as a progressive D, I always thought that Clinton was closer to the R's than they liked to admit... and I didn't really get the personal animosity.
Unless it all related back to class. This upstart from rural Arkansas, who had the audacity to get himself edumucated and was trying to break into the marble halls???
I'm skeptical of the hatred of Clinton pertaining to class. Isn't Clinton's life story pretty bootstrappy?
I don't think it was class. The evangelicals in particular thought Clinton was a moral cesspool that would bring down the nation. I was ten or eleven at the time and everyone at the church we attended HATED Clinton and these were not well off or even solidly middle class people. They were mostly military actually. And OMG, the vitriol. I was never clear on where it started. But my first political awareness was of how utterly despised Clinton was.
I'm only on page 1 but how can anyone believe healthcare is a privilege and not a right (the government doesn't owe us healthcare)
How can you look another human being on the eye and say, well, you got cancer, but you happen to work in a job without health care benefits, so sucks to be you?
I think a lot of people truly believe that the person should have planned better for a higher-paying job with more benefits. As in, it was their choices prior to the cancer diagnosis that were problematic, not our system.
There is starting to be more awareness in the mainstream media about lack of potential to move up the income ladder in today's America, but it did used to be "better" here (i.e., once upon a time more people who started in the lowest quintile were able to move up the ladder), and I think a lot of today's politicians have internalized the "land of opportunity" idea that is becoming more and more mythical.
I'm only on page 1 but how can anyone believe healthcare is a privilege and not a right (the government doesn't owe us healthcare)
How can you look another human being on the eye and say, well, you got cancer, but you happen to work in a job without health care benefits, so sucks to be you?
I think a lot of people truly believe that the person should have planned better for a higher-paying job with more benefits. As in, it was their choices prior to the cancer diagnosis that were problematic, not our system.
There is starting to be more awareness in the mainstream media about lack of potential to move up the income ladder in today's America, but it did used to be "better" here (i.e., once upon a time more people who started in the lowest quintile were able to move up the ladder), and I think a lot of today's politicians have internalized the "land of opportunity" idea that is becoming more and more mythical.
I wonder if some of it stems from people having a "suck to be you" moment, and then deciding that since they had it/one, than everyone should (or at least shouldn't be helped from one). I also think that despite the "land of opportunity" becoming more mythical, it is almost becoming harder to "prove" that it is. Bootstrap stories infiltrate the media so much and then studies are often ignored (or "disproved" by anecdotal evidence).
See, I thought it was a distraction so when Roberts came in, everyone would ve all "ok, phew, yeah he's better."
No, I think you are misremembering. That is not at all what happened.
Roberts was already on the bench. And he wasn't even controversial. I mean, there was the collective, "fuck, Bush gets to appoint someone" collective outrage that you've hot yo do to keep up appearances, but for the most part, people tolerated him.
Liberals didn't give two shits about Miers. She wasn't qualified, but all indicators suggested she'd be very moderate, if not actually a vote for the left. She was withdrawn not just because she had questionable qualifications, but because her background indicated she supported Roe.
After Miers withdrew, conservatives blew kisses at Alito and liberals went insane. As well they should have. He was really, really far right to the point of absurdity. His opinion in on the third circuit which effectively held that married women lose some rights upon marriage should have disqualified him alone. But now we have him. And he's definitely farther to the right of Roberts and Scalia.
After Miers withdrew, conservatives blew kisses at Alito and liberals went insane. As well they should have. He was really, really far right to the point of absurdity. His opinion in on the third circuit which effectively held that married women lose some rights upon marriage should have disqualified him alone. But now we have him. And he's definitely farther to the right of Roberts and Scalia.
What?! Was this back in 1860 before he time traveled to the present?
See, I thought it was a distraction so when Roberts came in, everyone would ve all "ok, phew, yeah he's better."
No, I think you are misremembering. That is not at all what happened.
Roberts was already on the bench. And he wasn't even controversial. I mean, there was the collective, "fuck, Bush gets to appoint someone" collective outrage that you've hot yo do to keep up appearances, but for the most part, people tolerated him.
Liberals didn't give two shits about Miers. She wasn't qualified, but all indicators suggested she'd be very moderate, if not actually a vote for the left. She was withdrawn not just because she had questionable qualifications, but because her background indicated she supported Roe.
