Well ole Nancy got what she wanted. She said you can't have impeachment that is partisan and today it wasn't. It was bipartisan against procedures for impeachment. I truly hope this entire thing blows up in the faces of every Democrat. Not because I support trump, but simply because I hope it never happens again like this. A situation where a party didn't get their way and decided to act like a freaking two year old and wine and ***** about it. Maybe if this blows up in their faces, both parties will learn to stop acting like a bunch of damn idiots but sadly, that probably won't ever happen.
Impeachment
65,354 Views |
406 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by RunsWithWolves26
Good move by Pelosi to call the Republicans bluff of wanting a vote on impeachment. As mentioned basically...everywhere, there are no official rules to impeachment. Also as mentioned basically...everywhere, the Democrats were following the rules set in 2015 by the Republicans regarding subpoena power of committee chairs. Will be good to have these witnesses discussing the same things in public for the world to view.
How did Pelosi call the Republicans bluff? Anyone who pays any attention to politics knew that the House was going to authorize the inquiry. I was honestly surprised that more Democrats didn't vote against it to protect themselves since they are in districts that Trump won in 2016. Should of been voted on to start with. I don't necessarily agree with the rules but since the democrats are in the majority they have the right to make them.statefan91 said:
Good move by Pelosi to call the Republicans bluff of wanting a vote on impeachment. As mentioned basically...everywhere, there are no official rules to impeachment. Also as mentioned basically...everywhere, the Democrats were following the rules set in 2015 by the Republicans regarding subpoena power of committee chairs. Will be good to have these witnesses discussing the same things in public for the world to view.
I agree with you that it is good to have the witnesses testifying in public. Should of been that way the entire time. That way we could of seen Schiff tell a witness not to answer questions from the republicans and try to coach witnesses on what to say.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-reps-say-schiff-stopped-impeachment-witness-from-answering-certain-gop-questions
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-steve-scalise-claims-adam-schiff-directed-witnesses-not-to-answer-republicans-questions-during-soviet-style-hearings/
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/29/schiff-directing-witnesses-not-to-answer-gop-questions/
Because they're whole contention was that the initial step of any impeachment inquiry has to be the vote to open the inquiry, which is not true despite how many times they repeated it.
Also, according to the rules put in place by the Republicans when they were the majority in 2015, the Democrats were doing what they were supposed to - https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/oct/28/andrew-napolitano/fox-news-analyst-correct-impeachment-inquiry-follo/
Here's an example of the same types of committee investigating Benghazi:
"When Republicans controlled the House, its Benghazi committee held nearly all of its hearings behind closed doors, Allan Lichtman, American University history professor and author of "The Case for Impeachment," noted to us. He also pointed out that in the final House report on the matter, then-Rep. Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, said:
"The committee's preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized usually for five minutes a procedure which precludes in-depth in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives."
It's fine if the Republicans don't like these rules now that they're the minority party, but it doesn't make them illegal or illegitimate.
Also, according to the rules put in place by the Republicans when they were the majority in 2015, the Democrats were doing what they were supposed to - https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/oct/28/andrew-napolitano/fox-news-analyst-correct-impeachment-inquiry-follo/
Here's an example of the same types of committee investigating Benghazi:
"When Republicans controlled the House, its Benghazi committee held nearly all of its hearings behind closed doors, Allan Lichtman, American University history professor and author of "The Case for Impeachment," noted to us. He also pointed out that in the final House report on the matter, then-Rep. Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, said:
"The committee's preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized usually for five minutes a procedure which precludes in-depth in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives."
It's fine if the Republicans don't like these rules now that they're the minority party, but it doesn't make them illegal or illegitimate.
How is it I got replied to when I was supposed to be on ignore? I'm somewhat disappointed. I was enjoying being ignored.
TV portion of this programming begins today.
Y'all means ALL.
Other then the fact Shift lied about knowing the "whistleblower" there wasn't much to see on day 1 IMO. Heck, even some of the left talking heads have admitted that. Maybe the Democrats have better witnesses to come but from the two yesterday, I didn't see much of anything at all.
I got a kick out of Mike Quigley saying that "Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct"RunsWithWolves26 said:
Other then the fact Shift lied about knowing the "whistleblower" there wasn't much to see on day 1 IMO. Heck, even some of the left talking heads have admitted that. Maybe the Democrats have better witnesses to come but from the two yesterday, I didn't see much of anything at all.
