Impeachment pending?

[Langue_doc]

Louis Gohmert just cited Wikipedia his source to argue the Democrats were doing it incorrectly.

His English Comp professor should have insisted on his attending the "Introduction to the Library" class so that he could learn how to check for reliability (the CRAAP test). Epic fail.

Back to the regular program.

[Hegemony]

I'm opposed to any pejorative nicknames, but in this country I seem to be a minority of one.

(The ensuing discussion will then assert that pejorative nicknames are all right if you really have contempt for the person, which is justified because the person is contemptible for reasons X and Y. But the people on our side are not contemptible, therefore the opposition's pejorative nicknames are offensive, while ours are wholly justified. I still disagree, but as I say, I am a minority of one.)

[marshwiggle]

I'm opposed to any pejorative nicknames, but in this country I seem to be a minority of one.

(The ensuing discussion will then assert that pejorative nicknames are all right if you really have contempt for the person, which is justified because the person is contemptible for reasons X and Y. But the people on our side are not contemptible, therefore the opposition's pejorative nicknames are offensive, while ours are wholly justified. I still disagree, but as I say, I am a minority of one.)

Not quite. I'm totally in favour of applying that rule. Among other things, it focusses on peoples' statements and actions rather than inferences about their character, intelligence, etc.

[Cheerful]

I'm opposed to any pejorative nicknames, but in this country I seem to be a minority of one.

(The ensuing discussion will then assert that pejorative nicknames are all right if you really have contempt for the person, which is justified because the person is contemptible for reasons X and Y. But the people on our side are not contemptible, therefore the opposition's pejorative nicknames are offensive, while ours are wholly justified. I still disagree, but as I say, I am a minority of one.)

+1
On this issue, hoping you and I are among the quiet majority.

[jimbogumbo]

Louis Gohmert just cited Wikipedia his source to argue the Democrats were doing it incorrectly.

His English Comp professor should have insisted on his attending the "Introduction to the Library" class so that he could learn how to check for reliability (the CRAAP test). Epic fail.

Back to the regular program.

Mine would tell me to proofread better. Left out an "as".

Gohmert has a JD from Baylor!!

[Langue_doc]

I'm opposed to any pejorative nicknames, but in this country I seem to be a minority of one.

(The ensuing discussion will then assert that pejorative nicknames are all right if you really have contempt for the person, which is justified because the person is contemptible for reasons X and Y. But the people on our side are not contemptible, therefore the opposition's pejorative nicknames are offensive, while ours are wholly justified. I still disagree, but as I say, I am a minority of one.)

+1
On this issue, hoping you and I are among the quiet majority.

+1.
I cringe whenever I see the name "Karen" used in the media as an adjective. The latest instance is "Soho Karen". While the behavior of this individual is reprehensible, the behavior can be described without invoking a proper noun shared by many.

[apl68]

I'm opposed to any pejorative nicknames, but in this country I seem to be a minority of one.

(The ensuing discussion will then assert that pejorative nicknames are all right if you really have contempt for the person, which is justified because the person is contemptible for reasons X and Y. But the people on our side are not contemptible, therefore the opposition's pejorative nicknames are offensive, while ours are wholly justified. I still disagree, but as I say, I am a minority of one.)

+1
On this issue, hoping you and I are among the quiet majority.

+1.
I cringe whenever I see the name "Karen" used in the media as an adjective. The latest instance is "Soho Karen". While the behavior of this individual is reprehensible, the behavior can be described without invoking a proper noun shared by many.

Especially when you personally knew a Karen who was a victim of a hate crime, not a perpetrator of one.  It still makes me seethe whenever I see that use of "Karen."

[writingprof]

Several high ranking Republicans planning to vote for impeachment of considering it, including Liz Cheney and Moscow Mitch.

I believe he prefers Cocaine Mitch.  Get it right.

Do these count as immature ridiculing of someone's name/nicknaming?

Some people do  derisive nicknames with real flair. Others just sound like thirteen year old boys.
The right way: Cheetos Jesus
The wrong way: Pocahontas

You're incorrect.  Trump rightly understood that puns (e.g., "Faux-cahontas") are beyond the intellectual reach of most Americans.  He went with Pocahontas, plain and simple, and Elizabeth Warren is not going to be president.  And don't you dare tell me that I'm committing the post-hoc fallacy.  The Pocahontas thing killed her career.

Especially when you personally knew a Karen who was a victim of a hate crime, not a perpetrator of one.  It still makes me seethe whenever I see that use of "Karen."

Oh, for frack's sake.  Your Karen is being a total Karen if she thinks being a victim awards her special privileges. 

[mahagonny]

Several high ranking Republicans planning to vote for impeachment of considering it, including Liz Cheney and Moscow Mitch.

I believe he prefers Cocaine Mitch.  Get it right.

