The Impeachment Thread

[evillawyer]

Remember when Sasse briefly toyed with the idea of being the sane and sober Republican with a functioning moral compass? Good times those were.

 

[Vol Main]

No confirmation of collusion to help President Trump.

You are confusing two issues. If you cannot keep straight two separate conclusions of the Mueller report, then please do not respond to me with such painful imbecilities.

 

[Vol Main]

Would not surprise me if he did it either, but, it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. Censureship maybe, but not impeachment. If roles were reversed and this was a Democrat, no way would you believe it rises to impeachment. Hell, you don't believe perjury reaches impeachment level, no way this does.

Perjury in a blow job trial does not approach the important effects of withholding military aid for a desperate country at war with invading Russian forces. That deal was so crooked that not even AG Barr would get involved. John Bolton would not get involved. He called it a "drug deal" and directed his subordinates to report it to the lawyer. Multiple former prosecutors said Trump misused Congressionally mandated aid as a bribe to get Ukraine to make an announcement for the purpose of helping his political campaign. Trump's own ambassador testified that the deal was a quid pro quo. That means bribery.

 

[Vol Main]

I’m beginning to wonder if Vlad has more honesty than our intelligence agencies.

Then you're beginning to wonder if you are a traitor.

 

[Vol Main]

Sounds eerily similar to what I've been saying. But he doesn't ask the question as to whether it rises to the level of impeachment. It doesn't, by the way.

Your opinion goes against the written records of our founding fathers and contemporaries who have made our Constitution their life's study. I think you are just being lazily and dishonestly partisan.

 

[Coug]

Is it too late to get Schiff into the primaries? That boy good.

It's true. That is one well spoken, compelling man. If Schiff doesn't make you stop, pay attention, and think about what he said in the senate... well then you're just a hopeless, mindless Trump supporter.

 

[Vol Main]

Yes - has the prosecution made the case. If not the defendant is acquitted. Some may acquit because they don't believe the charge; others may acquit because they do not believe the charge merits conviction. It's pretty simple.

Republicans will acquit because that is what they are told to do.

 

[Vol Main]

Apparently because polls showed Biden ahead of Trump ... if Biden was a candidate. Dim or MSM sponsored pools would likely have showed a local pedophile ahead of Trump if he were running against Trump. So apparently it all goes back to polls and fantasies that Biden was Trump's rival.

It was not a fantasy then, and it is not a fantasy now. Biden v. Trump poll numbers are the reason Trump is so obviously obsessed with attacking Biden's character with a coerced announcement of a phony investigation by Ukraine's President.

 

[Vol Main]

Trump once said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters. He was talking about people posting in this thread. You are a cult, drinking the Kool Aid.

 

[37L1]

Trump once said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters. He was talking about people posting in this thread. You are a cult, drinking the Kool Aid.

Laughable, but not surprising coming from the bastion of objectivity that you are.

 

[Coug]

Laughable, but not surprising coming from the bastion of objectivity that you are.

Oh, you thought he was joking. That's unfortunately the sad part, he's not joking.

Never you mind though, just sit back, relax and have another glass...

 

[37L1]

Sure Coug.

You just drink another flavor of Kool Aid and a lot more of it.
I never thought he was joking but I do think he's not objective in the slightest nor are you.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Ho hum. Just more jury tampering.

Ho hum just more state run media.

 

[luthervol]

You literally just admitted it’s all politics, you dolt.

I bet you can’t wipe without getting **** on your fingers.

That's not political, that is life.
One person has a history of decency and "goodness" and commits a questionable offense.
Another person has a history of repulsiveness, amorality, and "badness" and commits the same questionable offense.
They will not be dealt with the same.....nor should they be.
You know that truth as a parent or a boss or just a sentient being.

 

[luthervol]

You do realize that’s a double edged sword with TWO very sharp edges right? There are millions of people on the right that think of the liberal candidates running for POTUS the same as you think of Trump . Sooner or later the House will go back to the GOP . That’s why impeaching for political gain is just cheapening the impact and process .

Of course I know that.
That's why another thing I have said sense day one is "critical mass".
We have failed to reach it with Trump - amazingly. We have hovered right at the edge.
There will always be some that hate a dem president, the difference is whether it's 8% or 58%
There will always be some that hate any rep. president, the difference is whether it's 8% or 58%.

 

[luthervol]

Nope. The law isn't based on your feels, Luther. And you don't want it based on the feels of others. What happens when the right decides your candidate is "the most despicable person ever"? Everyone has opinions. Would you want someone you supported subjected to the same type of "justice"? We both know the real answer no matter what you say. You're unable to put aside your opinion and see facts. You believe your opinions are facts. That's just dangerous, and once again, delusional.

