Warming up in the bullpen, number 46...

[BmorePat87]

It should also be pointed out that there was a lot of development in the Supreme Court over Watergate and Nixon being asked to release all of his tapes between 1973 and 1974. The case against him started nearly two years before he resigned.

To suggest that enough could occur in 10 months to convince Republicans to try to impeach both the President and VP is a fantasy.

[hollodero]

(02-16-2017, 04:43 PM)xxlt Wrote: "Our media" covers a lot. I don't trust some media, e.g. Breitbart, as they report demonstrably false things and have a clear agenda. Other sources are credible.

Yeah well, the way I see it some sources are more credible then others. Breitbart is more or less an alt-right smearsheet in my book, Fox is very opinionated (although I guess seldomly actually factually wrong), there are "liberal" (you use that word all wrong, btw. :) ) equivalents. CNN got the facts straight I guess, but there is bias between the lines (which I don't mind). My MSM (learned that one) mistrust stems more from foreign affairs or times when wars broke out, where I found the US mainstream media coverage to be very one-sided and, let's say, US friendly. But sure, that is another instance than we see here. 
I see your media outlets as infuenced by many interest groups. As is ours, of course, my country is probably way worse in that respect. But credibility does not come from the outlet, none of your outlets deserves credibility on its name alone. If the sources are reliable, then OK. When there are more or less rumours, hearsay and stuff like that, I take things with a grain of salt and force myself to do so. No matter if I see them on FOX (which never happens anyway) or CNN or wherever.

Which especially applies to the Russia ties of Trump. I try to base my take on the things that really are there. Do they have Kompromat on him or anyone, I do not yet know that, no matter what buzzfeed says. (If I had to guess I would say probably plenty, though.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-16-2017, 03:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So we're going to go from 1 President resigned in US history to 3 in less than 12 months?

(02-16-2017, 04:31 PM)xxlt Wrote: Nixon resigned to avoid the shame of removal, in case you didn't know that.

It will be interesting to see which way Trump's ego takes him - is it better in his mind to resign or be removed? We shall see.

I figure Pence will take the road of Flynn and just resign.

A former intelligence official says an active one has told him Trump, "Will spend the rest of his life in prison." Whether he is removed from office first or resigns is of little consequence. I suppose President Ryan could pardon him.

Oh, and a former aid to 3 Republican Presidents is calling for impeachment. But yeah, I'm crazy.

[xxlt]

(02-16-2017, 05:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah well, the way I see it some sources are more credible then others. Breitbart is more or less an alt-right smearsheet in my book, Fox is very opinionated (although I guess seldomly actually factually wrong), there are "liberal" (you use that word all wrong, btw. :) ) equivalents. CNN got the facts straight I guess, but there is bias between the lines (which I don't mind). My MSM (learned that one) mistrust stems more from foreign affairs or times when wars broke out, where I found the US mainstream media coverage to be very one-sided and, let's say, US friendly. But sure, that is another instance than we see here. 
I see your media outlets as infuenced by many interest groups. As is ours, of course, my country is probably way worse in that respect. But credibility does not come from the outlet, none of your outlets deserves credibility on its name alone. If the sources are reliable, then OK. When there are more or less rumours, hearsay and stuff like that, I take things with a grain of salt and force myself to do so. No matter if I see them on FOX (which never happens anyway) or CNN or wherever.

Which especially applies to the Russia ties of Trump. I try to base my take on the things that really are there. Do they have Kompromat on him or anyone, I do not yet know that, no matter what buzzfeed says. (If I had to guess I would say probably plenty, though.

Fox is actually quite often factually wrong. Entire books have been written on this subject, btw.

[BmorePat87]

(02-16-2017, 05:42 PM)xxlt Wrote: Fox is actually quite often factually wrong. Entire books have been written on this subject, btw.

Yea, I heard they said that Nixon was never impeached. 

[Dill]

(02-16-2017, 03:03 PM)xxlt Wrote: Ladies and Gentleman, meet the next President of the United States of America:

I was just kidding about him warming up in the bullpen (he doesn't have a clue and if he did he wouldn't warm up, he'd just be status quo). But you can look for him to be in (the Oval) office before the end of 2017.

I agree with you that Trump is unlikely to finish his term. I will be surprised if he finishes two years.

But we are stuck with a Republican for four years.

 Trump will have to go because of the damage he is doing the Republican Brand, not to mention to the country, but Pence is a very skilled politician, likely to look better and better over the next two years, and is someone likely able to work with the Republican half of Congress in a way Trump can't.

[xxlt]

(02-16-2017, 04:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It should also be pointed out that there was a lot of development in the Supreme Court over Watergate and Nixon being asked to release all of his tapes between 1973 and 1974. The case against him started nearly two years before he resigned.

To suggest that enough could occur in 10 months to convince Republicans to try to impeach both the President and VP is a fantasy.

