The Red Wave (Tsunami) in two weeks

[homersapien 11,393]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I am just trying to compare prominent New Yorkers and it seems New Yorkers only elect Democrats. Coincidence?

It's not even true.

[AUDub 11,158]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I am just trying to compare prominent New Yorkers and it seems New Yorkers only elect Democrats. Coincidence?

New York dems are weird. They were more interested in beating the far left than the Republicans this cycle lol. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

New York dems are weird. They were more interested in beating the far left than the Republicans this cycle lol. 

And they were "successful".

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is Trump still walking around a free man after inciting a riot as you believe?  You can’t trust the Dems to do anything right, so it will be up to the Republican leadership to do the right thing.

You betcha.

Top Trump strategist says McCarthy must commit to Trump if he wants to be speaker

Jason Miller, an aide to Donald Trump who is helping the former president finalize plans for a presidential announcement, issued an ultimatum for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.): If he wants to become the next House speaker, he needs to be more vocal about his support for Trump.

“If he wants to have a chance at being speaker, he needs to be much more declarative that he supports President Trump,” Miller told Stephen K. Bannon — another top Trump ally — in an interview.

Miller said Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), the No. 3 House Republican, was “very smart” in endorsing Trump for a White House run this week. Stefanik, who has had a meteoric rise in the GOP ranks, is the first member of the party’s congressional leadership to endorse Trump’s third presidential run.

Miller said McCarthy should take a page out of Stefanik’s book.

“Fact of the matter is, it’s going to be a MAGA-centric caucus for the Republicans in the House,” Miller said. “We need leadership to match.”

While it is yet to be determined which party will control the House, it is expected that Republicans will take the majority. McCarthy, who has been jockeying to be House speaker for years, announced his candidacy for the job immediately after the midterm elections. But his path to becoming the top House Republican quickly became rocky when some members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus said they would oppose him outright.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/11/elections-news-house-senate-races/#link-DY7ZWROAXVBTNO2KI6DME6QDPE

 

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Maybe the committee will continue.  If the Dems keep control of the House I’m sure it will.  Of course Cheney will have to do her best before Jan 20th.

So, in your mind, if the Republicans take the house (probable) and then disband the Jan 6 committee, it will be the "Dems" fault for that committee being disbanded, right?

 

Edited November 11, 2022 by homersapien

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is Trump still walking around a free man after inciting a riot as you believe?  You can’t trust the Dems to do anything right, so it will be up to the Republican leadership to do the right thing.

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, in your mind, if the Republican take the house (probable) and then disband the Jan 6 committee, it will be the "Dems" fault for that committee being disbanded, right?

 

There you go putting your own spin on someone else’s thoughts.  Bravo.

[Didba 5,256]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

There you go putting your own spin on someone else’s thoughts.  Bravo.

Well, he isn't actually spinning your words, he is posing a hypothetical based off what you had said previously then asking you if you actually would think that.  You just didn't answer the question.

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

2 minutes ago, Didba said:

Well, he isn't actually spinning your words, he is posing a hypothetical based off what you had said previously then asking you if you actually would think that.  You just didn't answer the question.

Some questions aren’t worth answering.  You understand that I’m sure.

[homersapien 11,393]

23 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

There you go putting your own spin on someone else’s thoughts.  Bravo.

No, it was a question.  Clarifying or conforming someone's position is actually good form in a debate. 

And it was a reasonable question. 

If Democrats are responsible for failure to remove Trump from the American political scene - as you have claimed several times now - because they failed to overcome Republican support for Trump, then it would follow - using your own logic - that Democrats are again responsible for the Jan. 6 committee's cancellation by the Republicans, since they failed to retain the house majority, right?   (That's another question.)

I guess those damn Democrats just can't do anything right, huh?

Guess we'll just have to count on Republican leadership to do the right thing.

 

Edited November 11, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, it was a question.

Yes it is, if you were to answer my clarifying question that I have posed in other threads, I would be more inclined to answer yours.  

[homersapien 11,393]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes it is, if you were to answer my clarifying question that I have posed in other threads, I would be more inclined to answer yours.  

You'll have to refresh my memory.

I usually answer all questions.  I think you are just throwing BS out because that's all you got.

[Didba 5,256]

31 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Some questions aren’t worth answering.  You understand that I’m sure.

Unreasonable questions, sure.  His question was an entirely reasonable attempt to clarify your position on the matter.

[AUDub 11,158]

17 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

And they were "successful".

50 years ago they'd have been Republicans in the vein of Rockefeller. 

[homersapien 11,393]

Kelly wins in Arizona and pushes Democrats closer to keeping Senate

The outcome sets Democrats one seat away from retaining their majority in the upper chamber

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/11/senate-control-arizona-nevada/

 

.......

The Arizona race was one of the most hotly contested races of the year. Kelly, a former astronaut husband of former lawmaker Gabrielle Giffords, beat Masters, a venture capitalist, after an expensive race in which the Democrat pitched himself as a moderate who would work across the aisle. Some Republicans grew gloomy about their chances in the purple state this fall as Democrats outspent them and maintained a significant lead with independents. But polling showed the race tightening in the final stretch. Kelly led by nearly 6 points with more than 80 percent of ballots counted late Friday.

