• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20737
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:38 pm

extender wrote:
Unlike some people, I know that my prosperity grew under 45's administration. It was bleak under 44. You can post all the quotes you want, to support the story your mind made up.

Keep up the good work.


You are blaming Obama for the crimes by the current administration? I can not think of any metaphor for that many twists and turns.....
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20737
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:39 pm

Russia is telling the United States how to run our investigations and that we need their permission to access transcripts the occupant of the White House has

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... 3qd5x1vsyM
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:53 pm

alfa164 wrote:
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

-George Orwell


Fantastic quote. Can't say it better than Orwell can.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:56 pm

casinterest wrote:
So you absolve Trump of all Crimes for your own PERSONAL prosperity and Failures?


It is the motto of the new American "patriotism":

"Let the country go down the tubes... as long as I am making more money."

:roll:
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:59 pm

extender wrote:
Unlike some people, I know that my prosperity grew under 45's administration.

And that somehow makes everything ok?
Anything goes as long as you are making money? Absolutely anything.
I confess that up until now I was comforted by the thought that only one person could possibly hold such a selfish blinkered view of the world.

With that in mind, and knowing that it's considered bad form to ask people to reveal their true identity in these forums, tell me, do you by any chance currently reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
BN747
Posts: 6799
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:07 pm

extender wrote:
Unlike some people, I know that my prosperity grew under 45's administration. It was bleak under 44. You can post all the quotes you want, to support the story your mind made up.

Keep up the good work.



Now that tells you all you need to about conservatives...period.

"I'm good...sorry, you're not"
In a nutshell, as long as I've been a member here that has always been their undeniable core value.

They could give two sh*ts about anyone else being screwed with or over ...just long as it's not them. Zero empathy.


BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:01 pm

On a serious response to a post I assume will be deleted due to the poster pretending to speak for me.

Why would Trump's lawyer's invoke the following? Are the inquiries criminal or not? If you argue that the President has committed no crimes, then why wouldn't the lawyers release the data?
Remember this is in response to tax requests due to the payments to Stormy and from which sources.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/nyre ... wsuit.html


Taking a broad position that the lawyers acknowledged had not been tested, the president’s legal team argued in the complaint that the Constitution effectively makes sitting presidents immune from all criminal inquiries until they leave the White House.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:12 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
With that in mind, and knowing that it's considered bad form to ask people to reveal their true identity in these forums, tell me, do you by any chance currently reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?


Eric? Could that be Eric?

;)
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:29 pm

Out of Curiosity, have we seen any "No Collusion" tweets from Trump lately?

It sure seems like we need to dig more into those Russian contacts after seeing what has happened with the Ukraine .
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20737
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:33 pm

The minions are now trying desperately to avoid testifying.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/pompeo-st ... s-bullying

I already know the spin: Why should they testify since this is a clown show and pure hate by Democrats? Funny we do not hear about their innocence but blaming everyone else.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
extender
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:52 pm

BN747 wrote:

"I'm good...sorry, you're not"
In a nutshell, as long as I've been a member here that has always been their undeniable core value.

They could give two sh*ts about anyone else being screwed with or over ...just long as it's not them. Zero empathy.


BN747


I get now, let's share in the misery all together. Thanks, but no. You can keep your socialist ideals. People getting screwed over is the middle class with all your entitlement programs and keep letting in un checked illegal immigration. You guys make a Christmas nut cake look sane.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 9726
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:57 pm

extender wrote:
BN747 wrote:

"I'm good...sorry, you're not"
In a nutshell, as long as I've been a member here that has always been their undeniable core value.

They could give two sh*ts about anyone else being screwed with or over ...just long as it's not them. Zero empathy.


BN747


I get now, let's share in the misery all together. Thanks, but no. You can keep your socialist ideals. People getting screwed over is the middle class with all your entitlement programs and keep letting in un checked illegal immigration. You guys make a Christmas nut cake look sane.


So you’re benefitting while the middle class elsewhere gets screwed by this WH.

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/nation ... 4.amp.html

And not a word about the Chamber of Commerce efforts to maintain immigration status quo since 1986 by playing both sides. Nice.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
BN747
Posts: 6799
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:11 am

extender wrote:
BN747 wrote:

"I'm good...sorry, you're not"
In a nutshell, as long as I've been a member here that has always been their undeniable core value.

They could give two sh*ts about anyone else being screwed with or over ...just long as it's not them. Zero empathy.


BN747


I get now, let's share in the misery all together. Thanks, but no. You can keep your socialist ideals. People getting screwed over is the middle class with all your entitlement programs and keep letting in un checked illegal immigration. You guys make a Christmas nut cake look sane.


Exactly, humanity is a part of you...

..or as in your case... it is Not (as are MOST conservatives)!
And it's okay to be that way. (as it is okay to be a conservative too).

I just wish you people were 'marked or identified as such' so in cases of an emergency situation, chaotic moment, those of us able to assist those on need can easily decide to help those more deserving over those who care about no one but themselves.

I'd be extremely happy with that arrangement.

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
User avatar
johnboy
Posts: 3069
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:09 pm

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:47 am

extender wrote:
Unlike some people, I know that my prosperity grew under 45's administration. It was bleak under 44. You can post all the quotes you want, to support the story your mind made up.

Keep up the good work.


Well, then that’s all that matters. Amorality and corruption must run strong in those genes.
 