After Miers withdrew, conservatives blew kisses at Alito and liberals went insane. As well they should have. He was really, really far right to the point of absurdity. His opinion in on the third circuit which effectively held that married women lose some rights upon marriage should have disqualified him alone. But now we have him. And he's definitely farther to the right of Roberts and Scalia.
ah. Thanks. I was think it was Alito already on the bench. Got it.
I'm glad she didn't say it in class. I just can't believe she thought that a lie in a trumped up private lawsuit about sex should remove a sitting President. of any party.
Your viewpoint is marvelously inconsistent.
You are horrified that a teacher would teach her students that some feel that applying the rules matter only if they benefit your side.
But you are equally horrified that anyone, you know, expected the president to follow the law regarding perjury.
Which is it?
On second thought, maybe your viewpoint is perfectly consistent: everything about politics horrifies you.
I think a president should follow all the laws. I don't think that a lie about his personal sex life rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Not at all. And as much as I hated George W. Bush and his policies I would have said the same about him. Impeachment is a very powerful tool that should be used nearly never. It is for abuse of the office of the Presidency.
You are horrified that a teacher would teach her students that some feel that applying the rules matter only if they benefit your side.
But you are equally horrified that anyone, you know, expected the president to follow the law regarding perjury.
Which is it?
On second thought, maybe your viewpoint is perfectly consistent: everything about politics horrifies you.
I think a president should follow all the laws. I don't think that a lie about his personal sex life rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Not at all. And as much as I hated George W. Bush and his policies I would have said the same about him. Impeachment is a very powerful tool that should be used nearly never. It is for abuse of the office of the Presidency.
I think you missed my point.
For what it's worth, I don't think a lie about his personal life rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors either. But the lie was under oath, so it did.
Personally, I don't think what he did was an impeachable offense, but it really doesn't matter how I feel personally. Legally, it was. And quite honestly, following the letter of the law, he was guilty of perjury before Congress and probably should have been found guilty. I'm glad he wasn't.
I don't think the poster's teacher was wrong to teach them about the political motives behind the impeachment - and why they were counter productive, because the motives WERE political. You cannot simply teach history and ignore the partisan political motivations that spur events on. I think that would be a very poor education, indeed.
I think a president should follow all the laws. I don't think that a lie about his personal sex life rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Not at all. And as much as I hated George W. Bush and his policies I would have said the same about him. Impeachment is a very powerful tool that should be used nearly never. It is for abuse of the office of the Presidency.
I think you missed my point.
For what it's worth, I don't think a lie about his personal life rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors either. But the lie was under oath, so it did.
Personally, I don't think what he did was an impeachable offense, but it really doesn't matter how I feel personally. Legally, it was. And quite honestly, following the letter of the law, he was guilty of perjury before Congress and probably should have been found guilty. I'm glad he wasn't.
I don't think the poster's teacher was wrong to teach them about the political motives behind the impeachment - and why they were counter productive, because the motives WERE political. You cannot simply teach history and ignore the partisan political motivations that spur events on. I think that would be a very poor education, indeed.
And you are missing my point. Just because it happened doesn't mean that is was legal. Yes. He committed perjury about a very personal matter. That is not a high crime or misdemeanor. It should have been taught as a political act and an extreme overreach of Congressional power and not at all what the founders invisioned as a proper impeachment - proper/ legal whatever you want to call it.
For what it's worth, I don't think a lie about his personal life rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors either. But the lie was under oath, so it did.
Personally, I don't think what he did was an impeachable offense, but it really doesn't matter how I feel personally. Legally, it was. And quite honestly, following the letter of the law, he was guilty of perjury before Congress and probably should have been found guilty. I'm glad he wasn't.
I don't think the poster's teacher was wrong to teach them about the political motives behind the impeachment - and why they were counter productive, because the motives WERE political. You cannot simply teach history and ignore the partisan political motivations that spur events on. I think that would be a very poor education, indeed.
And you are missing my point. Just because it happened doesn't mean that is was legal. Yes. He committed perjury about a very personal matter. That is not a high crime or misdemeanor. It should have been taught as a political act and an extreme overreach of Congressional power and not at all what the founders invisioned as a proper impeachment - proper/ legal whatever you want to call it.