Arizona once appeared ripe for a Republican pickup, with notably high inflation and a backlash to the border policies of the Biden administration. Masters sought to cast Kelly as a rubber stamp for Biden. But like so many other races this year, Democrats prevailed despite a daunting political environment, portraying their opponent as extreme and tapping into anger over strict new abortion bans that followed the end of Roe v. Wade......

[AUFAN78 3,911]

23 hours ago, homersapien said:

Uh, the "Dems" did "indict" Trump with two impeachments.

Republicans had the power to ditch him both times, but chose not to.

You are obviously struggling with definitions. An indictment is a formal charge. There has been no such indictment in the case of Trump, yet. Glad to help. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I love bold stupidity.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

Thank you Captain Obvious. I mean that is a shocking acknowledgement coming from you. As if we haven't followed your posts of late. LOL. 

[Didba 5,256]

On 11/12/2022 at 1:27 PM, AUFAN78 said:

You are obviously struggling with definitions. An indictment is a formal charge. There has been no such indictment in the case of Trump, yet. Glad to help. 

Sorry, but it seems you are struggling with definitions my friend.

"An impeachment is instituted by a written accusation, called the ‘‘Articles of Impeachment,’’ which states the offense charged; the articles serve the same purpose as an indictment in an ordinary criminal proceeding. See Manual § 609."

Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-104/pdf/GPO-HPRACTICE-104-27.pdf

Page 2 first full paragraph.

Edited November 14, 2022 by Didba

[AUFAN78 3,911]

1 hour ago, Didba said:

Sorry, but it seems you are struggling with definitions my friend.

"An impeachment is instituted by a written accusation, called the ‘‘Articles of Impeachment,’’ which states the offense charged; the articles serve the same purpose as an indictment in an ordinary criminal proceeding. See Manual § 609."

Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-104/pdf/GPO-HPRACTICE-104-27.pdf

Page 2 first full paragraph.

You are the lawyer, so I'll defer to you, but they are quite different in principal:

Impeachment a charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office. Penalty is removal from office.

Indictment An indictment is an outcome of a grand jury proceeding and is a written accusation where the jury accuses you of committing a crime. Penalty is arrest and formal charges.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, Didba said:

Sorry, but it seems you are struggling with definitions my friend.

"An impeachment is instituted by a written accusation, called the ‘‘Articles of Impeachment,’’ which states the offense charged; the articles serve the same purpose as an indictment in an ordinary criminal proceeding. See Manual § 609."

Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-104/pdf/GPO-HPRACTICE-104-27.pdf

Page 2 first full paragraph.

Not to mention not understanding "punctuation".  Ultimately, any attempt to be disingenuous will make you look stupid.

[Didba 5,256]

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

You are the lawyer, so I'll defer to you, but they are quite different in principal:

Impeachment a charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office. Penalty is removal from office.

Indictment An indictment is an outcome of a grand jury proceeding and is a written accusation where the jury accuses you of committing a crime. Penalty is arrest and formal charges.

Why even say you are deferring to me if you then try and refute my source straight from Congress itself?  It's like telling a doctor: "you are the doctor so I'll defer to you, but I think I am going to treat my cancer with homeopathic medicine instead of chemotherapy like you recommend Doc."

Further, you didn't cite your source so there is no way to verify what you posted.

Lastly, as my source states, a successful vote to impeach is the equivalent of a successful vote to indict for government official removal procedure, with the House of Reps being the equivalent of the grand jury. Funnily enough, your definition actually supports my point. Thanks for that. 

Compare "An indictment... is a written accusation where the jury accuses you of committing a crime." with  "An impeachment is... a written accusation, called the ‘‘Articles of Impeachment,’’ which states the offense charged; the articles serve the same purpose as an indictment in an ordinary criminal proceeding."

[AUDub 11,158]

On 11/12/2022 at 1:27 PM, AUFAN78 said:

You are obviously struggling with definitions. An indictment is a formal charge. There has been no such indictment in the case of Trump, yet. Glad to help. 

Homer used the quotes for a reason. They're analogous.

The democrats "indicted" him in the sense that they issued a formal accusation of wrongdoing. Now impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. Rather, it's political one. 

And that's really the best they could do. The democrats can't ask the DOJ to indict Trump. The taint that would put on the process, whoo boy. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

10 minutes ago, Didba said:

Why even say you are deferring to me if you then try and refute my source straight from Congress itself?  It's like telling a doctor: "you are the doctor so I'll defer to you, but I think I am going to treat my cancer with homeopathic medicine instead of chemotherapy like you recommend Doc."

Further, you didn't cite your source so there is no way to verify what you posted.

Lastly, as my source states, a successful vote to impeach is the equivalent of a successful vote to indict for government official removal procedure, with the House of Reps being the equivalent of the grand jury. Funnily enough, your definition actually supports my point. Thanks for that. 

Compare "An indictment... is a written accusation where the jury accuses you of committing a crime." with  "An impeachment is... a written accusation, called the ‘‘Articles of Impeachment,’’ which states the offense charged; the articles serve the same purpose as an indictment in an ordinary criminal proceeding."

I provided definitions from different sources not refutations.

The impeachment sources were the Oxford dictionary and senate.gov to be precise.

The indictment definitions were from USDOJ.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

9 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The democrats "indicted" him in the sense that they issued a formal accusation of wrongdoing. Now impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. Rather, it's political one. 

Which is the point. Thanks!