SL1200MK2
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:00 pm

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:07 am

This is interesting to read. When I was an idiot in my mid-20s, I claimed to be libertarian. I remember the revulsion I had to the notion of helping others in an indirect way. The idea of my money going to help someone who made poor choices really upset me. As I grew and matured, I realized that places that have greater social programs seemed to run better and have happier people. The thing is, is that I still don’t *want* to pay for these things, and I bet few others do as well. As a Californian, I don’t necessarily like my tax dollars going to poor trailer people in Alabama, but I grasp why it’s best that we help them.
 
Dieuwer
Topic Author
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:11 am

SL1200MK2 wrote:
This is interesting to read. When I was an idiot in my mid-20s, I claimed to be libertarian. I remember the revulsion I had to the notion of helping others in an indirect way. The idea of my money going to help someone who made poor choices really upset me. As I grew and matured, I realized that places that have greater social programs seemed to run better and have happier people. The thing is, is that I still don’t *want* to pay for these things, and I bet few others do as well. As a Californian, I don’t necessarily like my tax dollars going to poor trailer people in Alabama, but I grasp why it’s best that we help them.


Depends on HOW those tax dollars are spend, right?
Are those tax dollars used to just give handouts, or are they used to teach people skills? Are those tax dollars used - inadvertently - to keep people in the same miserable conditions they live now in, or are they used to "elevate" those people?
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20737
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:15 am

There is a great conversation starting but it is off topic.

Can we discuss why this occupant of the White House is above the law but Clinton was not for getting a BJ? Why working with foreign governments is something that should not be investigated but a stained dress is grounds for removal?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3716
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:18 am

Name the laws that have been, by title and section.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20737
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:34 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Name the laws that have been, by title and section.


All we hear from the White House and Giulianni is "witch hunt" and how Democrats hate and no actual defense other than "they" and "them" and blaming everyone else.

House Committees are investigating what laws have been broken. Obviously something happened to the point where investigations need to happen. Goal posts were not moved as they were in the Ken Starr investigation. We are seeing a foreign government being asked to investigate a political rival. Not for any criminal wrongdoing under American law. Ukraine even said as much.

If no laws were broken, why are they working so very hard to keep us from seeing what they did? Transparency?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
Spar
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:43 am

No laws need be broken for impeachment purposes. That was established in Clinton's case.
 
SanDiegoLover
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:24 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:16 am

Spar wrote:
No laws need be broken for impeachment purposes. That was established in Clinton's case.


Here’s Miss Lindsey clutching his pearls over Clinton’s impeachment and saying just that..... https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4820049/ ... t&cliptool
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20737
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:47 am

SanDiegoLover wrote:
Spar wrote:
No laws need be broken for impeachment purposes. That was established in Clinton's case.


Here’s Miss Lindsey clutching his pearls over Clinton’s impeachment and saying just that..... https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4820049/ ... t&cliptool


We should use Republican's words against them at every turn. Demanding transparency and setting the bar for honesty and all that. Please do not bring Lindsey's sexuality into it. That has zero to do with it. What he does with consenting adults on his own time is his business. We need to investigate the lawlessness of the current administration. Working with Ukraine and Australia and the love fest with Putin.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
jdstJD
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:40 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:17 am

SL1200MK2 wrote:
This is interesting to read. When I was an idiot in my mid-20s, I claimed to be libertarian. I remember the revulsion I had to the notion of helping others in an indirect way. The idea of my money going to help someone who made poor choices really upset me. As I grew and matured, I realized that places that have greater social programs seemed to run better and have happier people. The thing is, is that I still don’t *want* to pay for these things, and I bet few others do as well. As a Californian, I don’t necessarily like my tax dollars going to poor trailer people in Alabama, but I grasp why it’s best that we help them.


You know what’s so funny is that all of these people who gripe about “their” tax dollars paying for social programs and other safety net protections think that they are the only tax payers that should have a say over what our tax dollars should be spent on. I didn’t want my tax dollars going to bail out multi-million dollar corporations from a rut that they got themselves into from poor business practices that didn’t include contingency funds for a possible recession but that’s where the elected officials chose to spend our money. Now when middle to lower middle class citizens get hit with financial crisis they are castigated for not having saved their money for a rainy day so they wouldn’t have to mooch off of the government but the same hostility isn’t felt toward the ultra wealthy or business class. :roll:
Lawyer, frequent air traveler and aviation enthusiast.
 
BN747
Posts: 6799
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:25 am

SL1200MK2 wrote:
This is interesting to read. When I was an idiot in my mid-20s, I claimed to be libertarian. I remember the revulsion I had to the notion of helping others in an indirect way. The idea of my money going to help someone who made poor choices really upset me. As I grew and matured, I realized that places that have greater social programs seemed to run better and have happier people. The thing is, is that I still don’t *want* to pay for these things, and I bet few others do as well. As a Californian, I don’t necessarily like my tax dollars going to poor trailer people in Alabama, but I grasp why it’s best that we help them.


Understandable, but many tax payers don't like their tax dollars going to -
Police (but we need them)
City Maintenance repairs (shutting down lanes creating traffic jams, etc
Arts & Humanties - a lot of people are not fans of the arts & culture
Defense Dept. - alot of people hate the droning of people military, innocents (collateral damage) but we like protecting the American way of life.
Hospitals, airports, etc..

All us need one or more of the above, so picking and choosing where we want our tax dollars spent can not be quantized..but they can be 'made accounted for' and that's where your statement ties into politics.

seb146 wrote:
There is a great conversation starting but it is off topic.