You're right, I'm still missing your point. "just because it happened doesn't mean that is was legal". Can you rephrase that because I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I agree the impeachment was a political act, but don't understand your statement that perjury is not a high crime or misdemeanor. Actually, it was a felony, punishable by a jail term up to five years. Clinton's law license was suspended because of it.
I don't think think Clinton should have been impeached, but once he was, I'm not sure how he wasn't judged guilty, because he definitely perjured himself. The vote fell almost 100% along partisan lines.
I'm still not sure why you objected to the teacher discussing the political motivations of an impeachment that you concede was wholly political in nature. I would think you'd approve.
And you are missing my point. Just because it happened doesn't mean that is was legal. Yes. He committed perjury about a very personal matter. That is not a high crime or misdemeanor. It should have been taught as a political act and an extreme overreach of Congressional power and not at all what the founders invisioned as a proper impeachment - proper/ legal whatever you want to call it.
You're right, I'm still missing your point. "just because it happened doesn't mean that is was legal". Can you rephrase that because I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I agree the impeachment was a political act, but don't understand your statement that perjury is not a high crime or misdemeanor. Actually, it was a felony, punishable by a jail term up to five years. Clinton's law license was suspended because of it.
I don't think think Clinton should have been impeached, but once he was, I'm not sure how he wasn't judged guilty, because he definitely perjured himself. The vote fell almost 100% along partisan lines.
I'm still not sure why you objected to the teacher discussing the political motivations of an impeachment that you concede was wholly political in nature. I would think you'd approve.
Perjury especially about the matter that was lied about (a personal matter not related to a Presidential act ) should not be considered a high crime or misdemeanor that can lead to the removal of a President. That is clearly where we differ here. The fact that the teacher said it was a political act and THEN said she thought it was a - ok that a President was impeached because of it is reprehensible to me. Again - I don't think ANY President of any party should ever be removed from the highest office of the land after being properly elected by the American people because the opposing party hated him and found a legally minor crime related to a personal law suit that they then used the rarest of all checks and balances to impeach.
You're right, I'm still missing your point. "just because it happened doesn't mean that is was legal". Can you rephrase that because I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I agree the impeachment was a political act, but don't understand your statement that perjury is not a high crime or misdemeanor. Actually, it was a felony, punishable by a jail term up to five years. Clinton's law license was suspended because of it.
I don't think think Clinton should have been impeached, but once he was, I'm not sure how he wasn't judged guilty, because he definitely perjured himself. The vote fell almost 100% along partisan lines.
I'm still not sure why you objected to the teacher discussing the political motivations of an impeachment that you concede was wholly political in nature. I would think you'd approve.
Perjury especially about the matter that was lied about (a personal matter not related to a Presidential act ) should not be considered a high crime or misdemeanor that can lead to the removal of a President. That is clearly where we differ here. The fact that the teacher said it was a political act and THEN said she thought it was a - ok that a President was impeached because of it is reprehensible to me. Again - I don't think ANY President of any party should ever be removed from the highest office of the land after being properly elected by the American people because the opposing party hated him and found a legally minor crime related to a personal law suit that they then used the rarest of all checks and balances to impeach.
I don't disagree that what he lied about was stupid. Here's the thing, though. Lying under oath, perjury, is a felony. For me, for you, for the president.
If you can try and look at it without your rose colored, Clinton issued glasses (which I admit to having, too), the fact of the matter is, he lied when he KNEW he shouldn't have. It was perjury. It was illegal. We don't get to say "well, it was a stupid lie so it doesn't count." It counted, ESPECIALLY given who was asking the questions.
Perjury *should* be a high crime and misdemeanor because lying undermines the very backbone of our judicial system. You can't lie. You just can't.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Perjury especially about the matter that was lied about (a personal matter not related to a Presidential act ) should not be considered a high crime or misdemeanor that can lead to the removal of a President. That is clearly where we differ here. The fact that the teacher said it was a political act and THEN said she thought it was a - ok that a President was impeached because of it is reprehensible to me. Again - I don't think ANY President of any party should ever be removed from the highest office of the land after being properly elected by the American people because the opposing party hated him and found a legally minor crime related to a personal law suit that they then used the rarest of all checks and balances to impeach.
I don't disagree that what he lied about was stupid. Here's the thing, though. Lying under oath, perjury, is a felony. For me, for you, for the president.
