No Excuses

The Impeachment Thread

Impeachment  

178 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Donald Trump be impeached for obstruction of justice?



Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

What’s that?

 

People from his staff are admitting their wrongdoings, I know they are trying to gather all evidence but the Democrats need to proceed with the impeachment process quickly while public opinion favors them. 

 

trump is good at brainwashing his gullible people that whatever illegal actions he makes are just fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

Ya know, I've never asked you this but....WHY?

 

judges, energy policy, immigration policy,environmental policy, deregulation and even foreign policy

 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

@hockeysc23

@dchogs

@PokerPacker
@Forehead

@Long n Left

@PleaseBlitz

@abdcskins

 

All you folks who voted maybe before October has your opinion changed with the current Ukrainian scandal.

My "maybe" at the time was more to do with myself needing more information to have an opinion.  There's more than enough information regarding various scandals at this point to impeach for multiple offenses.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahahahahahahaa

 


A firing squad of low grade morons, put into power by rubes. Congrats America, we’re living our dumbest reality.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

People from his staff are admitting their wrongdoings, I know they are trying to gather all evidence but the Democrats need to proceed with the impeachment process quickly while public opinion favors them.

I mean, Mitch is already telling people that any impeachment hearings in the Senate will be brief and that Trump will be absolved. Lindsey Graham told GOP senators to pledge a loyalty oath to Trump. There’s zero point in letting them put this to bed quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I mean, Mitch is already telling people that any impeachment hearings in the Senate will be brief and that Trump will be absolved. Lindsey Graham told GOP senators to pledge a loyalty oath to Trump. There’s zero point in letting them put this to bed quickly.

 

Fair enough BUT if the Democrats can present enough evidence to keep the public on their side those people that pledged their support to trump will risk their seats. If the Democrats sit on this for too long they risk republicans twisting it and saying this is an election ploy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

 

they risk republicans twisting it and saying this is an election ploy.

 

This is happening and will continue to happen no matter what timeline the house chooses.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

 

Fair enough BUT if the Democrats can present enough evidence to keep the public on their side those people that pledged their support to trump will risk their seats. If the Democrats sit on this for too long they risk republicans twisting it and saying this is an election ploy.

You have to have to go full on Trump and say, so what if it's an election ploy?  It's a good one.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KAOSkins said:

You have to have to go full on Trump and say, so what if it's an election ploy?  It's a good one.

 

but not a effective one imo :pint:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, twa said:

 

but not a effective one imo :pint:

 

Is that an illustration of you drinking the republicans kool-aid?

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, twa said:

but not a effective one imo :pint:

Depends. Works great if your voting base is a bunch of mouth breathing morons. I agree, it wouldn’t work as well for the dems.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, twa said:

 

judges, energy policy, immigration policy,environmental policy, deregulation and even foreign policy

 

 

So, you're in favor of interment camps, parent-child separation, child abuse, unsanitary conditions that have led to death, and an unprepared infrastructure that had no ready mechanism to put parents and children back together?

 

If you ask me Trump's immigration policy is pretty damn crappy. As for his wall, it's as good as the check he got from Mexico to pay for it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Depends. Works great if your voting base is a bunch of mouth breathing morons. I agree, it wouldn’t work as well for the dems.

 

they breathe thru their ass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, twa said:

 

but not a effective one imo :pint:

Sure seems to be effective sans the glass of Kool-Aid.   His own people are saying some pretty damning things and the poll numbers are responding.  They can't keep it up till election time but the longer it's drawn the more seems to come out, so far.

2 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

 

Is that an illustration of you drinking the republicans kool-aid?

You beat me to it, damn.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burgold said:

So, you're in favor of interment camps, parent-child separation, child abuse, unsanitary conditions that have led to death, and an unprepared infrastructure that had no ready mechanism to put parents and children back together?

 

If you ask me Trump's immigration policy is pretty damn crappy. As for his wall, it's as good as the check he got from Mexico to pay for it.

 

Yes I believe in what Obama did for awhile if it leads to corrections in a failed immigration policy.

 

Is his wall worse than the double fence and security road voted for by the freckless Dems to get votes??

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KAOSkins said:

Sure seems to be effective sans the glass of Kool-Aid.   His own people are saying some pretty damning things and the poll numbers are responding.  They can't keep it up till election time but the longer it's drawn the more seems to come out, so far.

You beat me to it, damn.  

 

I heard the same on the Mueller investigation, but here we are still calling him POTUS.

 

Maybe I ain't the one chuggin koolaid

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Obama didn't do that. What happened under Obama was that children who crossed the border without a parent or guardian were assigned to temporary housing. Trump and his team very intentionally devised and revised a policy to be as cruel and dangerous as possible. Moreover, you can tell they knew they were not continuing an Obama-era practice by they way they tried to lie about it.

 

The false parallels are always a problem, but when you have to defend a monster it provides you little other opportunity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I heard the same on the Mueller investigation, but here we are still calling him POTUS.

 

Maybe I ain't the one chuggin koolaid

If it were an election ploy it wouldn't necessarily involve impeachment, so to speak.

Edited by KAOSkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Burgold said:

So, you're in favor of interment camps, parent-child separation, child abuse, unsanitary conditions that have led to death, and an unprepared infrastructure that had no ready mechanism to put parents and children back together?

 

If you ask me Trump's immigration policy is pretty damn crappy. As for his wall, it's as good as the check he got from Mexico to pay for it.

Ok but it’s a fair trade off for appointing judges whose primary qualification is ideological, with loyalty to party & corporate interests being the primary determinant in their judgements.

 

Oh, and “environmental policy”. I mean, we all know who twa is but let’s say some random dude came on this board and said that they were a conservative & support Trump because of his environment policy... the only litmus test left to perform is to determine if that individual is stupid or full of **** or stupid & full of ****.

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

The ignore function is dead and all of you killed it.

 

giphy.gif

 

 

 

 

My apologies. The interment camps and cruelty demanded a response. Trump's immigration policy is monstrous. Sadly, he has wanted to do even worse, but some cooler heads have (temporarily) restrained him from ordering the National Guard to shoot children and infants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Burgold said:

No, Obama didn't do that.

 

YES he did....not to the degree Trump did ,but UNDENIABLY he did.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Ok but it’s a fair trade off for appointing judges whose primary qualification is ideological, with loyalty to party & corporate interests being the primary determinant in their judgements.

 

 

I'm curious if you have looked at the judicial experience of the POTUS wannabes judicial suggestions?

25 minutes ago, KAOSkins said:

If it were an election ploy it wouldn't necessarily involve impeachment, so to speak.

 

impeachment hasn't been involved other than talk, hell they won't even vote to formally start one.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.