Cooked Crack Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 1 minute ago, tshile said: it’s not about what I want. assuming everyone’s right and the senate will not vote to remove, the real goal here... the only thing that actually matters big picture... is the 2020 election. and if what came out of tonight was that the democrats couldn’t convince 1 republican there was wrong doing, and on top of that couldn’t even convince all of their own... that’s a talking point that hurts if the goal is not re-electing trump. I think the goal is to get Trump acquitted in the senate so that they can shift to the race and how people need to get out the vote in order to get this treasonous personality out of the White House. Ultimately, it’s about getting the base motivated. They should use this to their advantage. Which they won’t cause they never do anything smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 Tulsi Gabbard voted present? What? Haha....I guess she can't anger all those "Fox News Tulsi supporters" that don't actually exist. Who is the (I) that voted Yes? Did Amash switch to being an (I) or is it someone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, tshile said: and if what came out of tonight was that the democrats couldn’t convince 1 republican there was wrong doing, and on top of that couldn’t even convince all of their own... that’s a talking point that hurts if the goal is not re-electing trump. i love how the onus is on democrats to convince people to step out of willful ignorance this country is so ****ing stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 Just now, NoCalMike said: Tulsi Gabbard voted present? What? Haha....I guess she can't anger all those "Fox News Tulsi supporters" that don't actually exist. Who is the (I) that voted Yes? Did Amash switch to being an (I) or is it someone else? Its Amash. One of the two nays on the D side will soon be a R, also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 GOP think shouting "NO" louder than the Yays means a higher number of votes apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 1 minute ago, NoCalMike said: Tulsi Gabbard voted present? What? Haha....I guess she can't anger all those "Fox News Tulsi supporters" that don't actually exist. Who is the (I) that voted Yes? Did Amash switch to being an (I) or is it someone else? Amash is the (I), he switched some time ago when he realized his former party is bat**** crazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 Honestly I think voting No on Article 2 is even more egregious than voting No on Article 1. There is absolutely no argument that there hasn't been obstruction of congress by Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: Tulsi Gabbard voted present? What? Haha....I guess she can't anger all those "Fox News Tulsi supporters" that don't actually exist. Who is the (I) that voted Yes? Did Amash switch to being an (I) or is it someone else? Tulsi not trying to **** up the bag. Fox News media personality here she comes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: Honestly I think voting No on Article 2 is even more egregious than voting No on Article 1. There is absolutely no argument that there hasn't been obstruction of congress by Trump. deferring to the court is not obstruction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 Just now, twa said: deferring to the court is not obstruction Refusing to succumb to a subpoena is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 Just now, Springfield said: Refusing to succumb to a subpoena is. no it is not, coequal means it goes to the court.....even more so when a impeachment is not formally started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 8 minutes ago, StillUnknown said: i love how the onus is on democrats to convince people to step out of willful ignorance this country is so ****ing stupid yes. It is stupid. I’ve been saying this for years and everyone thought I was just being mean or something. Look the **** around. Wake up. A large portion of our country is stupid. Optics mater. Perception is reality with politics and especially with whatever the hell era of politics we are in now. assuming the preface for all of this was true - house would vote yes senate will not remove - its bad optics for the dems to walk away from this with a score card that reads: 0 republicans came to your side and you actually lost 2-3 of your own. it doesn’t matter why. Facts obviously don’t matter either. That will be a talking point for the next year and it’ll actually resonate with some people we need to not vote for trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 7 minutes ago, twa said: deferring to the court is not obstruction Defying subpoenas is. Every judge has laughed Trump out of court so far. He has zero credible defense for his actions. His only hope is a hail mary that the judges he appointed to TSC would have upheld is lawlessness. Be impartial here, Trump's defense in the courts is strictly "Because I don't have to" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skin'emAlive Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 Its so much easier to sit down and understand Duece Biggalo than it is to understand Mulholland Drive. There is a reason propaganda works. Simple, repeated messages work, regardless of the accuracy. And a train wreck is far more interesting to watch than a thesis oration. Asking democrats to bring the fight down to these levels is impossible. Only thing that will stop it is majority rule, social media regulation, and SEVERE consequences for betraying the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 12 minutes ago, Springfield said: One of the two nays on the D side will soon be a R, also. this point won’t matter because we’re a society that gets away with turning half true headlines into reality cause no one reads the actual article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skintime Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 15 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: And really that is debatable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 Just now, NoCalMike said: Defying subpoenas is. Nixon resigned because of it. There is precedent for that action being the end of a Presidency. your legal reasoning is faulty.....Nixon and Congress went to the court.(as did Clinton, Obama ect, ect) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 Tulsi can ask Tucker later on his show tonight if she's been a super good girl today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skintime Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 9 minutes ago, twa said: deferring to the court is not obstruction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 Did she learn that present vote from Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 8 minutes ago, tshile said: yes. It is stupid. I’ve been saying this for years and everyone thought I was just being mean or something. Look the **** around. Wake up. A large portion of our country is stupid. Optics mater. Perception is reality with politics and especially with whatever the hell era of politics we are in now. assuming the preface for all of this was true - house would vote yes senate will not remove - its bad optics for the dems to walk away from this with a score card that reads: 0 republicans came to your side and you actually lost 2-3 of your own. it doesn’t matter why. Facts obviously don’t matter either. That will be a talking point for the next year and it’ll actually resonate with some people we need to not vote for trump. just as an aside, i wasn't disagreeing with your overall point. just frustrated to the point of madness really. Democrats chose to deal with a vital issue with a matter of professionalism befitting the situation. all the presidents men responded by yelling that 2 + 2 = JELLO and somehow we expect democrats to be able to convince these people of anything, while also not alienating the famed "working class voter" i would respect them more if they told all them republicans to "sit their dumbass down", but then we would have another weeks debate about civility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.