If you can try and look at it without your rose colored, Clinton issued glasses (which I admit to having, too), the fact of the matter is, he lied when he KNEW he shouldn't have. It was perjury. It was illegal. We don't get to say "well, it was a stupid lie so it doesn't count." It counted, ESPECIALLY given who was asking the questions.
Perjury *should* be a high crime and misdemeanor because lying undermines the very backbone of our judicial system. You can't lie. You just can't.
I've already said that I would absolutely not support perjury (about a blow job) as an impeachable offense for any President. If you think it is does that mean he should have also been removed from office? I mean if it is that serious in your eyes then the Senate should have voted for removal. Right?
I don't disagree that what he lied about was stupid. Here's the thing, though. Lying under oath, perjury, is a felony. For me, for you, for the president.
If you can try and look at it without your rose colored, Clinton issued glasses (which I admit to having, too), the fact of the matter is, he lied when he KNEW he shouldn't have. It was perjury. It was illegal. We don't get to say "well, it was a stupid lie so it doesn't count." It counted, ESPECIALLY given who was asking the questions.
Perjury *should* be a high crime and misdemeanor because lying undermines the very backbone of our judicial system. You can't lie. You just can't.
I've already said that I would absolutely not support perjury (about a blow job) as an impeachable offense for any President. If you think it is does that mean he should have also been removed from office? I mean if it is that serious in your eyes then the Senate should have voted for removal. Right?
So lying under oath is ok? As long as it isn't about something you deem as important?
Given the set of facts given, yes, he should have been removed. None of it shouldn't have happened in the first place, though. Clinton also should have told the fucking truth. It was just a blow job, right? Not a big deal, so why lie?
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
I've already said that I would absolutely not support perjury (about a blow job) as an impeachable offense for any President. If you think it is does that mean he should have also been removed from office? I mean if it is that serious in your eyes then the Senate should have voted for removal. Right?
So lying under oath is ok? As long as it isn't about something you deem as important?
Given the set of facts given, yes, he should have been removed. None of it shouldn't have happened in the first place, though. Clinton also should have told the fucking truth. It was just a blow job, right? Not a big deal, so why lie?
This is where I am. Perjury is perjury. Just because the reason was because of X wouldn't fly anywhere. Clinton should have told the truth. He was a damn lawyer. He knows perjury is perjury.
The constitution does not make an impeachable offense "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors AND PERJURY." If that was the case then "perjury is perjury" and kick him out. But since perjury is NOT included in the list of impeachable offenses you have to decide if Clinton's act of perjury fits into the constitutional directive and when you do this you have to look at the facts of why he perjured himself and what for. It's not simply a matter of "perjury is perjury."
I don't believe Clinton should have been tried, but once you obstruct justice and lie to a grand jury, well, yeah. High crimes is where Congress gets to decide what is an impeachable offense (Ford-paraphrase). He lied over a blow job. Not over taking bribes. There was a federal judge just removed in the past 2-3 years over perjury.
I've already said that I would absolutely not support perjury (about a blow job) as an impeachable offense for any President. If you think it is does that mean he should have also been removed from office? I mean if it is that serious in your eyes then the Senate should have voted for removal. Right?
So lying under oath is ok? As long as it isn't about something you deem as important?
Given the set of facts given, yes, he should have been removed. None of it shouldn't have happened in the first place, though. Clinton also should have told the fucking truth. It was just a blow job, right? Not a big deal, so why lie?
Nope - absolutely not. It is not ok. I was furious with Clinton when it happened. Furious that he put himself in that situation knowing that the Republicans and Ken Starr were looking for anything to hang him with. He rightly believed that it would be between he and Lewinsky. If she hadn't told Linda Tripp it would never have come out. But - I do not think it is an impeachable offense- not for him or any President. Lying about other matters under oath - depending on the situation I could possibly get behind an impeachment - but it would depend. So, we will have to agree to disagree.
So lying under oath is ok? As long as it isn't about something you deem as important?
Given the set of facts given, yes, he should have been removed. None of it shouldn't have happened in the first place, though. Clinton also should have told the fucking truth. It was just a blow job, right? Not a big deal, so why lie?
