By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President
Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern border
and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the
border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of
his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security and
to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that it will
be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that has been used by
both the Trump and Biden administrations to quickly expel migrants at
the southern border since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has done
nothing but cause one crisis after another.
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President
Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern
border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the
administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public
health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the
border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of
his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security
and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that it
will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that has
been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to quickly
expel migrants at the southern border since the start of the
COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has done
nothing but cause one crisis after another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans know this, so
his poll numbers will improve if he is impeached.
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President
Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern
border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the
administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public
health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his
responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the
border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of
his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security
and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that it
will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that has
been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to quickly
expel migrants at the southern border since the start of the
COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has done
nothing but cause one crisis after another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans know this, so
his poll numbers will improve if he is impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million illegal
immigrants to cross the border, and then flying them all across the
country so they will be hard to find and remove. Americans know this,
and also know that the policy change will allow more illegal
immigration.
It's a shame the black voters are not intelligent enough to know Biden
is hurting them the most.
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President
Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern
border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the
administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public
health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his
responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the
border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of
his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security
and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that it
will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that has
been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to quickly
expel migrants at the southern border since the start of the
COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has done
nothing but cause one crisis after another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans know this, so
his poll numbers will improve if he is impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million illegal
immigrants to cross the border, and then flying them all across the
country so they will be hard to find and remove. Americans know this,
and also know that the policy change will allow more illegal
immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with you on the
policy, they will punish republicans for impeaching him over it.
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". What was the
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President
Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern
border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the
administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public
health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his
responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the
border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of >>>>> his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security >>>>> and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that it
will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that has
been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to quickly
expel migrants at the southern border since the start of the
COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has done
nothing but cause one crisis after another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans know this, so
his poll numbers will improve if he is impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million illegal
immigrants to cross the border, and then flying them all across the
country so they will be hard to find and remove. Americans know this,
and also know that the policy change will allow more illegal
immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with you on the
policy, they will punish republicans for impeaching him over it.
meaning of that term when the Constitution was drafted? Apparently not necessarily a crime, but misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however congress chooses to interpret it.
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" could, and should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. Ted Cruz has also
recommended impeachment for Bidens pathetic bungling of the
Afghanistan withdrawal, a withdrawal that violated long standing
pledges to our Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is removed from
office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- shudder.
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". What was the
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President >>>>>> Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern
border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the
administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public
health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his
responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the >>>>>> border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of >>>>>> his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security >>>>>> and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that it
will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that has
been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to quickly
expel migrants at the southern border since the start of the
COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has done >>>>>> nothing but cause one crisis after another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans know this, so
his poll numbers will improve if he is impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million illegal
immigrants to cross the border, and then flying them all across the
country so they will be hard to find and remove. Americans know this, >>>> and also know that the policy change will allow more illegal
immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with you on the
policy, they will punish republicans for impeaching him over it.
meaning of that term when the Constitution was drafted? Apparently not
necessarily a crime, but misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however
congress chooses to interpret it.
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" could, and
should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. Ted Cruz has also
recommended impeachment for Bidens pathetic bungling of the
Afghanistan withdrawal, a withdrawal that violated long standing
pledges to our Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is removed from
office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the House
to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine for policy differences
(*), we can dispense with elections.
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are illegal, that
would be properly an impeachable offense. But, how he treats asylum >applicants is not a violation of the law unless a court says so (and
they aren't going to).
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". What was
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused
President Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at
the southern border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse
after the administration announced that it is lifting the Title
42 public health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated
his responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to
make the border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement.
"From day one of his administration, he has failed to protect
our nation’s security and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that
it will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that
has been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to
quickly expel migrants at the southern border since the start
of the COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has
done nothing but cause one crisis after another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans know this,
so his poll numbers will improve if he is impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million illegal
immigrants to cross the border, and then flying them all across
the country so they will be hard to find and remove. Americans
know this, and also know that the policy change will allow more
illegal immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with you on
the policy, they will punish republicans for impeaching him over
it.
the meaning of that term when the Constitution was drafted?
Apparently not necessarily a crime, but misbehavior, fumbling,
bungling, and however congress chooses to interpret it.
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" could,
and should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. Ted Cruz has
also recommended impeachment for Bidens pathetic bungling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, a withdrawal that violated long standing
pledges to our Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is removed from
office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the
House to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine for policy differences (*), we can dispense with elections.
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are illegal,
that would be properly an impeachable offense. But, how he treats
asylum applicants is not a violation of the law unless a court says
so (and they aren't going to).
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". What was the
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President >>>>>>> Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern >>>>>>> border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the
administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public
health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his >>>>>>> responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the >>>>>>> border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of >>>>>>> his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security >>>>>>> and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that it >>>>>>> will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that has
been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to quickly >>>>>>> expel migrants at the southern border since the start of the
COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has done >>>>>>> nothing but cause one crisis after another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans know this, so >>>>>> his poll numbers will improve if he is impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million illegal
immigrants to cross the border, and then flying them all across the
country so they will be hard to find and remove. Americans know this, >>>>> and also know that the policy change will allow more illegal
immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with you on the
policy, they will punish republicans for impeaching him over it.
meaning of that term when the Constitution was drafted? Apparently not
necessarily a crime, but misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however
congress chooses to interpret it.
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" could, and
should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. Ted Cruz has also
recommended impeachment for Bidens pathetic bungling of the
Afghanistan withdrawal, a withdrawal that violated long standing
pledges to our Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is removed from
office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the House
to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine for policy differences
(*), we can dispense with elections.
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are illegal, that
would be properly an impeachable offense. But, how he treats asylum
applicants is not a violation of the law unless a court says so (and
they aren't going to).
So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions (or lack thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a violation of an
existing border law, and they impeach him. Would it be necessary for
them to obtain a court approval of the grounds for their impeachment?
Lacking such approval, might Biden stall the order of impeachment with endless lawsuits and challenges in court?
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over the land
I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm in a Republican
congress.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless politically
motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood for DC and Court
packing -- ideas posed by numerous Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the impeachment of Trump?
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". What was
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused
President Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at
the southern border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse
after the administration announced that it is lifting the Title
42 public health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated
his responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to
make the border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement.
"From day one of his administration, he has failed to protect
our nation’s security and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that
it will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that
has been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to
quickly expel migrants at the southern border since the start
of the COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has
done nothing but cause one crisis after another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans know this,
so his poll numbers will improve if he is impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million illegal
immigrants to cross the border, and then flying them all across
the country so they will be hard to find and remove. Americans
know this, and also know that the policy change will allow more
illegal immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with you on
the policy, they will punish republicans for impeaching him over
it.
the meaning of that term when the Constitution was drafted?
Apparently not necessarily a crime, but misbehavior, fumbling,
bungling, and however congress chooses to interpret it.
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" could,
and should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. Ted Cruz has
also recommended impeachment for Bidens pathetic bungling of the
Afghanistan withdrawal, a withdrawal that violated long standing
pledges to our Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is removed from
office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the
House to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine for policy
differences (*), we can dispense with elections.
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are illegal,
that would be properly an impeachable offense. But, how he treats
asylum applicants is not a violation of the law unless a court says
so (and they aren't going to).
These people are not asylum seekers. They are criminals for entering
this country illegally. They could have asked for asylum while Trump's remain in Mexico policy was in place.
People seek asylum because of war or discrimination. The countries
these people come from are not at war, and they weren't discriminated
against because of skin color or religion.
So many people were entering this country at one time, they were being released without having a court date set.
Why did Biden rescind Trump's remain in Mexico policy?
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". What was the
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President >>>>>>>> Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern >>>>>>>> border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the
administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public >>>>>>>> health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his >>>>>>>> responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the >>>>>>>> border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of >>>>>>>> his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security >>>>>>>> and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that it >>>>>>>> will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that has >>>>>>>> been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to quickly >>>>>>>> expel migrants at the southern border since the start of the
COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has done >>>>>>>> nothing but cause one crisis after another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans know this, so >>>>>>> his poll numbers will improve if he is impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million illegal
immigrants to cross the border, and then flying them all across the >>>>>> country so they will be hard to find and remove. Americans know this, >>>>>> and also know that the policy change will allow more illegal
immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with you on the >>>>> policy, they will punish republicans for impeaching him over it.
meaning of that term when the Constitution was drafted? Apparently not >>>> necessarily a crime, but misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however
congress chooses to interpret it.
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" could, and >>>> should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. Ted Cruz has also
recommended impeachment for Bidens pathetic bungling of the
Afghanistan withdrawal, a withdrawal that violated long standing
pledges to our Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is removed from
office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the House
to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine for policy differences >>> (*), we can dispense with elections.
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are illegal, that
would be properly an impeachable offense. But, how he treats asylum
applicants is not a violation of the law unless a court says so (and
they aren't going to).
So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions (or lack
thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a violation of an
existing border law, and they impeach him. Would it be necessary for
them to obtain a court approval of the grounds for their impeachment?
Lacking such approval, might Biden stall the order of impeachment with
endless lawsuits and challenges in court?
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy.
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over the land
I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm in a Republican
congress.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless politically
motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood for DC and Court
packing -- ideas posed by numerous Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the
impeachment of Trump?
Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy differences.
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". What was the >>>>> meaning of that term when the Constitution was drafted? Apparently not >>>>> necessarily a crime, but misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however >>>>> congress chooses to interpret it.
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President >>>>>>>>> Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern >>>>>>>>> border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the >>>>>>>>> administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public >>>>>>>>> health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his >>>>>>>>> responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the >>>>>>>>> border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of >>>>>>>>> his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security >>>>>>>>> and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that it >>>>>>>>> will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that has >>>>>>>>> been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to quickly >>>>>>>>> expel migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has done >>>>>>>>> nothing but cause one crisis after another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans know this, so >>>>>>>> his poll numbers will improve if he is impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million illegal >>>>>>> immigrants to cross the border, and then flying them all across the >>>>>>> country so they will be hard to find and remove. Americans know this, >>>>>>> and also know that the policy change will allow more illegal
immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with you on the >>>>>> policy, they will punish republicans for impeaching him over it.
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" could, and >>>>> should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. Ted Cruz has also
recommended impeachment for Bidens pathetic bungling of the
Afghanistan withdrawal, a withdrawal that violated long standing
pledges to our Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is removed from
office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the House >>>> to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine for policy differences >>>> (*), we can dispense with elections.
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are illegal, that >>>> would be properly an impeachable offense. But, how he treats asylum
applicants is not a violation of the law unless a court says so (and
they aren't going to).
So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions (or lack
thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a violation of an
existing border law, and they impeach him. Would it be necessary for
them to obtain a court approval of the grounds for their impeachment?
Lacking such approval, might Biden stall the order of impeachment with
endless lawsuits and challenges in court?
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy.
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over the land
I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm in a Republican
congress.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless politically
motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood for DC and Court
packing -- ideas posed by numerous Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the
impeachment of Trump?
Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy differences.
Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye of the beholder be a consideration in making that determination?
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus Trumps wall
and far stricter immigration rules was nothing more than a policy
difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of open borders is an attempt
to flood the United States with an underclass guaranteed to support
Democrat politicians and policies -- a scheme to ultimately undermine
our constitutional democracy.
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". What was the >>>>>> meaning of that term when the Constitution was drafted? Apparently not >>>>>> necessarily a crime, but misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however >>>>>> congress chooses to interpret it.
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President >>>>>>>>>> Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern >>>>>>>>>> border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the >>>>>>>>>> administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public >>>>>>>>>> health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his >>>>>>>>>> responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the >>>>>>>>>> border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of >>>>>>>>>> his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security >>>>>>>>>> and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that it >>>>>>>>>> will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that has >>>>>>>>>> been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to quickly >>>>>>>>>> expel migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has done >>>>>>>>>> nothing but cause one crisis after another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans know this, so >>>>>>>>> his poll numbers will improve if he is impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million illegal >>>>>>>> immigrants to cross the border, and then flying them all across the >>>>>>>> country so they will be hard to find and remove. Americans know this, >>>>>>>> and also know that the policy change will allow more illegal
immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with you on the >>>>>>> policy, they will punish republicans for impeaching him over it. >>>>>>>
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" could, and >>>>>> should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. Ted Cruz has also
recommended impeachment for Bidens pathetic bungling of the
Afghanistan withdrawal, a withdrawal that violated long standing
pledges to our Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is removed from
office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the House >>>>> to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine for policy differences >>>>> (*), we can dispense with elections.
