What is Digg?243 Comments
- tenrec, on 10/10/2007, -5/+72Impeachment 101 Quiz
67 guilty votes are required to convict in a Senate impeachment trial.
There are in the Senate:
49 Democrats
1 Independent
1 Independent Democrat
49 Republicans
Assume that:
A) All 49 Democrats and 1 Independent vote for impeachment (would never happen but assume it anyway)
B) Lieberman, the Independent Democrat, would take a bullet meant for Bush so he would never vote for impeachment
C) Arlen Specter (R-PA) would volunteer for a Bush firing squad so count on him for a guilty vote
D) Of the 48 remaining Republican Senators, 15 would have to vote guilty to convict
Question:
Name the 15 remaining Republicans Senators would commit political suicide and vote guilty at a Bush / Cheney impeachment trial.
Hint: Do not include in your list any of the 21 Senate Republicans who are up for reelection in 2008.
Bonus Question 1:
Explain how the House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could pass a Bush bill of impeachment.
Remember: These are the same House Democrats, who with the majority of House votes needed, have still been able to pass the D.C. Voting Rights Act.
Bonus Question 2:
Name the most likely person to be called as the Bush / Cheney opening defense witness.
Hint: He was the 42nd President of the United States and was himself impeached. - greenback1, on 10/10/2007, -16/+66Ralph Nader is the only true Liberal on the Left. He's also the only one who has a proven life long record of actually serving the people. Watch the documentary on his life "An Unreasonable Man" and then compare his record of public service to any of the other Candidates and it will be undeniable. Hillary past experience was serving on the Board of WalMart during their hallmark days of killing every small business American competitor in the country. She helped forge the formula for Chinese Slave labor producing cheap goods. Wake up Dems!
- art42, on 10/10/2007, -23/+66Impeachable offenses of Bu$h Co has outnumbered the list of ALL impeachable offenses by every president to serve in the US. IMPEACH or face the consequences on election day or a recall.
- SmokedL, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26What would you say of a cop that did not chase a murderer because he thought he would fail?
What would you say of a military commander sitting around doing nothing but make empty speaches while his army is decimated and his land destroyed?
I see this as directly comparable. The Bush administration is actively harming the US and two other countries. The democrats are making empty gestures instead of fighting.
I don*t require them to succeed.
I DO require them to TRY, because anything else is plain dereliction of duty. - thespiff, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24You make good points. But, as the Clinton fiasco showed, all it takes is the movement for impeachment to make it on the floor for things to get all wacky. If the accusers brought their case effectively and the media picked it up in the right way, a lot of unlikely things could happen.
Sadly, I think the Clinton fiasco left a bad taste in everyone's mouth with regard to impeachment, and people are hesitant to get behind it as a result. - tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22It takes less than 67 to bring the issue to the floor, which they havent done.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -15/+36Dugg down for using the $ sign in Bush.
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -3/+23I ***** hate Congress and Speaker Pelosi for the way they've turned a deaf ear to the American public; their illogical "hands-off approach" and how they've pretended like we don't want impeachment. And for them to do it after having won both houses last fall and having been sent a clear message from the voters. Its more than obvious that they're playing it into their politics, by waiting until it gets worse for the president. It makes me want to scream. I absolutely ***** hate them.
- TheHydrogens, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21Great comment for putting everything in a little better perspective. Some people seem to want Bush impeached so badly that they can't see how unlikely it really is.
I still find it hilarious that Clinton was impeached for cigar-poking a fat chick in the oval office, yet Bush has consistently abused the constitution, pissed off a large majority of Americans, and still remains above reproach. That tells any outside observers a little bit about American's priorities. - cindylauper, on 10/10/2007, -6/+21Amen
- Dustin00, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11I don't care if they succeed, I want the hearings to be held.
- delrin500, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Nader was right on, but we keep looking to Democrats to "save us" from the evil Republicans but we have the power, WE ARE THE PEOPLE if we organized together and revolted against this stuff we could change the world. But due to media consolidation and apathy of most Americans we who are "in the know" are paralyzed to do anything. We are trying but it is an uphill battle. Democrats don't care they are making money on the death and bloodshed just like the administration, the only real difference is that not as many democrats are conservatives who are hardwired with the authoritarian mindset and completely willing to follow someone who says that "these are you enemies and i can protect you if you just do everything i say without question".
