The Impeachment Thread

You're absolutely correct. I haven't listened. Have no desire to do so. Im actually not defending Graham here. Im also not impugning LBJ or JFK.

I'm making an observation of the sliding scale of morality depending on the party affiliation of the person.

No consistency. No REAL dialogue. No attempt to consider the position of others. Meaningless point scoring and "winning" is what we're about now on both sides.

Rant over. I'll go back to stfu-ing and gtfo.
That is definitely what we see in politics all the time. Both parties are guilty of it.
 
And for two decades, Obama absorbed and thought highly enough of Jeremiah Wright's weekly anti-American, antisemitic, racist spew to raise his daughters in the good reverend's doctrine. Then publicly dumped him while explaining the optics to him.

Dude, that's not even a tie...
This is probably the best point you have made. Yes, Obama's embrace of Rev. Wright was very troubling and it took him a long time to finally denounce him... too long, in fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
It’s the existence of lawyers that is to blame.
There's no law saying they can't exist; if you think they shouldn't, take it to the courts and try to change the law.
I'm starting to see the simplistic beauty of your belief system.
 

Trump knows that he totally has it backwards... the reason that Pelosi hasn't sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate yet (but she definitely will in January) is because she and Chuck Schumer DO WANT WITNESSES TO BE CALLED IN THE SENATE TRIAL. It is Mitch McConnell who just wants to have opening and closing arguments and then move to acquit. Trump's tweet is very disingenuous.
 
There's no law saying they can't exist; if you think they shouldn't, take it to the courts and try to change the law.
I'm starting to see the simplistic beauty of your belief system.

Who writes and has written the vast majority of our laws?
What profession has dominated congress for the last several decades?
 
Trump knows that he totally has it backwards... the reason that Pelosi hasn't sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate yet (but she definitely will in January) is because she and Chuck Schumer DO WANT WITNESSES TO BE CALLED IN THE SENATE TRIAL. It is Mitch McConnell who just wants to have opening and closing arguments and then move to acquit. Trump's tweet is very disingenuous.

Chuck and Nancy can want in one hand and spit in the other, neither has any say in the matter.
 
Well, no again; that's in "the deeply flawed man" phrase and I made it clear I care much less about Trump's shortcomings than the leftists, and treacherous people in gov/media who had plenty of VALID criticisms of Trump to work with, but went full Stazi instead.

It was a dumb dig, I'd prefer he not make such comments, I think they're beneath him and the office. Other than that, I don't care; he's frying more important fish. I specifically compared his narcissism to Obama, now you want me to compare their "mean-spiritedness", too; to what end? Is this a point system and is there a curve?

"You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I think that's beneath a president and the office, a nasty generalization about half the country he perceives as not voting for him, and whom he can't begin to know. Happy?
That's the quote you pick?
Other than the fact that it's pretty spot on, that would be the most articulate and least insulting thing Trump had ever said.
 
Who writes and has written the vast majority of our laws?
What profession has dominated congress for the last several decades?
What exactly is your point?
Do you want a law limiting the number of lawyers?
My point was your philosophy of life is exactly why we have so many laws and lawyers.
"If it ain't illegal, it ain't wrong". "Don't like it? Take it to court."
 
What has been does not set what will be.
We can change it. Change the dialogue. Change the approach. Change the motivation. We can. I don't think we want to, though.
Change. Yes we can.
And I liked the sliding scale of morality comment.
Of course, Trump obliterates the concepts of both.
 
Advertisement

Back
Top