Ratings for impeachment trial lower than soap ratings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, the Washington Post came out with the headline that the impeachment was beginning, somewhere between 17 and 20 minutes after he was sworn in.

It has been an accident looking for a place to happen ever since. Anyone remember the early motion to impeach because he criticized the players taking a knee during the Anthem? Memories tend to be short…
 
Last edited:
It’ll soon be all over. Another month or two and the impeachment will be a dim and distant memory.
 
Last edited:
And both Al Green and Maxine Waters have indicated they (and presumably others in the House) will start new impeachment proceedings.

I would dearly love to see the inspector general report/interview which Shiff’s crew have tried to deep six. Call me a cynic, but I suspect there is a “bombshell” sitting in there.

Maybe this round will become a “distant memory”; but I sincerely doubt it, as it will be brought up at least once a day in the run-up to the next election. If not hourly.
 
Last edited:
Maxirad said:
Um, does the American public give a rip about the impeachment trial?
Click to expand...
They care about the outcome… watching these ridiculous hearings is duller than watching paint drying… But the impeachment is necessary and good … praying for a good ending

Signed impeachment watcher
 
BartholomewB said:
It’ll soon be all over. Another month or two and the impeachment will be a dim and distant memory.
Click to expand...
Nah, it’ll be over after this election. The Democrats will try to rally their supporters behind their failed impeachment attempt as a sign that Washington is against them.
 
otjm said:
Anyone remember the early motion to impeach because he criticized the players taking a knee during the Anthem? Memories tend to be short…
Click to expand...
Indeed.

It wasn’t initially “taking a knee”, but rather sitting on the bench chomping on his snack.

He switched to the knee after the criticism of his utter disrespect, and has managed to obscure the origins . . .
Maxirad said:
Um, does the American public give a rip about the impeachment trial?
Click to expand...
Those of us with higher brain function knew that it was going to happen sooner or later, the vote for impeachment in the House, and the vote for acquittal in the Senate, within a vote or two, long before it happened.

The only question, and the only newsworthy bit, was what the partisan impeachment and partisan acquittal would be “for”, not “if” it would happen . . .

so, no, most of us don’t see much to get excited about, unless we’re rabid one way or the other . . .

And when we get to the point that the only one in the room making any sense is Alan Dershowitz reluctantly defending a Republican . . . it’s time to watch out the window for four horseman, and check the color of the room . . . 🤯 😱 :roll_eyes:
 
Well, from comments from Nancy and Schumer, it sounds as if the mantra for the next couple of hundred days is going to “Sham! Sham!”

With any luck, Al Green and Maxine Waters, and a few of the other actors will give it maybe 2 or more runs at further impeachment. Something about giving enough rope … and if the Democrats continue on the path which the media is outlining and which I suspect not a few Congressmen and Senators might take, along with about 20 of the 22 whackadoodles promising to make America a Workers Paradise, the Democratic party might simply self destruct.

About the only honest one making such proposals is a gentleman who spent his honeymoon in Russia; and while he has a significant following among Millennials and younger, I am not sure he can win. And if Joe doesn’t self destruct, there are rumblings that a thorough investigation might accomplish the same thing.

And then there is the billionaire who has not seen an Amendment to the Constitution he cannot ignore. A brokered convention just might throw it (or be bought) to/by him.

I have no love for Trump; as I have said, I voted for the next SC Judges; and I am not sure Ruth has it in her to make 4 more years. That, and more appointments to the Federal Judiciary are my greatest concerns.
 
The entire thing was a calculated move by each party thinking that the proceedings would do more damage to the other side than than their own.

As for the USSC: yes, the only thing that either of them said that I saw as reason to vote for one, rather than against the other, was the Supreme Court nomination thread. (OK, and knowing that Kudlow was one of the economic architects was a small positive sign).

In all seriousness, I’d like to see the Federalist Society find some politically liberal strict constructionists to appoint to currently liberal seats . . .
 
dochawk said:
I’d like to see the Federalist Society find some politically liberal strict constructionists to appoint to currently liberal seats
Click to expand...
I am not a political wonk, by any stretch of the imagination - but isn’t that an oxymoron? Or how are you defining "politically liberal?
 
I think that a man of power and privilege, who has abused his office - the highest office in the land, is accused of sexual misbehavior (if not crimes), of perjury, of the obstruction of justice, and of other unspecified misconduct, should resign from office even before being impeached and removed from office.