That's a bad to place to be trying to prove a point on the first day of an impeachment hearing
cowboypack02 said:I got a kick out of Mike Quigley saying that "Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct"RunsWithWolves26 said:
Other then the fact Shift lied about knowing the "whistleblower" there wasn't much to see on day 1 IMO. Heck, even some of the left talking heads have admitted that. Maybe the Democrats have better witnesses to come but from the two yesterday, I didn't see much of anything at all.
That's a bad to place to be trying to prove a point on the first day of an impeachment hearing
I agree. What the hell was he talking about? Also Jim Jordan, stop yelling at everyone! I was pleasantly surprised at the tone of everyone, except for him and that guy from Texas.
Y'all means ALL.
Unfortunately people have become so desensitized that they can watch yesterday's testimony which confirms what the whistleblower reported, and think nothing of it.
I'm sure the proceedings will put together the overall picture of a President who is using US International Policy and Aid at his whim in an attempt to get political dirt on opponents and elongate his tenure in office.
The whistleblower is largely irrelevant at this point, as multiple people have come forward to corroborate what happened, including Lt. Vindman. I look forward to Sondland coming to public hearings and answering questions regarding his interactions with President Trump, Giuliani, and the other diplomats. I think his testimony will shed the most light on what happened and who ordered it.
I'm sure the proceedings will put together the overall picture of a President who is using US International Policy and Aid at his whim in an attempt to get political dirt on opponents and elongate his tenure in office.
The whistleblower is largely irrelevant at this point, as multiple people have come forward to corroborate what happened, including Lt. Vindman. I look forward to Sondland coming to public hearings and answering questions regarding his interactions with President Trump, Giuliani, and the other diplomats. I think his testimony will shed the most light on what happened and who ordered it.
Unfortunately some people will continue to have blinders on instead of looking at this objectively and seeing it for what it is. A phone call that was weird but wasn't illegal. Aid was given to Ukraine without a investigation ever happening. I'm looking for to the Senate hearings
I think what you said above feeds to a much bigger issue. I watched every second of the testimony yesterday and wholeheartedly disagree with what you said above.statefan91 said:
Unfortunately people have become so desensitized that they can watch yesterday's testimony which confirms what the whistleblower reported, and think nothing of it.
I'm sure the proceedings will put together the overall picture of a President who is using US International Policy and Aid at his whim in an attempt to get political dirt on opponents and elongate his tenure in office.
The whistleblower is largely irrelevant at this point, as multiple people have come forward to corroborate what happened, including Lt. Vindman. I look forward to Sondland coming to public hearings and answering questions regarding his interactions with President Trump, Giuliani, and the other diplomats. I think his testimony will shed the most light on what happened and who ordered it.
I though that both the democrats and the witnesses looked bad. They are suppose to be a witness to something but neither one of them were. They realistically had no knowledge of the actual question at hand, but had no problem voicing their opinions.
The "whistleblower" should be the first person that we should of heard from, and then any body else that is called up should be there to either to help argue what the the original complaint is one way or another. Adam Schiff said that the impeachment proceedings (4th time they voted to impeach) this time were based on what someone came to him and his staff and complained about. We should all want to hear what this person says. How can you not?
Outside of that we have what is essentially the transcript of the call, put together from the notes and thoughts of the people on the call. We have all seen this and can read it. I don't think that it looks that far out of place and my guess is that Schiff and the democrats don't either, because if they did Schiff would of just read it into the congressional record when this first started, instead of making something up, which he did do.
From all of the closed door testimony that has been released so far everyone discussed their opinion and if they agreed with Trump's policy or not. I don't care about their opinions because the President of the United States sets terms of foreign policy. If they didn't agree with it they should of quit. Trump was elected because of how he said that he would run foreign policy and try to implement domestically, and it is his right as an elected official. It is the job of all of these people to implement his policy, not their own. If they don't like it they should quit.
On the Biden aspect of it i don't see an issue. Joe Biden is actually on tape telling about how he told Ukraine that the US would withhold aide unless a certain prosecutor was fired. He even told them to call Obama if they didn't believe that he could do it. The prosecutor was investigating a company that was paying Joe Biden's son 50K a month for corruption. The prosecutor was fired and Ukraine got their money. Seems to me something like that should be investigated.
As far as the aide that Trump is said to of withheld, i don't get it. Ukraine said that they didn't know anything was being withheld, the aide was distributed as normal, and there wasn't a condition for the aide being received.