Nope - absolutely not. It is not ok. I was furious with Clinton when it happened. Furious that he put himself in that situation knowing that the Republicans and Ken Starr were looking for anything to hang him with. He rightly believed that it would be between he and Lewinsky. If she hadn't told Linda Tripp it would never have come out. But - I do not think it is an impeachable offense- not for him or any President. Lying about other matters under oath - depending on the situation I could possibly get behind an impeachment - but it would depend. So, we will have to agree to disagree.
But why is it impeachable for judges, but not the President? I feel that is teetering on 'above the law' type of talk. Maybe I am missing something.
Nope - absolutely not. It is not ok. I was furious with Clinton when it happened. Furious that he put himself in that situation knowing that the Republicans and Ken Starr were looking for anything to hang him with. He rightly believed that it would be between he and Lewinsky. If she hadn't told Linda Tripp it would never have come out. But - I do not think it is an impeachable offense- not for him or any President. Lying about other matters under oath - depending on the situation I could possibly get behind an impeachment - but it would depend. So, we will have to agree to disagree.
But why is it impeachable for judges, but not the President? I feel that is teetering on 'above the law' type of talk. Maybe I am missing something.
Because a lie isn't just a lie when it's about something that some people think is stupid. Apparently there is some sort of spectrum on the severity of lies. I've never seen it in codified in any statute, but I could be missing something.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
I don't believe Clinton should have been tried, but once you obstruct justice and lie to a grand jury, well, yeah. High crimes is where Congress gets to decide what is an impeachable offense (Ford-paraphrase). He lied over a blow job. Not over taking bribes. There was a federal judge just removed in the past 2-3 years over perjury.
But why is it impeachable for judges, but not the President? I feel that is teetering on 'above the law' type of talk. Maybe I am missing something.
Because a lie isn't just a lie when it's about something that some people think is stupid. Apparently there is some sort of spectrum on the severity of lies. I've never seen it in codified in any statute, but I could be missing something.
The only law that matters here is the US Constitution which details when a president can be impeached. Perjury is not specifically named on that list.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Because a lie isn't just a lie when it's about something that some people think is stupid. Apparently there is some sort of spectrum on the severity of lies. I've never seen it in codified in any statute, but I could be missing something.
The only law that matters here is the US Constitution which details when a president can be impeached. Perjury is not specifically named on that list.
Lots of things aren't specifically named. That doesn't mean a president can't be impeached for them. I'm pretty sure a president accused and convicted of murder will be impeached and removed, but I don't see "murder" in the constitution with regard to impeachable offenses.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
The only law that matters here is the US Constitution which details when a president can be impeached. Perjury is not specifically named on that list.
Lots of things aren't specifically named. That doesn't mean a president can't be impeached for them. I'm pretty sure a president accused and convicted of murder will be impeached and removed, but I don't see "murder" in the constitution with regard to impeachable offenses.
Lots of things aren't specifically named. That doesn't mean a president can't be impeached for them. I'm pretty sure a president accused and convicted of murder will be impeached and removed, but I don't see "murder" in the constitution with regard to impeachable offenses.
Huh?
"The constitution does not make an impeachable offense "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors AND PERJURY." Nor does it say "Treason, Briberby, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors AND MURDER."
....and yet if a president murders someone I expect he'd be impeached and removed.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
"The constitution does not make an impeachable offense "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors AND PERJURY." Nor does it say "Treason, Briberby, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors AND MURDER."
....and yet if a president murders someone I expect he'd be impeached and removed.
Because a lie isn't just a lie when it's about something that some people think is stupid. Apparently there is some sort of spectrum on the severity of lies. I've never seen it in codified in any statute, but I could be missing something.
The only law that matters here is the US Constitution which details when a president can be impeached. Perjury is not specifically named on that list.
Congress defines, though, what constitutes a high crime of misdemeanor. So, that would allow for perjury to be part of it. Alcee L. Hastings, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, August 3, 1988, on charges of perjury and conspiring to solicit a bribe; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, October 20, 1989.
Walter L. Nixon, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 10, 1989, on charges of perjury before a federal grand jury; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, November 3, 1989.
"The constitution does not make an impeachable offense "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors AND PERJURY." Nor does it say "Treason, Briberby, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors AND MURDER."
....and yet if a president murders someone I expect he'd be impeached and removed.
Yes. That would be a "high crime."
and from what tef just posted, it looks like Congress has classified perjury as a "high crime" before.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley