‘It’s open season on the president’: Anonymous op-ed unleashes fresh West Wing meltdown

#626
#626
Orange_Crush said:
So, what was their case then?

Your argument undercuts itself. You're basically arguing that he said they presented a mountain of evidence that proved that he shouldn't be impeached. And here's the kick to the gonads.
































They still impeached him. The testimony you're relying on is saying that they didn't prove a case for impeachment, and yet they impeached him. Ouch.
Click to expand...
Alexander’s statement when it came out I was like WTF it’s just poorly thought thru. They proved their case or they didn’t. The parsing in the middle is irrelevant. He voted no on both counts ipso facto they didn’t prove their case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#627
#627
NorthDallas40 said:
Alexander’s tortured rationalization on why he didn’t want/need to hear any witnesses is irrelevant. Either Trump acted outside the tenants of his office in which case Alexander should vote to remove or he didn’t which Alexander should vote no not the remove.

He voted no on both counts. Thus the Democrats did not price their case.

And yet you’re still parsing this logically tortured statement he made as if it has any real meaning almost a year later. Frigging hilarious but it’s what you ALWAYS do 😂
Click to expand...
His opinion is more relevant than yours. Sen. Alexander specifically said in his statement, that the Democratic Party House managers did prove their case that President Trump had withheld aid to the Ukraine in order to encourage an investigation into a political opponent. Sen. Alexander left no room for misinterpretation, nor is there any need to parse words. His opinion was clearly stated and completely logical. He voted to acquit, not because Trump wasn't guilty as charged, but because the pending sanction wasn't justified (in his opinion).
 
#629
#629
BowlBrother85 said:
His opinion is more relevant than yours. Sen. Alexander specifically said in his statement, that the Democratic Party House managers did prove their case that President Trump had withheld aid to the Ukraine in order to encourage an investigation into a political opponent. Sen. Alexander left no room for misinterpretation, nor is there any need to parse words. His opinion was clearly stated and completely logical. He voted to acquit, not because Trump wasn't guilty as charged, but because the pending sanction wasn't justified (in his opinion).
Click to expand...
How did Alexander vote on both counts? That’s the only relevant opinion that matters. Womp womp.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#631
#631
Orange_Crush said:
So, what was their case then?

Your argument undercuts itself. You're basically arguing that he said they presented a mountain of evidence that proved that he shouldn't be impeached. And here's the kick to the gonads.
































They still impeached him. The testimony you're relying on is saying that they didn't prove a case for impeachment, and yet they impeached him. Ouch.
Click to expand...
Don't do posts like this. It's obnoxious.

It wasn't my argument. It was Sen. Lamar Alexander's. Once again, he clearly stated that the House managers had proven their case. He left no wiggle room for any other interpretation than that. He voted to acquit because he didn't think Trump's inappropriate conduct justified removal from office.
 
#632
#632
BowlBrother85 said:
His opinion is more relevant than yours. Sen. Alexander specifically said in his statement, that the Democratic Party House managers did prove their case that President Trump had withheld aid to the Ukraine in order to encourage an investigation into a political opponent. Sen. Alexander left no room for misinterpretation, nor is there any need to parse words. His opinion was clearly stated and completely logical. He voted to acquit, not because Trump wasn't guilty as charged, but because the pending sanction wasn't justified (in his opinion).
Click to expand...
He said they didn't meet the burden of proof to impeach, so he couldn't vote to impeach. IOW, he basically said that it was his opinion that they proved that Trump was doing 45 MPH in a school zone, but that they'd had no right to apply the death penalty for having done so.

So, again... You're using a singular opinion as an appeal to authority fallacious argument, and even that appeal undermines your stance.

It's staggering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#633
#633
BowlBrother85 said:
Don't do posts like this. It's obnoxious.

It wasn't my argument. It was Sen. Lamar Alexander's. Once again, he clearly stated that the House managers had proven their case. He left no wiggle room for any other interpretation than that. He voted to acquit because he didn't think Trump's inappropriate conduct justified removal from office.
Click to expand...
Orange_Crush said:
He said they didn't meet the burden of proof to impeach, so he couldn't vote to impeach. IOW, he basically said that it was his opinion that they proved that Trump was doing 45 MPH in a school zone, but that they'd had no right to apply the death penalty for having done so.