To my original point i said your comment leads to a much bigger issue because of what i said. I don't care what any of the people you listed said because what i typed over the last two paragraphs actually happened and we have proof. Joe Biden is on tape, Biden's kid was getting paid (said so on tape), and there is a video of the Ukrainian President agreeing with what i said above. You have already made up your mind just like i have made up mine. How do we try to bridge something like that?
Isn't that sort of the point of the hearings, is to get to the bottom of why and when the hold was announced, what the Ukrainians knew and didn't know, who directed it and when? The impeachment hearings aren't a showcase of completely known information, it's to continue gathering evidence for the Senate to decide whether to remove from office if impeachment is approved in the House. The fact that Trump and his White House are not cooperating with the impeachment hearing is evidence that they have something to hide.
I am pretty sure I have responded multiple times regarding Biden's bragging of removing a prosecutor. The stance of the United States International Diplomacy was that the prosecutor was not doing enough to fight corruption in Ukraine. Multiple GOP Senators joined Biden in calling for the prosecutor to be removed. If you would like me to go back and find the articles I'm happy to do so.
Trump does not get to decide whether to hold up money that was approved by Congress to go to military aid. He also does not get to have his personal lawyer / part of his campaign running international relations in lieu of the actual State Department.
I am pretty sure I have responded multiple times regarding Biden's bragging of removing a prosecutor. The stance of the United States International Diplomacy was that the prosecutor was not doing enough to fight corruption in Ukraine. Multiple GOP Senators joined Biden in calling for the prosecutor to be removed. If you would like me to go back and find the articles I'm happy to do so.
Quote:
From all of the closed door testimony that has been released so far everyone discussed their opinion and if they agreed with Trump's policy or not. I don't care about their opinions because the President of the United States sets terms of foreign policy. If they didn't agree with it they should of quit. Trump was elected because of how he said that he would run foreign policy and try to implement domestically, and it is his right as an elected official. It is the job of all of these people to implement his policy, not their own. If they don't like it they should quit.
Trump does not get to decide whether to hold up money that was approved by Congress to go to military aid. He also does not get to have his personal lawyer / part of his campaign running international relations in lieu of the actual State Department.
I am all for getting to the bottom of what actually happened, so lets pull the person who filed the complaint in to testify. That will get us there. I don't understand how a couple of guys giving their opinion of how they think foreign policy should go because its their job to do what Trump wants to do, not what they want to, gets you there. If they want to run foreign policy they they should run for the president because that's what the president gets to decide. If they don't want to follow what he sets out then they need to quit, and if they stay in place and undermine him then they should be removed from their position and charged appropriately.statefan91 said:
Isn't that sort of the point of the hearings, is to get to the bottom of why and when the hold was announced, what the Ukrainians knew and didn't know, who directed it and when? The impeachment hearings aren't a showcase of completely known information, it's to continue gathering evidence for the Senate to decide whether to remove from office if impeachment is approved in the House. The fact that Trump and his White House are not cooperating with the impeachment hearing is evidence that they have something to hide.
I am pretty sure I have responded multiple times regarding Biden's bragging of removing a prosecutor. The stance of the United States International Diplomacy was that the prosecutor was not doing enough to fight corruption in Ukraine. Multiple GOP Senators joined Biden in calling for the prosecutor to be removed. If you would like me to go back and find the articles I'm happy to do so.Quote:
From all of the closed door testimony that has been released so far everyone discussed their opinion and if they agreed with Trump's policy or not. I don't care about their opinions because the President of the United States sets terms of foreign policy. If they didn't agree with it they should of quit. Trump was elected because of how he said that he would run foreign policy and try to implement domestically, and it is his right as an elected official. It is the job of all of these people to implement his policy, not their own. If they don't like it they should quit.
Trump does not get to decide whether to hold up money that was approved by Congress to go to military aid. He also does not get to have his personal lawyer / part of his campaign running international relations in lieu of the actual State Department.
It boils down to this. Somebody only known to Adam Schiff and his lawyer said that he heard from someone else that Trump threatened to withhold foreign aide to Ukraine unless Joe Biden is investigated. Trump released the transcript of the call that shows that didn't happen. The president of Ukraine came forward and said that he didn't know anything about the money being held up, wasn't asked to do anything as a condition of receiving aide, and didn't feel any type of pressure to do anything. All of this is indisputable fact, and you can go back and look it up for yourself.