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are illegal, that >>>>> would be properly an impeachable offense. But, how he treats asylum
applicants is not a violation of the law unless a court says so (and >>>>> they aren't going to).
So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions (or lack >>>> thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a violation of an
existing border law, and they impeach him. Would it be necessary for
them to obtain a court approval of the grounds for their impeachment?
Lacking such approval, might Biden stall the order of impeachment with >>>> endless lawsuits and challenges in court?
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy.
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over the land >>>> I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm in a Republican
congress.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless politically
motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood for DC and Court
packing -- ideas posed by numerous Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the
impeachment of Trump?
Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy differences.
Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye of the
beholder be a consideration in making that determination?
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent criminal >investigation into a political opponent is not a policy. It goes to the
heart of undermining democracy. Ditto for trying to steal the election
(did you support Trump's second impeachment).
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus Trumps wall
and far stricter immigration rules was nothing more than a policy
difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of open borders is an attempt
to flood the United States with an underclass guaranteed to support
Democrat politicians and policies -- a scheme to ultimately undermine
our constitutional democracy.
By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to maintain
partisan support.
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a
policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring an
emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building the wall, that >would have been over policy and thus very wrong. But by your logic, it
would be acceptable.
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:11:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". What was the >>>>>>> meaning of that term when the Constitution was drafted? Apparently not >>>>>>> necessarily a crime, but misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however >>>>>>> congress chooses to interpret it.
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President >>>>>>>>>>> Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern >>>>>>>>>>> border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the >>>>>>>>>>> administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public >>>>>>>>>>> health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his >>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the >>>>>>>>>>> border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of
his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security
and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that it >>>>>>>>>>> will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that has >>>>>>>>>>> been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to quickly >>>>>>>>>>> expel migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has done >>>>>>>>>>> nothing but cause one crisis after another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans know this, so >>>>>>>>>> his poll numbers will improve if he is impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million illegal >>>>>>>>> immigrants to cross the border, and then flying them all across the >>>>>>>>> country so they will be hard to find and remove. Americans know this,
and also know that the policy change will allow more illegal >>>>>>>>> immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with you on the >>>>>>>> policy, they will punish republicans for impeaching him over it. >>>>>>>>
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" could, and >>>>>>> should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. Ted Cruz has also >>>>>>> recommended impeachment for Bidens pathetic bungling of the
Afghanistan withdrawal, a withdrawal that violated long standing >>>>>>> pledges to our Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is removed from >>>>>>> office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the House >>>>>> to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine for policy differences >>>>>> (*), we can dispense with elections.
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are illegal, that >>>>>> would be properly an impeachable offense. But, how he treats asylum >>>>>> applicants is not a violation of the law unless a court says so (and >>>>>> they aren't going to).
So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions (or lack >>>>> thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a violation of an
existing border law, and they impeach him. Would it be necessary for >>>>> them to obtain a court approval of the grounds for their impeachment? >>>>> Lacking such approval, might Biden stall the order of impeachment with >>>>> endless lawsuits and challenges in court?
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy.
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over the land >>>>> I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm in a Republican
congress.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless politically
motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood for DC and Court
packing -- ideas posed by numerous Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the >>>>> impeachment of Trump?
Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy differences.
Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye of the
beholder be a consideration in making that determination?
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent criminal
investigation into a political opponent is not a policy. It goes to the
heart of undermining democracy. Ditto for trying to steal the election
(did you support Trump's second impeachment).
I paid no attention to it. He had already lost the election, so what
was the real purpose? A lame partisan exercise?
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus Trumps wall
and far stricter immigration rules was nothing more than a policy
difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of open borders is an attempt
to flood the United States with an underclass guaranteed to support
Democrat politicians and policies -- a scheme to ultimately undermine
our constitutional democracy.
By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to maintain
partisan support.
Republicans do not support closed borders -- they (and I) support
immigration of those who present themselves at a recognized border
crossing and bring something of value -- like a needed talent or job
offer, assets sufficient to support themselves, or familial
relationships. Democrats, on the other hand ... well you know, and so
do the voters. Trumps border policy, by the way, gave us the lowest
Black unemployment on record, for the simple reason that those border crossers take jobs from our Black citizens. That, in and of itself, is sufficient reason to control border crossings, but do Democrats give a
damn about that? Apparently not.
"Illegal border crossing attempts reach new high under Biden: 180,000
in May".
"The situation at the southern border has drawn little reaction from
Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Both have yet to visit the
2,000-mile international boundary and have ignored calls for more
action from Republicans, as well as Democrats." https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-border-crossing-attempts-reach-215900861.html
As for a Republican scheme, if a burglar breaks into your home and you
chase him out before he can steal your wife's jewelry, is that a
scheme to maintain your ill gotten wealth? I suppose some members of
the Left would think so -- and perhaps some Democrat mayors and DAs
already do?
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a
policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring an
emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building the wall, that
would have been over policy and thus very wrong. But by your logic, it
would be acceptable.
It would not be acceptable by my logic, but rather by a Constitution
which (arguably unfortunately) leaves congress with virtually
unlimited leeway in determining grounds for impeachment. On that you apparently agree.
You -- this thread ...
"Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the
House to agree to."
On 4/3/2022 10:54 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:11:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye of the
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". What was the >>>>>>>> meaning of that term when the Constitution was drafted? Apparently not >>>>>>>> necessarily a crime, but misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however >>>>>>>> congress chooses to interpret it.
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President >>>>>>>>>>>> Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern >>>>>>>>>>>> border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the >>>>>>>>>>>> administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public >>>>>>>>>>>> health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his >>>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the
border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of
his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security >>>>>>>>>>>> and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that it >>>>>>>>>>>> will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that has >>>>>>>>>>>> been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to quickly >>>>>>>>>>>> expel migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has done >>>>>>>>>>>> nothing but cause one crisis after another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans know this, so >>>>>>>>>>> his poll numbers will improve if he is impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million illegal >>>>>>>>>> immigrants to cross the border, and then flying them all across the >>>>>>>>>> country so they will be hard to find and remove. Americans know this,
and also know that the policy change will allow more illegal >>>>>>>>>> immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with you on the >>>>>>>>> policy, they will punish republicans for impeaching him over it. >>>>>>>>>
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" could, and >>>>>>>> should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. Ted Cruz has also >>>>>>>> recommended impeachment for Bidens pathetic bungling of the
Afghanistan withdrawal, a withdrawal that violated long standing >>>>>>>> pledges to our Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is removed from >>>>>>>> office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the House >>>>>>> to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine for policy differences
(*), we can dispense with elections.
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are illegal, that >>>>>>> would be properly an impeachable offense. But, how he treats asylum >>>>>>> applicants is not a violation of the law unless a court says so (and >>>>>>> they aren't going to).
So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions (or lack >>>>>> thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a violation of an
existing border law, and they impeach him. Would it be necessary for >>>>>> them to obtain a court approval of the grounds for their impeachment? >>>>>> Lacking such approval, might Biden stall the order of impeachment with >>>>>> endless lawsuits and challenges in court?
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy.
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over the land >>>>>> I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm in a Republican >>>>>> congress.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless politically >>>>>> motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood for DC and Court
packing -- ideas posed by numerous Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the >>>>>> impeachment of Trump?
Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy differences. >>>>
beholder be a consideration in making that determination?
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent criminal
investigation into a political opponent is not a policy. It goes to the
heart of undermining democracy. Ditto for trying to steal the election
(did you support Trump's second impeachment).
I paid no attention to it. He had already lost the election, so what
was the real purpose? A lame partisan exercise?
One of the available punishments for conviction is disqualification from >future office. That would have been the right thing to do.
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus Trumps wall
and far stricter immigration rules was nothing more than a policy
difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of open borders is an attempt
to flood the United States with an underclass guaranteed to support
Democrat politicians and policies -- a scheme to ultimately undermine
our constitutional democracy.
By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to maintain
partisan support.
Republicans do not support closed borders -- they (and I) support
immigration of those who present themselves at a recognized border
crossing and bring something of value -- like a needed talent or job
offer, assets sufficient to support themselves, or familial
relationships. Democrats, on the other hand ... well you know, and so
do the voters. Trumps border policy, by the way, gave us the lowest
Black unemployment on record, for the simple reason that those border
crossers take jobs from our Black citizens. That, in and of itself, is
sufficient reason to control border crossings, but do Democrats give a
damn about that? Apparently not.
"Illegal border crossing attempts reach new high under Biden: 180,000
in May".
"The situation at the southern border has drawn little reaction from
Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Both have yet to visit the
2,000-mile international boundary and have ignored calls for more
action from Republicans, as well as Democrats."
https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-border-crossing-attempts-reach-215900861.html >>
As for a Republican scheme, if a burglar breaks into your home and you
chase him out before he can steal your wife's jewelry, is that a
scheme to maintain your ill gotten wealth? I suppose some members of
the Left would think so -- and perhaps some Democrat mayors and DAs
already do?
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a
policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring an
emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building the wall, that >>> would have been over policy and thus very wrong. But by your logic, it
would be acceptable.
It would not be acceptable by my logic, but rather by a Constitution
which (arguably unfortunately) leaves congress with virtually
unlimited leeway in determining grounds for impeachment. On that you
apparently agree.
You -- this thread ...
"Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the
House to agree to."
That's the legal reality. Whether it is acceptable is a different
matter. If impeaching Biden over open borders is acceptable, then
impeaching Trump over emergency funding of the wall is too. I think both
are unacceptable even though they are legal.
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:00:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2022 10:54 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:11:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye of the >>>>> beholder be a consideration in making that determination?
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". What was the >>>>>>>>> meaning of that term when the Constitution was drafted? Apparently not
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President
Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern >>>>>>>>>>>>> border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the >>>>>>>>>>>>> administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public >>>>>>>>>>>>> health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his
responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the
border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of
his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security
and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that it >>>>>>>>>>>>> will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that has >>>>>>>>>>>>> been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to quickly >>>>>>>>>>>>> expel migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has done
nothing but cause one crisis after another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans know this, so
his poll numbers will improve if he is impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million illegal >>>>>>>>>>> immigrants to cross the border, and then flying them all across the >>>>>>>>>>> country so they will be hard to find and remove. Americans know this,
and also know that the policy change will allow more illegal >>>>>>>>>>> immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with you on the
policy, they will punish republicans for impeaching him over it. >>>>>>>>>>
necessarily a crime, but misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however >>>>>>>>> congress chooses to interpret it.
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" could, and
should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. Ted Cruz has also >>>>>>>>> recommended impeachment for Bidens pathetic bungling of the
Afghanistan withdrawal, a withdrawal that violated long standing >>>>>>>>> pledges to our Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is removed from >>>>>>>>> office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the House >>>>>>>> to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine for policy differences
(*), we can dispense with elections.
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are illegal, that >>>>>>>> would be properly an impeachable offense. But, how he treats asylum >>>>>>>> applicants is not a violation of the law unless a court says so (and >>>>>>>> they aren't going to).
So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions (or lack >>>>>>> thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a violation of an
existing border law, and they impeach him. Would it be necessary for >>>>>>> them to obtain a court approval of the grounds for their impeachment? >>>>>>> Lacking such approval, might Biden stall the order of impeachment with >>>>>>> endless lawsuits and challenges in court?
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy.
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over the land >>>>>>> I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm in a Republican >>>>>>> congress.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless politically >>>>>>> motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood for DC and Court
packing -- ideas posed by numerous Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the >>>>>>> impeachment of Trump?
Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy differences. >>>>>
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent criminal
investigation into a political opponent is not a policy. It goes to the >>>> heart of undermining democracy. Ditto for trying to steal the election >>>> (did you support Trump's second impeachment).
I paid no attention to it. He had already lost the election, so what
was the real purpose? A lame partisan exercise?
One of the available punishments for conviction is disqualification from
future office. That would have been the right thing to do.
I'm OK with that.
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus Trumps wall >>>>> and far stricter immigration rules was nothing more than a policy
difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of open borders is an attempt >>>>> to flood the United States with an underclass guaranteed to support
Democrat politicians and policies -- a scheme to ultimately undermine >>>>> our constitutional democracy.
By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to maintain
partisan support.