Can we discuss why this occupant of the White House is above the law but Clinton was not for getting a BJ? Why working with foreign governments is something that should not be investigated but a stained dress is grounds for removal?


SL2000MK was stating his change of perspective of things based on my pointing out (extender) the lack of humanity and empathy in conservatives thus their explanation for supporting a lawless, lying, immoral leader.

One's politics is rooted in how and where they see themselves in society.

And I really wish we could distinguish the 'heartless' from those who realize that we are on this planet together and it takes a 'we or an us' in order for the planet/humanity to survive, endure and prosper.

The heartless, non-empathetic are more aligned with human misery and destruction.

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
Ken777
Posts: 9907
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:38 am

extender wrote:
Unlike some people, I know that my prosperity grew under 45's administration. It was bleak under 44. You can post all the quotes you want, to support the story your mind made up.

Keep up the good work.


If you take the time to Google "Bikini Graph" you can get a good indication of how bad things were going when Obama took office. It was called the Great Recession, During Obama's time in office that graph slope continued on an UPWARD slope, and continued into Trump's two years. Your prosperity came from riding that upward slope Obama & Friends gave you.

When you look at it that way it's clear that Trump's $1.5 tax cut should have significantly increased that upward slope. Didn't happen as promised - unless you were a multi-millionaire. Now are are reading about a probable Republican Recession. Just like the last one that followed a Big Republican Tax Cut so you are going to need to find ways to protect your new prosperity if the recession hits.

You should also look at the yo-yo movements of markets. How high would it be if Obama's programs had been maintained.

Finally try to figure out how the economy would have moved IF a number would have been established ($1.5 Trillion divided by the number of people with a Social Security Number divided by 12) and that amount would be deposited into each SS#'s bank account on the first of each month. People in the bottom half income would be spending that money. Middle class would be saving for their kids going to college, or taking a vacation, or use it to start or strengthen a small private company.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20737
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:03 am

BN747 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
There is a great conversation starting but it is off topic.

Can we discuss why this occupant of the White House is above the law but Clinton was not for getting a BJ? Why working with foreign governments is something that should not be investigated but a stained dress is grounds for removal?


SL2000MK was stating his change of perspective of things based on my pointing out (extender) the lack of humanity and empathy in conservatives thus their explanation for supporting a lawless, lying, immoral leader.

One's politics is rooted in how and where they see themselves in society.

And I really wish we could distinguish the 'heartless' from those who realize that we are on this planet together and it takes a 'we or an us' in order for the planet/humanity to survive, endure and prosper.

The heartless, non-empathetic are more aligned with human misery and destruction.

BN747


I know. It is awful that our tax dollars are used for welfare for those freeloading farmers who want to get rich off the gub'mint tariff wars and how dare them coal miners want to life high off the hog on our tax paying dime because they chose to get black lung disease. How dare they!

The double standard does need to be talked about every chance we get. No doubt. This thread is about removing the occupant of the White House. Removing the man who wants to be emperor. Removing those who think they are above the law.

No one is above the law. NO ONE.

If a man can be tried for getting a BJ from a consenting adult, the current occupant can be tried for asking Ukraine and Australia for political favors.

No one is above the law. NO ONE.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:14 am

seb146 wrote:
No one is above the law. NO ONE.


Once again, NO ONE disagrees.

The problem is that we know one side is not acting in good faith to demand those principles on a selective basis.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 9726
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:40 am

MSPNWA wrote:
seb146 wrote:
No one is above the law. NO ONE.


Once again, NO ONE disagrees.

The problem is that we know one side is not acting in good faith to demand those principles on a selective basis.


Actually both sides have the SAME problem - exhibit A: Chuck Schumer’s opinion that lying under oath was not a high crime for Clinton. Singing a different tune now. Exhibit B: Lindsey Graham’s opinion that 45 has not committed crimes, but different tune for Clinton: no crime is necessary because impeachment is cleansing of the office. This is what sucks about politicians generally - selective values.

Fortunately as an independent I don’t care - my concern is the situation NOW. Is the office of POTUS being faithfully executed? Are investigations being wrongfully stonewalled or impeded? Has the conduct of POTUS been proper or professional? We’re at a point where, as Graham said, the office requires a cleansing.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:58 am

Aaron747 wrote:

Actually both sides have the SAME problem - exhibit A: Chuck Schumer’s opinion that lying under oath was not a high crime for Clinton. Singing a different tune now. Exhibit B: Lindsey Graham’s opinion that 45 has not committed crimes, but different tune for Clinton: no crime is necessary because impeachment is cleansing of the office. This is what sucks about politicians generally - selective values.

Fortunately as an independent I don’t care - my concern is the situation NOW. Is the office of POTUS being faithfully executed? Are investigations being wrongfully stonewalled or impeded? Has the conduct of POTUS been proper or professional? We’re at a point where, as Graham said, the office requires a cleansing.


You don't care why? Because 'your' party isn't involved?

Impeachment used to be a serious word. Your criteria isn't impeachment worthy. It's subjective politics out of line with the Constitution. That's the problem. It's not acting in good faith. A deep cleansing must be done in Washington, and most of that cleansing is implemented at the ballot box.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:04 am

MSPNWA wrote:
Impeachment used to be a serious word. Your criteria isn't impeachment worthy. It's subjective politics out of line with the Constitution. That's the problem. It's not acting in good faith. A deep cleansing must be done in Washington, and most of that cleansing is implemented at the ballot box.


Really? You don't believe asking a foreign government to interfere in an election to be serious enough to warrant an impeachment inquiry?

You must have taken the Trump University course on the Constitution...

:roll:
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:11 am

alfa164 wrote:
Really? You don't believe asking a foreign government to interfere in an election to be serious enough to warrant an impeachment inquiry?


Assuming you're asking seriously, I absolutely believe it would be warranted.

Now my turn. Do you believe it's acceptable for a sitting Vice President to engage in a quid pro quo for a personal reason? Do you believe it's acceptable to fail to investigate that known potential act?
Last edited by MSPNWA on Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
BN747
Posts: 6799
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:12 am

seb146 wrote:
BN747 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
There is a great conversation starting but it is off topic.

Can we discuss why this occupant of the White House is above the law but Clinton was not for getting a BJ? Why working with foreign governments is something that should not be investigated but a stained dress is grounds for removal?


SL2000MK was stating his change of perspective of things based on my pointing out (extender) the lack of humanity and empathy in conservatives thus their explanation for supporting a lawless, lying, immoral leader.

One's politics is rooted in how and where they see themselves in society.

And I really wish we could distinguish the 'heartless' from those who realize that we are on this planet together and it takes a 'we or an us' in order for the planet/humanity to survive, endure and prosper.

The heartless, non-empathetic are more aligned with human misery and destruction.

BN747


I know. It is awful that our tax dollars are used for welfare for those freeloading farmers who want to get rich off the gub'mint tariff wars and how dare them coal miners want to life high off the hog on our tax paying dime because they chose to get black lung disease. How dare they!

The double standard does need to be talked about every chance we get. No doubt. This thread is about removing the occupant of the White House. Removing the man who wants to be emperor. Removing those who think they are above the law.

No one is above the law. NO ONE.

If a man can be tried for getting a BJ from a consenting adult, the current occupant can be tried for asking Ukraine and Australia for political favors.

No one is above the law. NO ONE.


I feel ALL of that ...but the one thing you left out of this...
"This thread is about removing the occupant of the White House. Removing the man who wants to be emperor. Removing those who think they are above the law."
...and those who encourage him, those who enable, those who 'support' him.

Because they are here making their case of why they see us as sore losers, and making things up and this thing called 'presidential harassment' (talk about making things up...)
So when someone like SL2000K mans up and owned up to his reckless years (as I did with my teen jockstrap story) and realizing he had to choose between having empathey & humanity versus having none...he's to be applauded, because as tech world takes over society...ignorance, false/fake news & history is going to make already dumb humans .. dumber!

The smart ones will ultimately pull from the not-so-smart because their weight will prove at some point too much 'harm/damage' and impossible to carry along endlessly.
Hopefully the smarter ones are comprised of those who appreciate logic, intellect, human history, learn from history and act to avoid repetition of history's bad/worse episodes.
They will realize that the ignorant are dead weight and beyond help of any kind. I don't expect the conservative minds to grasp that...they'll think the dead weight are 'minorities, illegals, mexicans, Africans, foreigners, etc. They are not dead weight..they are simply impoverished people - among them some of the world's brightest minds.

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 9726
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:16 am

MSPNWA wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Actually both sides have the SAME problem - exhibit A: Chuck Schumer’s opinion that lying under oath was not a high crime for Clinton. Singing a different tune now. Exhibit B: Lindsey Graham’s opinion that 45 has not committed crimes, but different tune for Clinton: no crime is necessary because impeachment is cleansing of the office. This is what sucks about politicians generally - selective values.

Fortunately as an independent I don’t care - my concern is the situation NOW. Is the office of POTUS being faithfully executed? Are investigations being wrongfully stonewalled or impeded? Has the conduct of POTUS been proper or professional? We’re at a point where, as Graham said, the office requires a cleansing.


You don't care why? Because 'your' party isn't involved?

Impeachment used to be a serious word. Your criteria isn't impeachment worthy. It's subjective politics out of line with the Constitution. That's the problem. It's not acting in good faith. A deep cleansing must be done in Washington, and most of that cleansing is implemented at the ballot box.


What party would that be? Haven’t had one since 2002. I don’t care because both sides do it and it’s a foregone conclusion that politicians say whatever will get them reelected in home districts (or did you think I chose Schumer and Graham at random??)

And of course the criteria are valid. Are you aware of the 13th century origins of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ in English common law? The phrase was used intentionally by Hamilton to denote subjective meaning in covering situations not explicitly defined in criminal law. ‘High’ crimes in England were crimes against the state and public trust - a nebulous collection of possible offenses of which impeding investigations and lying to the public regarding serious matters are certainly part. You can reread the Federalist 65 and 66 if you are unsure of the framers’ intent.

The bigger problem is why psychologically it’s so difficult for 45 sycophants to admit they backed a lemon. Many independents did on 44, including myself. Is wounded pride really a higher priority than a solid reputation for the nation?
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
alfa164
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:25 am

MSPNWA wrote:
Now my turn. Do you believe it's acceptable for a sitting Vice President to engage in a quid pro quo for a personal reason? Do you believe it's acceptable to fail to investigate that known potential act?


It would not be acceptable - and, in the case you are trying to make, it never happened. Claiming a "quid pro quo for a personal reason" may be a talking point in the far-right media, but it is not supported by facts or evidence. To wit:

The statements from Ukrainian officials - and the the co-founder of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center - who agree that there was no investigation proceeding when Shokin was fired. To wit:

His successor has said that no evidence of any wrongdoing exists in connection with Hunter Biden's role at Burisma. Another former official said that an investigation was opened into the company but was long dormant by the time the US pushed for his exit. And Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center told the Washington Post that 'Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.'"

