Impeachment Thread

[BotanyBoy]

Anti-Trump does NOT mean anti-American.

Not necessarily.

But most of the anti-Trump folks are leftist and that does mean anti-American.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Anti-Trump does NOT mean anti-American."

BotanyBoy writes: "But most of the anti-Trump folks are leftist and that does mean anti-American."

Let's not kid ourselves - most of the anti-Trump Democrats ALSO despise the United States of America!

YDB95 writes: "In Peterson's case, it's because he represents the reddest district of any House Democrat. I have no idea why Van Drew, who represents a purple district, did it."

The bottom line is, NOT ONE Republican congressman voted to impeach, while TWO DEMOCRATS bolted their party! If that's a sign of what we can expect from the U.S. Senate then the Dems aren't going to come anywhere CLOSE to ending the Trump presidency, and his senate victory will be HUGE!

"But it's no excuse to condone what Trump did."

The point is: Trump's done nothing impeachable.

"Believe me, the left does NOT need any help being encouraged to get out and vote next year."

Whomever ends up winning the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential nomination is going to do considerably WORSE than Hillary did in 2016!

 

[phrodeau]

You mean the slave owner that lied about chopping down his father's prized cherry tree?

The cherry tree myth was that he didn’t lie, and was created after his death.

You’re on the internet. You can look these things up.

 

[gunthernehmen]

The cherry tree myth was that he didn’t lie, and was created after his death.

You’re on the internet. You can look these things up.

That whooshing sound is sarcasm going right over your head.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Believe me, the left does NOT need any help being encouraged to get out and vote next year.

Wanna bet?

 

[YDB95]

Wanna bet?

I'd be perfectly willing to.

Let's not kid ourselves - most of the anti-Trump Democrats ALSO despise the United States of America!

Even if that were remotely true, it contradicts your earlier claim as to why every Democrat you name checked was either Jewish or a woman of color.

YDB95 writes: "In Peterson's case, it's because he represents the reddest district of any House Democrat. I have no idea why Van Drew, who represents a purple district, did it."

The bottom line is, NOT ONE Republican congressman voted to impeach, while TWO DEMOCRATS bolted their party! If that's a sign of what we can expect from the U.S. Senate then the Dems aren't going to come anywhere CLOSE to ending the Trump presidency, and his senate victory will be HUGE!

Two out of 234 isn't huge, Dump. And the process is only getting started.

"But it's no excuse to condone what Trump did."

The point is: Trump's done nothing impeachable.

That's not your decision to make. It's the House's.

"Believe me, the left does NOT need any help being encouraged to get out and vote next year."

Whomever ends up winning the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential nomination is going to do considerably WORSE than Hillary did in 2016!

Undoubtedly true among people like you, yes.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Even if that were remotely true

It is.....can't be a freedom loathing leftist on a quest to end everyone's pursuit of happiness for the sake of equity and love the USA at the same time.

And you know it too.

 

[YDB95]

It is.....can't be a freedom loathing leftist on a quest to end everyone's pursuit of happiness for the sake of equity and love the USA at the same time.

And you know it too.

I have literally never met anyone who was "on a quest to end everyone's pursuit of happiness for the sake of equity". I'm sure it makes perfect sense in your worldview, though.

 

[Spandex_Girl]

The Trump administration confesses it has violated its own ethics pledge — multiple times



These motherfuckers ain't ethical!

Trump has brought unprecedented corporate greed to the Oval Office, and has violated his responsibility to serve the American public. Instead, he only acts to serve himself. He’s trying to run our country like a business and a dictatorship.

 

[JackLuis]

Trump has brought unprecedented corporate greed to the Oval Office, and has violated his responsibility to serve the American public. Instead, he only acts to serve himself. He’s trying to run our country like a business and a dictatorship.

You mean like Mussolini or Hitler? Yeah that ended well!

 

[DawnONight]

.
​

Here is an interesting poll done by Suffolk University for USA Today. Look at the results of question 32. It indicated only 36.2 percent of respondents favor impeachment; 59.3% of respondents do not consider impeachment appropriate at this time.

Also look at question 35:

The White House has released a transcript summary of a July 25th phone call in which President Trump encouraged the Ukrainian president to pursue investigations involving Democratic rival Joe Biden, and hacking allegations in the 2016 election. Which comes closest to your view? A) The phone conversation is an impeachable offense. B) The phone conversation was wrong but doesn't rise to an impeachable offense. C) There was nothing wrong with the phone conversation.​

Only 37.9% said the conversation is an impeachable offense; 51.6% said the conversation was not impeachable.