So, again... You're using a singular opinion as an appeal to authority fallacious argument, and even that appeal undermines your stance.

It's staggering.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#634
#634
NorthDallas40 said:
How did Alexander vote on both counts? That’s the only relevant opinion that matters. Womp womp.
Click to expand...
Sen. Lamar Alexander explained why he voted the way he did, and I have alluded to that explanation. Sen. Alexander clearly stated that Democratic Party House managers "proved their case with a mountain of evidence". Those were his words; not mine. Sen. Alexander voted to acquit because he didn't believe the sanction (Trump's removal from office) was justified.
 
#635
#635
Orange_Crush said:
He said they didn't meet the burden of proof to impeach, so he couldn't vote to impeach. IOW, he basically said that it was his opinion that they proved that Trump was doing 45 MPH in a school zone, but that they'd had no right to apply the death penalty for having done so.

So, again... You're using a singular opinion as an appeal to authority fallacious argument, and even that appeal undermines your stance.

It's staggering.
Click to expand...
No, he did not! At no point did Sen. Lamar Alexander ever state that Democrats had failed to meet their burden of proof. That is a falsehood on your part. In fact, Sen. Alexander said just the opposite. You need to read that statement again.
 
#636
#636
37L1 said:
The whole thing was no substance but just more of #resist. It was pitiful when the result was already a foregone conclusion just like the Barrett nomination.

Oh, so much drama/outrage and waste of time while other things went begging.

But the show must go on.
Click to expand...

So if there is nothing to it, why not prove it by hearing from witnesses to determine credibility (or lack thereof)?
 
#637
#637
BowlBrother85 said:
Sen. Lamar Alexander explained why he voted the way he did, and I have alluded to that explanation. Sen. Alexander clearly stated that Democratic Party House managers "proved their case with a mountain of evidence". Those were his words; not mine. Sen. Alexander voted to acquit because he didn't believe the sanction (Trump's removal from office) was justified.
Click to expand...
How did Alexander vote on both counts ipso facto what was his opinion on how they proved their case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#639
#639
BowlBrother85 said:
No, he did not! At no point did Sen. Lamar Alexander ever state that Democrats had failed to meet their burden of proof. That is a falsehood on your part. In fact, Sen. Alexander said just the opposite. You need to read that statement again.
Click to expand...
He voted no on both counts thus they did not prove their case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#640
#640
NorthDallas40 said:
How did Alexander vote on both counts ipso facto what was his opinion on how they proved their case.
Click to expand...
Sen. Lamar Alexander's opinion was that the Democratic Party House managers proved their case. Sen. Alexander specifically said so. He voted to acquit on both counts because he didn't believe it rose to the level of being an impeachable offense and he didn't believe the impending sanction - which was Trump's removal from office - would have been justified. I have said this three times now.
 
#641
#641
BowlBrother85 said:
Sen. Lamar Alexander's opinion was that the Democratic Party House managers proved their case. Sen. Alexander specifically said so. He voted to acquit on both counts because he didn't believe it rose to the level of being an impeachable offense and he didn't believe the impending sanction - which was Trump's removal from office - would have been justified. I have said this three times now.
Click to expand...
How did Alexander vote? Your parsing is irrelevant. How did he vote IPSO FACTO what was his opinion on them proving their case?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#642
#642
BowlBrother85 said:
Don't do posts like this. It's obnoxious.

It wasn't my argument. It was Sen. Lamar Alexander's. Once again, he clearly stated that the House managers had proven their case. He left no wiggle room for any other interpretation than that. He voted to acquit because he didn't think Trump's inappropriate conduct justified removal from office.
Click to expand...

Why don't you go back to making your own arguments instead of trotting this worn out fallacy out. Oh, I remember. It's because when you tried to make a series of actual arguments, you got tied into pretzels.




The Constitution is a global document that affords the people who are politically expedient to your party immunity from foreign investigation of foreign crimes, committed on foreign soil.

Those foreign crimes should be investigated by the US DoJ.

It's an impeachable offense for a President to implement any foreign policy that may also be politically beneficial to him.