(Emphasis added)

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hayesbrown/trump-ukraine-biden-giuliani-whistleblower-explain


Bloomberg and the AP back that up:


"Ukraine’s current prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, was quoted by Bloomberg News in May as saying he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son. Bloomberg also reported that the investigation into Burisma was dormant at the time Biden pressed for Shokhin’s ouster."

https://www.apnews.com/9d4595ba4f3140c6bb6a3473a91f4a4c


...and does a synopsis of the events and how they happened:


"(1) Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, did take consulting work for a Ukrainian oil company, Burisma, that was under investigation by a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, for the work under the prior Russian-allied regime. This is where the true part of the Trump disinformation comes to an end.
(2) The problem was that Shokin actively stood in the way of international investigations that the U.S. and other democratic reformers were pursuing.
(3) Vice President Biden, U.S. diplomats, and our E.U. allies all called on the prosecutor to be fired so the corrupt oligarchs could be investigated MORE AGGRESSIVELY. This includes the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine calling out by name Mykola Zlochevsky, the oligarch who ran the company Hunter Biden worked for, as someone this prosecutor was letting off the hook."


https://thebulwark.com/truth-lies-and-the-nonsense-trump-biden-ukraine-false-equivalency/

and their point 5 should be well taken:


(5) For the kids in the back:

PRESSURING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE ON YOUR BEHALF IN DOMESTIC ELECTIONS = VERY BAD.

PRESSURING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE CROOKS = GOOD.



So... who should we believe? The Ukrainian prosecutor... the co-founder of their anti-corruption organization... Bloomberg and the AP... and every other credible witness to the events.... or...

... some far-right talking point? It isn't a tough call....

Aaron747 wrote:
The bigger problem is why psychologically it’s so difficult for 45 sycophants to admit they backed a lemon. Many independents did on 44, including myself. Is wounded pride really a higher priority than a solid reputation for the nation?


Unfortunately, that does seem to be a tough call for the Trump lemmings...

:roll:
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:40 am

Aaron747 wrote:
What party would that be? Haven’t had one since 2002. I don’t care because both sides do it and it’s a foregone conclusion that politicians say whatever will get them reelected in home districts.

And of course the criteria are valid. Are you aware of the 13th century origins of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ in English common law? The phrase was used intentionally by Hamilton to denote subjective meaning in covering situations not explicitly defined in criminal law. ‘High’ crimes were crimes against the state and public trust - a nebulous collection of possible offenses of which impeding investigations and lying to the public regarding serious matters are certainly part. You can reread the Federalist 65 and 66 if you are unsure of the framers’ intent.

The bigger problem is why psychologically it’s so difficult for 45 sycophants to admit they backed a lemon. Many independents did on 44, including myself. Is wounded pride really a higher priority than a solid reputation for the nation?


So even though it's damaging to your country, you don't care because your 'party' isn't involved? You know, you do have a party, a party of "independence" of such matters, and you're putting it over country just like so many party politicians do.

No, they are not valid. If you think having a "messy" office is worthy of impeachment, you've proven the point. Your opinion on what the Constitution allows is rightfully thrown into serious question. Take note of how the Constitution is written. It lists bribery, treason, and then other high crimes and misdemeanors, meaning an equivalency. It's a serious charge. Even if your subjective reasons were valid, it then fails the good faith test. By the definitions that Trump allegedly clears, essentially everyone would be impeached. No one is worthy of holding office. Therefore it's a political event, and impeachment must not be political. It has to be a charge so serious that no matter the party or situation, it's grounds for removal. We are not even close to that level. My wounded pride is that I underestimated how important Trump has been to the future of my Republic.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 9726
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:49 am

MSPNWA wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
What party would that be? Haven’t had one since 2002. I don’t care because both sides do it and it’s a foregone conclusion that politicians say whatever will get them reelected in home districts.

And of course the criteria are valid. Are you aware of the 13th century origins of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ in English common law? The phrase was used intentionally by Hamilton to denote subjective meaning in covering situations not explicitly defined in criminal law. ‘High’ crimes were crimes against the state and public trust - a nebulous collection of possible offenses of which impeding investigations and lying to the public regarding serious matters are certainly part. You can reread the Federalist 65 and 66 if you are unsure of the framers’ intent.

The bigger problem is why psychologically it’s so difficult for 45 sycophants to admit they backed a lemon. Many independents did on 44, including myself. Is wounded pride really a higher priority than a solid reputation for the nation?


So even though it's damaging to your country, you don't care because your 'party' isn't involved? You know, you do have a party, a party of "independence" of such matters, and you're putting it over country just like so many party politicians do.

No, they are not valid. If you think having a "messy" office is worthy of impeachment, you've proven the point. Your opinion on what the Constitution allows is rightfully thrown into serious question. Take note of how the Constitution is written. It lists bribery, treason, and then other high crimes and misdemeanors, meaning an equivalency. It's a serious charge. Even if your subjective reasons were valid, it then fails the good faith test. By the definitions that Trump allegedly clears, essentially everyone would be impeached. No one is worthy of holding office. Therefore it's a political event, and impeachment must not be political. It has to be a charge so serious that no matter the party or situation, it's grounds for removal. We are not even close to that level. My wounded pride is that I underestimated how important Trump has been to the future of my Republic.


Your beef is with the Schumers and Grahams, not independents. And your credibility is on one leg since you saw fit to single out only one side when it’s plainly an issue all around.