Trump doesn't have to cooperate with anything if he doesn't want to, as is his right. Saying that if he doesn't have anything to hide then he should just do whatever he is asked is a joke as well. Its kinda like an officer that is known for being dishonest and planting evidence shows up at your house with no reason and demands that you let him in and let him go through everything that you have in the house. Your gonna laugh at the officer and call your lawyer. You wouldn't do that.
What difference does multiple GOP Senators calling for something have to do for anything? Your trying to justify it being ok for Biden doing something that you want Trump impeached for. You can't have it both ways. For the record i don't think that Biden did anything illegal, and i don't think that Trump did either.
Trump can have whoever he wants helping him implement his policy, and he doesn't have to use the State department. That's his right as President. He could call me or you do do it if he wanted to. He gets to manage foreign policy however he wants. A bunch of un-elected bureaucrats in some department don't get a final say on things, the elected president of the US gets to do that. Just to give you an example FDR did this during WWII with Harry Hopkins in negotiating with Churchill. Hopkins wasn't part of the state department and was actually moved into the White House for a while. The State department was completely left out of that. Harry Truman also used Hopkins as well.
Honestly I haven't kept up with any of this. I stopped following the news/ politics over a year ago. I just know that the democrats have been trying to impeach Trump or put something on him since the day the election results came in. So this is 3 years coming. You knew once they gained majority in house this was going to happen. Everyone should've known this was the only real objective they've had all along. So.... what has congress accomplished lately?
I guess a year from now all this will be sorted out in the election.
I guess a year from now all this will be sorted out in the election.
The House has accomplished a lot; its the Senate that has refused to show up for work.ncsualum05 said:
Honestly I haven't kept up with any of this. I stopped following the news/ politics over a year ago. I just know that the democrats have been trying to impeach Trump or put something on him since the day the election results came in. So this is 3 years coming. You knew once they gained majority in house this was going to happen. Everyone should've known this was the only real objective they've had all along. So.... what has congress accomplished lately?
I guess a year from now all this will be sorted out in the election.
Ground_Chuck said:The House has accomplished a lot; its the Senate that has refused to show up for work.ncsualum05 said:
Honestly I haven't kept up with any of this. I stopped following the news/ politics over a year ago. I just know that the democrats have been trying to impeach Trump or put something on him since the day the election results came in. So this is 3 years coming. You knew once they gained majority in house this was going to happen. Everyone should've known this was the only real objective they've had all along. So.... what has congress accomplished lately?
I guess a year from now all this will be sorted out in the election.
The house hasn't accomplished a thing except...and I'm ok with that. The less government the better
Agreed - there are a lot of important things they're working on that the Senate has no interest in. Mainly things that actually improve the lives of people like anti-discrimination, making voting day a Federal holiday, renewing VAWA, etc.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/nov/14/what-congress-doing-besides-impeachment/
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/nov/14/what-congress-doing-besides-impeachment/
Day 2 of TV today: former US Ambassador Yovanovitch.
Y'all means ALL.
I dont think that voting day should be a federal holiday. We have several weeks of early voting before the actual day and you can find a day to go vote any time in there. I have never actually gone and voted on election day.statefan91 said:
Agreed - there are a lot of important things they're working on that the Senate has no interest in. Mainly things that actually improve the lives of people like anti-discrimination, making voting day a Federal holiday, renewing VAWA, etc.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/nov/14/what-congress-doing-besides-impeachment/
That's good that your personal experience doesn't lend to needing a national voting holiday. As for me, I think making voting as accessible as possible for people to legally vote makes the most sense to get a true representation of the populace.
Why do they need to legally vote when one side has told everyone that will listen that ID shouldn't be required? Asking for a friend.
I'll compromise with you here. Give me a voter ID law and cut your voting back to a single day and i'll support a federal holiday on voting.statefan91 said:
That's good that your personal experience doesn't lend to needing a national voting holiday. As for me, I think making voting as accessible as possible for people to legally vote makes the most sense to get a true representation of the populace.
Seems fair to me
Sounds good - as long as Voter ID accepts student ID cards, military ID cards, state issued ID cards, and there is a free program for anyone that wants an ID card that doesn't have one. Otherwise it's a poll tax.
Having one day as a Federal Holiday for voting doesn't make sense, unless you would like to disenfranchise our Police, Fire, EMS, Nurses, Doctors, Surgeons, etc. from being able to vote because they don't have that day off. Unless you're suggesting that we suspend all those services for that day?