Republicans do not support closed borders -- they (and I) support
immigration of those who present themselves at a recognized border
crossing and bring something of value -- like a needed talent or job
offer, assets sufficient to support themselves, or familial
relationships. Democrats, on the other hand ... well you know, and so
do the voters. Trumps border policy, by the way, gave us the lowest
Black unemployment on record, for the simple reason that those border
crossers take jobs from our Black citizens. That, in and of itself, is
sufficient reason to control border crossings, but do Democrats give a
damn about that? Apparently not.
"Illegal border crossing attempts reach new high under Biden: 180,000
in May".
"The situation at the southern border has drawn little reaction from
Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Both have yet to visit the
2,000-mile international boundary and have ignored calls for more
action from Republicans, as well as Democrats."
https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-border-crossing-attempts-reach-215900861.html
As for a Republican scheme, if a burglar breaks into your home and you
chase him out before he can steal your wife's jewelry, is that a
scheme to maintain your ill gotten wealth? I suppose some members of
the Left would think so -- and perhaps some Democrat mayors and DAs
already do?
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a
policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring an
emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building the wall, that >>>> would have been over policy and thus very wrong. But by your logic, it >>>> would be acceptable.
It would not be acceptable by my logic, but rather by a Constitution
which (arguably unfortunately) leaves congress with virtually
unlimited leeway in determining grounds for impeachment. On that you
apparently agree.
You -- this thread ...
"Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the
House to agree to."
That's the legal reality. Whether it is acceptable is a different
matter. If impeaching Biden over open borders is acceptable, then
impeaching Trump over emergency funding of the wall is too. I think both
are unacceptable even though they are legal.
I don't hold Trump, or every Republican policy, in high regard. Can
you say the same about Biden?
On 4/4/2022 10:37 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:00:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2022 10:54 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:11:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye of the >>>>>> beholder be a consideration in making that determination?
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". What was the
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President
Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern >>>>>>>>>>>>>> border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public >>>>>>>>>>>>>> health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his
responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the
border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of
his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security
and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that it
will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to quickly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> expel migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. He has done
nothing but cause one crisis after another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans know this, so
his poll numbers will improve if he is impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million illegal >>>>>>>>>>>> immigrants to cross the border, and then flying them all across the
country so they will be hard to find and remove. Americans know this,
and also know that the policy change will allow more illegal >>>>>>>>>>>> immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with you on the
policy, they will punish republicans for impeaching him over it. >>>>>>>>>>>
meaning of that term when the Constitution was drafted? Apparently not
necessarily a crime, but misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however
congress chooses to interpret it.
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" could, and
should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. Ted Cruz has also >>>>>>>>>> recommended impeachment for Bidens pathetic bungling of the >>>>>>>>>> Afghanistan withdrawal, a withdrawal that violated long standing >>>>>>>>>> pledges to our Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is removed from >>>>>>>>>> office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the House
to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine for policy differences
(*), we can dispense with elections.
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are illegal, that
would be properly an impeachable offense. But, how he treats asylum >>>>>>>>> applicants is not a violation of the law unless a court says so (and >>>>>>>>> they aren't going to).
So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions (or lack >>>>>>>> thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a violation of an >>>>>>>> existing border law, and they impeach him. Would it be necessary for >>>>>>>> them to obtain a court approval of the grounds for their impeachment? >>>>>>>> Lacking such approval, might Biden stall the order of impeachment with >>>>>>>> endless lawsuits and challenges in court?
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy.
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over the land >>>>>>>> I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm in a Republican >>>>>>>> congress.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless politically >>>>>>>> motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood for DC and Court >>>>>>>> packing -- ideas posed by numerous Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the >>>>>>>> impeachment of Trump?
Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy differences. >>>>>>
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent criminal
investigation into a political opponent is not a policy. It goes to the >>>>> heart of undermining democracy. Ditto for trying to steal the election >>>>> (did you support Trump's second impeachment).
I paid no attention to it. He had already lost the election, so what
was the real purpose? A lame partisan exercise?
One of the available punishments for conviction is disqualification from >>> future office. That would have been the right thing to do.
I'm OK with that.
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus Trumps wall >>>>>> and far stricter immigration rules was nothing more than a policy
difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of open borders is an attempt >>>>>> to flood the United States with an underclass guaranteed to support >>>>>> Democrat politicians and policies -- a scheme to ultimately undermine >>>>>> our constitutional democracy.
By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to maintain
partisan support.
Republicans do not support closed borders -- they (and I) support
immigration of those who present themselves at a recognized border
crossing and bring something of value -- like a needed talent or job
offer, assets sufficient to support themselves, or familial
relationships. Democrats, on the other hand ... well you know, and so
do the voters. Trumps border policy, by the way, gave us the lowest
Black unemployment on record, for the simple reason that those border
crossers take jobs from our Black citizens. That, in and of itself, is >>>> sufficient reason to control border crossings, but do Democrats give a >>>> damn about that? Apparently not.
"Illegal border crossing attempts reach new high under Biden: 180,000
in May".
"The situation at the southern border has drawn little reaction from
Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Both have yet to visit the
2,000-mile international boundary and have ignored calls for more
action from Republicans, as well as Democrats."
https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-border-crossing-attempts-reach-215900861.html
As for a Republican scheme, if a burglar breaks into your home and you >>>> chase him out before he can steal your wife's jewelry, is that a
scheme to maintain your ill gotten wealth? I suppose some members of
the Left would think so -- and perhaps some Democrat mayors and DAs
already do?
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a
policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring an
emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building the wall, that >>>>> would have been over policy and thus very wrong. But by your logic, it >>>>> would be acceptable.
It would not be acceptable by my logic, but rather by a Constitution
which (arguably unfortunately) leaves congress with virtually
unlimited leeway in determining grounds for impeachment. On that you
apparently agree.
You -- this thread ...
"Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the
House to agree to."
That's the legal reality. Whether it is acceptable is a different
matter. If impeaching Biden over open borders is acceptable, then
impeaching Trump over emergency funding of the wall is too. I think both >>> are unacceptable even though they are legal.
I don't hold Trump, or every Republican policy, in high regard. Can
you say the same about Biden?
I've been disappointed in him. He brings a nice empathy to the office
and a return to normalcy from Trump. However, his competence is in
question. For example, he declared July 4, 2021 as independence day from >COVID. That's a stupid thing to have done.
On 4/4/2022 10:37 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:00:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 10:54 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:11:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors".
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday
accused President Biden of having "abdicated his
responsibilities" at the southern border and making the >>>>>>>>>>>>> ongoing migrant crisis worse after the administration >>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public health >>>>>>>>>>>>> order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has >>>>>>>>>>>>> abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is >>>>>>>>>>>>> actively working to make the border crisis worse," >>>>>>>>>>>>> McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of his >>>>>>>>>>>>> administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s >>>>>>>>>>>>> security and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday
announced that it will be terminating the Title 42 >>>>>>>>>>>>> public health policy, that has been used by both the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump and Biden administrations to quickly expel
migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>> He has done nothing but cause one crisis after another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans >>>>>>>>>>>> know this, so his poll numbers will improve if he is >>>>>>>>>>>> impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million >>>>>>>>>>> illegal immigrants to cross the border, and then flying >>>>>>>>>>> them all across the country so they will be hard to find >>>>>>>>>>> and remove. Americans know this, and also know that the >>>>>>>>>>> policy change will allow more illegal immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with >>>>>>>>>> you on the policy, they will punish republicans for
impeaching him over it.
What was the meaning of that term when the Constitution was >>>>>>>>> drafted? Apparently not necessarily a crime, but
misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however congress
chooses to interpret it.
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" >>>>>>>>> could, and should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. >>>>>>>>> Ted Cruz has also recommended impeachment for Bidens
pathetic bungling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, a
withdrawal that violated long standing pledges to our
Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is
removed from office, Kamala Harris becomes president --
shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in >>>>>>>> the House to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine
for policy differences (*), we can dispense with elections.
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are
illegal, that would be properly an impeachable offense. But, >>>>>>>> how he treats asylum applicants is not a violation of the
law unless a court says so (and they aren't going to).
So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions
(or lack thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a
violation of an existing border law, and they impeach him.
Would it be necessary for them to obtain a court approval of
the grounds for their impeachment? Lacking such approval,
might Biden stall the order of impeachment with endless
lawsuits and challenges in court?
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy.
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over
the land I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm
in a Republican congress.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless
politically motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood
for DC and Court packing -- ideas posed by numerous
Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the impeachment of Trump?
Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy
differences.
Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye
of the beholder be a consideration in making that
determination?
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent criminal
investigation into a political opponent is not a policy. It goes
to the heart of undermining democracy. Ditto for trying to steal
the election (did you support Trump's second impeachment).
I paid no attention to it. He had already lost the election, so
what was the real purpose? A lame partisan exercise?
One of the available punishments for conviction is
disqualification from future office. That would have been the
right thing to do.
I'm OK with that.
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus Trumps
wall and far stricter immigration rules was nothing more than a
policy difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of open borders
is an attempt to flood the United States with an underclass
guaranteed to support Democrat politicians and policies -- a
scheme to ultimately undermine our constitutional democracy.
By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to maintain
partisan support.
Republicans do not support closed borders -- they (and I) support
immigration of those who present themselves at a recognized border
crossing and bring something of value -- like a needed talent or
job offer, assets sufficient to support themselves, or familial
relationships. Democrats, on the other hand ... well you know,
and so do the voters. Trumps border policy, by the way, gave us
the lowest Black unemployment on record, for the simple reason
that those border crossers take jobs from our Black citizens.
That, in and of itself, is sufficient reason to control border
crossings, but do Democrats give a damn about that? Apparently
not.
"Illegal border crossing attempts reach new high under Biden:
180,000 in May".
"The situation at the southern border has drawn little reaction
from Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Both have yet to
visit the 2,000-mile international boundary and have ignored
calls for more action from Republicans, as well as Democrats."
https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-border-crossing-attempts-reach-215900861.html
As for a Republican scheme, if a burglar breaks into your home
and you chase him out before he can steal your wife's jewelry, is
that a scheme to maintain your ill gotten wealth? I suppose some
members of the Left would think so -- and perhaps some Democrat
mayors and DAs already do?
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a
policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring an
emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building the
wall, that would have been over policy and thus very wrong. But
by your logic, it would be acceptable.
It would not be acceptable by my logic, but rather by a
Constitution which (arguably unfortunately) leaves congress with
virtually unlimited leeway in determining grounds for
impeachment. On that you apparently agree.
You -- this thread ...
"Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the
House to agree to."
That's the legal reality. Whether it is acceptable is a different
matter. If impeaching Biden over open borders is acceptable, then
impeaching Trump over emergency funding of the wall is too. I
think both are unacceptable even though they are legal.
I don't hold Trump, or every Republican policy, in high regard. Can
you say the same about Biden?
I've been disappointed in him. He brings a nice empathy to the office
and a return to normalcy from Trump. However, his competence is in
question. For example, he declared July 4, 2021 as independence day
from COVID. That's a stupid thing to have done.
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:23:09 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/4/2022 10:37 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:00:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 10:54 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:11:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". >>>>>>>>>>> What was the meaning of that term when the Constitution was >>>>>>>>>>> drafted? Apparently not necessarily a crime, but
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accused President Biden of having "abdicated his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities" at the southern border and making the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ongoing migrant crisis worse after the administration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public health >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively working to make the border crisis worse," >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday
announced that it will be terminating the Title 42 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public health policy, that has been used by both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump and Biden administrations to quickly expel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has done nothing but cause one crisis after another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans >>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this, so his poll numbers will improve if he is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million >>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal immigrants to cross the border, and then flying >>>>>>>>>>>>> them all across the country so they will be hard to find >>>>>>>>>>>>> and remove. Americans know this, and also know that the >>>>>>>>>>>>> policy change will allow more illegal immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with >>>>>>>>>>>> you on the policy, they will punish republicans for
impeaching him over it.
misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however congress
chooses to interpret it.
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" >>>>>>>>>>> could, and should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. >>>>>>>>>>> Ted Cruz has also recommended impeachment for Bidens
pathetic bungling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, a
withdrawal that violated long standing pledges to our
Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is
removed from office, Kamala Harris becomes president --
shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in >>>>>>>>>> the House to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine >>>>>>>>>> for policy differences (*), we can dispense with elections. >>>>>>>>>>
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are
illegal, that would be properly an impeachable offense. But, >>>>>>>>>> how he treats asylum applicants is not a violation of the
law unless a court says so (and they aren't going to).