You can take issue with my opinion of impeachment all you want, it doesn’t change Hamilton’s views in the Federalist papers explaining the background of this matter. Again it may help you take some blinders off to give them a thorough read. Also most scholars would scoff at your assumption that sequence of mention connotes priority - does that mean treason is insignificant because it is merely section III of article III?
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14328
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:39 am

Here is an interesting thought, I wonder if Trump's threats to deny or delay funding for Ukraine's military defense by using the excuse of not going after Hunter Biden was to weaken them vs their ongoing war with Russia and allow Russia to gain control of parts of that country.

Russia controls much of Eastern, Russian ethnic separatist controlled Ukraine (from where a Russian made missile attack brought down a civilian Malaysian Airlines plane murdering 100's). The Ukrainian government has pretty much given up that part of the country to Russia, and yesterday agreed to allow local elections which will put Russia in control of that area https://apnews.com/10aac8a00e864ee68ca320fe0bdaa0c2.

This may be the real issue, that Trump is doing dirty work for Russia, perhaps being extorted due to his own bad financial position and ties to Russian oligarchs and Putin to allow Russia to steal part of the Ukraine. If that is so, then he must be impeached for such an obscene act, to sell out America to another country for personal gain is being a Traitor, one of the Constitutionally specified reasons to Impeach and remove a President.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11849
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:20 am

trpmb6 wrote:
Here is what I think.

Pelosi is smart. Very calculated. I think this is about 2020. This is her conceding that Trump will very likely win reelection. She was holding out, hoping something else would sink him. But time has forced her hand. The only way to defeat him is with impeachment.


No, she's a centrist appeasing more left wing elements in her party, that wanted this to happen long ago. If it's calculated, the goal is to help a more centrist presidential candidate in the primary that has better chances to win.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
2122M
Posts: 1225
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:32 pm

alfa164 wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
Now my turn. Do you believe it's acceptable for a sitting Vice President to engage in a quid pro quo for a personal reason? Do you believe it's acceptable to fail to investigate that known potential act?


It would not be acceptable - and, in the case you are trying to make, it never happened. Claiming a "quid pro quo for a personal reason" may be a talking point in the far-right media, but it is not supported by facts or evidence. To wit:

The statements from Ukrainian officials - and the the co-founder of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center - who agree that there was no investigation proceeding when Shokin was fired. To wit:

His successor has said that no evidence of any wrongdoing exists in connection with Hunter Biden's role at Burisma. Another former official said that an investigation was opened into the company but was long dormant by the time the US pushed for his exit. And Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center told the Washington Post that 'Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.'"

(Emphasis added)

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hayesbrown/trump-ukraine-biden-giuliani-whistleblower-explain


Bloomberg and the AP back that up:


"Ukraine’s current prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, was quoted by Bloomberg News in May as saying he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son. Bloomberg also reported that the investigation into Burisma was dormant at the time Biden pressed for Shokhin’s ouster."

https://www.apnews.com/9d4595ba4f3140c6bb6a3473a91f4a4c


...and does a synopsis of the events and how they happened:


"(1) Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, did take consulting work for a Ukrainian oil company, Burisma, that was under investigation by a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, for the work under the prior Russian-allied regime. This is where the true part of the Trump disinformation comes to an end.
(2) The problem was that Shokin actively stood in the way of international investigations that the U.S. and other democratic reformers were pursuing.
(3) Vice President Biden, U.S. diplomats, and our E.U. allies all called on the prosecutor to be fired so the corrupt oligarchs could be investigated MORE AGGRESSIVELY. This includes the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine calling out by name Mykola Zlochevsky, the oligarch who ran the company Hunter Biden worked for, as someone this prosecutor was letting off the hook."


https://thebulwark.com/truth-lies-and-the-nonsense-trump-biden-ukraine-false-equivalency/

and their point 5 should be well taken:


(5) For the kids in the back:

PRESSURING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE ON YOUR BEHALF IN DOMESTIC ELECTIONS = VERY BAD.

PRESSURING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE CROOKS = GOOD.



So... who should we believe? The Ukrainian prosecutor... the co-founder of their anti-corruption organization... Bloomberg and the AP... and every other credible witness to the events.... or...

... some far-right talking point? It isn't a tough call....


Seriously. How many times does this Biden story need to be publicly and clearly debunked before our resident Trump apologists understand.

The fact that the Biden's had been publicly cleared of any wrongdoing multiple times long before Trump made that phone call is further proof that the call had nothing at all to do this Trump's concern for upholding the rule of law and cracking down on corruption. If that was his concern, why would he try to re-hash a years old case that had already been through the process and been dismissed?
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:53 pm

2122M wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
Now my turn. Do you believe it's acceptable for a sitting Vice President to engage in a quid pro quo for a personal reason? Do you believe it's acceptable to fail to investigate that known potential act?


It would not be acceptable - and, in the case you are trying to make, it never happened. Claiming a "quid pro quo for a personal reason" may be a talking point in the far-right media, but it is not supported by facts or evidence. To wit:

The statements from Ukrainian officials - and the the co-founder of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center - who agree that there was no investigation proceeding when Shokin was fired. To wit:

His successor has said that no evidence of any wrongdoing exists in connection with Hunter Biden's role at Burisma. Another former official said that an investigation was opened into the company but was long dormant by the time the US pushed for his exit. And Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center told the Washington Post that 'Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.'"

