most efficacious fashion.

Why do you think Trump's current greatest ally, Lindsay Graham, and Trump's own former Chief of Staff, John Kelly, spoke of the possibility of impeachment before the Ukraine scandal - were they simply lashing out against his "boorishness" and expressing their intense hatred? Or were they concerned about specific actions Trump was taking or might take? Be honest.

Also, I hope you are right, that we will settle this when the Senate tries. I am afraid they will not actually try. I hope I am wrong.

When was the last time a president was tried
without the trial outcome being previously known?

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks, yes that is correct. As a number of House Democrats articulated better than I can, the fact that he is a repeat offender and shows no remorse or even consciousness that his behavior is inappropriate, in spite of many of his own aids sounding the alarm, suggests there will continue to be a clear and present danger of him repeating the offense. That weighs, in my view, on whether it is impeachable more heavily than if this was more of a one-off thing or a mistake that he quickly apologized for and tried to rectify.

I can understand that perspective.

 

[Revoltingest]

They have no authority to convict of real crimes,
but they have it for infidelity (which isn't illegal)?

Your previous question suggest otherwise, since I never suggested that they had the authority to convict for infidelity.

Perhaps clarification is in order....
Clinton was impeached for crimes (eg, perjury), not for infidelity.
Covering up the latter was what lead him to the crimes.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Good for you. It's STILL not nearly as bad as half the red states, where ignorant voters say they'd rather vote for a communist than a Democrat. Quit deluding yourself BUB. .

That's what you think. It's only 'better' than one state sunshine. California.

 

[Shadow Link]

How much do you want to bet I can find a lie, or a very misleading statement, in the first 10 minutes of the video?

I dare you to watch all three hours of it!

 

[shmogie]

Actually GENIUS it's exactly what the constitution says.

LOL !! " Treason, bribery, or OTHER high crimes or misdemeanors" Treason, a statutory crime, bribery, a statutory crime, or OTHER statutory crimes.

So, gizmo, show me the crimes. The democrats didn't.

 

[shmogie]

We're comparing their impartiality to REPUBLICANS, genius. You know, the REPUBLICANS who are the least impartial party out there.

Well gizmo, the democrats showed us what impartiality means, in the house. They will receive the same impartiality in the senate.

 

[shmogie]

Good for you. It's STILL not nearly as bad as half the red states, where ignorant voters say they'd rather vote for a communist than a Democrat. Quit deluding yourself BUB. .

Voting for a declared and known communist is better than voting for a stealth sub rosa communist.

There was a time when I would evaluate democrats based upon what they said, and their history. I even voted for one or two.

No more, they are all blatant liars, and all to a greater or lesser extent want to put in place "socialist", communist, principles to the detriment of America.

 

[tytlyf]

Voting for a declared and known communist is better than voting for a stealth sub rosa communist.

There was a time when I would evaluate democrats based upon what they said, and their history. I even voted for one or two.

No more, they are all blatant liars, and all to a greater or lesser extent want to put in place "socialist", communist, principles to the detriment of America.

Liar.