- lukifer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Ralph was the guy who convinced me that Gore was no different than Bush. I'm still a little miffed about that.
- camaroz06, on 11/12/2007, -1/+9Master Chief would have my vote for president. Who in their right mind would ever do anything bad to a country with MC in charge?
On another note....yes the democrats are spineless and useless. If I were Bush I would be going all willy-nilly and do whatever I wanted to do since no one has enough moxie to actually do anything. - inhaler, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13I disagree - Dennis Kucinich anyone?
- gusevx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8One cannot blame Ralph Nader, he simply had a dream... to eliminate the two party system. I pray for such a dream.
- tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Nader and Gore are in different parties. If Ron Paul doesnt win the nomination, he'll have zero effect on the election. You cannot steal a vote if you're not on the ballot. How is that comparison even valid?
- 31073, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8They aren't spineless or gutless. They want the country to suck all the way up to the 08 election.
- EvanVolm, on 10/10/2007, -11/+18I actually agree. I thought things would change once the Dems got into office. What happened? They caved and gave whatever Bush wanted and are still doing it. ***** pansies. Ron Paul 08.
- SanTe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I've recently watched "An Unreasonable Man" as well and I disagree completely with Bashell's assessment. It wasn't one-sided, nor was it kiss ass. I thought it was a very fair and honest look at Nader's career, warts and all, including both praises and disagreements from several former staff members of his. I came away respecting Nader more, even while I was acknowledging the arguments made by those with whom Nader has had a falling out.
- reuscel, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Why didn't the Al Gore of 2008 run in 2000? Then we wouldn't be in this mess.
- ncc74656m, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8I won't even bother doing the usual "list" of things he's done wrong. I say "list" because it's more like the size of an encyclopedia.
Let's start with the big one: Starting a war with a sovereign nation under false pretenses.
Dumbass. - dev0null, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Pelosi said at a political rally last year that she'd like to see the people's anger directed to electing more Democrats. Today, you gotta wonder if it was simply to grab power for her "team". Do Democrats really represent voters any better than their opponents?
- MonsterChaOS, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7***** off.
- jezsik, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Because incompetence isn't wrong, right?
- bemenaker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6How about they just stop his crap, quit authorizing his wiretapping, his bs war's, his bs prison camps.....
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Agreed.
I mean, I can respect the position, I also think Bush should be impeached for various constitutional offenses... but I find it uncomfortable to publicly agree with someone who is writing like a moron or prepubescent teenager. - RealHyperX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6gutless democrats - sums them up just right!
- dev0null, on 10/10/2007, -0/+410 Impeach Cheney
20 Impeach Bush
30 Impeach Pelosi ! for taking so long to do it
Run - BluesFan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The title says it all.I don't know who I'm mader at Bush or the democrats who don't do anything about him.
- horatiolust, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8All Gore had to do was win his home state of Tennessee and he would have been President, regardless of FL, SCOTUS, Nader, hanging chads, etc...
Gore was so fracking lame... - dev0null, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Meanwhile, GW Bush & Cheney run out the clock, laughing all the way....
- IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm starved for evidence that the Democratic Party doesn't share the goals of the current administration. I want some basis upon which to build hope for the future. See, I don't have any at the moment.
I'm currently of the opinion that if there is hope to be found, it's not to be found among the ranks of the Democratic Party. To be perfectly honest, when I look at the Democratic Party, I don't see liberals, but rather a gaggle of authoritarian, bribe taking, industry thralls. - thespiff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5So you're saying that the War in Iraq is as noble a cause as the North's goals in the Civil War? I won't even get into the slavery issue, since anyone whose read a history textbook past high school knows that the end of slavery wasn't his primary goal. Show me the impending destruction of the union that will take place if we pull out of Iraq and I'll buy your argument.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The Impeachment process is an investigation.
Just like normal court trials -- you don't just do them because you can convict -- you do them because the law was broken.
By impeaching Bush, you re-pair a little of the damage done to the constitution. The investigations will provide more information on what was done. It's going to be pretty hard for MOST Republicans to NOT impeach, if for instance, one of the numerous allegations like War Profiteering are proved true.