“I don’t think Richard Nixon even comes close to the level of corruption we already know about Trump." - John Dean, White House counsel to Richard Nixon and expert on government corruption.

More here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/john-dean-interview/513215/

[hollodero]

(02-16-2017, 05:42 PM)xxlt Wrote: Fox is actually quite often factually wrong. Entire books have been written on this subject, btw.

OK. :) I didn't mean to strike a blow for them. Especially Bill O'Reilly is regarded as a symbol of opinionated, manipulative talk reaching outrageous dimensions here, as is Hannity and what was his name, Glenn Beck? (what happened to this lunatic?) It was more the opinion-making part that looked scary, but if you say the facts they hand out are often alternative too, I am inclined to believe that. No one should use FOX as a primary news source anyway.

[BmorePat87]

(02-16-2017, 05:45 PM)xxlt Wrote: “I don’t think Richard Nixon even comes close to the level of corruption we already know about Trump." - John Dean, White House counsel to Richard Nixon and expert on government corruption.

More here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/john-dean-interview/513215/

Yea, you're citing a supporter of Nixon's speaking before Trump was even inaugurated. I am not even a Trump supporter and even I am laughing that off. 

[xxlt]

(02-16-2017, 05:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, I heard they said that Nixon was never impeached. 

Many confuse impeachment and removal. I am sure you do not

Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Richard Nixon were the three presidents in US history who were impeached is the way most people phrase it. Technically though, you are correct, that is not the case.

Technically Nixon resigned during impeachment proceedings. So, technically it is correct to say he was not impeached, but it is a hair most do not split because it was fully evident from the way the impeachment hearings were going that Nixon would not only be impeached but also would be removed from office. That is why he resigned. But yes, technically you are correct. Mea culpa. Mea culpa for not noting the honor Nixon showed by resigning with impeachment imminent.

[Dill]

(02-16-2017, 05:42 PM)xxlt Wrote: Fox is actually quite often factually wrong. Entire books have been written on this subject, btw.

Various Fox commentators are factually wrong about things like police free zones in London and Paris. But their primary effect does not result from dissemination of alternative facts so much as their analytical frame, which emphasizes Republican talking points (Whitelash, untrustworthy MSM; crooked Hillary) and minimizes or excludes other perspectives. Readers are urged to trust Fox for "balance" and all those facts the msm ignores. Rhetorically, they mostly (Rove-style) flip charges leveled at them, insisting the MSM just mirrors Dem talking points, are "biased" and awash in "hypocrisy."

E.g., their big take-away from the JD investigation of the Ferguson riots was that Brown maybe never had his hands up--not that Ferguson police were preying upon residents to increase revenue. Megyn Kelly said "thank god for Fox News" because they had not judged Wilson before the "facts were known."  And they were quick not to judge Zimmerman too quickly as well.

When Cliven Bundy was in a standoff with Federal authorities over failure to pay taxes and armed white militia flooded the area, Fox showed patriots understandably angry at big government. Bundy had his 15 minutes of fame with Sean Hannity. When riots occurred in Ferguson police in MRAPs and body armor, with help from armed white militia, protecting property from "thugs."

Now their radio talk show hosts Rush and Hannity harangue listeners for hours about how Trump has accomplished more than any president in history his first two weeks. The White House chaos reported by the MSM (and obvious to all observers) is all a lie. The accusations against Flynn bubbled up from the Obama's "deep shadow state" still in place in the Federal bureaucracy, including the Intel community. The MSM are totally fake news, liars, all exacting revenge for Hillary's loss etc.

[BmorePat87]

(02-16-2017, 05:54 PM)xxlt Wrote: Many confuse impeachment and removal. I am sure you do not

Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Richard Nixon were the three presidents in US history who were impeached is the way most people phrase it. 

Technically though, you are correct, that is not the case. 


Technically Nixon resigned during impeachment proceedings. So, technically it is correct to say he was not impeached, but it is a hair most do not split because it was fully evident from the way the impeachment hearings were going that Nixon would not only be impeached but also would be removed from office. That is why he resigned. But yes, technically you are correct. Mea culpa. Mea culpa for not noting the honor Nixon showed by resigning with impeachment imminent.

Impeachment is when the House formally charges the President (or other officials) of committing a serious offense. This is done by a floor vote. The only two Presidents to be impeached were Clinton and Johnson. The removal process occurs after a trial held in the Senate concluding with a floor vote. None have been removed. 

It doesn't matter if most people are dumb and do not understand the word. That doesn't make me technically  correct, it makes me correct. That's like saying there's some truth when someone uses the layman's definition of "theory" when talking science. I teach my students to understand the correct definition of terms.

[Dill]

(02-16-2017, 04:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It should also be pointed out that there was a lot of development in the Supreme Court over Watergate and Nixon being asked to release all of his tapes between 1973 and 1974. The case against him started nearly two years before he resigned.

To suggest that enough could occur in 10 months to convince Republicans to try to impeach both the President and VP is a fantasy.

