Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 3 hours ago, Dan T. said: Rushed how? Not waiting for two-thirds of the senate to be non-GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 3 hours ago, twa said: I disagree Yeah, it’s transparent. I mean I like you and all but at the same time I also know that you’re a dude who, outside of blind loyalty to anyone who puts an R after their name, doesn’t believe in or care about anything (including but not limited to everything that “R” is supposed to stand for). You’re kinda like my dad in that sense. I like him too. He also embraces anti-intellectualism and fealty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 14 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: Yeah, it’s transparent. I mean I like you and all but at the same time I also know that you’re a dude who, outside of blind loyalty to anyone who puts an R after their name, doesn’t believe in or care about anything (including but not limited to everything that “R” is supposed to stand for). You’re kinda like my dad in that sense. I like him too. He also embraces anti-intellectualism and fealty. I care about many things, give me options that believably endorses those things and I will support it. I don't care for or about politicians period......that includes the orange one. NONE of which matters to the point the Dems dropped the ball on impeaching him. arguing the defense would have stopped them anyway is feeble.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 8 minutes ago, twa said: arguing the defense would have stopped them anyway is feeble.. No one is saying defense would have stopped them. People are saying that the jury was rigged. In fact specific GOP senators admit that they believe the factual allegations but still will not vote for impeachment. Dems could've put on a case of the century and it still wouldn't have garnered 67 votes for conviction. You can disagree with that if you want, but conviction was never a realistic goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 2 hours ago, twa said: I don't care for or about politicians period......that includes the orange one. I have a hard time reconciling that with you voting straight ticket... which includes the orange one. And every other post you make defending things that are obviously wrong because somebody who’s pretending to be conservative does them. I don’t really want to get into an argument with you about it. However, I’ve started pregaming pretty early plus Im currently in the redneck section of FL and that ****’s rubbing off on me so if you want to do some cyber barfighting, I’m up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCB Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 Here's the thing: voting for Trump meant - and it was obvious in 2016 - that you don't care for or about the Constitution. Own it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, bearrock said: No one is saying defense would have stopped them. People are saying that the jury was rigged. In fact specific GOP senators admit that they believe the factual allegations but still will not vote for impeachment. Dems could've put on a case of the century and it still wouldn't have garnered 67 votes for conviction. You can disagree with that if you want, but conviction was never a realistic goal. OK, the refs then, those senators probably do not believe he obstructed justice to a illegal degree, nor did the quid pro quo attempt rise to that level since there was justification for asking for a investigation. ....feel free to ask them though the Dems did not put on the case of the century or even close Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 Clearly, the Democrats never proved that Senators are supposed to rank guilt more important than party loyalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 14 minutes ago, twa said: those senators probably do not believe he obstructed justice to a illegal degree, nor did the quid pro quo attempt rise to that level since there was justification for asking for a investigation. ....feel free to ask them though And those are not factual disputes. Thus, it wouldn't have mattered what additional evidence gets presented or witnesses called. Short of Dems overlooking an argument that would've convinced enough GOP senators to change their mind that what happened does constitute obstruction of justice or that quid pro quo in this case does rise to the level of impeachment, nothing would've changed the result. Do you believe such an argument exists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, bearrock said: And those are not factual disputes. Thus, it wouldn't have mattered what additional evidence gets presented or witnesses called. Short of Dems overlooking an argument that would've convinced enough GOP senators to change their mind that what happened does constitute obstruction of justice or that quid pro quo in this case does rise to the level of impeachment, nothing would've changed the result. Do you believe such an argument exists? On obstruction they needed to press on to the courts to have illegal obstruction and did not....no telling what might have been Trump's response. the quid pro quo was a loser from the start withe the Hunter Biden card in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 31 minutes ago, twa said: the quid pro quo was a loser from the start withe the Hunter Biden card in hand. Hmmm.... Yet interestingly, even people like Alexander concede that what Trump did was at least inappropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, bearrock said: Hmmm.... Yet interestingly, even people like Alexander concede that what Trump did was at least inappropriate. And Susan Collins was disturbed for a few hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 9 minutes ago, bearrock said: Hmmm.... Yet interestingly, even people like Alexander concede that what Trump did was at least inappropriate. Certainly, improper even. politicians should avoid even the perception of abuse of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 3 hours ago, JCB said: Here's the thing: voting for Trump