(Emphasis added)

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hayesbrown/trump-ukraine-biden-giuliani-whistleblower-explain


Bloomberg and the AP back that up:


"Ukraine’s current prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, was quoted by Bloomberg News in May as saying he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son. Bloomberg also reported that the investigation into Burisma was dormant at the time Biden pressed for Shokhin’s ouster."

https://www.apnews.com/9d4595ba4f3140c6bb6a3473a91f4a4c


...and does a synopsis of the events and how they happened:


"(1) Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, did take consulting work for a Ukrainian oil company, Burisma, that was under investigation by a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, for the work under the prior Russian-allied regime. This is where the true part of the Trump disinformation comes to an end.
(2) The problem was that Shokin actively stood in the way of international investigations that the U.S. and other democratic reformers were pursuing.
(3) Vice President Biden, U.S. diplomats, and our E.U. allies all called on the prosecutor to be fired so the corrupt oligarchs could be investigated MORE AGGRESSIVELY. This includes the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine calling out by name Mykola Zlochevsky, the oligarch who ran the company Hunter Biden worked for, as someone this prosecutor was letting off the hook."


https://thebulwark.com/truth-lies-and-the-nonsense-trump-biden-ukraine-false-equivalency/

and their point 5 should be well taken:


(5) For the kids in the back:

PRESSURING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE ON YOUR BEHALF IN DOMESTIC ELECTIONS = VERY BAD.

PRESSURING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE CROOKS = GOOD.



So... who should we believe? The Ukrainian prosecutor... the co-founder of their anti-corruption organization... Bloomberg and the AP... and every other credible witness to the events.... or...

... some far-right talking point? It isn't a tough call....


Seriously. How many times does this Biden story need to be publicly and clearly debunked before our resident Trump apologists understand.

The fact that the Biden's had been publicly cleared of any wrongdoing multiple times long before Trump made that phone call is further proof that the call had nothing at all to do this Trump's concern for upholding the rule of law and cracking down on corruption. If that was his concern, why would he try to re-hash a years old case that had already been through the process and been dismissed?


It;s the only thing the Trump cult has left. They are in a failed logic loop. They got nothing to do but try to make someone look worse than they do.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:29 pm

alfa164 wrote:
It would not be acceptable - and, in the case you are trying to make, it never happened. Claiming a "quid pro quo for a personal reason" may be a talking point in the far-right media, but it is not supported by facts or evidence.


So you say a right-wing talking point is false, and then use known left-wing fake news sources as proof (in case you didn't know, that means they mislead you/lie to you so you will believe them. Normal reaction is to be angry at people who do that to you). The hypocrisy and lack of logical thinking is beyond what my imagination can imagine, sorry.

Joe Biden himself gave us all the evidence we need that something is fishy when he bragged about executing a quid pro quo. It's one of the biggest lies ever (and that's a high bar to clear with the fake news media) to say there's nothing to the Biden story.

I'll offer you a deal (uh,oh, I just impeached myself). I'll gladly support a Trump impeachment if we also allow God to impeach everyone else who has committed equivalent or higher "misconduct". The USA might be saved under that scenario.

Aaron747 wrote:
Your beef is with the Schumers and Grahams, not independents. And your credibility is on one leg since you saw fit to single out only one side when it’s plainly an issue all around.

You can take issue with my opinion of impeachment all you want, it doesn’t change Hamilton’s views in the Federalist papers explaining the background of this matter. Again it may help you take some blinders off to give them a thorough read. Also most scholars would scoff at your assumption that sequence of mention connotes priority - does that mean treason is insignificant because it is merely section III of article III?

Nothing to do with sequencing and priority. Might want to read my post again. I further question your opinion on the matter.

No matter, I accept your :white: I'll stop disrupting the echos in this chamber.
Last edited by MSPNWA on Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Spar
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:29 pm

ltbewr wrote:
Here is an interesting thought, I wonder if Trump's threats to deny or delay funding for Ukraine's military defense by using the excuse of not going after Hunter Biden was to weaken them vs their ongoing war with Russia and allow Russia to gain control of parts of that country.

Trump has a bias in that direction, and as I see it this episode gave him a personal excuse to throw his weight around at Ukraine's expense. But that doesn't change the fact that the phone call was extortion.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:39 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
So you say a right-wing talking point is false, and then use known left-wing fake news sources as proof (in case you didn't know, that means they mislead you/lie to you so you will believe them. Normal reaction is to be angry at people who do that to you). The hypocrisy and lack of logical thinking is beyond what my imagination can imagine, sorry. .


AP News is a "left-wing news source"? Bloomberg? You have a very jaundiced (I would say unbalanced) view of the facts.

And speaking of facts... can you deny what was stated by the Ukrainian government representative? How about the statement from the head of the country's anti-corruption organization? Or are you just satisfied to whine about the media who reports the facts... nd whining about the messenger is the last refuge of someone with no facts himself.

:roll:

MSPNWA wrote:
Joe Biden himself gave us all the evidence we need that something is fishy when he bragged about executing a quid pro quo. It's one of the biggest lies ever (and that's a high bar to clear with the fake news media) to say there's nothing to the Biden story.


The innuendo here is staggering, as if that quid pro quo had anything to do with his son. In fact, the agreement was to release the funds when Ukraine ridded itself of an ineffective (and apparently corrupt) official - a policy that was effected by both the U.S. government and the EU. It had absolutely nothing to do with Hunter Biden, but your attempts to smear Joe Biden carry a stench that reminds us all of such conspiracy theories as pizzagate....void of facts, but intriguing to those who cannot think rationally.

MSPNWA wrote:
I'll stop disrupting the echos in this chamber.


