The Impeachment Thread

#28,426
#28,426
volfanjustin said:
LOL, says the one who defends creepy Joe and his little crack head baby boy
Click to expand...

I've defended "creepy" joe? wtf.

Aside from frm the fact that being creepy isn't illegal like crack or a dui is, cite your source where I've defended him or sit down.

Seriously, have you ever, once, in this forum actually paid attention to what people actually say or do you just have this us vs them mentality where reality plays no part? Mostly you just blurt out partisan nonsense like donald trump jr with Tourettes while the rest of us chuckle and watch you wipe the drool from your chin.

I may be blunt (and ornery), but I don't make up strawman positions from my debate opponents to knock over.

I don't put people on ignore, but I've never seen you bring anything to the discussion that any other poster, from either side could possibly be proud of.
 
#28,427
#28,427
RockyTop85 said:
I have given this answer straight for the last three months and in multiple conversations with you.

Quid pro quo: fine.
Quid pro quo for personal benefit: not fine.

There is absolutely nothing difficult about that except it cannot penetrate the bubble created by your need to defend Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

How am I defending Trump if I’m asking about who sets policy ? I was trying to understand , I thought I had it down until you started your lefty political spin . I even asked you not to give options and perception. You did anyway .
 
#28,428
#28,428
0nelilreb said:
If the President sets policy then the advisors thinking differently means nothing correct ? I was under the impression that POTUS is responsible for setting policy .
Click to expand...
Sure, he can override their advice and secretly carry out his own policy using his un-elected and un-confirmed personal lawyer. But when it is done solely for his own benefit, it becomes obviously and flagrantly wrong.
 
#28,429
#28,429
luthervol said:
Sure, he can override their advice and secretly carry out his own policy using his un-elected and un-confirmed personal lawyer. But when it is done solely for his own benefit, it becomes obviously and flagrantly wrong.
Click to expand...

So I had it right . If the president sets the policy then strong arming is ok to get what is desired . I’ll add ( as long as it’s for the “ good of the country “ ) .
 
#28,431
#28,431
0nelilreb said:
So I had it right . If the president sets the policy then strong arming is ok to get what is desired . I’ll add ( as long as it’s for the “ good of the country “ ) .
Click to expand...
It's not illegal; I guess that means it's ok. (as long as it's for the "good of the country")
 
#28,432
#28,432
0nelilreb said:
How am I defending Trump if I’m asking about who sets policy ? I was trying to understand , I thought I had it down until you started your lefty political spin . I even asked you not to give options and perception. You did anyway .
Click to expand...

Ensuring that the full context is considered is not spin. I meant what I said exactly as I said it. You want a different answer? Ask a better question. (And stop pretending we haven’t had this exact conversation before. It’s disgraceful to you and insulting to me.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinsd
#28,433
#28,433
RockyTop85 said:
I read an article about this last night. The officer resigning seemed plausibly unrelated, based on what the article said.

There were some pseudo shady things that happened, but the results are explained by the officer resigning. In my experience, it’s pretty common that, when a police officer is identified as a bad apple and fired or resigns, their cases get dismissed. No witness, no proof.

I say this as someone who absolutely cannot stand Gaetz and sees him as one of the congressmen who wakes up every morning, paints his face, puts in a rainbow colored wig and oversized shoes and runs around complaining about how congress is a circus.
Click to expand...

Possibly - but I'm sceptical of all law enforcement - certainly the officer being fired/resigning for use of excessive force sounds better than fired for arresting the senators kid before the trial. I don't really like cops and through my bias I imagine just about any of them could be bounced for "use of excessive force" - if the right people determined it to be so.
 
#28,435
#28,435
Septic said:
I've defended "creepy" joe? wtf.

Aside from frm the fact that being creepy isn't illegal like crack or a dui is, cite your source where I've defended him or sit down.

Seriously, have you ever, once, in this forum actually paid attention to what people actually say or do you just have this us vs them mentality where reality plays no part? Mostly you just blurt out partisan nonsense like donald trump jr with Tourettes while the rest of us chuckle and watch you wipe the drool from your chin.

I may be blunt (and ornery), but I don't make up strawman positions from my debate opponents to knock over.

I don't put people on ignore, but I've never seen you bring anything to the discussion that any other poster, from either side could possibly be proud of.
Click to expand...
Oh no Mr. far left hack my feelings are so hurt

I would be ashamed and not doing what I should if I ever had you or any of your far left lib pals be proud of anything I have posted.

Very few people here take you all seriously, that's why half the time people just respond to you all with "LOL"
 
#28,436
#28,436
RockyTop85 said:
Ensuring that the full context is considered is not spin. I meant what I said exactly as I said it. You want a different answer? Ask a better question. (And stop pretending we haven’t had this exact conversation before. It’s disgraceful to you and insulting to me.)
Click to expand...

Ironically, it was Luther that gave the straight answer without the spin . You lawyers are a testy and wordy bunch .
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC and hog88
#28,437
#28,437
Septic said:
Possibly - but I'm sceptical of all law enforcement - certainly the officer being fired/resigning for use of excessive force sounds better than fired for arresting the senators kid before the trial. I don't really like cops and through my bias I imagine just about any of them could be bounced for "use of excessive force" - if the right people determined it to be so.
Click to expand...
Apparently the dude got his 4th excessive force complaint in six months or something. Gaetz is probably the reason he was on the road after 3 but got a public letter from the chief saying the public had lost confidence in him after the 4th. He resigned 4 days after the letter.
 
#28,438
#28,438
0nelilreb said:
Ironically, it was Luther that gave the straight answer without the spin . You lawyers are a testy and wordy bunch .
Click to expand...

The only difference between luther’s response and mine is that I called you morally and intellectually bankrupt for intentionally ignoring context.
 
#28,440
#28,440
37L1 said:
So my name and position got my son a very lucrative job with an Ukraine oil company where he could blow it all on coke and hookers, despite being unqualified. So what? We did nothing wrong.

iu
Click to expand...

See: President Bush Pt. 2: W Got Coke
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fun coupon VOL
#28,441
#28,441
luthervol said:
Sure, he can override their advice and secretly carry out his own policy using his un-elected and un-confirmed personal lawyer. But when it is done solely for his own benefit, it becomes obviously and flagrantly wrong.
Click to expand...
That's under contention. Does it benefit him? It could if Biden did wrong. But in that case, Biden did wrong. Does it benefit him if an investigation opens and nothing was found? No.

Is the assumption that it will benefit Trump an admission that Biden did some shady stuff using the power of his position? Why is it assumed it would benefit Trump?
 
#28,442
#28,442
Septic said:
That's a very good article on explaining why cognitive dissonance is so dangerous.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that they actually down played the email server as “small potatoes “ and didn’t mention the fact that she brought in professionals to bleach bit it and then takes hammers to her other devises so nothing could be pulled from them .
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
#28,443
#28,443
utvols88 said:
That's under contention. Does it benefit him? It could if Biden did wrong. But in that case, Biden did wrong. Does it benefit him if an investigation opens and nothing was found? No.

Is the assumption that it will benefit Trump an admission that Biden did some shady stuff using the power of his position? Why is it assumed it would benefit Trump?
Click to expand...

Lol.
 
#28,444
#28,444
RockyTop85 said:
The only difference between luther’s response and mine is that I called you morally and intellectually bankrupt for intentionally ignoring context.
Click to expand...

The difference was he answered honestly and without spin like I asked you to do , but you just couldn’t stop yourself from injecting the context you wanted in there . I didn’t ask for context counselor. We werent having a debate .
 
#28,445
#28,445
Does the president have the right to decline congressional subpoenas by taking the request to court? Heard a little about this last night, but I didn’t catch the entire conversation.
 
#28,447
#28,447
0nelilreb said:
Except for the fact that they actually down played the email server as “small potatoes “ and didn’t mention the fact that she brought in professionals to bleach bit it and then takes hammers to her other devises so nothing could be pulled from them .
Click to expand...
You do know there is nothing illegal about that don't you? It's actually DOJ policy. But guess what, Trump is being impeached and it's not for directing his Administration to use Whatsapp to conduct official business failing to archive those communications to a government server. In your puny mind, what Hillary did was worse. You suffer from the condition and gave a great example in your response.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top