A presidential cabinet has the right to implement foreign policy, but the elected leader of that cabinet doesn't.

The money was withheld, but it was released on time.




What are we forgetting here, BB? When we go back and consider how you've made your arguments on this subject, it becomes clear why your last bunker would be a misrepresented appeal to authority fallacy from a quote that undermines the point you're trying to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_Vol and NorthDallas40
#643
#643
NorthDallas40 said:
He voted no on both counts thus they did not prove their case.
Click to expand...
No, that is not what Sen. Lamar Alexander said. He specifically said that the Democratic Party House managers did prove their case. His votes weren't from a lack of proof over the evidence. His votes stemmed from not believing Trump's misconduct rose to the level of being an impeachable offense, or justified his removal from office. Sen. Lamar Alexander stated very clearly in his Twitter post, that the Democrats had proven their case - and therefore no other witnesses were necessary for the trial.
 
#644
#644
BowlBrother85 said:
No, that is not what Sen. Lamar Alexander said. He specifically said that the Democratic Party House managers did prove their case. His votes weren't from a lack of proof over the evidence. His votes stemmed from not believing Trump's misconduct rose to the level of being an impeachable offense, or justified his removal from office. Sen. Lamar Alexander stated very clearly in his Twitter post, that the Democrats had proven their case - and therefore no other witnesses were necessary.
Click to expand...
He voted NO on both counts thus in his opinion they clearly didn’t prove their case. Well done you’ve carried a stellar amount of waster this morning all for naught as usual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#645
#645
Orange_Crush said:
Why don't you go back to making your own arguments instead of trotting this worn out fallacy out. Oh, I remember. It's because when you tried to make a series of actual arguments, you got tied into pretzels.




The Constitution is a global document that affords the people who are politically expedient to your party immunity from foreign investigation of foreign crimes, committed on foreign soil.

Those foreign crimes should be investigated by the US DoJ.

It's an impeachable offense for a President to implement any foreign policy that may also be politically beneficial to him.

A presidential cabinet has the right to implement foreign policy, but the elected leader of that cabinet doesn't.

The money was withheld, but it was released on time.




What are we forgetting here, BB? When we go back and consider how you've made your arguments on this subject, it becomes clear why your last bunker would be a misrepresented appeal to authority fallacy from a quote that undermines the point you're trying to make.
Click to expand...
The money wasn't released on time... and Sen. Alexander's Twitter statement speaks for itself. It was inappropriate for Trump to withhold aid to the Ukraine as a means of pressuring their president into announcing an investigation into a political opponent of his. Sen. Alexander made this very clear.
 
#648
#648
BowlBrother85 said:
The money wasn't released on time... and Sen. Alexander's Twitter statement speaks for itself. It was inappropriate for Trump to withhold aid to the Ukraine as a means of pressuring their president into announcing an investigation into a political opponent of his. Sen. Alexander made this very clear.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Alexander should have voted to remove

BUT HE DIDN’T!
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#649
#649
BowlBrother85 said:
I just explained that. Sen. Lamar Alexander did vote to acquit, but it wasn't because Democrats didn't prove their case. He acknowledged that they did prove their case, and he also acknowledged that Trump's conduct was inappropriate. He just didn't believe that Trump's conduct rose to the level of justifying his removal from office. The post I had quoted, claimed that Democrats did not prove their case. In the words of a Senate Republican, that is not true.
Click to expand...
So your argument is that impeachment is a political tool not a legal one?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#650
#650
NorthDallas40 said:
He voted NO on both counts thus in his opinion they clearly didn’t prove their case. Well done you’ve carried a stellar amount of waster this morning all for naught as usual.
Click to expand...
No. That was not the reason that Sen. Lamar Alexander provided in his Twitter statement for voting to acquit. Sen. Lamar Alexander specifically stated that the Democratic Party House managers had proven their case. Sen. Alexander gave that as the reason for why no new witnesses should be called. No new witnesses were needed because the Democrats had already proven their case "with a mountain of evidence." Sen. Alexander explained that he voted to acquit because he didn't believe that Trump's misconduct rose to the level of being an impeachable offense or justified his removal from office. Those were his words; not mine. And he didn't leave any room for any misinterpretation.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top