meant - and it was obvious in 2016 - that you don't care for or about the Constitution. Own it. To me Trump, his enablers in Congress, and his voters are the ultimate nihilists. They believe in nothing except 1) themselves (Trump), 2) staying in power (Congressional Republicans), and 3) angrily airing grievances (usually extremely thinly veiled racist ones, if veiled at all) and "owning the libs", no matter the harm done to the country (Trump voters). They believe in nothing policy-wise. They have no real ideology or political affiliations. Anything that Trump says they immediately are for, no matter whether he literally said the opposite a week before. If he came out and said abortions were super American and awesome, his voters would be screaming it at the top of their lungs the next day and making up excuses for why abortions are fine now. His evangelical "Christian" voters would pretend to be upset but they'd still vote for him (the whole "still better than <x>" mentality). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 7 hours ago, twa said: Perhaps, but we will not know since they rushed it to claim the victory of impeaching him. Enjoy it while you can. Incorrect. We do know. They told us before it even started. 5 hours ago, twa said: OK, the refs then, those senators probably do not believe he obstructed justice to a illegal degree, nor did the quid pro quo attempt rise to that level since there was justification for asking for a investigation. ....feel free to ask them though the Dems did not put on the case of the century or even close Also incorrect. Those senators are what we like to refer to as "corrupt". They know what was done was wrong, but they don't care because they put party/themselves over country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 5 hours ago, twa said: those senators probably do not believe he obstructed justice to a illegal degree, nor did the quid pro quo attempt rise to that level since there was justification for asking for a investigation. ....feel free to ask them though The problem is that was not their argument from the start. That is the convoluted explanation they slowly had to morph into as a defense once the facts started coming out. Now there is a chance that they knew all along, once the whistle blower complaint was discovered and every witnesses's testimony corresponded to the complaint, that this was not looking good, but they sure never dared to publicly say this until the end of the Senate trial when the votes to acquit were already secure. At the least, they should be labeled as cowards. At the least. If Joe Biden ends up not getting the nomination, this entire Hunter Biden farce will quickly disappear forever. The "concern" over how nepotism played a role in his hiring will evaporate, because honestly, the longer the GOP act like that rises to the level of corruption that our justice department should be concerned about, the quicker their sons & daughters will soon start coming under the same microscope, and you can trust, GOP or DEM.....or Trump are not willing to go down that road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 43 minutes ago, PokerPacker said: Incorrect. We do know. They told us before it even started. Also incorrect. Those senators are what we like to refer to as "corrupt". They know what was done was wrong, but they don't care because they put party/themselves over country. I find it fascinating (and slightly nauseating) to watch clips of Lindsay Graham in 1999 during the Clinton impeachment talking about how "character matters" and how witnesses need to be called during the impeachment trial in the Senate. The guy is just such an over the top hypocrite that it would be borderline impressive if it wasn't so harmful to our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 6 hours ago, bearrock said: ....... Dems could've put on a case of the century and it still wouldn't have garnered 67 votes for conviction. You can disagree with that if you want, but conviction was never a realistic goal. Oh I agree with that. But some are just pointing our the Dems didn't put on the case of the century. Given what they were facing in the Senate they absolutely should have called every witness they wanted before sending it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 Retired Senate Dem leader tells Glenn Beck: If I were still in office, I'd vote to acquit President Trump Lieberman: If Hamilton and Madison were alive today, they would also vote to acquit Trump \ https://www.theblaze.com/news/joe_lieberman_acquit_trump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted February 3, 2020 Author Share Posted February 3, 2020 8 hours ago, nonniey said: Oh I agree with that. But some are just pointing our the Dems didn't put on the case of the century. Given what they were facing in the Senate they absolutely should have called every witness they wanted before sending it there. Enough Republican senators concede the point that the Dems proved their case and thus additional witnesses would have made no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/02/03/donald-trump-tweet-congratulates-kansas-chiefs-super-bowl-win 😂😬😢 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 8 hours ago, nonniey said: Given what they were facing in the Senate they absolutely should have called every witness they wanted before sending it there. As opposed to only calling the witnesses which 1). They can actually get in less than 5 years. 2). And which are sufficient to prove the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 The other blatant lie about this whole thing, on the obstruction side, is the bull**** that Trump has some noble cause about protecting the rights of the Presidency. The fact is he said from the very get-go "**** you, Congress, we're giving you nothing. No documents. No witnesses. Nothing." Then the lawyers spent the next several months fashioning a patchwork of rationales to justify the blanket contempt of Congress. There was nothing noble or forward-looking about it. It was a gambit to protect one person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.