Many on your side decided just that with Clinton.
Many on your side decided just that with Obama.
Many on your side pre-determined just that about Hillary.
Many on your side will decide that no matter who the next dem president is.
It's all about how many.....critical mass......and that is exactly the way it has to be, and should be.

 

[Vol Main]

Sure Coug.

You just drink another flavor of Kool Aid and a lot more of it.
I never thought he was joking but I do think he's not objective in the slightest nor are you.

Trump was talking about you, cult member 37L1.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Your opinion goes against the written records of our founding fathers and contemporaries who have made our Constitution their life's study. I think you are just being lazily and dishonestly partisan.

Appeals to authority is a logical fallacy, and a lazy form of argumentation. Ironic.

 

[luthervol]

The term "bribery" makes congressional critters very, very nervous; I don't think you'll see them leveling that charge on much of anyone these days.

That's why they put it under the umbrella of "abuse of power", which is what I said in the beginning. They knew what they were doing. Everyone acknowledges that bribery is an abuse of power, abuse of power is just terminology that is more palatable.

 

[volfanjustin]

Libs/"libertarians" where's your outrage? This is way bigger than any damn phone call

 

[BigOrangeD]

I know how much everyone on here loves Styx. So enjoy:
Yes, the Impeachment Is a Clear Attempt to Nullify the 2016 Election


Styxhexenhammer666

 

[evillawyer]

As Schiff closed with last night, you goin' with Rudy Toons or Christopher Wray?

 

[MontyPython]

Remember back in the day when Rudy Giuliani was universally loved by nearly everyone?

The guy who stood strong during 9/11 and gave us all hope and faith when things were sad and bleak.

My how times have changed. Sad.

He's an empty husk of a human now. Pathetic, really. And corrupt to the core.

WELCOME TO THE AGE OF TRUMPISM.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[volfanjustin]

View attachment 256183

Remember back in the day when Rudy Giuliani was universally loved by nearly everyone?

The guy who stood strong during 9/11 and gave us all hope and faith when things were sad and bleak.

My how times have changed. Sad.

He's an empty husk of a human now. Pathetic, really. And corrupt to the core.

WELCOME TO THE AGE OF TRUMPISM.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I'm sure you have commented on this story and I just missed it, please repeat so I can know how outraged you are on this

 

[Septic]

Appeals to authority is a logical fallacy, and a lazy form of argumentation. Ironic.

Like you, I'm big on calling out logical fallacies when they fit. I'll admit however that this one always struck me as being hairy because occasionally some subject matter may warrant 'expert' commentary.

If his appeal is to the 'records' of the authors of the Constitution and others that have special competence in that area, is it really an appeal to authority? Indulge me for a sec..

Generally the ad verecundiam fallacy that gave birth to the ''appeal' is involved when people with no expertise parade about as being experts or during time of controversy and authorities are divided - it would be a logical error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them. Obviously, the authors of the Constitution are not pretend experts, they wrote it. Many of them went on to author books and letters describing the process as well as their thoughts. A grayer area certainly but the "contemporaries" (experts) whose "life study" to the Constitution is thrown into question; shouldn't there be a litmus test to see if there division within the "experts" findings or appreciable areas of disagreement that conflicts with the Constitution or its authors records?

Of note:

Two of the ad arguments have developed beyond how Locke originally conceived them. His characterization of the ad verecundiam is considered the locus classicus of appeal-to-authority arguments. When it is a fallacy it is either on the ground that authorities (experts) are fallible or for the reason that appealing to authority is an abandonment of an individual’s epistemic responsibility. It seems unlikely, however, that Locke thought we should never rely on the expertise and superior knowledge of others when engaged in knowledge-gathering and argumentation.

This leads us to consider what kind of authority Locke might have had in mind. In addition to epistemic and legal (command) authority there is also what might be called social authority, demanding respect and deference from others due to one’s higher social standing, something much more a part of seventeenth-century society than it is a part of ours. The language that Locke used in connection with the ad verecundiam, words like ‘eminency’, ‘dignity’, ‘breach of modesty’, and ‘having too much pride’ suggests that what he had in mind was the kind of authority that demands respect for the social standing of sources rather than for their expertise; hence, by this kind of authority a person could be led to accept a conclusion because of their modesty or shame, more so than for the value of the argument (see Goodwin 1998, Hansen 2006). Hence, we understand Locke better when we translate ad verecundiam literally, as “appeal to modesty.” Fallacies (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)