The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
12-23-2019, 10:02 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 196
Total Cats: 24
Just call me a political idiot for asking but I can only think of one reason that Pelosi has made noise about when / if she sends the impeachment papers to the Senate.
First, the House and Senate are both out for Christmas break and won't be back till sometime next year so it is not like the Senate is waiting on them to show up to do a vote.
Second, the presumption seems to be that the Senate vote will go mostly along party lines, just as the House vote did.
Based on those presumptions the only reason I can think for Pelosi to threaten to hold off on sending the Impeachment paperwork to the Senate is that she is trying to milk every last ounce of personal media attention out of the House vote before passing it on to the Senate.
Any other ideas or maybe is it that simple?
First, the House and Senate are both out for Christmas break and won't be back till sometime next year so it is not like the Senate is waiting on them to show up to do a vote.
Second, the presumption seems to be that the Senate vote will go mostly along party lines, just as the House vote did.
Based on those presumptions the only reason I can think for Pelosi to threaten to hold off on sending the Impeachment paperwork to the Senate is that she is trying to milk every last ounce of personal media attention out of the House vote before passing it on to the Senate.
Any other ideas or maybe is it that simple?
Reply
0
0
12-23-2019, 10:52 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
She already stated that he will be "impeached forever."
That's all they wanted.
and this is what she's afraid of:
Benjamin L. Cardin Democrat from Md.
“There are serious allegations, and we should hear from those witnesses that have direct information.”
Thomas R. Carper Democrat from Del.
“I intend to listen to all of the evidence presented, and I intend to render a fair verdict based upon all available facts and evidence.”
Richard J. Durbin Democrat from Ill.
“The Senate has a responsibility under the Constitution to take impeachment seriously. I hope Senator McConnell will live up to that obligation. Partisan politics must not be our guiding principle throughout this process.”
Maggie Hassan Democrat from N.H.
“At the start of a Senate trial, all Senators take an oath to be impartial jurors, and I will push for a fair and thorough process to evaluate the facts before reaching a decision.”
Martin Heinrich Democrat from N.M.
“We need to hear from all relevant witnesses and see all relevant evidence as we consider the severity of the president’s misconduct.”
Doug Jones Democrat from Ala.
“The president deserves a fair trial and so do the American people. I have consistently said that we need to hear from firsthand witnesses and have access to relevant documents.”
Amy Klobuchar Democrat from Minn.
“If the President has any facts to present in his defense to the articles of impeachment, we should hear them.”
Joe Manchin III Democrat from W.Va.
“I don’t know how you have a trial without witnesses.”
Gary Peters Democrat from Mich.
“We must have a fair and non-partisan process, and I will thoroughly evaluate the facts that are presented to the Senate.”
Jack Reed Democrat from R.I.
“In weighing these articles of impeachment, the Senate must be fair, transparent, and deliberate. That should include hearing from witnesses who President Trump barred from testifying and seeing the actual documents at issue.”
Jeanne Shaheen Democrat from N.H.
“I have a duty to withhold judgement, encourage a fair process and make a determination impartially.”
Kyrsten Sinema Democrat from Ariz.
“Senators have a constitutional duty to treat this process with the gravity and impartiality that our oaths demand. I will uphold that responsibility, free of partisan politics, regardless of the attitudes displayed by some elected officials in both parties.”
Tina Smith Democrat from Minn.
“I will go onto the Senate floor, hold up my right hand, and swear to deliver impartial judgment because in the United States Senate I pledged allegiance to the Constitution, not a political party.”
Ron Wyden Democrat from Ore.
“I intend to look at all of the evidence and vote for a just outcome, not a political one.”
as opposed to prior to the vote:
Adam Schiff Democrat
“The argument — ‘Why don’t you just wait?’ — amounts to this: ‘Why don’t you just let him cheat in more election? Why not let him cheat just one more time? Why not let him have foreign help just one more time?’”
Nancy Pelosi Democrat Dec 10 2019
"..It's not about speed, it's about urgency...he will continue to undermine our election."
Jerrod Nadler Democrat
"He put himself above the country, he sought to get foreign interference against the integrity of our election. This is a matter of urgency to deal with because we have to make sure the next election is conducted with integrity and without foreign interference.”
The bipartisan vote was against impeachment. They've always know it would never pass in the Senate, they violated rules and ran a dog-and-pony show to get a vote, any vote, in order to damage him to make sure the next election is conducted without integrity. Democrats self-project. It's all about the elections to them.
That's all they wanted.
and this is what she's afraid of:
Benjamin L. Cardin Democrat from Md.
“There are serious allegations, and we should hear from those witnesses that have direct information.”
Thomas R. Carper Democrat from Del.
“I intend to listen to all of the evidence presented, and I intend to render a fair verdict based upon all available facts and evidence.”
Richard J. Durbin Democrat from Ill.