So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions >>>>>>>>> (or lack thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a
violation of an existing border law, and they impeach him.
Would it be necessary for them to obtain a court approval of >>>>>>>>> the grounds for their impeachment? Lacking such approval,
might Biden stall the order of impeachment with endless
lawsuits and challenges in court?
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy. >>>>>>>>
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over >>>>>>>>> the land I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm
in a Republican congress.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless
politically motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood
for DC and Court packing -- ideas posed by numerous
Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the impeachment of Trump?
Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy
differences.
Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye
of the beholder be a consideration in making that
determination?
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent criminal
investigation into a political opponent is not a policy. It goes
to the heart of undermining democracy. Ditto for trying to steal
the election (did you support Trump's second impeachment).
I paid no attention to it. He had already lost the election, so
what was the real purpose? A lame partisan exercise?
One of the available punishments for conviction is
disqualification from future office. That would have been the
right thing to do.
I'm OK with that.
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus Trumps
wall and far stricter immigration rules was nothing more than a
policy difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of open borders
is an attempt to flood the United States with an underclass
guaranteed to support Democrat politicians and policies -- a
scheme to ultimately undermine our constitutional democracy.
By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to maintain
partisan support.
Republicans do not support closed borders -- they (and I) support
immigration of those who present themselves at a recognized border
crossing and bring something of value -- like a needed talent or
job offer, assets sufficient to support themselves, or familial
relationships. Democrats, on the other hand ... well you know,
and so do the voters. Trumps border policy, by the way, gave us
the lowest Black unemployment on record, for the simple reason
that those border crossers take jobs from our Black citizens.
That, in and of itself, is sufficient reason to control border
crossings, but do Democrats give a damn about that? Apparently
not.
"Illegal border crossing attempts reach new high under Biden:
180,000 in May".
"The situation at the southern border has drawn little reaction
from Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Both have yet to
visit the 2,000-mile international boundary and have ignored
calls for more action from Republicans, as well as Democrats."
https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-border-crossing-attempts-reach-215900861.html
As for a Republican scheme, if a burglar breaks into your home
and you chase him out before he can steal your wife's jewelry, is
that a scheme to maintain your ill gotten wealth? I suppose some
members of the Left would think so -- and perhaps some Democrat
mayors and DAs already do?
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a
policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring an
emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building the
wall, that would have been over policy and thus very wrong. But
by your logic, it would be acceptable.
It would not be acceptable by my logic, but rather by a
Constitution which (arguably unfortunately) leaves congress with
virtually unlimited leeway in determining grounds for
impeachment. On that you apparently agree.
You -- this thread ...
"Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the
House to agree to."
That's the legal reality. Whether it is acceptable is a different
matter. If impeaching Biden over open borders is acceptable, then
impeaching Trump over emergency funding of the wall is too. I
think both are unacceptable even though they are legal.
I don't hold Trump, or every Republican policy, in high regard. Can
you say the same about Biden?
I've been disappointed in him. He brings a nice empathy to the office
and a return to normalcy from Trump. However, his competence is in
question. For example, he declared July 4, 2021 as independence day
from COVID. That's a stupid thing to have done.
Normalcy? You have to be joking. Do you really think the state this
country is in, is anywhere near normal?
We don't need a president that makes decisions based on empathy.
On 4/5/2022 6:11 AM, Johnny wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:23:09 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/4/2022 10:37 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:00:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 10:54 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:11:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". >>>>>>>>>>> What was the meaning of that term when the Constitution >>>>>>>>>>> was drafted? Apparently not necessarily a crime, but
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree >>>>>>>>>>>> with you on the policy, they will punish republicans for >>>>>>>>>>>> impeaching him over it.
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accused President Biden of having "abdicated his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities" at the southern border and making >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the
administration announced that it is lifting the Title >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 42 public health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively working to make the border crisis worse," >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it will be terminating the Title 42 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public health policy, that has been used by both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump and Biden administrations to quickly expel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has done nothing but cause one crisis after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans >>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this, so his poll numbers will improve if he is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million >>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal immigrants to cross the border, and then flying >>>>>>>>>>>>> them all across the country so they will be hard to find >>>>>>>>>>>>> and remove. Americans know this, and also know that the >>>>>>>>>>>>> policy change will allow more illegal immigration. >>>>>>>>>>>>
misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however congress
chooses to interpret it.
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border
"LAWS" could, and should, be a legitimate reason for
impeachment. Ted Cruz has also recommended impeachment >>>>>>>>>>> for Bidens pathetic bungling of the Afghanistan
withdrawal, a withdrawal that violated long standing
pledges to our Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is
removed from office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- >>>>>>>>>>> shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority >>>>>>>>>> in the House to agree to. However, once impeachment is
routine for policy differences (*), we can dispense with >>>>>>>>>> elections.
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are >>>>>>>>>> illegal, that would be properly an impeachable offense.
But, how he treats asylum applicants is not a violation of >>>>>>>>>> the law unless a court says so (and they aren't going to). >>>>>>>>>>
So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's
actions (or lack thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor >>>>>>>>> or a violation of an existing border law, and they impeach >>>>>>>>> him. Would it be necessary for them to obtain a court
approval of the grounds for their impeachment? Lacking such >>>>>>>>> approval, might Biden stall the order of impeachment with
endless lawsuits and challenges in court?
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for
democracy.
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised
over the land I doubt there would be much impeachment
enthusiasm in a Republican congress.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless
politically motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood >>>>>>>>> for DC and Court packing -- ideas posed by numerous
Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the impeachment of Trump?
Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy
differences.
Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye >>>>>>> of the beholder be a consideration in making that
determination?
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent
criminal investigation into a political opponent is not a
policy. It goes to the heart of undermining democracy. Ditto
for trying to steal the election (did you support Trump's
second impeachment).
I paid no attention to it. He had already lost the election, so
what was the real purpose? A lame partisan exercise?
One of the available punishments for conviction is
disqualification from future office. That would have been the
right thing to do.
I'm OK with that.
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus
Trumps wall and far stricter immigration rules was nothing
more than a policy difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of
open borders is an attempt to flood the United States with an
underclass guaranteed to support Democrat politicians and
policies -- a scheme to ultimately undermine our
constitutional democracy.
By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to
maintain partisan support.
Republicans do not support closed borders -- they (and I)
support immigration of those who present themselves at a
recognized border crossing and bring something of value -- like
a needed talent or job offer, assets sufficient to support
themselves, or familial relationships. Democrats, on the other
hand ... well you know, and so do the voters. Trumps border
policy, by the way, gave us the lowest Black unemployment on
record, for the simple reason that those border crossers take
jobs from our Black citizens. That, in and of itself, is
sufficient reason to control border crossings, but do Democrats
give a damn about that? Apparently not.
"Illegal border crossing attempts reach new high under Biden:
180,000 in May".
"The situation at the southern border has drawn little reaction
from Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Both have yet to
visit the 2,000-mile international boundary and have ignored
calls for more action from Republicans, as well as Democrats."
https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-border-crossing-attempts-reach-215900861.html
As for a Republican scheme, if a burglar breaks into your home
and you chase him out before he can steal your wife's jewelry,
is that a scheme to maintain your ill gotten wealth? I suppose
some members of the Left would think so -- and perhaps some
Democrat mayors and DAs already do?
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a
policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring
an emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building
the wall, that would have been over policy and thus very
wrong. But by your logic, it would be acceptable.
It would not be acceptable by my logic, but rather by a
Constitution which (arguably unfortunately) leaves congress with
virtually unlimited leeway in determining grounds for
impeachment. On that you apparently agree.
You -- this thread ...
"Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in
the House to agree to."
That's the legal reality. Whether it is acceptable is a different
matter. If impeaching Biden over open borders is acceptable, then
impeaching Trump over emergency funding of the wall is too. I
think both are unacceptable even though they are legal.
I don't hold Trump, or every Republican policy, in high regard.
Can you say the same about Biden?
I've been disappointed in him. He brings a nice empathy to the
office and a return to normalcy from Trump. However, his
competence is in question. For example, he declared July 4, 2021
as independence day from COVID. That's a stupid thing to have
done.
Normalcy? You have to be joking. Do you really think the state
this country is in, is anywhere near normal?
We don't need a president that makes decisions based on empathy.
Trump isn't a normal functioning adult. Biden is.
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:34:55 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/5/2022 6:11 AM, Johnny wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:23:09 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/4/2022 10:37 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:00:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 10:54 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:11:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". >>>>>>>>>>>>> What was the meaning of that term when the Constitution >>>>>>>>>>>>> was drafted? Apparently not necessarily a crime, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however congress >>>>>>>>>>>>> chooses to interpret it.
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with you on the policy, they will punish republicans for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeaching him over it.
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accused President Biden of having "abdicated his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities" at the southern border and making >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the
administration announced that it is lifting the Title >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 42 public health order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively working to make the border crisis worse," >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it will be terminating the Title 42 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public health policy, that has been used by both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump and Biden administrations to quickly expel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has done nothing but cause one crisis after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another.
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this, so his poll numbers will improve if he is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal immigrants to cross the border, and then flying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all across the country so they will be hard to find >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and remove. Americans know this, and also know that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy change will allow more illegal immigration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border >>>>>>>>>>>>> "LAWS" could, and should, be a legitimate reason for >>>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment. Ted Cruz has also recommended impeachment >>>>>>>>>>>>> for Bidens pathetic bungling of the Afghanistan
withdrawal, a withdrawal that violated long standing >>>>>>>>>>>>> pledges to our Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is >>>>>>>>>>>>> removed from office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority >>>>>>>>>>>> in the House to agree to. However, once impeachment is >>>>>>>>>>>> routine for policy differences (*), we can dispense with >>>>>>>>>>>> elections.
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are >>>>>>>>>>>> illegal, that would be properly an impeachable offense. >>>>>>>>>>>> But, how he treats asylum applicants is not a violation of >>>>>>>>>>>> the law unless a court says so (and they aren't going to). >>>>>>>>>>>>
So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's
actions (or lack thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor >>>>>>>>>>> or a violation of an existing border law, and they impeach >>>>>>>>>>> him. Would it be necessary for them to obtain a court
approval of the grounds for their impeachment? Lacking such >>>>>>>>>>> approval, might Biden stall the order of impeachment with >>>>>>>>>>> endless lawsuits and challenges in court?
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for
democracy.
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised >>>>>>>>>>> over the land I doubt there would be much impeachment
enthusiasm in a Republican congress.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless
politically motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood >>>>>>>>>>> for DC and Court packing -- ideas posed by numerous
Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the impeachment of Trump?
Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy
differences.
Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye >>>>>>>>> of the beholder be a consideration in making that
determination?
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent
criminal investigation into a political opponent is not a
policy. It goes to the heart of undermining democracy. Ditto
for trying to steal the election (did you support Trump's
second impeachment).
I paid no attention to it. He had already lost the election, so
what was the real purpose? A lame partisan exercise?
One of the available punishments for conviction is
disqualification from future office. That would have been the
right thing to do.
I'm OK with that.
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus
Trumps wall and far stricter immigration rules was nothing
more than a policy difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of >>>>>>>>> open borders is an attempt to flood the United States with an >>>>>>>>> underclass guaranteed to support Democrat politicians and
policies -- a scheme to ultimately undermine our
constitutional democracy.
By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to
maintain partisan support.
Republicans do not support closed borders -- they (and I)
support immigration of those who present themselves at a
recognized border crossing and bring something of value -- like
a needed talent or job offer, assets sufficient to support
themselves, or familial relationships. Democrats, on the other
hand ... well you know, and so do the voters. Trumps border
policy, by the way, gave us the lowest Black unemployment on
record, for the simple reason that those border crossers take
jobs from our Black citizens. That, in and of itself, is
sufficient reason to control border crossings, but do Democrats
give a damn about that? Apparently not.
"Illegal border crossing attempts reach new high under Biden:
180,000 in May".
"The situation at the southern border has drawn little reaction
from Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Both have yet to
visit the 2,000-mile international boundary and have ignored
calls for more action from Republicans, as well as Democrats."
https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-border-crossing-attempts-reach-215900861.html
As for a Republican scheme, if a burglar breaks into your home
and you chase him out before he can steal your wife's jewelry,
is that a scheme to maintain your ill gotten wealth? I suppose
some members of the Left would think so -- and perhaps some
Democrat mayors and DAs already do?