Do these count as immature ridiculing of someone's name/nicknaming?

Some people do  derisive nicknames with real flair. Others just sound like thirteen year old boys.
The right way: Cheetos Jesus
The wrong way: Pocahontas

You're incorrect.  Trump rightly understood that puns (e.g., "Faux-cahontas") are beyond the intellectual reach of most Americans.  He went with Pocahontas, plain and simple, and Elizabeth Warren is not going to be president.  And don't you dare tell me that I'm committing the post-hoc fallacy.  The Pocahontas thing killed her career.

I was never sure whether he got puns, either. But it could be he is actually very smart in certain ways, while not having a sense of humor as we know it. So maybe your crediting him for 'flair' is spot on. 'There is absolutely no art in the man' - John McWhorter
'He's crazy like a fox.' - Glenn Loury
'He's not very smart and he's massively ignorant.' - P. J. O'Rourke
Don't ask me!
Good example of a guy who fatally overestimated people's intelligence was Jimmy Carter.

[Parasaurolophus]

He's been impeached.

[spork]

Louis Gohmert just cited Wikipedia his source to argue the Democrats were doing it incorrectly.

His English Comp professor should have insisted on his attending the "Introduction to the Library" class so that he could learn how to check for reliability (the CRAAP test). Epic fail.

Back to the regular program.

Mine would tell me to proofread better. Left out an "as".

Gohmert has a JD from Baylor!!

Hawley's JD is from Yale and he clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. You can find craven ambition, duplicity, and idiocy pretty much anywhere.

[apl68]

Especially when you personally knew a Karen who was a victim of a hate crime, not a perpetrator of one.  It still makes me seethe whenever I see that use of "Karen."

Oh, for frack's sake.  Your Karen is being a total Karen if she thinks being a victim awards her special privileges.

Wrintingprof, I know you like to do your "outrageous" shtick and all, but you're talking about a friend and staff member of mine who was murdered in her own home by two youths who were targeting the only white household in their black neighborhood.  Her granddaughter saw her killed before her eyes, was herself shot, played dead to save her life, and made her way to a nearby police station to get help.  It's little short of a miracle she survived.  She still carries that bullet.

I don't appreciate your being flippant about this tragedy, any more than I appreciate the demeaning misuse of the name Karen.

[clean]

He's been impeached.

AGAIN

With 10 Republicans agreeing with the proposal.

However, I doubt that it will accomplish anything except to further embarrass the president and inflame his supporters.

I dont believe that there will be a conviction, and hence a prohibition against holding office again.

A censure would have likely gained much more support, not been as inflammatory, and lead, ultimately to the same (non) result.

In the end, I think that the rush to take this action (with only a 2 hour floor 'debate') is a mistake.  I understand that there was little time to DO the committee work, but I think that the rush to take this action sets a bad precedent and may be problematic in the future.

[mahagonny]

I'm opposed to any pejorative nicknames, but in this country I seem to be a minority of one.

(The ensuing discussion will then assert that pejorative nicknames are all right if you really have contempt for the person, which is justified because the person is contemptible for reasons X and Y. But the people on our side are not contemptible, therefore the opposition's pejorative nicknames are offensive, while ours are wholly justified. I still disagree, but as I say, I am a minority of one.)

+1
On this issue, hoping you and I are among the quiet majority.

+1.
I cringe whenever I see the name "Karen" used in the media as an adjective. The latest instance is "Soho Karen". While the behavior of this individual is reprehensible, the behavior can be described without invoking a proper noun shared by many.

Especially when you personally knew a Karen who was a victim of a hate crime, not a perpetrator of one.  It still makes me seethe whenever I see that use of "Karen."

The thought process that is being cultivated, apparently, is, while whiteness is a bad thing morally, some people are garden variety white, while a few are especially white.

[mamselle]

He's been impeached.

AGAIN

With 10 Republicans agreeing with the proposal.

However, I doubt that it will accomplish anything except to further embarrass the president and inflame his supporters.

I dont believe that there will be a conviction, and hence a prohibition against holding office again.

A censure would have likely gained much more support, not been as inflammatory, and lead, ultimately to the same (non) result.

In the end, I think that the rush to take this action (with only a 2 hour floor 'debate') is a mistake.  I understand that there was little time to DO the committee work, but I think that the rush to take this action sets a bad precedent and may be problematic in the future.

Maybe. But it would have been morally indefensible to do nothing, which is what seems to be happening with all the other options that could at least be started in the time given.

I do think sometimes it may be more important to do the thing itself, rather than be as concerned about the optics/nicey-dicey details/aesthetics of the options.

Not to say you might not be right overall, but as you note, the timing is a strongly limiting factor, and something had to be done to set a limit.

Pity Pence wouldn't just 25th him.

M.