“The Senate has a responsibility under the Constitution to take impeachment seriously. I hope Senator McConnell will live up to that obligation. Partisan politics must not be our guiding principle throughout this process.”
Maggie Hassan Democrat from N.H.
“At the start of a Senate trial, all Senators take an oath to be impartial jurors, and I will push for a fair and thorough process to evaluate the facts before reaching a decision.”
Martin Heinrich Democrat from N.M.
“We need to hear from all relevant witnesses and see all relevant evidence as we consider the severity of the president’s misconduct.”
Doug Jones Democrat from Ala.
“The president deserves a fair trial and so do the American people. I have consistently said that we need to hear from firsthand witnesses and have access to relevant documents.”
Amy Klobuchar Democrat from Minn.
“If the President has any facts to present in his defense to the articles of impeachment, we should hear them.”
Joe Manchin III Democrat from W.Va.
“I don’t know how you have a trial without witnesses.”
Gary Peters Democrat from Mich.
“We must have a fair and non-partisan process, and I will thoroughly evaluate the facts that are presented to the Senate.”
Jack Reed Democrat from R.I.
“In weighing these articles of impeachment, the Senate must be fair, transparent, and deliberate. That should include hearing from witnesses who President Trump barred from testifying and seeing the actual documents at issue.”
Jeanne Shaheen Democrat from N.H.
“I have a duty to withhold judgement, encourage a fair process and make a determination impartially.”
Kyrsten Sinema Democrat from Ariz.
“Senators have a constitutional duty to treat this process with the gravity and impartiality that our oaths demand. I will uphold that responsibility, free of partisan politics, regardless of the attitudes displayed by some elected officials in both parties.”
Tina Smith Democrat from Minn.
“I will go onto the Senate floor, hold up my right hand, and swear to deliver impartial judgment because in the United States Senate I pledged allegiance to the Constitution, not a political party.”
Ron Wyden Democrat from Ore.
“I intend to look at all of the evidence and vote for a just outcome, not a political one.”
as opposed to prior to the vote:
Adam Schiff Democrat
“The argument — ‘Why don’t you just wait?’ — amounts to this: ‘Why don’t you just let him cheat in more election? Why not let him cheat just one more time? Why not let him have foreign help just one more time?’”
Nancy Pelosi Democrat Dec 10 2019
"..It's not about speed, it's about urgency...he will continue to undermine our election."
Jerrod Nadler Democrat
"He put himself above the country, he sought to get foreign interference against the integrity of our election. This is a matter of urgency to deal with because we have to make sure the next election is conducted with integrity and without foreign interference.”
The bipartisan vote was against impeachment. They've always know it would never pass in the Senate, they violated rules and ran a dog-and-pony show to get a vote, any vote, in order to damage him to make sure the next election is conducted without integrity. Democrats self-project. It's all about the elections to them.
Last edited by Braineack; 12-23-2019 at 11:04 AM.
Reply
0
0
12-23-2019, 11:35 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
better that everyone fails, so long as one doesn't succeed.
https://businesstech.co.za/news/fina...nHrVBubyd1fjEs
The “pass mark” for Grades 7 to 9 taking mathematics has been lowered to 20%, according to a report by CapeTalk.
The head of the Western Cape Education Department, Brian Schreuder, confirmed the new requirement in an interview with the radio station.
Schreuder said there were concerns learners were passing other subjects but failing mathematics.
“When a learner, specifically those in Grades 7 to 9, has failed mathematics it means they can’t be promoted to another level because mathematics is a compulsory pass subject,” stated the report.
“Mathematics is a huge problem in our society. The quality and the number of passes in mathematics is a challenge,” said Schreuder.
A directive has been issued for those learners who pass “everything but fail mathematics” to be considered for the new pass requirement so they can continue to FETs or Grade 10.
“A decision was taken that the group of learners who fail mathematics must not have less than 20% minimum pass mark to be given an opportunity to do mathematics literacy,” said Schreuder.
The current pass mark for maths is 40%.
gov't is great.
https://businesstech.co.za/news/fina...nHrVBubyd1fjEs
SA government lowers “pass mark” for maths to 20%
MyBroadband7 December 2016The “pass mark” for Grades 7 to 9 taking mathematics has been lowered to 20%, according to a report by CapeTalk.
The head of the Western Cape Education Department, Brian Schreuder, confirmed the new requirement in an interview with the radio station.
Schreuder said there were concerns learners were passing other subjects but failing mathematics.
“When a learner, specifically those in Grades 7 to 9, has failed mathematics it means they can’t be promoted to another level because mathematics is a compulsory pass subject,” stated the report.
“Mathematics is a huge problem in our society. The quality and the number of passes in mathematics is a challenge,” said Schreuder.
A directive has been issued for those learners who pass “everything but fail mathematics” to be considered for the new pass requirement so they can continue to FETs or Grade 10.