We have to investigate Bush, because we have torture, we have missing funds, we have countless acts of criminality in this administration. If we don't impeach Bush -- we set the precedent that we don't impeach anyone. For instance; Nixon would never have been impeached because, at the outset -- before investigations, the Republicans would not have voted for impeachment. Yet, Nixon resigned because it was obvious he was going to be impeached, and probably because further investigations would have revealed more dirt.
So, kudos for pointing out how it stands right NOW for the votes -- but you are counting the conclusions before the investigation. Nobody decides a trial BEFORE the evidence. Let the Republicans take the heat for not impeaching a war criminal. It will perhaps destroy the Republican party if they do. - hagbard72, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"Spineless and Gutless Democrats"? No, more like co-conspirators. The Democrats are in no way innocent of what's been going on the past seven years. They can hang right next to Bush and his gang of outlaws.
- huskerdude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4He's not wrong. The Democratic party has utterly let down it's supporters and constituents since regaining political power in Washington. They have done nothing of note. Were it not for the fact that the alternative is so horrifyingly unacceptable, I'd say it's time to vote most of the current Democrats in the Congress out of office.
- Gustomucho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I would replace "Democrats" with "Americans" in the title. I feel for you, if you say something you can be jailed and tortured. Land of the Free?... land of Bush/Oil/Warmongering/Neocons is more like it.
- thespiff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Impeachment is a censure. A formal declaration that he is a "bad boy". It is not the same thing as removal from office. Didn't we all learn this distinction during the Clinton fiasco? I was in middle school at that time and I still understand it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment - r8rfan00, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I get so stinking tired of people who say Clinton was impeached for sex with Monica L. That is not why he was impeached. He was impeached for a violation of the law, specifically, lying under oath.
- dshPls, on 10/10/2007, -8/+12Go ahead and file a lawsuit.
- Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Yeah, yeah, Gore losing in 2000 is all Nader's fault. It couldn't possibly have been NH, MO, OH, NV, or TN, all of which Gore lost by less than 4%, and any one of which would have given him the EC votes needed to win the overall race. It couldn't possibly have been that 50,000 voters where improperly purged from the voter rolls in FL. It couldn't have been Katherin Harris' overly-partisan handling of the recount. It couldn't have been the Preppy Riot. It couldn't have been the biased portrayals of Gore and Bush in the media, which contributed to the closeness of the race. et cetera ad nauseum.
We all know it had to be the third party candidate, because all they ever do is create spoiler effect. We're only allowed the giant douche or the turd sandwich, and we'll like it, goddammit. - hawkeye17, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Ralph is right but if it wasn't for that ego maniac, none of this would have happened in the first place. That asshat cost Gore the election and played a big part in changing history for the worse. So I say...crawl back under your rock and stay there Ralph.
- thespiff, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6No he won't. The only people who have ever heard of Ron Paul are too busy commenting on Digg threads to vote for him. The real world has no idea he even exists.
- LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Don't Bogart that joint my friend. (HINT: Democrats control both houses of congress). Nixon resigned for the good of the country. Clinton should have resigned but he, like many Democrats, could give a rat-ass about the good of the country. (CLUE: impeachment in an indictment, not an investigation - investigations can lead to impeachment if High Crimes and Misdemeanors are found to have been committed (like Bill Clinton lying under oath)). So far the Democrats have not found evidence of High Crimes and Misdemeanors (although they have tried) so now they are relegated to whining. HINT2: we DO impeach because the last president was indeed impeached.
- IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I suppose there's a very good reason for them to continue funding the abominable waste of resources that is the occupation of Iraq, and for their approval of Bush's request for increased domestic spying powers too?
- dev0null, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Whatever happened to "due process"? Not impeaching Bush either implies either: 1. he hasn't made an impeachable offense. or 2. Democrats have made a political calculation, perhaps like above, not to do so. I'd rather not see this administration end with that ambiguity, but that's where we are.
- tritisan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I voted for Nader in 2000 (he says, ducking the rotten vegetables). I have absolutely no regrets and have never bought into the argument that a vote for Nader equals one less vote for Gore. More than a third of the electorate is "independent/undecided". I'm a Green, so I tend to vote Green. How will be ever get past the corporate-controlled two party system if we keep getting fooled into choosing between dumb and dumber every time?
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8gore had the votes, despite nader, despite illegal voter suppression, despite diebold machines, despite hanging chads, and despite katherine harris. gwb was selected, not elected.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 238 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is