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a
policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring >>>>>>>> an emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building
the wall, that would have been over policy and thus very
wrong. But by your logic, it would be acceptable.
It would not be acceptable by my logic, but rather by a
Constitution which (arguably unfortunately) leaves congress with >>>>>>> virtually unlimited leeway in determining grounds for
impeachment. On that you apparently agree.
You -- this thread ...
"Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in
the House to agree to."
That's the legal reality. Whether it is acceptable is a different
matter. If impeaching Biden over open borders is acceptable, then
impeaching Trump over emergency funding of the wall is too. I
think both are unacceptable even though they are legal.
I don't hold Trump, or every Republican policy, in high regard.
Can you say the same about Biden?
I've been disappointed in him. He brings a nice empathy to the
office and a return to normalcy from Trump. However, his
competence is in question. For example, he declared July 4, 2021
as independence day from COVID. That's a stupid thing to have
done.
Normalcy? You have to be joking. Do you really think the state
this country is in, is anywhere near normal?
We don't need a president that makes decisions based on empathy.
Trump isn't a normal functioning adult. Biden is.
You have called Trump a "man baby" for four years, and claim he is not
a normal functioning adult. Prove it.
Trump is a very intelligent person. He could stand in front of dozens
of reporters and answer their questions without any help. Biden can't,
and even with help, he still screws up.
It's very obvious Biden is not a normal functioning human being, and he
will only get worse.
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:34:55 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/5/2022 6:11 AM, Johnny wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:23:09 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/4/2022 10:37 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:00:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 10:54 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:11:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". >>>>>>>>>>>>> What was the meaning of that term when the Constitution was >>>>>>>>>>>>> drafted? Apparently not necessarily a crime, but
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you on the policy, they will punish republicans for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeaching him over it.
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accused President Biden of having "abdicated his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities" at the southern border and making the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ongoing migrant crisis worse after the administration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public health >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively working to make the border crisis worse," >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it will be terminating the Title 42 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public health policy, that has been used by both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump and Biden administrations to quickly expel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has done nothing but cause one crisis after another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this, so his poll numbers will improve if he is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal immigrants to cross the border, and then flying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all across the country so they will be hard to find >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and remove. Americans know this, and also know that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy change will allow more illegal immigration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however congress >>>>>>>>>>>>> chooses to interpret it.
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" >>>>>>>>>>>>> could, and should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Cruz has also recommended impeachment for Bidens >>>>>>>>>>>>> pathetic bungling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, a
withdrawal that violated long standing pledges to our >>>>>>>>>>>>> Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is >>>>>>>>>>>>> removed from office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in >>>>>>>>>>>> the House to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine >>>>>>>>>>>> for policy differences (*), we can dispense with elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are >>>>>>>>>>>> illegal, that would be properly an impeachable offense. But, >>>>>>>>>>>> how he treats asylum applicants is not a violation of the >>>>>>>>>>>> law unless a court says so (and they aren't going to).
So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions >>>>>>>>>>> (or lack thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a >>>>>>>>>>> violation of an existing border law, and they impeach him. >>>>>>>>>>> Would it be necessary for them to obtain a court approval of >>>>>>>>>>> the grounds for their impeachment? Lacking such approval, >>>>>>>>>>> might Biden stall the order of impeachment with endless
lawsuits and challenges in court?
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy. >>>>>>>>>>
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over >>>>>>>>>>> the land I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm >>>>>>>>>>> in a Republican congress.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless
politically motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood >>>>>>>>>>> for DC and Court packing -- ideas posed by numerous
Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the impeachment of Trump?
Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy
differences.
Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye >>>>>>>>> of the beholder be a consideration in making that
determination?
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent criminal >>>>>>>> investigation into a political opponent is not a policy. It goes >>>>>>>> to the heart of undermining democracy. Ditto for trying to steal >>>>>>>> the election (did you support Trump's second impeachment).
I paid no attention to it. He had already lost the election, so
what was the real purpose? A lame partisan exercise?
One of the available punishments for conviction is
disqualification from future office. That would have been the
right thing to do.
I'm OK with that.
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus Trumps >>>>>>>>> wall and far stricter immigration rules was nothing more than a >>>>>>>>> policy difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of open borders >>>>>>>>> is an attempt to flood the United States with an underclass
guaranteed to support Democrat politicians and policies -- a >>>>>>>>> scheme to ultimately undermine our constitutional democracy.
By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to maintain >>>>>>>> partisan support.
Republicans do not support closed borders -- they (and I) support >>>>>>> immigration of those who present themselves at a recognized border >>>>>>> crossing and bring something of value -- like a needed talent or >>>>>>> job offer, assets sufficient to support themselves, or familial
relationships. Democrats, on the other hand ... well you know,
and so do the voters. Trumps border policy, by the way, gave us
the lowest Black unemployment on record, for the simple reason
that those border crossers take jobs from our Black citizens.
That, in and of itself, is sufficient reason to control border
crossings, but do Democrats give a damn about that? Apparently
not.
"Illegal border crossing attempts reach new high under Biden:
180,000 in May".
"The situation at the southern border has drawn little reaction
from Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Both have yet to
visit the 2,000-mile international boundary and have ignored
calls for more action from Republicans, as well as Democrats."
https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-border-crossing-attempts-reach-215900861.html
As for a Republican scheme, if a burglar breaks into your home
and you chase him out before he can steal your wife's jewelry, is >>>>>>> that a scheme to maintain your ill gotten wealth? I suppose some >>>>>>> members of the Left would think so -- and perhaps some Democrat
mayors and DAs already do?
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a
policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring an >>>>>>>> emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building the
wall, that would have been over policy and thus very wrong. But >>>>>>>> by your logic, it would be acceptable.
It would not be acceptable by my logic, but rather by a
Constitution which (arguably unfortunately) leaves congress with >>>>>>> virtually unlimited leeway in determining grounds for
impeachment. On that you apparently agree.
You -- this thread ...
"Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the >>>>>>> House to agree to."
That's the legal reality. Whether it is acceptable is a different
matter. If impeaching Biden over open borders is acceptable, then
impeaching Trump over emergency funding of the wall is too. I
think both are unacceptable even though they are legal.
I don't hold Trump, or every Republican policy, in high regard. Can
you say the same about Biden?
I've been disappointed in him. He brings a nice empathy to the office
and a return to normalcy from Trump. However, his competence is in
question. For example, he declared July 4, 2021 as independence day
from COVID. That's a stupid thing to have done.
Normalcy? You have to be joking. Do you really think the state this
country is in, is anywhere near normal?
We don't need a president that makes decisions based on empathy.
Trump isn't a normal functioning adult. Biden is.
Trump is a populist with an arrogant irritating personality, however
despite that off the track personality he gave us a much needed
corporate tax cut, deregulation, a booming economy, lots of new jobs,
energy independence, strengthened the military and gave us the Space
Force, clamped down on an increasingly one sided China trade
relationship, and (to repeat) the lowest Black unemployment on record,
He controlled the border, a border that is not now controlled by VP
Harris, but rather by Mexican cartels. And lastly he poured billions
into Operation Warp Speed, a project which a former member of this
group said could not possibly succeed, but instead was an enormous
success and went a long way toward literally saving the world.
I honor Trump solely for his accomplishments, not his irritating
personality and despicable last few days in office.
Biden's accomplishments? Oh, he has several, all grossly negative.
On 4/5/2022 6:11 AM, Johnny wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:23:09 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/4/2022 10:37 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:00:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 10:54 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:11:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". >>>>>>>>>>>> What was the meaning of that term when the Constitution was >>>>>>>>>>>> drafted? Apparently not necessarily a crime, but
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accused President Biden of having "abdicated his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities" at the southern border and making the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ongoing migrant crisis worse after the administration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public health >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively working to make the border crisis worse," >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it will be terminating the Title 42 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public health policy, that has been used by both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump and Biden administrations to quickly expel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has done nothing but cause one crisis after another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this, so his poll numbers will improve if he is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million >>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal immigrants to cross the border, and then flying >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all across the country so they will be hard to find >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and remove. Americans know this, and also know that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy change will allow more illegal immigration.
That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>> you on the policy, they will punish republicans for
impeaching him over it.
misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however congress
chooses to interpret it.
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" >>>>>>>>>>>> could, and should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. >>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Cruz has also recommended impeachment for Bidens
pathetic bungling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, a
withdrawal that violated long standing pledges to our
Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is
removed from office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- >>>>>>>>>>>> shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in >>>>>>>>>>> the House to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine >>>>>>>>>>> for policy differences (*), we can dispense with elections. >>>>>>>>>>>
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are >>>>>>>>>>> illegal, that would be properly an impeachable offense. But, >>>>>>>>>>> how he treats asylum applicants is not a violation of the >>>>>>>>>>> law unless a court says so (and they aren't going to).
So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions >>>>>>>>>> (or lack thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a
violation of an existing border law, and they impeach him. >>>>>>>>>> Would it be necessary for them to obtain a court approval of >>>>>>>>>> the grounds for their impeachment? Lacking such approval,
might Biden stall the order of impeachment with endless
lawsuits and challenges in court?
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy. >>>>>>>>>
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over >>>>>>>>>> the land I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm >>>>>>>>>> in a Republican congress.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless
politically motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood >>>>>>>>>> for DC and Court packing -- ideas posed by numerous
Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the impeachment of Trump?
Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy
differences.
Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye >>>>>>>> of the beholder be a consideration in making that
determination?
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent criminal >>>>>>> investigation into a political opponent is not a policy. It goes >>>>>>> to the heart of undermining democracy. Ditto for trying to steal >>>>>>> the election (did you support Trump's second impeachment).
I paid no attention to it. He had already lost the election, so
what was the real purpose? A lame partisan exercise?
One of the available punishments for conviction is
disqualification from future office. That would have been the
right thing to do.
I'm OK with that.
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus Trumps >>>>>>>> wall and far stricter immigration rules was nothing more than a >>>>>>>> policy difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of open borders >>>>>>>> is an attempt to flood the United States with an underclass
guaranteed to support Democrat politicians and policies -- a
scheme to ultimately undermine our constitutional democracy.
By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to maintain >>>>>>> partisan support.
Republicans do not support closed borders -- they (and I) support
immigration of those who present themselves at a recognized border >>>>>> crossing and bring something of value -- like a needed talent or
job offer, assets sufficient to support themselves, or familial
relationships. Democrats, on the other hand ... well you know,
and so do the voters. Trumps border policy, by the way, gave us
the lowest Black unemployment on record, for the simple reason
that those border crossers take jobs from our Black citizens.
That, in and of itself, is sufficient reason to control border
crossings, but do Democrats give a damn about that? Apparently
not.
"Illegal border crossing attempts reach new high under Biden:
180,000 in May".
"The situation at the southern border has drawn little reaction
from Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Both have yet to
visit the 2,000-mile international boundary and have ignored
calls for more action from Republicans, as well as Democrats."
https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-border-crossing-attempts-reach-215900861.html
As for a Republican scheme, if a burglar breaks into your home
and you chase him out before he can steal your wife's jewelry, is
that a scheme to maintain your ill gotten wealth? I suppose some
members of the Left would think so -- and perhaps some Democrat
mayors and DAs already do?
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a
policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring an >>>>>>> emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building the
wall, that would have been over policy and thus very wrong. But
by your logic, it would be acceptable.
It would not be acceptable by my logic, but rather by a
Constitution which (arguably unfortunately) leaves congress with
virtually unlimited leeway in determining grounds for
impeachment. On that you apparently agree.
You -- this thread ...
"Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the
House to agree to."
That's the legal reality. Whether it is acceptable is a different
matter. If impeaching Biden over open borders is acceptable, then
impeaching Trump over emergency funding of the wall is too. I
think both are unacceptable even though they are legal.
I don't hold Trump, or every Republican policy, in high regard. Can
you say the same about Biden?
I've been disappointed in him. He brings a nice empathy to the office
and a return to normalcy from Trump. However, his competence is in
question. For example, he declared July 4, 2021 as independence day
from COVID. That's a stupid thing to have done.
Normalcy? You have to be joking. Do you really think the state this
country is in, is anywhere near normal?
We don't need a president that makes decisions based on empathy.
Trump isn't a normal functioning adult. Biden is.