“A decision was taken that the group of learners who fail mathematics must not have less than 20% minimum pass mark to be given an opportunity to do mathematics literacy,” said Schreuder.
The current pass mark for maths is 40%.
Reply
0
0
12-23-2019, 11:35 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 196
Total Cats: 24
Ummmmm, sorry but that clears up nothing for me on why Pelosi is threatening to hang onto the impeachment articles.
Are you saying that she intends to hold onto them until she feels the Senate will act without political bias on the matter?
If so, they will never go to the Senate because every Senator has political baggage, as does every Representative.
Or, are you saying that she is holding onto the articles because she acceded to the radical democrats who have been damning Trump since he became President but feels no need to follow thru on the matter that she will be on the losing side of?
Or, are you saying that she intends to hold onto them till just before the next election where she can roll them out as fresh news?
Or, something else?
Are you saying that she intends to hold onto them until she feels the Senate will act without political bias on the matter?
If so, they will never go to the Senate because every Senator has political baggage, as does every Representative.
Or, are you saying that she is holding onto the articles because she acceded to the radical democrats who have been damning Trump since he became President but feels no need to follow thru on the matter that she will be on the losing side of?
Or, are you saying that she intends to hold onto them till just before the next election where she can roll them out as fresh news?
Or, something else?
Reply
0
0
12-23-2019, 12:06 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
The damage is already dealt. His presidency is tarnished; they got their asterisk. Democrats who campaigned on impeachment can go back to constituents and tell them "mission accomplished." She will never move the articles forward, as he will be acquitted, and it'll be harder to campaign against that -- especially when democratic senators also vote against it.
stop operating under the premise this isn't all a scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit.
Plus, she probably doesn't want World Sports Alliance to come up in the Senate trial; she didn't want this impeachment to move forward in the first place -- because of reasons.
Last edited by Braineack; 12-23-2019 at 12:23 PM.
Reply
0
0
12-23-2019, 12:42 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 196
Total Cats: 24
Much easier to follow your summarized logic.
Thanks.
A follow up.
You are saying that the idea was that it was never intended to be sent to the Senate.
I get that from your post.
How does it change your narrative if the articles get officially released to the Senate some time in January or February and the dog and pony show continues?
You stated clearly "She will never move the articles forward".
The problem I see with that assumption is that it robs all of the democratic senators from getting their time in the media to play the poor mistreated and stomped on minority trying with all their might to right the Trump wrong by any means possible.
The representatives had their time and now the senators want theirs.
That is why I feel your assumption is wrong.
Thanks.
A follow up.
You are saying that the idea was that it was never intended to be sent to the Senate.
I get that from your post.
How does it change your narrative if the articles get officially released to the Senate some time in January or February and the dog and pony show continues?
You stated clearly "She will never move the articles forward".
The problem I see with that assumption is that it robs all of the democratic senators from getting their time in the media to play the poor mistreated and stomped on minority trying with all their might to right the Trump wrong by any means possible.
The representatives had their time and now the senators want theirs.
That is why I feel your assumption is wrong.
Reply
0
0
12-23-2019, 12:51 PM
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,660
Total Cats: 3,011
Gordon,
I don't think they want the Republicans doing a very public investigation of both the methods or the truth. There are way too many dirty hands in the swamp.
Democrats and Republicans, same stink different piles.
Trump is only a target because he is an outsider and not one of the members of the ruling elite, regardless of party affiliation. It is the same reason they will not allow Sanders to be elected to lead the Democrat Party. There is a pecking order and Trump surprised them and took them off guard. They will not let that happen again.
I don't think they want the Republicans doing a very public investigation of both the methods or the truth. There are way too many dirty hands in the swamp.
Democrats and Republicans, same stink different piles.
Trump is only a target because he is an outsider and not one of the members of the ruling elite, regardless of party affiliation. It is the same reason they will not allow Sanders to be elected to lead the Democrat Party. There is a pecking order and Trump surprised them and took them off guard. They will not let that happen again.
Reply
0
0
12-23-2019, 01:00 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
The problem I see with that assumption is that it robs all of the democratic senators from getting their time in the media to play the poor mistreated and stomped on minority trying with all their might to right the Trump wrong by any means possible.
The representatives had their time and now the senators want theirs.
The representatives had their time and now the senators want theirs.
Nancy will not give control of the trial to the republicans who can actually call witnesses this time and run the show. it has nothing to do with a "fair process," if they were concerned about a fair process, they would have extended him one and not prematurely ejaculated on a hearsay claim* that evolved during the inquiry because there was, and still is, no evidence or proof of a crime.
After coming up with the scheme in a basement, it went from quid pro quo, to bribery, to orange man bad he do election things and talk to courts.
*this is why you don't rush your investigation and go straight to a vote:
Last edited by Braineack; 12-23-2019 at 02:29 PM.
Reply
0
0