I am speaking of Bill Clinton.

Speaking of which, whatever happened to the much promoted “censure and move on”?

What indeed…
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
I am not a political wonk, by any stretch of the imagination - but isn’t that an oxymoron? Or how are you defining "politically liberal?
Click to expand...
Social agenda and politics.

Strict Constructionism/original intent/whatever has nothing to do with political alignment. It is the position that the Constitution means what it meant as written, not what the judge thinks that it should mean. I also refer to it as “having read the Constitution.”

As a practical matter, this has led in recent years to cases being decided on this basis having, more often than not, been in the direction that political conservatives prefer–but that’s simply a matter of the cases that have come up, and is not anything inherent.

And it doesn’t always go that way: look at Scalia’s grudging concurrence (or was it the majority opinion?) in the flat burning case–you could tell that he loathed the result, but followed Constitutional principle anyway . . .

Similarly, there is no reason that someone who prefers liberal social policy cannot support the Constitution.

(and all this without going into “conservatives” in the US today being at least three distinct groups: Burkeian conservatives, Classic Liberals/18th Century Liberals [such as the Founding Fathers], and religious/moral conservatives).

Anyway, the Conservative/Constructionist difference is similar to the spit between free markets and capitalism–while these often tend to come together, they don’t always. Fascism/Nazism was capitalistic without free markets, while China and the late Yugoslavia attempted free market socialism.

There are not two, but three blocks on the USSC at the moment, and in recent decades. The 5/4 conservative/liberal split is nonsense and not based in reality. Rather, there are 4 liberal justices, and until the recent appointments, there were 2.5 conservatives and 2/5 classic liberals/strict constructionist, with Kennedy being the .5 that wandered back and forth. I think it’s now 4/2/3, but it will take a couple more years to be certain that that’s really what the two new picks are.

Or perhaps more apropos to your question, Dershowitz is a liberal that doesn’t let his politics get in the way of his appreciation for the rule of law, and doesn’t think that his opinion trumps the Constitution. (and his defenses of Trump in recent months are no doubt driving him up the walls!). A Dershowitz clone of appropriate age would be perfect to replace a liberal justice.
 
dochawk said:
The entire thing was a calculated move by each party thinking that the proceedings would do more damage to the other side than than their own.

As for the USSC: yes, the only thing that either of them said that I saw as reason to vote for one, rather than against the other, was the Supreme Court nomination thread. (OK, and knowing that Kudlow was one of the economic architects was a small positive sign).

In all seriousness, I’d like to see the Federalist Society find some politically liberal strict constructionists to appoint to currently liberal seats . . .
Click to expand...
How can it be a calculated move by each party when
the White House and the presidency have been under daily attack by the democrats since the 2016 election
4 years ago. The White House is always in defense
mode. The democrats are scheming and calculating.
Can the republicans help it if the plots of the democrats fail and it ends up helping the republicans?
 
otjm said:
And both Al Green and Maxine Waters have indicated they (and presumably others in the House) will start new impeachment proceedings.

I would dearly love to see the inspector general report/interview which Shiff’s crew have tried to deep six. Call me a cynic, but I suspect there is a “bombshell” sitting in there.

Maybe this round will become a “distant memory”; but I sincerely doubt it, as it will be brought up at least once a day in the run-up to the next election. If not hourly.
Click to expand...
Al Green? He hasn’t been relevant since releasing the album ‘Truth N’ Time’.
 
I did not watch any of the trial, because I already expected a partisan decision. When you already know what the outcome will be, why waste time watching the trial?
From what evidence I have read, it appears pretty obvious that Donald Trump tried to get Ukraine officials to announce that they were investigating Joe Biden’s son in exchange for military funding that already had been approved by Congress.
It that illegal or immoral? Not my call. As I am not in the United States Senate.
The first two presidents who were impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, looked guilty to me.
And had Richard Nixon not resigned, I think we would have been removed from office.
 
Last edited:
Your post is a perfect example of how people remain
uninformed and really don’t seem interested in the truth when they don’t bother even trying to
watch and listen to what was said at the impeachment
trial. Why be deprived of knowing the cases presented by both sides?
 
Last edited:
I’m an independent and you can bet I’ve been watching everything very closely from the get go.

We need a whole new round of politicians and to bust open the two party system. All they care about is getting reelected, not about doing the business they are supposed to do as outlined in the Constitution.

They have failed their oath and need to be replaced.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top