See B. York, New poll poses serious questions about Democrats' impeachment drive, Washington Examiner (Oct. 29, 2019).

 

[Ireadforpleasure]

And some of these stunts are illegal...like telling witnesses to ignore subpoenas and storming a closed door session of a Congressional Inquiry and shouting down their witness. People go to jail for shit like that.

Speaking of illegal stunts....

Trump is now trying to save his ass by bribing U.S. Senators with cash just ahead of the impeachment vote in the Senate. I guess since he was able to bribe the attorney general of Florida not to investigate his scam university, he thinks that he can bribe U.S. Senators not to impeach him.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-comm...-gop-senators-ahead-impeachment-trial-1468946

 

[BotanyBoy]

I have literally never met anyone who was "on a quest to end everyone's pursuit of happiness for the sake of equity". I'm sure it makes perfect sense in your worldview, though.

Never met a single Warren, Sanders or AOC supporter hua?

Wow....must be nice I run into them all the time.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You mean like Mussolini or Hitler? Yeah that ended well!

Hyperbole much?

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Even if that were remotely true, it contradicts your earlier claim as to why every Democrat you name checked was either Jewish or a woman of color."

Okay, YDB95 - if we're going to play THAT game - WHY is it that the U.S. president with whom you despise the most is ALSO the ONLY American president in our 240+ year history with JEWISH grandchildren? The Clintons & Obama's don't have Jewish grandchildren, and you seem to think that they're both great! Would you STILL like Hillary & Barack if that weren't the case?

"Two out of 234 isn't huge, Dump. And the process is only getting started."

It makes you wonder how many Democrats in the U.S. Senate will ALSO refuse to vote to remove Trump from office? We already know that Manchin is unlikely to participate, and possibly Jones, as well? Yes, two out of 47 isn't huge, but it means Trump is going to EASILY WIN vindication in the U.S. Senate.

"That's not your decision to make. It's the House's."

Followed by a lopsided pro-Trump vote in the U.S. Senate - our U.S. Constitution is NOT on the side of the Democratic Party, is it?

"Undoubtedly true among people like you, yes."

Serious question, YDB95 - WHICH Democratic Party presidential candidate can possibly do better than Mrs. Clinton did in 2016? President Obama called Hillary "the most qualified person to EVER seek the office of the presidency," himself included! WHO do you think can possibly do better than she did?

Spandex Girl writes: "He’s trying to run our country like a business and a dictatorship."

JackLuis responds: "You mean like Mussolini or Hitler? Yeah that ended well!"

Liberal, Trump-hating Democrats have NO IDEA who Mussolini & Hitler were, or how a dictatorship operates!

DawnONight writes: "Only 37.9% said the conversation is an impeachable offense; 51.6% said the conversation was not impeachable."

After their impeachment "trial" has concluded, the percentage saying "not impeachable" will surpass 75%, with only the Trump Derangement Crowd still insisting that this president needs to go.

 

[gunthernehmen]

It's going to be interesting, no matter how it plays out.

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "Even if that were remotely true, it contradicts your earlier claim as to why every Democrat you name checked was either Jewish or a woman of color."

Okay, YDB95 - if we're going to play THAT game - WHY is it that the U.S. president with whom you despise the most is ALSO the ONLY American president in our 240+ year history with JEWISH grandchildren? The Clintons & Obama's don't have Jewish grandchildren, and you seem to think that they're both great! Would you STILL like Hillary & Barack if that weren't the case?

The pathetic thing is, I can totally see why the above makes perfect sense to you. I must have been reading your nonsense for too long.

I could comment on Trump's performance among Jewish voters, but that would only be dignifying this crap with a response.

"That's not your decision to make. It's the House's."

Followed by a lopsided pro-Trump vote in the U.S. Senate - our U.S. Constitution is NOT on the side of the Democratic Party, is it?

The Constitution makes no mention of political parties, Dumpington. It does, however, empower the House to impeach the president for high crimes and misdemeanours. Then it's up to the Senate - not you or me - to decide if trying to blackmail a foreign leader into digging up dirt on Trump's political opponent fits the bill.
Will the Senate do so? I'll say it again: if the vote were held today, probably not. But we don't know what's going to emerge during the proceedings, and if Trump becomes a political liability to the Republican senators who are up for reelection? We'll see.