Having one day as a Federal Holiday for voting doesn't make sense, unless you would like to disenfranchise our Police, Fire, EMS, Nurses, Doctors, Surgeons, etc. from being able to vote because they don't have that day off. Unless you're suggesting that we suspend all those services for that day?
Everyone should be able to get a ID as long as they go get one. North Carolina actually offered that as part of the voter ID law, but it seems actually asking someone to get an ID was racist for some reason.statefan91 said:
Sounds good - as long as Voter ID accepts student ID cards, military ID cards, state issued ID cards, and there is a free program for anyone that wants an ID card that doesn't have one. Otherwise it's a poll tax.
Having one day as a Federal Holiday for voting doesn't make sense, unless you would like to disenfranchise our Police, Fire, EMS, Nurses, Doctors, Surgeons, etc. from being able to vote because they don't have that day off. Unless you're suggesting that we suspend all those services for that day?
Your argument about having a holday for voting is exactly my point in not needing a holiday for voting. If people actually want to vote then they will take time on any day of the 2 to 2.5 weeks before the actual date to vote. Why do we need a holiday too?
Three people so far in public hearings. So far I've gathered from the three that "he said, she said", "someome told me this or that", "in my opinion something is wrong but I have no proof", "I felt uncomfortable", etc. Even today, the ambassador said she had zero knowledge of anything illegal. I guess quid pro quo got axed after the focus group meetings for the word bribery. This whole thing by the Democrats just keeps getting more and more dumb, but hey, Mueller didn't do it for them so why not try this. My prediction is come March, they will begin impeachment again of Trump because he didn't comb his crazy hair the right way before a public appearance.
RunsWithWolves26 said:
Three people so far in public hearings. So far I've gathered from the three that "he said, she said", "someome told me this or that", "in my opinion something is wrong but I have no proof", "I felt uncomfortable", etc. Even today, the ambassador said she had zero knowledge of anything illegal. I guess quid pro quo got axed after the focus group meetings for the word bribery. This whole thing by the Democrats just keeps getting more and more dumb, but hey, Mueller didn't do it for them so why not try this. My prediction is come March, they will begin impeachment again of Trump because he didn't comb his crazy hair the right way before a public appearance.
I agree it hasn't been much, or more than we suspected already. But damn, those GOP fools are trying to drag these lifelong public servants through the mud with some batsh*t conspiracies. The woman today had been a servant for 33 years across many administrations. I wish we could treat them with a modicum of respect.
Y'all means ALL.
PackBacker07 said:RunsWithWolves26 said:
Three people so far in public hearings. So far I've gathered from the three that "he said, she said", "someome told me this or that", "in my opinion something is wrong but I have no proof", "I felt uncomfortable", etc. Even today, the ambassador said she had zero knowledge of anything illegal. I guess quid pro quo got axed after the focus group meetings for the word bribery. This whole thing by the Democrats just keeps getting more and more dumb, but hey, Mueller didn't do it for them so why not try this. My prediction is come March, they will begin impeachment again of Trump because he didn't comb his crazy hair the right way before a public appearance.
I agree it hasn't been much, or more than we suspected already. But damn, those GOP fools are trying to drag these lifelong public servants through the mud with some batsh*t conspiracies. The woman today had been a servant for 33 years across many administrations. I wish we could treat them with a modicum of respect.
1000% agree!
Can someone please tell me when they are actually going to have someone in these hearings with actual breaking news or a smoking gun statement? Also, can someone tell me when Schiff will go through an entire hearing without interrupting the other side with his eyes wider then UFO's?
Well, Ms. Williams and Lt. Col. Vendman have finished up. Nothing new that I heard from either. Still waiting for Schiff to admit he knows who the whistleblower is but he keeps denying he knows when he does know. Onto round 2 for the day which will probably be as interesting as paint drying. Oh well, thanks Congres, right and left, for continuing to do your own stuff instead of the work of the people.
RunsWithWolves26 said:
Well, Ms. Williams and Lt. Col. Vendman have finished up. Nothing new that I heard from either. Still waiting for Schiff to admit he knows who the whistleblower is but he keeps denying he knows when he does know. Onto round 2 for the day which will probably be as interesting as paint drying. Oh well, thanks Congres, right and left, for continuing to do your own stuff instead of the work of the people.
A lot of people support these hearings.