On 4/5/2022 11:15 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:34:55 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/5/2022 6:11 AM, Johnny wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:23:09 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/4/2022 10:37 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:00:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 10:54 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:11:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions >>>>>>>>>>>> (or lack thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a >>>>>>>>>>>> violation of an existing border law, and they impeach him. >>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be necessary for them to obtain a court approval of >>>>>>>>>>>> the grounds for their impeachment? Lacking such approval, >>>>>>>>>>>> might Biden stall the order of impeachment with endless >>>>>>>>>>>> lawsuits and challenges in court?
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was the meaning of that term when the Constitution was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> drafted? Apparently not necessarily a crime, but
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you on the policy, they will punish republicans for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeaching him over it.
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accused President Biden of having "abdicated his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities" at the southern border and making the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ongoing migrant crisis worse after the administration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public health >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively working to make the border crisis worse," >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it will be terminating the Title 42 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public health policy, that has been used by both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump and Biden administrations to quickly expel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has done nothing but cause one crisis after another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this, so his poll numbers will improve if he is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal immigrants to cross the border, and then flying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all across the country so they will be hard to find >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and remove. Americans know this, and also know that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy change will allow more illegal immigration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however congress >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chooses to interpret it.
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could, and should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Cruz has also recommended impeachment for Bidens >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathetic bungling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> withdrawal that violated long standing pledges to our >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> removed from office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the House to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine >>>>>>>>>>>>> for policy differences (*), we can dispense with elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are >>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal, that would be properly an impeachable offense. But, >>>>>>>>>>>>> how he treats asylum applicants is not a violation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> law unless a court says so (and they aren't going to). >>>>>>>>>>>>
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy. >>>>>>>>>>>
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over >>>>>>>>>>>> the land I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm >>>>>>>>>>>> in a Republican congress.Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy >>>>>>>>>>> differences.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless >>>>>>>>>>>> politically motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood >>>>>>>>>>>> for DC and Court packing -- ideas posed by numerous
Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the impeachment of Trump? >>>>>>>>>>>
Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye >>>>>>>>>> of the beholder be a consideration in making that
determination?
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent criminal >>>>>>>>> investigation into a political opponent is not a policy. It goes >>>>>>>>> to the heart of undermining democracy. Ditto for trying to steal >>>>>>>>> the election (did you support Trump's second impeachment).
I paid no attention to it. He had already lost the election, so >>>>>>>> what was the real purpose? A lame partisan exercise?
One of the available punishments for conviction is
disqualification from future office. That would have been the
right thing to do.
I'm OK with that.
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus Trumps >>>>>>>>>> wall and far stricter immigration rules was nothing more than a >>>>>>>>>> policy difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of open borders >>>>>>>>>> is an attempt to flood the United States with an underclass >>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to support Democrat politicians and policies -- a >>>>>>>>>> scheme to ultimately undermine our constitutional democracy. >>>>>>>>>By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to maintain >>>>>>>>> partisan support.
Republicans do not support closed borders -- they (and I) support >>>>>>>> immigration of those who present themselves at a recognized border >>>>>>>> crossing and bring something of value -- like a needed talent or >>>>>>>> job offer, assets sufficient to support themselves, or familial >>>>>>>> relationships. Democrats, on the other hand ... well you know, >>>>>>>> and so do the voters. Trumps border policy, by the way, gave us >>>>>>>> the lowest Black unemployment on record, for the simple reason >>>>>>>> that those border crossers take jobs from our Black citizens.
That, in and of itself, is sufficient reason to control border >>>>>>>> crossings, but do Democrats give a damn about that? Apparently >>>>>>>> not.
"Illegal border crossing attempts reach new high under Biden:
180,000 in May".
"The situation at the southern border has drawn little reaction >>>>>>>> from Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Both have yet to
visit the 2,000-mile international boundary and have ignored
calls for more action from Republicans, as well as Democrats." >>>>>>>> https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-border-crossing-attempts-reach-215900861.html
As for a Republican scheme, if a burglar breaks into your home >>>>>>>> and you chase him out before he can steal your wife's jewelry, is >>>>>>>> that a scheme to maintain your ill gotten wealth? I suppose some >>>>>>>> members of the Left would think so -- and perhaps some Democrat >>>>>>>> mayors and DAs already do?
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a
policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring an >>>>>>>>> emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building the >>>>>>>>> wall, that would have been over policy and thus very wrong. But >>>>>>>>> by your logic, it would be acceptable.
It would not be acceptable by my logic, but rather by a
Constitution which (arguably unfortunately) leaves congress with >>>>>>>> virtually unlimited leeway in determining grounds for
impeachment. On that you apparently agree.
You -- this thread ...
"Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the >>>>>>>> House to agree to."
That's the legal reality. Whether it is acceptable is a different >>>>>>> matter. If impeaching Biden over open borders is acceptable, then >>>>>>> impeaching Trump over emergency funding of the wall is too. I
think both are unacceptable even though they are legal.
I don't hold Trump, or every Republican policy, in high regard. Can >>>>>> you say the same about Biden?
I've been disappointed in him. He brings a nice empathy to the office >>>>> and a return to normalcy from Trump. However, his competence is in
question. For example, he declared July 4, 2021 as independence day
from COVID. That's a stupid thing to have done.
Normalcy? You have to be joking. Do you really think the state this
country is in, is anywhere near normal?
We don't need a president that makes decisions based on empathy.
Trump isn't a normal functioning adult. Biden is.
Trump is a populist with an arrogant irritating personality, however
despite that off the track personality he gave us a much needed
corporate tax cut, deregulation, a booming economy, lots of new jobs,
energy independence, strengthened the military and gave us the Space
Force, clamped down on an increasingly one sided China trade
relationship, and (to repeat) the lowest Black unemployment on record,
He controlled the border, a border that is not now controlled by VP
Harris, but rather by Mexican cartels. And lastly he poured billions
into Operation Warp Speed, a project which a former member of this
group said could not possibly succeed, but instead was an enormous
success and went a long way toward literally saving the world.
I honor Trump solely for his accomplishments, not his irritating
personality and despicable last few days in office.
Biden's accomplishments? Oh, he has several, all grossly negative.
And yet, with the possibility of more accomplishments, you won't ever
vote for Trump again.
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 11:39:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/5/2022 11:15 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:34:55 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/5/2022 6:11 AM, Johnny wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:23:09 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/4/2022 10:37 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:00:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 10:54 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:11:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions >>>>>>>>>>>>> (or lack thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a >>>>>>>>>>>>> violation of an existing border law, and they impeach him. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be necessary for them to obtain a court approval of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the grounds for their impeachment? Lacking such approval, >>>>>>>>>>>>> might Biden stall the order of impeachment with endless >>>>>>>>>>>>> lawsuits and challenges in court?
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was the meaning of that term when the Constitution was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drafted? Apparently not necessarily a crime, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however congress >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chooses to interpret it.
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you on the policy, they will punish republicans for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeaching him over it.
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accused President Biden of having "abdicated his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities" at the southern border and making the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ongoing migrant crisis worse after the administration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public health >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively working to make the border crisis worse," >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it will be terminating the Title 42 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public health policy, that has been used by both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump and Biden administrations to quickly expel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has done nothing but cause one crisis after another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this, so his poll numbers will improve if he is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal immigrants to cross the border, and then flying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all across the country so they will be hard to find >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and remove. Americans know this, and also know that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy change will allow more illegal immigration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could, and should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Cruz has also recommended impeachment for Bidens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathetic bungling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> withdrawal that violated long standing pledges to our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> removed from office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the House to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for policy differences (*), we can dispense with elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal, that would be properly an impeachable offense. But, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> how he treats asylum applicants is not a violation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> law unless a court says so (and they aren't going to). >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy. >>>>>>>>>>>>
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over >>>>>>>>>>>>> the land I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm >>>>>>>>>>>>> in a Republican congress.Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy >>>>>>>>>>>> differences.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless >>>>>>>>>>>>> politically motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood >>>>>>>>>>>>> for DC and Court packing -- ideas posed by numerous
Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the impeachment of Trump? >>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye >>>>>>>>>>> of the beholder be a consideration in making that
determination?
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent criminal >>>>>>>>>> investigation into a political opponent is not a policy. It goes >>>>>>>>>> to the heart of undermining democracy. Ditto for trying to steal >>>>>>>>>> the election (did you support Trump's second impeachment).
I paid no attention to it. He had already lost the election, so >>>>>>>>> what was the real purpose? A lame partisan exercise?
One of the available punishments for conviction is
disqualification from future office. That would have been the
right thing to do.
I'm OK with that.
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus Trumps >>>>>>>>>>> wall and far stricter immigration rules was nothing more than a >>>>>>>>>>> policy difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of open borders >>>>>>>>>>> is an attempt to flood the United States with an underclass >>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to support Democrat politicians and policies -- a >>>>>>>>>>> scheme to ultimately undermine our constitutional democracy. >>>>>>>>>>By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to maintain >>>>>>>>>> partisan support.
Republicans do not support closed borders -- they (and I) support >>>>>>>>> immigration of those who present themselves at a recognized border >>>>>>>>> crossing and bring something of value -- like a needed talent or >>>>>>>>> job offer, assets sufficient to support themselves, or familial >>>>>>>>> relationships. Democrats, on the other hand ... well you know, >>>>>>>>> and so do the voters. Trumps border policy, by the way, gave us >>>>>>>>> the lowest Black unemployment on record, for the simple reason >>>>>>>>> that those border crossers take jobs from our Black citizens. >>>>>>>>> That, in and of itself, is sufficient reason to control border >>>>>>>>> crossings, but do Democrats give a damn about that? Apparently >>>>>>>>> not.
"Illegal border crossing attempts reach new high under Biden: >>>>>>>>> 180,000 in May".
"The situation at the southern border has drawn little reaction >>>>>>>>> from Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Both have yet to >>>>>>>>> visit the 2,000-mile international boundary and have ignored >>>>>>>>> calls for more action from Republicans, as well as Democrats." >>>>>>>>> https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-border-crossing-attempts-reach-215900861.html
As for a Republican scheme, if a burglar breaks into your home >>>>>>>>> and you chase him out before he can steal your wife's jewelry, is >>>>>>>>> that a scheme to maintain your ill gotten wealth? I suppose some >>>>>>>>> members of the Left would think so -- and perhaps some Democrat >>>>>>>>> mayors and DAs already do?
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a
policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring an >>>>>>>>>> emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building the >>>>>>>>>> wall, that would have been over policy and thus very wrong. But >>>>>>>>>> by your logic, it would be acceptable.
It would not be acceptable by my logic, but rather by a
Constitution which (arguably unfortunately) leaves congress with >>>>>>>>> virtually unlimited leeway in determining grounds for
impeachment. On that you apparently agree.
You -- this thread ...
"Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the >>>>>>>>> House to agree to."
That's the legal reality. Whether it is acceptable is a different >>>>>>>> matter. If impeaching Biden over open borders is acceptable, then >>>>>>>> impeaching Trump over emergency funding of the wall is too. I
think both are unacceptable even though they are legal.
I don't hold Trump, or every Republican policy, in high regard. Can >>>>>>> you say the same about Biden?
I've been disappointed in him. He brings a nice empathy to the office >>>>>> and a return to normalcy from Trump. However, his competence is in >>>>>> question. For example, he declared July 4, 2021 as independence day >>>>>> from COVID. That's a stupid thing to have done.
Normalcy? You have to be joking. Do you really think the state this >>>>> country is in, is anywhere near normal?
We don't need a president that makes decisions based on empathy.
Trump isn't a normal functioning adult. Biden is.
Trump is a populist with an arrogant irritating personality, however
despite that off the track personality he gave us a much needed
corporate tax cut, deregulation, a booming economy, lots of new jobs,
energy independence, strengthened the military and gave us the Space
Force, clamped down on an increasingly one sided China trade
relationship, and (to repeat) the lowest Black unemployment on record,
He controlled the border, a border that is not now controlled by VP
Harris, but rather by Mexican cartels. And lastly he poured billions
into Operation Warp Speed, a project which a former member of this
group said could not possibly succeed, but instead was an enormous
success and went a long way toward literally saving the world.
I honor Trump solely for his accomplishments, not his irritating
personality and despicable last few days in office.
Biden's accomplishments? Oh, he has several, all grossly negative.
And yet, with the possibility of more accomplishments, you won't ever
vote for Trump again.
His last few despicable weeks in office in no way mitigate those accomplishments, but they do cast a shadow on possible future
behavior. Truth be known, given the choice of Trump or a fellow
traveler of the Squad, a choice I don't relish, I don't know what I
might do.