If both Trump and Pence were colluding with Russia to throw the election it would be possible to impeach both, but I don't believe both were. Pence is just to smart.

In Trump's case, there are so many potential avenues of impeachment is impossible to predict which one could issue into the required "high crimes"--think of his business conflicts of interest, his carelessness handling intel and state business, the potential for foreign policy disasters on a much larger scale than Yemen, the inexplicable bromance with Putin,  an AG apparently ready to "work with him" on actions skirting the Constitution. 

I don't think it impossible to impeach Trump in 10 months, but I think it likely he he would resign first, like "settling out of court."  Or he could plead health reasons. 

[BengalHawk62]

This is coming from some local Trumpets here on my Facebook account. Ugh, the condensing nature of Trumpets......


'Nothing more entertaining than Libs heads explode watching Trump schooling a bunch of insincere, phony media hacks. Of course it is like blowing up an empty mailbox.'

[6andcounting]

That face you make when Alex Jones rants all turn out to be true and the MSM survives by catering to a select segment that wants shock jock conspiracy theories spoon fed to them by entertainment personalities and their secret sources.

.

[GMDino]

(02-16-2017, 06:32 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: This is coming from some local Trumpets here on my Facebook account. Ugh, the condensing nature of Trumpets......


'Nothing more entertaining than Libs heads explode watching Trump schooling a bunch of insincere, phony media hacks. Of course it is like blowing up an empty mailbox.'

I took a screenshot of one...I'll have to post it tomorrow.  They inability to grasp reality by his supporters is grade a comedy.

[GMDino]

(02-16-2017, 06:52 PM)6andcounting Wrote: That face you make when Alex Jones rants all turn out to be true and the MSM survives by catering to a select segment that wants shock jock conspiracy theories spoon fed to them by entertainment personalities and their secret sources.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-16-2017, 03:03 PM)xxlt Wrote: Ladies and Gentleman, meet the next President of the United States of America:

I have three words for this picture.  Edward Wolfgang Munster.. 

[xxlt]

(02-16-2017, 06:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Impeachment is when the House formally charges the President (or other officials) of committing a serious offense. This is done by a floor vote. The only two Presidents to be impeached were Clinton and Johnson. The removal process occurs after a trial held in the Senate concluding with a floor vote. None have been removed. 

It doesn't matter if most people are dumb and do not understand the word. That doesn't make me technically  correct, it makes me correct. That's like saying there's some truth when someone uses the layman's definition of "theory" when talking science. I teach my students to understand the correct definition of terms.

Like I said, technically you are correct. This is not to say you are incorrect. but to say you are correct. Impeachment proceedings began against Nixon in May of 1974. On July 27, 1974, in the minds of many (including even, perhaps, Nixon himself) he was impeached when the House Judiciary Committee recommended on that day the first article of impeachment be passed. Two more articles of impeachment were approved on July 29 and 30. I remember many Americans saying Nixon had been impeached at the time, and since then. Technically they were wrong - there had been no floor vote - but impeachment certainly seemed imminent. This is sort of like a boxer named Spider Ricco being knocked down once, and knocked down twice in a subsequent round and with the referee giving him a standing eight count his corner throwing in the towel. Many who witnessed the fight would say Spider Ricco was knocked out, but technically Ricco's corner threw in the towel. Similarly, many consider Nixon to have been impeached, as proceedings against him were moving toward a vote, but it never occurred, so he was not.

I believe your analogy of the lay person's use of theory vs. the scientist's is also a good one. Kudos to you for teaching your students to speak and think with such precision. By saying you were technically correct I meant you were correct, not incorrect.

[*bfine32*]

(02-16-2017, 08:27 PM)xxlt Wrote: Like I said, technically you are correct. This is not to say you are incorrect. but to say you are correct. Impeachment proceedings began against Nixon in May of 1974. On July 27, 1974, in the minds of many (including even, perhaps, Nixon himself) he was impeached when the House Judiciary Committee recommended on that day the first article of impeachment be passed. Two more articles of impeachment were approved on July 29 and 30. I remember many Americans saying Nixon had been impeached at the time, and since then. Technically they were wrong - there had been no floor vote - but impeachment certainly seemed imminent. This is sort of like a boxer named Spider Ricco being knocked down once, and knocked down twice in a subsequent round and with the referee giving him a standing eight count his corner throwing in the towel. Many who witnessed the fight would say Spider Ricco was knocked out, but technically Ricco's corner threw in the towel. Similarly, many consider Nixon to have been impeached, as proceedings against him were moving toward a vote, but it never occurred, so he was not.

I believe your analogy of the lay person's use of theory vs. the scientist's is also a good one. Kudos to you for teaching your students to speak and think with such precision. By saying you were technically correct I meant you were correct, not incorrect.

Hey, I was correct before he was. 

BTW, saying someone is technically correct is another way of saying: I was wrong, but it doesn't count because of a technicality.