Just because you don't think these are important or interesting doesn't mean that Congress isn't doing the work of the people.
cowboypack02 said:Everyone should be able to get a ID as long as they go get one. North Carolina actually offered that as part of the voter ID law, but it seems actually asking someone to get an ID was racist for some reason.statefan91 said:
Sounds good - as long as Voter ID accepts student ID cards, military ID cards, state issued ID cards, and there is a free program for anyone that wants an ID card that doesn't have one. Otherwise it's a poll tax.
Having one day as a Federal Holiday for voting doesn't make sense, unless you would like to disenfranchise our Police, Fire, EMS, Nurses, Doctors, Surgeons, etc. from being able to vote because they don't have that day off. Unless you're suggesting that we suspend all those services for that day?
Your argument about having a holday for voting is exactly my point in not needing a holiday for voting. If people actually want to vote then they will take time on any day of the 2 to 2.5 weeks before the actual date to vote. Why do we need a holiday too?
Why should we not have a holiday to vote?
Not everyone can take a day off.
GoPack2008 said:cowboypack02 said:Everyone should be able to get a ID as long as they go get one. North Carolina actually offered that as part of the voter ID law, but it seems actually asking someone to get an ID was racist for some reason.statefan91 said:
Sounds good - as long as Voter ID accepts student ID cards, military ID cards, state issued ID cards, and there is a free program for anyone that wants an ID card that doesn't have one. Otherwise it's a poll tax.
Having one day as a Federal Holiday for voting doesn't make sense, unless you would like to disenfranchise our Police, Fire, EMS, Nurses, Doctors, Surgeons, etc. from being able to vote because they don't have that day off. Unless you're suggesting that we suspend all those services for that day?
Your argument about having a holday for voting is exactly my point in not needing a holiday for voting. If people actually want to vote then they will take time on any day of the 2 to 2.5 weeks before the actual date to vote. Why do we need a holiday too?
Why should we not have a holiday to vote?
Not everyone can take a day off.
Your telling me that in the weeks of early voting people can't find a single day off?
cowboypack02 said:GoPack2008 said:cowboypack02 said:Everyone should be able to get a ID as long as they go get one. North Carolina actually offered that as part of the voter ID law, but it seems actually asking someone to get an ID was racist for some reason.statefan91 said:
Sounds good - as long as Voter ID accepts student ID cards, military ID cards, state issued ID cards, and there is a free program for anyone that wants an ID card that doesn't have one. Otherwise it's a poll tax.
Having one day as a Federal Holiday for voting doesn't make sense, unless you would like to disenfranchise our Police, Fire, EMS, Nurses, Doctors, Surgeons, etc. from being able to vote because they don't have that day off. Unless you're suggesting that we suspend all those services for that day?
Your argument about having a holday for voting is exactly my point in not needing a holiday for voting. If people actually want to vote then they will take time on any day of the 2 to 2.5 weeks before the actual date to vote. Why do we need a holiday too?
Why should we not have a holiday to vote?
Not everyone can take a day off.
Your telling me that in the weeks of early voting people can't find a single day off?
Sure, for some people.
I don't see why there ought to be any objection to an Election Day holiday. What's the actual argument against it? "It's not necessary" isn't an argument against.
It would help more people vote. It'd make life easier for a lot of people. What's the downside?
GoPack2008 said:RunsWithWolves26 said:
Well, Ms. Williams and Lt. Col. Vendman have finished up. Nothing new that I heard from either. Still waiting for Schiff to admit he knows who the whistleblower is but he keeps denying he knows when he does know. Onto round 2 for the day which will probably be as interesting as paint drying. Oh well, thanks Congres, right and left, for continuing to do your own stuff instead of the work of the people.
A lot of people support these hearings.
Just because you don't think these are important or interesting doesn't mean that Congress isn't doing the work of the people.
USMCA, military raises, aid to Ukraine, etc. All things sitting there because they are "doing the work of the people."
Featured Stories
See All
IPS IN 5: Dontrez Styles Is An Ideal Fit For NC State's System
by James Henderson
TRANSFER PORTAL SPOTLIGHT: Mike James
by Jake McSwain
12:25
13h ago
678
DUGOUT REPORT: Pack Takes Series Opener Versus Carolina
by Daniel Wilson
Butterworth Walks Wolfpack Off Against Homer-Happy Heels
by Daniel Wilson
COMMIT ALERT: Georgetown Transfer Dontrez Styles Picks NC State
by James Henderson
sharpman1017
COMMIT ALERT: Georgetown Transfer Dontrez Styles Picks NC State
in Reynolds Concourse
10