Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by fredsanford, Oct 31, 2019.
2 Dems voted no with all the republicans. Indy Justin Amash voted yes.
4 reps didn’t vote. 3 Rs, 1D.
Who were the to Dems who voted no? They may have a tough election their next term...
I think the result of the vote was a foregone conclusion. Because of that, those Republicans who may feel the President has done wrong and that impeachment may be a valid recourse did not vote for the rules but may well vote for impeachment. If they vote for the rules that we all knew would get approved they are needlessly sticking out their necks begging for Trump's boot to the throat for the next month or two before actual impeachment vote. I'm fairly confident there will be Rs who vote for impeachment in the end particularly as the news seems to get worse by the day for the President.
I read yesterday there were six possible Dem holdouts, all from districts Trump won heavily. I guess they are looking out for themselves.
These are the two that ended up voting "no".
They were Reps. Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ) and Collin Peterson (D-MN).
Obviously, this is a key feature to any such vote. Re-election is a must for an elected official.
Putting that issue aside (obviously impossible, but for the sake of argument), I could see not voting to remove Trump, but I can’t see how one could defend not even allowing an inquiry into his actions. That is saying that one doesn’t even think that it’s worthwhile to just learn about what happened with Ukraine.
Yeah, given the vote count, I'm guessing they told 11-12 to vote whichever way they wanted. Interesting that only 2 went against them. Suggests that the politics of this aren't too bad even in Republican districts.
I am very much looking forward to Trump's impeachment.
I assume that means all the politicians in districts heavily won by Hillary who voted "yes" are looking out for themselves as well? Or does that logic only apply to the other team? Lol. This place.
I think the effects of gerrymandering have rendered many congressional districts safe for the incumbent and they can vote party line. Competitive districts are the exception and it is those incumbents who may flip. Just another pernicious reason to rid ourselves of gerrymandered districts.
edit: The guy who was responsible for gerrymandering the 13 NC congressional districts into 10 that were Republican and only 3 that were Democrat when 46% of North Carolina voters are Democrats was asked how that was possible and he said: cause I didn't think it was possible to get it to 11 to 2.
This reply doesn't even begin to make sense. Please try again.
Let the clown show, kangaroo court resume... with the leader, Captain Kangaroo himself, Schiff, leading the insurrection... coup.
I've posted this in another thread, but seems appropriate here too.
Politicians by and large are going to do what is in their best interest....which means what keeps them in power.
So Trump is on what double secret probation now? This is such ridiculous theatre.
Looking forward to hearing from the witnesses.
I agree. That's the only good part of this. Public testimony and changes in public opinion may actually sway one or two republican senators to vote for removal.
No it won't.
I wouldn’t be so sure. Like Hall said above, elected politicians will do what keeps them getting elected. If impeachment becomes popular among the public, voting against it can be harmful to congresspeople.
In the References Thread, I posted a Congressional Resource Service article and an essay from Claremont McKenna College as resource aids. They address the grounds for impeachment and the meaning of particular terms. There is a great deal of pertinent legislative history (going back to pre-Constitutional England, the Constitutional Convention and earlier impeachments, including of Judges) and this seems relevant.