As for you, which of the Trump's "accomplishments" that I listed do
you disagree with? What has Biden done that you treasure?
On 4/5/2022 1:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 11:39:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/5/2022 11:15 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:34:55 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>> wrote:
On 4/5/2022 6:11 AM, Johnny wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:23:09 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/4/2022 10:37 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:00:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 10:54 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:11:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:I paid no attention to it. He had already lost the election, so >>>>>>>>>> what was the real purpose? A lame partisan exercise?
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or lack thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> violation of an existing border law, and they impeach him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be necessary for them to obtain a court approval of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the grounds for their impeachment? Lacking such approval, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> might Biden stall the order of impeachment with endless >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lawsuits and challenges in court?
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was the meaning of that term when the Constitution was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drafted? Apparently not necessarily a crime, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however congress >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chooses to interpret it.
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you on the policy, they will punish republicans for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeaching him over it.
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accused President Biden of having "abdicated his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities" at the southern border and making the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ongoing migrant crisis worse after the administration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public health >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively working to make the border crisis worse," >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it will be terminating the Title 42 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public health policy, that has been used by both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump and Biden administrations to quickly expel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has done nothing but cause one crisis after another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this, so his poll numbers will improve if he is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal immigrants to cross the border, and then flying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all across the country so they will be hard to find >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and remove. Americans know this, and also know that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy change will allow more illegal immigration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could, and should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Cruz has also recommended impeachment for Bidens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathetic bungling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> withdrawal that violated long standing pledges to our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> removed from office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the House to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for policy differences (*), we can dispense with elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal, that would be properly an impeachable offense. But, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how he treats asylum applicants is not a violation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law unless a court says so (and they aren't going to). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the land I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a Republican congress.Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy >>>>>>>>>>>>> differences.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless >>>>>>>>>>>>>> politically motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for DC and Court packing -- ideas posed by numerous >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the impeachment of Trump? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye >>>>>>>>>>>> of the beholder be a consideration in making that
determination?
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent criminal >>>>>>>>>>> investigation into a political opponent is not a policy. It goes >>>>>>>>>>> to the heart of undermining democracy. Ditto for trying to steal >>>>>>>>>>> the election (did you support Trump's second impeachment). >>>>>>>>>>
One of the available punishments for conviction is
disqualification from future office. That would have been the >>>>>>>>> right thing to do.
I'm OK with that.
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus Trumps >>>>>>>>>>>> wall and far stricter immigration rules was nothing more than a >>>>>>>>>>>> policy difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of open borders >>>>>>>>>>>> is an attempt to flood the United States with an underclass >>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to support Democrat politicians and policies -- a >>>>>>>>>>>> scheme to ultimately undermine our constitutional democracy. >>>>>>>>>>>By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to maintain >>>>>>>>>>> partisan support.
Republicans do not support closed borders -- they (and I) support >>>>>>>>>> immigration of those who present themselves at a recognized border >>>>>>>>>> crossing and bring something of value -- like a needed talent or >>>>>>>>>> job offer, assets sufficient to support themselves, or familial >>>>>>>>>> relationships. Democrats, on the other hand ... well you know, >>>>>>>>>> and so do the voters. Trumps border policy, by the way, gave us >>>>>>>>>> the lowest Black unemployment on record, for the simple reason >>>>>>>>>> that those border crossers take jobs from our Black citizens. >>>>>>>>>> That, in and of itself, is sufficient reason to control border >>>>>>>>>> crossings, but do Democrats give a damn about that? Apparently >>>>>>>>>> not.
"Illegal border crossing attempts reach new high under Biden: >>>>>>>>>> 180,000 in May".
"The situation at the southern border has drawn little reaction >>>>>>>>>> from Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Both have yet to >>>>>>>>>> visit the 2,000-mile international boundary and have ignored >>>>>>>>>> calls for more action from Republicans, as well as Democrats." >>>>>>>>>> https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-border-crossing-attempts-reach-215900861.html
As for a Republican scheme, if a burglar breaks into your home >>>>>>>>>> and you chase him out before he can steal your wife's jewelry, is >>>>>>>>>> that a scheme to maintain your ill gotten wealth? I suppose some >>>>>>>>>> members of the Left would think so -- and perhaps some Democrat >>>>>>>>>> mayors and DAs already do?
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a
policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring an >>>>>>>>>>> emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building the >>>>>>>>>>> wall, that would have been over policy and thus very wrong. But >>>>>>>>>>> by your logic, it would be acceptable.
It would not be acceptable by my logic, but rather by a
Constitution which (arguably unfortunately) leaves congress with >>>>>>>>>> virtually unlimited leeway in determining grounds for
impeachment. On that you apparently agree.
You -- this thread ...
"Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the >>>>>>>>>> House to agree to."
That's the legal reality. Whether it is acceptable is a different >>>>>>>>> matter. If impeaching Biden over open borders is acceptable, then >>>>>>>>> impeaching Trump over emergency funding of the wall is too. I >>>>>>>>> think both are unacceptable even though they are legal.
I don't hold Trump, or every Republican policy, in high regard. Can >>>>>>>> you say the same about Biden?
I've been disappointed in him. He brings a nice empathy to the office >>>>>>> and a return to normalcy from Trump. However, his competence is in >>>>>>> question. For example, he declared July 4, 2021 as independence day >>>>>>> from COVID. That's a stupid thing to have done.
Normalcy? You have to be joking. Do you really think the state this >>>>>> country is in, is anywhere near normal?
We don't need a president that makes decisions based on empathy.
Trump isn't a normal functioning adult. Biden is.
Trump is a populist with an arrogant irritating personality, however
despite that off the track personality he gave us a much needed
corporate tax cut, deregulation, a booming economy, lots of new jobs,
energy independence, strengthened the military and gave us the Space
Force, clamped down on an increasingly one sided China trade
relationship, and (to repeat) the lowest Black unemployment on record, >>>> He controlled the border, a border that is not now controlled by VP
Harris, but rather by Mexican cartels. And lastly he poured billions
into Operation Warp Speed, a project which a former member of this
group said could not possibly succeed, but instead was an enormous
success and went a long way toward literally saving the world.
I honor Trump solely for his accomplishments, not his irritating
personality and despicable last few days in office.
Biden's accomplishments? Oh, he has several, all grossly negative.
And yet, with the possibility of more accomplishments, you won't ever
vote for Trump again.
His last few despicable weeks in office in no way mitigate those
accomplishments, but they do cast a shadow on possible future
behavior. Truth be known, given the choice of Trump or a fellow
traveler of the Squad, a choice I don't relish, I don't know what I
might do.
As for you, which of the Trump's "accomplishments" that I listed do
you disagree with? What has Biden done that you treasure?
A booming economy and lots of new jobs isn't a policy.
I did like
Operation Warp Speed, but otherwise his handling of the pandemic
(motivated by his not-functioning-adult desire for the whole thing to go >away) cost lives. Biden's pandemic relief and infrastructure programs
are laudable.
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 17:06:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/5/2022 1:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 11:39:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/5/2022 11:15 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:34:55 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 4/5/2022 6:11 AM, Johnny wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:23:09 -0700
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/4/2022 10:37 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:00:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 10:54 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:11:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:I paid no attention to it. He had already lost the election, so >>>>>>>>>>> what was the real purpose? A lame partisan exercise?
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or lack thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> violation of an existing border law, and they impeach him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be necessary for them to obtain a court approval of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the grounds for their impeachment? Lacking such approval, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might Biden stall the order of impeachment with endless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lawsuits and challenges in court?
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was the meaning of that term when the Constitution was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drafted? Apparently not necessarily a crime, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however congress >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chooses to interpret it.
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you on the policy, they will punish republicans for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeaching him over it.
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accused President Biden of having "abdicated his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities" at the southern border and making the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ongoing migrant crisis worse after the administration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public health >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively working to make the border crisis worse," >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security and to secure the border."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it will be terminating the Title 42 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public health policy, that has been used by both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump and Biden administrations to quickly expel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has done nothing but cause one crisis after another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this, so his poll numbers will improve if he is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal immigrants to cross the border, and then flying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all across the country so they will be hard to find >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and remove. Americans know this, and also know that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy change will allow more illegal immigration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could, and should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Cruz has also recommended impeachment for Bidens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathetic bungling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> withdrawal that violated long standing pledges to our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> removed from office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the House to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for policy differences (*), we can dispense with elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal, that would be properly an impeachable offense. But, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how he treats asylum applicants is not a violation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law unless a court says so (and they aren't going to). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the land I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a Republican congress.Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> politically motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for DC and Court packing -- ideas posed by numerous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the impeachment of Trump? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the beholder be a consideration in making that
determination?
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent criminal >>>>>>>>>>>> investigation into a political opponent is not a policy. It goes >>>>>>>>>>>> to the heart of undermining democracy. Ditto for trying to steal >>>>>>>>>>>> the election (did you support Trump's second impeachment). >>>>>>>>>>>
One of the available punishments for conviction is
disqualification from future office. That would have been the >>>>>>>>>> right thing to do.
I'm OK with that.
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus Trumps >>>>>>>>>>>>> wall and far stricter immigration rules was nothing more than a >>>>>>>>>>>>> policy difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of open borders >>>>>>>>>>>>> is an attempt to flood the United States with an underclass >>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to support Democrat politicians and policies -- a >>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme to ultimately undermine our constitutional democracy. >>>>>>>>>>>>By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to maintain >>>>>>>>>>>> partisan support.
Republicans do not support closed borders -- they (and I) support >>>>>>>>>>> immigration of those who present themselves at a recognized border >>>>>>>>>>> crossing and bring something of value -- like a needed talent or >>>>>>>>>>> job offer, assets sufficient to support themselves, or familial >>>>>>>>>>> relationships. Democrats, on the other hand ... well you know, >>>>>>>>>>> and so do the voters. Trumps border policy, by the way, gave us >>>>>>>>>>> the lowest Black unemployment on record, for the simple reason >>>>>>>>>>> that those border crossers take jobs from our Black citizens. >>>>>>>>>>> That, in and of itself, is sufficient reason to control border >>>>>>>>>>> crossings, but do Democrats give a damn about that? Apparently >>>>>>>>>>> not.
"Illegal border crossing attempts reach new high under Biden: >>>>>>>>>>> 180,000 in May".
"The situation at the southern border has drawn little reaction >>>>>>>>>>> from Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Both have yet to >>>>>>>>>>> visit the 2,000-mile international boundary and have ignored >>>>>>>>>>> calls for more action from Republicans, as well as Democrats." >>>>>>>>>>> https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-border-crossing-attempts-reach-215900861.html
As for a Republican scheme, if a burglar breaks into your home >>>>>>>>>>> and you chase him out before he can steal your wife's jewelry, is >>>>>>>>>>> that a scheme to maintain your ill gotten wealth? I suppose some >>>>>>>>>>> members of the Left would think so -- and perhaps some Democrat >>>>>>>>>>> mayors and DAs already do?
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a >>>>>>>>>>>> policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring an >>>>>>>>>>>> emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building the >>>>>>>>>>>> wall, that would have been over policy and thus very wrong. But >>>>>>>>>>>> by your logic, it would be acceptable.
It would not be acceptable by my logic, but rather by a
Constitution which (arguably unfortunately) leaves congress with >>>>>>>>>>> virtually unlimited leeway in determining grounds for
impeachment. On that you apparently agree.
You -- this thread ...
"Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the >>>>>>>>>>> House to agree to."
That's the legal reality. Whether it is acceptable is a different >>>>>>>>>> matter. If impeaching Biden over open borders is acceptable, then >>>>>>>>>> impeaching Trump over emergency funding of the wall is too. I >>>>>>>>>> think both are unacceptable even though they are legal.
I don't hold Trump, or every Republican policy, in high regard. Can >>>>>>>>> you say the same about Biden?
I've been disappointed in him. He brings a nice empathy to the office >>>>>>>> and a return to normalcy from Trump. However, his competence is in >>>>>>>> question. For example, he declared July 4, 2021 as independence day >>>>>>>> from COVID. That's a stupid thing to have done.
Normalcy? You have to be joking. Do you really think the state this >>>>>>> country is in, is anywhere near normal?
We don't need a president that makes decisions based on empathy.
Trump isn't a normal functioning adult. Biden is.
