The Impeachment Thread

#31,801
#31,801
BowlBrother85 said:
No, it's not... because you can't so for certain, that it would in fact, help the Democrats. The fact is, we don't know how the testimony of the witnesses she wants to see called - Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton - would go. It might help the Democrats, or it might not.
Click to expand...
You and luther are indirectly making the same argument for Nancy that Trump supporters made for him. Amazing what you guys find as acceptable behavior when the shoe's on the other foot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#31,803
#31,803
luthervol said:
It sounds much more on the up and up than McConnell publicly stating that Trump will never be found guilty in the Senate, that he is not impartial in any way, and that they would not even have a trial.

It's wrong to knowingly run another car off the road, but if that other car is fleeing the police and has a couple of kidnapped children in the back seat, it suddenly becomes not such a bad thing.

A small wrong to prevent a much bigger wrong is really not wrong at all.
Click to expand...
Luther, could you please stop speaking out of your ass and address the actual argument rather than trying to deflect?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 37L1
#31,804
#31,804
luthervol said:
It sounds much more on the up and up than McConnell publicly stating that Trump will never be found guilty in the Senate, that he is not impartial in any way, and that they would not even have a trial.

It's wrong to knowingly run another car off the road, but if that other car is fleeing the police and has a couple of kidnapped children in the back seat, it suddenly becomes not such a bad thing.

A small wrong to prevent a much bigger wrong is really not wrong at all.
Click to expand...

Yet you don’t see the impartiality in the party line vote for impeachment in the house. Lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#31,805
#31,805
Weezer said:
You and luther are indirectly making the same argument for Nancy that Trump supporters made for him. Amazing what you guys find as acceptable behavior when the shoe's on the other foot.
Click to expand...
Again, you are wrong. The only defense I see from Trump supporters is that he didn't do what he has been accused of doing. I don't see any Republicans in Congress arguing that it is acceptable for the President of the United States to withhold Congressionally authorized military aid to a foreign government, against that foreign government's willingness to do a favor for our Presiden'ts re-election campaign. Based on text messages between the acting Ambassador to the Ukraine, William Taylor, and Kurt Volker... that is what Taylor believed was happening. Ditto, for Gordon Sondland.
 
#31,806
#31,806
BowlBrother85 said:
Again, you are wrong. The only defense I see from Trump supporters is that he didn't do what he has been accused of doing. I don't see any Republicans in Congress arguing that it is acceptable for the President of the United States to withhold Congressionally authorized military aid to a foreign government, against that foreign government's willingness to do a favor for our Presiden'ts re-election campaign. Based on text messages between the acting Ambassador to the Ukraine, William Taylor, and Kurt Volker... that is what Taylor believed was happening. Ditto, for Gordon Sondland.
Click to expand...

lol there it is again. WGAF what they “believed”? Without concrete evidence it doesn’t mean anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#31,807
#31,807
C-south said:
lol there it is again. WGAF what they “believed”? Without concrete evidence it doesn’t mean anything.
Click to expand...
It means a lot. Are juries instructed that the evidence they review has to be "concrete" ? No. You will never see that word anywhere in a judge's jury instructions in the United States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#31,808
#31,808
C-south said:
Because a politician making 200k a year and worth over 100 mil is looking out for America.
Click to expand...
It's sort of ridiculous that one of the most powerful women in the country makes $200k while a 22 year old ball player makes $15m and a 9 year old youtuber makes $26m. Her lifetime resume is deserving of far greater than most who have more.
 
#31,810
#31,810
C-south said:
Yet you don’t see the impartiality in the party line vote for impeachment in the house. Lol.
Click to expand...
I thought republicans should have backed the impeachment. If you have a president who can shoot someone in Times Square and his followers will still worship him, the concept of bi-partisanship is by definition impossible.
 
#31,811
#31,811
BowlBrother85 said:
It means a lot. Are juries instructed that the evidence they review has to be "concrete" ? No. You will never see that word anywhere in a judge's jury instructions in the United States.
Click to expand...

What? If you don’t have concrete evidence you can’t prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt which means you’re not guilty. Determining innocence or guilt on anything but actual evidence would be your judging solely based on your feelings. Ahhhh that explains it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#31,814
#31,814
luthervol said:
Man-child? You sort of threw away any credibility with that one.
Even you would have to acknowledge that we've never come close to seeing a more childish person hold the office.

Trump's horrendous despicability has and will continue to overshadow anything which he might have otherwise received credit.
Click to expand...

More childish in his tweeting habits and never letting a slight get past him, yes. On everything else - the execution of the presidency and putting this country first - it's not close; Obama was a child. It's as though he never left his Marxist, college clique.

If you consider his "horrendous despicability", however the hell you calculate that, to be so significant to null what he's accomplished as president, you're an idiot. I'll extend benefit of a doubt, assume you're not, but that you just went apoplectic for a moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and NurseGoodVol
#31,815
#31,815
luthervol said:
I thought republicans should have backed the impeachment. If you have a president who can shoot someone in Times Square and his followers will still worship him, the concept of bi-partisanship is by definition impossible.
Click to expand...

I thought dims shouldn’t have backed impeachment. Who did the president shoot in time square?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Rickyvol77
#31,816
#31,816
Weezer said:
Luther, could you please stop speaking out of your ass and address the actual argument rather than trying to deflect?
Click to expand...
What argument am I not addressing?
I think what Pelosi is doing is fine. She's attempting to increase the probability of a legitimate trial.
The fact that the Senate is giving all indications that there will be no semblance of a legitimate trial is what should be concerning to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel
#31,819
#31,819
luthervol said:
No deflection there. Were you not able to understand the post?
She has earned the 100m. And in doing so has done far more than the ball player or youtuber.
Click to expand...

So she’s 500 years old? And you’re still deflecting. Your weak comparisons have nothing to do with anything being said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#31,821
#31,821
NCFisher said:
More childish in his tweeting habits and never letting a slight get past him, yes. On everything else - the execution of the presidency and putting this country first - it's not close; Obama was a child. It's as though he never left his Marxist, college clique.

If you consider his "horrendous despicability", however the hell you calculate that, to be so significant to null what he's accomplished as president, you're an idiot. I'll extend benefit of a doubt, assume you're not, but that you just went apoplectic for a moment.
Click to expand...
I think I said overshadow, not null. Only an idiot would confuse the two, so assuming you're not, you're response was disingenuous.
 
#31,822
#31,822
C-south said:
What? If you don’t have concrete evidence you can’t prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt which means you’re not guilty. Determining innocence or guilt on anything but actual evidence would be your judging solely based on your feelings. Ahhhh that explains it.
Click to expand...
No, you are putting words in my mouth... basically, things that I never said. Juries are instructed that it is acceptable to make reasonable inferences in arriving at a verdict. Defendants are often convicted on what would be described as "circumstantial" evidence. Nothing says the evidence must be "concrete" or from a firsthand account.
 
#31,823
#31,823
BowlBrother85 said:
No, you are putting words in my mouth... basically, things that I never said. Juries are instructed that it is acceptable to make reasonable inferences in arriving at a verdict. Defendants are often convicted on what would be best described as "circumstantial" evidence.
Click to expand...


I wouldn’t call dna or being an eye witness circumstantial but then again I’m not a dim. I’ve seen plenty walk when the only evidence is feelings and hearsay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top