SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50246324
"The US House of Representatives has passed a resolution to formally proceed with the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.
The measure details how the inquiry will move into a more public phase. It was not a vote on whether the president should be removed from office.
This was the first test of support in the Democratic-controlled House for the impeachment process.
The White House condemned the vote, which passed along party lines.
Only two Democrats - representing districts that Mr Trump won handily in 2016 - voted against the resolution, along with all Republicans, for a total count of 232 in favour and 196 against."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Trump Impeachment: House Votes to Formalise Inquiry
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 319 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Is that really YOU that is reading this?
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday November 01 2019, @11:24PM (4 children)
When/if the investigation is complete and the articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate, I will evaluate the merits of the case then. The investigation is still ongoing and we have only the parts of the evidence that were leaked from closed door sessions and what the White House has said publicly. It's quite possible that new evidence may be revealed that conflicts with what we have seen so far, favorable and unfavorable.
I just hate the term "whataboutism". It's all too often used to deflect criticisms of hypocrisy or analogous situations that are relevant to the discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @11:22PM
Except you're already crying about the impeachment inquiry and crying foul. Try again.
Hint: pay attention to Trump's lies and the publicly available evidence of his crimes. If you don't already understand he needs to go then I doubt you ever will, and "When/if the investigation is complete and the articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate, I will evaluate the merits of the case then" just seems like a way to escape admitting that you are defending a criminal POtuS.
What will you do if the investigation is damning but McConnell decides to sink the whole thing? Do you declare victory even with obviously corrupt bullshit going on? Do you have any shred of dignity and decency as an American? Or would you rather create a conservative dictatorship just so you can "win"?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday November 04 2019, @08:23PM (2 children)
Bill Clinton and Glass-Stegall has NOTHING to do with Trump and Ukraine. NOTHING.
It's whataboutism.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday November 04 2019, @11:31PM (1 child)
The way to deal with off topic lines of conversation is to state that they are off topic and move on. So, calling out "whataboutism" isn't necessary and makes available a tool to dismiss valid parallel lines of inquiry.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday November 05 2019, @11:07PM
Yes. I am intentionally attempting to dismiss it as not relevant to the subject at hand. It is more than off topic to me for it reads as an attempt to distract focus away from the very real problems at hand concerning the impeachment by introducing an irrelevancy to the topic at hand. And done so in a thread that is already swollen with commentary.
That does not mean your point is not valid or should not be raised in another forum at another point in time. But until it is relevant it is trying to name the sins of the Democrats instead of the conduct of the Presidency. Thus you are asking, "well, what about this thing here?" I thus still fail to see how this is not a textbook definition of whataboutism and thus my criticism and dismissal is more than valid, it is apporpriate.
This sig for rent.