Trump is a populist with an arrogant irritating personality, however >>>>> despite that off the track personality he gave us a much needed
corporate tax cut, deregulation, a booming economy, lots of new jobs, >>>>> energy independence, strengthened the military and gave us the Space >>>>> Force, clamped down on an increasingly one sided China trade
relationship, and (to repeat) the lowest Black unemployment on record, >>>>> He controlled the border, a border that is not now controlled by VP
Harris, but rather by Mexican cartels. And lastly he poured billions >>>>> into Operation Warp Speed, a project which a former member of this
group said could not possibly succeed, but instead was an enormous
success and went a long way toward literally saving the world.
I honor Trump solely for his accomplishments, not his irritating
personality and despicable last few days in office.
Biden's accomplishments? Oh, he has several, all grossly negative.
And yet, with the possibility of more accomplishments, you won't ever
vote for Trump again.
His last few despicable weeks in office in no way mitigate those
accomplishments, but they do cast a shadow on possible future
behavior. Truth be known, given the choice of Trump or a fellow
traveler of the Squad, a choice I don't relish, I don't know what I
might do.
As for you, which of the Trump's "accomplishments" that I listed do
you disagree with? What has Biden done that you treasure?
A booming economy and lots of new jobs isn't a policy.
Of course it is.
The policy being restoration of US economic power
across the globe combined with a thriving US economy and employment.
The strategy that accomplished that goal was a corporate tax cut that
once again made US corporations competitive with foreign rivals,
combined with a leasing and taxing strategy that stimulated US oil
production and supplied a low cost power source to US manufacturers,
and added export income to our coffers and the pockets of our workers.
This in turn produced booming employment and the lowest Black
unemployment on record. The day Biden arrived he set out to ruin it
all -- starting with oil production.
"On day one in the Oval Office, Mr. Biden canceled the Keystone XL
pipeline, killing 11,000 U.S. jobs and limiting supply. He’s placed a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on federal lands, threatening
another 268,000 jobs and limiting U.S. production. The Biden
administration has suspended oil and gas leases in Alaska’s Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. It is increasing the number of
endangered-species protections to limit oil production on private
land." https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/oct/14/editorial-bidens-energy-contradictions/
I did like
Operation Warp Speed, but otherwise his handling of the pandemic
(motivated by his not-functioning-adult desire for the whole thing to go
away) cost lives. Biden's pandemic relief and infrastructure programs
are laudable.
Laudable? Biden's pandemic relief would have gone nowhere without
Trump's Operation Warp Speed. Infrastructure programs "may" be
laudable, but please list the accomplishments -- hot air is not an accomplishment.
On 4/5/2022 6:32 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 17:06:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/5/2022 1:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 11:39:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>> wrote:
On 4/5/2022 11:15 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:34:55 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 4/5/2022 6:11 AM, Johnny wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:23:09 -0700Trump isn't a normal functioning adult. Biden is.
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/4/2022 10:37 AM, El Castor wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 09:00:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 10:54 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:11:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2022 12:50 PM, El Castor wrote:I paid no attention to it. He had already lost the election, so >>>>>>>>>>>> what was the real purpose? A lame partisan exercise?
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:06:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 10:25 PM, El Castor wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 1:23 PM, El Castor wrote:So the US Congress (House and Senate) defines Biden's actions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or lack thereof) on the Border to be a misdemeanor or a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> violation of an existing border law, and they impeach him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be necessary for them to obtain a court approval of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the grounds for their impeachment? Lacking such approval, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might Biden stall the order of impeachment with endless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lawsuits and challenges in court?
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:19:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2022 9:11 AM, Johnny wrote:The Constitution permits impeachment for "misdemeanors". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was the meaning of that term when the Constitution was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drafted? Apparently not necessarily a crime, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misbehavior, fumbling, bungling, and however congress >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chooses to interpret it.
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:56:10 -0700That's a policy disagreement. Even if Americans agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you on the policy, they will punish republicans for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeaching him over it.
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 4/2/2022 8:26 AM, Johnny wrote:
By Adam Shaw
Published April 2, 2022
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accused President Biden of having "abdicated his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities" at the southern border and making the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ongoing migrant crisis worse after the administration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public health >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order.
"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively working to make the border crisis worse," >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security and to secure the border." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced that it will be terminating the Title 42 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public health policy, that has been used by both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump and Biden administrations to quickly expel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrants at the southern border since the start of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-biden-abidicated-responsibilities-border-title-42-repeal
Biden will be impeached after the mid term elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has done nothing but cause one crisis after another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Impeachment isn't for policy disagreements. Americans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this, so his poll numbers will improve if he is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impeached.
He will be impeached for deliberately allowing 2 million >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal immigrants to cross the border, and then flying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them all across the country so they will be hard to find >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and remove. Americans know this, and also know that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy change will allow more illegal immigration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Failure to enforce, and willful violation of, border "LAWS" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could, and should, be a legitimate reason for impeachment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Cruz has also recommended impeachment for Bidens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathetic bungling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> withdrawal that violated long standing pledges to our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Afghan aides.
However, Johnny should keep in mind that if Biden is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> removed from office, Kamala Harris becomes president -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shudder.
Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the House to agree to. However, once impeachment is routine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for policy differences (*), we can dispense with elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If Biden ignores a court order that says his actions are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal, that would be properly an impeachable offense. But, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how he treats asylum applicants is not a violation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law unless a court says so (and they aren't going to). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The courts have no say. It's legal but very bad for democracy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In any case with the shadow of a President Harris poised over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the land I doubt there would be much impeachment enthusiasm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a Republican congress.Yes. Both were for undermining democracy, not over policy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences.
BTW -- I agree with you on the danger posed by endless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> politically motivated impeachments -- as well as statehood >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for DC and Court packing -- ideas posed by numerous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats. BTW, did you oppose the impeachment of Trump? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmm, undermining democracy or policy difference. Could the eye >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the beholder be a consideration in making that
determination?
Blackmailing a foreign leader to announce a non-existent criminal >>>>>>>>>>>>> investigation into a political opponent is not a policy. It goes >>>>>>>>>>>>> to the heart of undermining democracy. Ditto for trying to steal >>>>>>>>>>>>> the election (did you support Trump's second impeachment). >>>>>>>>>>>>
One of the available punishments for conviction is
disqualification from future office. That would have been the >>>>>>>>>>> right thing to do.
I'm OK with that.
You might contend that Biden's open border policy versus Trumps >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wall and far stricter immigration rules was nothing more than a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy difference. In my eye a Democrat policy of open borders >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an attempt to flood the United States with an underclass >>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to support Democrat politicians and policies -- a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme to ultimately undermine our constitutional democracy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>By that logic, closed borders is a Republican scheme to maintain >>>>>>>>>>>>> partisan support.
Republicans do not support closed borders -- they (and I) support >>>>>>>>>>>> immigration of those who present themselves at a recognized border >>>>>>>>>>>> crossing and bring something of value -- like a needed talent or >>>>>>>>>>>> job offer, assets sufficient to support themselves, or familial >>>>>>>>>>>> relationships. Democrats, on the other hand ... well you know, >>>>>>>>>>>> and so do the voters. Trumps border policy, by the way, gave us >>>>>>>>>>>> the lowest Black unemployment on record, for the simple reason >>>>>>>>>>>> that those border crossers take jobs from our Black citizens. >>>>>>>>>>>> That, in and of itself, is sufficient reason to control border >>>>>>>>>>>> crossings, but do Democrats give a damn about that? Apparently >>>>>>>>>>>> not.
"Illegal border crossing attempts reach new high under Biden: >>>>>>>>>>>> 180,000 in May".
"The situation at the southern border has drawn little reaction >>>>>>>>>>>> from Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Both have yet to >>>>>>>>>>>> visit the 2,000-mile international boundary and have ignored >>>>>>>>>>>> calls for more action from Republicans, as well as Democrats." >>>>>>>>>>>> https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-border-crossing-attempts-reach-215900861.html
As for a Republican scheme, if a burglar breaks into your home >>>>>>>>>>>> and you chase him out before he can steal your wife's jewelry, is >>>>>>>>>>>> that a scheme to maintain your ill gotten wealth? I suppose some >>>>>>>>>>>> members of the Left would think so -- and perhaps some Democrat >>>>>>>>>>>> mayors and DAs already do?
But, that's garbage logic. Open or closed borders is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> policy choice. Had the Democrats impeached Trump for declaring an >>>>>>>>>>>>> emergency in order to divert Pentagon funding to building the >>>>>>>>>>>>> wall, that would have been over policy and thus very wrong. But >>>>>>>>>>>>> by your logic, it would be acceptable.
It would not be acceptable by my logic, but rather by a >>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution which (arguably unfortunately) leaves congress with >>>>>>>>>>>> virtually unlimited leeway in determining grounds for
impeachment. On that you apparently agree.
You -- this thread ...
"Of course impeachment can be for whatever gets a majority in the >>>>>>>>>>>> House to agree to."
That's the legal reality. Whether it is acceptable is a different >>>>>>>>>>> matter. If impeaching Biden over open borders is acceptable, then >>>>>>>>>>> impeaching Trump over emergency funding of the wall is too. I >>>>>>>>>>> think both are unacceptable even though they are legal.
I don't hold Trump, or every Republican policy, in high regard. Can >>>>>>>>>> you say the same about Biden?
I've been disappointed in him. He brings a nice empathy to the office >>>>>>>>> and a return to normalcy from Trump. However, his competence is in >>>>>>>>> question. For example, he declared July 4, 2021 as independence day >>>>>>>>> from COVID. That's a stupid thing to have done.
Normalcy? You have to be joking. Do you really think the state this >>>>>>>> country is in, is anywhere near normal?
We don't need a president that makes decisions based on empathy. >>>>>>>
Trump is a populist with an arrogant irritating personality, however >>>>>> despite that off the track personality he gave us a much needed
corporate tax cut, deregulation, a booming economy, lots of new jobs, >>>>>> energy independence, strengthened the military and gave us the Space >>>>>> Force, clamped down on an increasingly one sided China trade
relationship, and (to repeat) the lowest Black unemployment on record, >>>>>> He controlled the border, a border that is not now controlled by VP >>>>>> Harris, but rather by Mexican cartels. And lastly he poured billions >>>>>> into Operation Warp Speed, a project which a former member of this >>>>>> group said could not possibly succeed, but instead was an enormous >>>>>> success and went a long way toward literally saving the world.
I honor Trump solely for his accomplishments, not his irritating
personality and despicable last few days in office.
Biden's accomplishments? Oh, he has several, all grossly negative.
And yet, with the possibility of more accomplishments, you won't ever >>>>> vote for Trump again.
His last few despicable weeks in office in no way mitigate those
accomplishments, but they do cast a shadow on possible future
behavior. Truth be known, given the choice of Trump or a fellow
traveler of the Squad, a choice I don't relish, I don't know what I
might do.
As for you, which of the Trump's "accomplishments" that I listed do
you disagree with? What has Biden done that you treasure?
A booming economy and lots of new jobs isn't a policy.
Of course it is.
It's an outcome, not a policy.
The policy being restoration of US economic power
across the globe combined with a thriving US economy and employment.
The strategy that accomplished that goal was a corporate tax cut that
once again made US corporations competitive with foreign rivals,
combined with a leasing and taxing strategy that stimulated US oil
production and supplied a low cost power source to US manufacturers,
and added export income to our coffers and the pockets of our workers.
This in turn produced booming employment and the lowest Black
unemployment on record. The day Biden arrived he set out to ruin it
all -- starting with oil production.
"On day one in the Oval Office, Mr. Biden canceled the Keystone XL
pipeline, killing 11,000 U.S. jobs and limiting supply. He’s placed a
moratorium on new oil and gas leases on federal lands, threatening
another 268,000 jobs and limiting U.S. production. The Biden
administration has suspended oil and gas leases in Alaska’s Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. It is increasing the number of
endangered-species protections to limit oil production on private
land."
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/oct/14/editorial-bidens-energy-contradictions/
I did like
Operation Warp Speed, but otherwise his handling of the pandemic
(motivated by his not-functioning-adult desire for the whole thing to go >>> away) cost lives. Biden's pandemic relief and infrastructure programs
are laudable.
Laudable? Biden's pandemic relief would have gone nowhere without
Trump's Operation Warp Speed. Infrastructure programs "may" be
laudable, but please list the accomplishments -- hot air is not an
accomplishment.
We've finally got money to repair roads and bridges that have been long
in need.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 379 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 45:20:28 |
| Calls: | 8,141 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,085 |
| Messages: | 5,858,061 |