"Undoubtedly true among people like you, yes."

Serious question, YDB95 - WHICH Democratic Party presidential candidate can possibly do better than Mrs. Clinton did in 2016?

Probably all of them, since whichever one gets the nomination won't have 25 years of a cottage industry dedicated to destroying hir to deal with. Not to mention if the Russians meddle again, at least this time the voters they target will have a much better chance of knowing the real goal of those ads encouraging them to vote third party or sit on their hands.

President Obama called Hillary "the most qualified person to EVER seek the office of the presidency," himself included! WHO do you think can possibly do better than she did?

The most qualified candidate is not necessarily the best candidate. In fact, in recent years it's usually been the other way around. Not in 2016, mind you.

Spandex Girl writes: "He’s trying to run our country like a business and a dictatorship."

JackLuis responds: "You mean like Mussolini or Hitler? Yeah that ended well!"

Liberal, Trump-hating Democrats have NO IDEA who Mussolini & Hitler were, or how a dictatorship operates!

You have made it clear repeatedly that you don't know anything about any of the above either.

DawnONight writes: "Only 37.9% said the conversation is an impeachable offense; 51.6% said the conversation was not impeachable."

After their impeachment "trial" has concluded, the percentage saying "not impeachable" will surpass 75%, with only the Trump Derangement Crowd still insisting that this president needs to go.

Not likely in light of the fact that current legitimate polls (i.e. not from the Washington Examiner, which is famous for its right-wing slant and poor record for factual accuracy) show clear majorities favour impeachment.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Not likely in light of the fact that current legitimate polls show clear majorities favour impeachment.

Would those be the same pollsters that predicted Hillary would win by a landslide?

 

[YDB95]

Would those be the same pollsters that predicted Hillary would win by a landslide?

The same ones that showed Trump had a 25% chance of winning by the final weeks of the campaign. Things with a one-in-four chance of happening happen all the time.

 

[gunthernehmen]

The same ones that showed Trump had a 25% chance of winning by the final weeks of the campaign. Things with a one-in-four chance of happening happen all the time.

Keep that hope. Perhaps Fauxahantas will win next year.

 

[JackLuis]

Keep that hope. Perhaps Fauxahantas will win next year.

Liz could beat Pence with one hand up his ass!

 

[YDB95]

Keep that hope. Perhaps Fauxahantas will win next year.

Keep it up with the racism. Perhaps there are still juuuust enough Archie Bunker types out there to swing one last election. But I doubt it now that Trump has thrown away the dogwhistle in favour of open bigotry.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Liz could beat Pence with one hand up his ass!

First, she's not running against Pence in 2020 and - second - I'm sure the voters would frown on one candidate having her hand up the ass of another one. She might even get arrested for some kind of sexual battery.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Keep it up with the racism. Perhaps there are still juuuust enough Archie Bunker types out there to swing one last election. But I doubt it now that Trump has thrown away the dogwhistle in favour of open bigotry.

How is it racist to disparage someone that lied on an application to take advantage of a benefit based on heritage she knew she did not possess?

I was a college student around that time too and the running "joke" was you should claim to be Indian or Black to improve your chances. Only most of us were too honest to actually DO it.

My comment in NO way reflects negatively on real Native Americans.

 

[YDB95]

First, she's not running against Pence in 2020 and - second - I'm sure the voters would frown on one candidate having her hand up the ass of another one. She might even get arrested for some kind of sexual battery.

No doubt, but since Pence won't even let any woman other than his wife be alone with him, he's probably safe.

How is it racist to disparage someone that lied on an application to take advantage of a benefit based on heritage she knew she did not possess?

It isn't, but 1) that's not really what you're doing when you call her "Fauxahontas," and you know it; and 2) she didn't "know she did not possess" Native American ancestry at that time. She made a mistake, and she has apologised for it. That alone makes for a nice contrast with Twitler, if you ask me.

I was a college student around that time too and the running "joke" was you should claim to be Indian or Black to improve your chances. Only most of us were too honest to actually DO it.

There is no evidence that she deliberately misled anyone. She believed - wrongly but honestly, by all extant evidence - that she was of Native American ancestry. (And that 'joke' was still around when I was a college student a decade or so later. I imagine it still is.)

My comment in NO way reflects negatively on real Native Americans.

Ask some real Native Americans what they think of calling her that name. I have.