The only "chaos" here is coming from those who have made up their minds, and won't let the facts stand in their way.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20737
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:51 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
Really? You don't believe asking a foreign government to interfere in an election to be serious enough to warrant an impeachment inquiry?


Assuming you're asking seriously, I absolutely believe it would be warranted.

Now my turn. Do you believe it's acceptable for a sitting Vice President to engage in a quid pro quo for a personal reason? Do you believe it's acceptable to fail to investigate that known potential act?


Joe Biden has been investigated by Ukraine twice and found no wrong doing under Ukrainian law and no wrong doing under American law. There was no quid pro quo. That has already been established. It has not been on Fox because that sort of fact has no place in the Fox universe.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... t-n1057851

Accusing Biden is simply grasping at straws. There is evidence that the occupant of the White House did engage in quid pro quo with Ukraine over funds that had already been approved by Congress. All to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. Joe and Hunter did nothing wrong. Two different investigators in Ukraine already established that. However, under American law, it is illegal for a sitting president to trade money for information on political opponents.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/20/trump-u ... s-son.html

We need to include the facts when we have this debate. The fact is Biden did nothing wrong. Another fact is the occupant of the White House held funding from Ukraine until they gave him information he wanted. But he was found out so he had to release the finds, give Ukraine extra, and blame anyone else. And the MAGA base ate it up.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20737
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:56 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
What party would that be? Haven’t had one since 2002. I don’t care because both sides do it and it’s a foregone conclusion that politicians say whatever will get them reelected in home districts.

And of course the criteria are valid. Are you aware of the 13th century origins of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ in English common law? The phrase was used intentionally by Hamilton to denote subjective meaning in covering situations not explicitly defined in criminal law. ‘High’ crimes were crimes against the state and public trust - a nebulous collection of possible offenses of which impeding investigations and lying to the public regarding serious matters are certainly part. You can reread the Federalist 65 and 66 if you are unsure of the framers’ intent.

The bigger problem is why psychologically it’s so difficult for 45 sycophants to admit they backed a lemon. Many independents did on 44, including myself. Is wounded pride really a higher priority than a solid reputation for the nation?


So even though it's damaging to your country, you don't care because your 'party' isn't involved? You know, you do have a party, a party of "independence" of such matters, and you're putting it over country just like so many party politicians do.

No, they are not valid. If you think having a "messy" office is worthy of impeachment, you've proven the point. Your opinion on what the Constitution allows is rightfully thrown into serious question. Take note of how the Constitution is written. It lists bribery, treason, and then other high crimes and misdemeanors, meaning an equivalency. It's a serious charge. Even if your subjective reasons were valid, it then fails the good faith test. By the definitions that Trump allegedly clears, essentially everyone would be impeached. No one is worthy of holding office. Therefore it's a political event, and impeachment must not be political. It has to be a charge so serious that no matter the party or situation, it's grounds for removal. We are not even close to that level. My wounded pride is that I underestimated how important Trump has been to the future of my Republic.


MSP, if this were a serious crime that Biden committed, why was the money approved by both houses of Congress and both parties AND the Bidens not investigated when Republicans had control of both houses of Congress? Why is this not an issue until your party's leader did it?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20737
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:06 pm

I wonder if the whistle blower is Mike and/or Karen Pence? Think about it: If Mike is elevated to president, he would have potentially nine years in the White House to shape this country into his dream of a Christian nation. I have heard that Karen Pence is a very shrewd campaign organizer, too.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:09 pm

seb146 wrote:
I wonder if the whistle blower is Mike and/or Karen Pence? Think about it: If Mike is elevated to president, he would have potentially nine years in the White House to shape this country into his dream of a Christian nation. I have heard that Karen Pence is a very shrewd campaign organizer, too.

Doubt it. The whistle-blower is someone that has a career where they are tired of REMF's screwing with the country for their own personal gain. Probably a liaison officer, or IT person. Plus they are trusted by most of the people in the staff, which means it probably isn't someone close to Trump.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
johnboy
Posts: 3069
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:09 pm

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:47 pm

MSPNWA wrote:

I'll offer you a deal (uh,oh, I just impeached myself). I'll gladly support a Trump impeachment if we also allow God to impeach everyone else who has committed equivalent or higher "misconduct". The USA might be saved under that scenario.



As long as we have the Tooth Fairy judging the trial.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:33 pm

johnboy wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
I'll offer you a deal (uh,oh, I just impeached myself). I'll gladly support a Trump impeachment if we also allow God to impeach everyone else who has committed equivalent or higher "misconduct". The USA might be saved under that scenario.


As long as we have the Tooth Fairy judging the trial.


Lindsay Graham again?
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20737
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment: for real this time?

Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:22 am

alfa164 wrote:
johnboy wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
I'll offer you a deal (uh,oh, I just impeached myself). I'll gladly support a Trump impeachment if we also allow God to impeach everyone else who has committed equivalent or higher "misconduct". The USA might be saved under that scenario.


As long as we have the Tooth Fairy judging the trial.


Lindsay Graham again?


That is low hanging fruit, no pun intended. His level of support of the occupant of the White House is important, not his mannerisms.

As far as "allowing god to impeach everyone else who has committed....misconduct" I want MSP to give us links showing Biden, Obama, Carter, Clinton, McGovern going to a foreign government asking to investigate political rivals in exchange for money already allocated for that country. I need to go get more popcorn anyway, so I have time, MSP.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: B747forever, BartSimpson, casinterest, Pellegrine and 42 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos