Considering Graham was a Southern Baptist minister:
Nice try weaseling out of your ignorance, but you said:
If he's neutral, in his role as presider he can coerce the Senate into calling witnesses and otherwise observing the formalities of a fair trial. With even minimal backing from a few Rep Senators, he can establish a secret ballot.
It probably did. The stats say it did (70,000 + missing Presidential votes in Michigan, almost all of them from gerrymandered Dem districts, never even investigated, for example).
Nothing secret or underhanded about it - not since 1980, near forty years ago.
All it takes to beat reconciliation is a few Republican Senators with the principles they claim instead of the toadying and cowardice they display.
No, even in the judiciary, the judge has no power to coerce what witnesses are called. Your ignorance is astounding. And establishing a secret ballot would likewise have no input from Roberts. I know he's your last best hope, but you dream that he can do all kinds of things he actually can't. It's like Roberts is the star of the Marvel movie in your head. And thinking Republicans will follow Pelosi's lead of breaking precedent is equally unlikely.
"It probably did" is a non-argument. Dems simply didn't turn out because Hillary was a crap sandwich. And all you have are baseless, leftist conspiracy theories.
Not until Reid, 2008, was budget reconciliation used to pass a non-budgetary bill, and without a sunset provision.
So they are following their President's precedent-setting example?
You put economic growth and low unemployment down to Trump do you? Okay. Whatever you need to tell yourself.
No. Perhaps you should do some fact checking. Turn off Fox News for a minute and go look.
A matter of opinion. And that's just one built-in deficiency in the system. The winner-takes-all policy that some states have is another problem, just to mention one more. Of course, if these things work in favour of your preferred party, it can obviously be convenient to say everything's just fine, or ignore the problems altogether, or deny that there is any problem at all.
Are you sure?
Google is your friend. The date on this article, with sculptor's cited figures, is 2012: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24732952.html
Unless or until you can show otherwise, the reality is strikingly clear.
I don't watch Fox News, so bad assumption on your part. I watch/read a very wide variety of sources, including the NYT, WP, and CNN.
Not a deficiency and it doesn't favor one party. If Democrats were not amassed in relatively few large cities, they wouldn't be whining about it. States have a good amount of autonomy, and decide their own election policies. Compare the size of states to EU countries and then tell me they shouldn't have that much autonomy.
Yep, Trump beat Hillary in battleground states
meh
It's actually not my fault that sculptor wasn't clear about what he was talking about. You see the question mark at the end of my response to him? That means I'm inviting him to explain and elaborate.
I'm not really interested in taking the time and effort to do that here, in what is very likely to be an unsuccessful attempt to broaden your horizons. I'm on a different continent, an interested observer watching from a distance. There are other people on sciforums who have a more immediate stake in this kind of argument, who might want to take you up on your challenge.
Would it really be worth my time researching and enumerating a catalogue of Trump's well-documented lies for your benefit? I think not. If you're in such a bubble that you're unaware, that's your loss not mine. From where I stand, it's hard to tell how America will go about repairing itself. It seems to me like half of you are unaware there's any problem.
Again, I really don't have that much interest in digging up the data for you. Sorry.
"Good" and "bad" in this respect seems to be defined largely by your political leaning, and mine too, no doubt. To go deeper, we'd have to look at inputs and outcomes. Once again, I apologise for lacking the will to spend the time on it that would be required to make a strong case for my view. Maybe somebody else will want to.
We could talk about voter suppression, but let's not.
Yeah, as Laurie pointed out, many evangelicals are defending Trump and Billy Graham himself reportedly voted for Trump: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-impeachment-of-president-trump.162501/page-7#post-3611472
No, you simply presumed (a leading question is still a presumption) because it affirmed your bias. I didn't presume, so I Googled it.
Don't know, but:
Nice cop-out. You were all opinionated just a moment ago. What happened?
I didn't mention a catalog, I said "even a single point"...making it easy on you. Cop-out strike two.
And as expected, cop-out strike three.
Really? Four cop-outs? Why did you even bother to engage at all? Not as clever as you thought you were being?
We could, but if this post is any indication, you have no interest in EVER supporting your opinions. Just drive-by sound bites from your leftist bubble.
Nothing. I'm still all opinionated.
I'm a snowflake and you've crushed me.
Yep, and I'm not the least bit worried about it. Historical precedent is in my favor. Last time I predicted Hillary would not win because no Democrat had ever followed another into office (other than an ascending VP) since the inception of the Republican party. Republicans have done so. And the historical trend is for the incumbent to win, as long as the economy is good (and it's better than good), and he didn't already follow another Republican.Nothing. I'm still all opinionated.
It might help to appreciate that I don't have a horse in this race. I don't get to vote for your President. The outcome of the next vote is on you, not me - just like the last time.
Can Trump even spell the word "Unprecedented"?
Why are foreigners so hung up on US politics? I realize that as goes the US so goes the world, but the way you guys pick one side, as if you live here. Leftist simpatico of collectivists, I guess.
