Russia bounty on US troops

#829
#829
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
Geez Sandman this is a little embarrassing.

I apologize that you don't know that drumpf is trump. His grandfather changed the name. This is the same grandfather that had his Bavarian citizenship revoked for avoiding mandatory military service and ran a brothel. Sound familiar??

The media does it wrong, drumpf supporters aren't stupid they just aren't willing to think critically. They are the kind of people happy with their fast food and drumpf nicknames.

Does this mean you "Bidened" the comment?
Click to expand...

Oh, so you are showing respect by calling him by his ancestors name instead of his actual legal name. Is this correct?
 
#830
#830
Weezer said:
Been over this. First of all, Clinton's impeachment was not political. He committed an actual crime(perjury). His committal of the crime had nothing to do with GOP machinations. He even admitted he committed the crime, yet somehow Dems cannot get past blaming Republicans.
He lied under oath during a deposition for the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. At her own discretion with no outside influence, Linda Tripp taped conversations with Monica Lewinsky that proved Bill Clinton had lied under oath. She then dropped those tapes in the lap of Ken Starr. So, is it your opinion that such conclusive evidence of a crime by the POTUS should have been ignored, simply because he shared your political affiliation? Seems to be what you're suggesting. And if you don't think there was a cross party vote to acquit Clinton by the Senate, you need to check the votes. Of the two charges, I believe ten Republicans voted to acquit on one charge, and five on the other. This despite conclusive evidence a crime was committed. Check your facts.
Click to expand...
And yet, while I agree with everything you said on Slick Willy’s actions, I still don’t believe it met the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors and impeachment should have never been taken on.

And you’re correct on the cross party Senate vote too. Thus my reply to him right above your post.
 
#832
#832
BowlBrother85 said:
What I meant, was that there weren't any Democratic Senators who voted to convict Clinton in 1998. All of the votes in favor of conviction, were Republican. However, Trump did have a Republican vote in favor of conviction with Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...
No he called you correctly on what you meant and now you’re trying to walk back your dumbassery on getting caught on it.
 
#833
#833
NorthDallas40 said:
No he called you correctly on what you meant and now you’re trying to walk back your dumbassery on getting caught on it.
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty clear that I was just saying that there weren't any Senate Democrats who had voted to convict Clinton, but there was a Senate Republican who had voted to convict Trump. That was the whole point of bring it up.
 
Last edited:
#835
#835
GoBigOrangeUT said:
I don’t think I’ve defended my wife the way some of you jump to defend a guy you don’t know and wouldn’t even like you. It’s crazy.
Click to expand...
It's not even party over country. It's one idiot over country. Since Dana Rohrabacher was defeated, there aren't any Republicans currently in Congress, who defend Russia the way Trump does. None.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan and kcvols1
#836
#836
BowlBrother85 said:
I think it's pretty clear that I was just saying that there weren't any Senate Democrats who had voted to convict Clinton, but there was a Senate Republican who had voted to convict Trump. That was the whole point of bring it up.
Click to expand...
No it was clear that you were pitching stronger bipartisan support for Trump impeachment over Slick Willy and you used a factually incorrect example to support it which Weezer called you on and correctly so
 
#837
#837
NorthDallas40 said:
No it was clear that you were pitching stronger bipartisan support for Trump impeachment over Slick Willy and you used a factually incorrect example to support it which Weezer called you on and correctly so
Click to expand...
Wrong. I was pitching stronger bipartisan support for Trump's removal from office in the Senate... and I still am. There weren't any Senate Democrats who voted in favor of conviction against Bill Clinton. There was one Senate Republican who voted in favor of conviction against Donald Trump - Mitt Romney.
 
#838
#838
BowlBrother85 said:
Wrong. I was pitching stronger bipartisan support for Trump's removal from office in the Senate... and I still am. There weren't any Senate Democrats who voted in favor of conviction against Bill Clinton. There was one Senate Republican who voted in favor of conviction against Donald Trump - Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...
Thanks for proving Weezer s point and thanks for the hair splitting deflection. 😂

Both processes were partisan. Clinton’s was clearly less so. Run along now 🤡
 
#839
#839
Sandman 423 said:
Oh, so you are showing respect by calling him by his ancestors name instead of his actual legal name. Is this correct?
Click to expand...

Careful, I know it's the way of the world to lose focus. Your response, is changing concepts.

Showing him respect or giving him a nickname?

Different concepts but I will play ball.

A family name is only as good as the people who carry it and honor it. The use of his original family name is really a reference to his core family and their values. I think there is virtue in doing things that honor you family name and God(if your a believer). I wouldn't dream of ever changing my name and only hope to live up to its legacy.
 
#840
#840
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
Careful, I know it's the way of the world to lose focus. Your response, is changing concepts.

Showing him respect or giving him a nickname?

Different concepts but I will play ball.

A family name is only as good as the people who carry it and honor it. The use of his original family name is really a reference to his core family and their values. I think there is virtue in doing things that honor you family name and God(if your a believer). I wouldn't dream of ever changing my name and only hope to live up to its legacy.
Click to expand...

Let me guess, you're a catcher.

You were making fun of Trumps name while calling him out for the same thing. Now go back to sleep.
 
Last edited:
#841
#841
BowlBrother85 said:
What I meant, was that there weren't any Democratic Senators who voted to convict Clinton in 1998. All of the votes in favor of conviction, were Republican. However, Trump did have a Republican vote in favor of conviction with Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...
Which speaks poorly of the Democrats because Bill Clinton actually broke the law. To this day, the Democrats do not like to acknowledge that fact. If Clinton's impeachment was political, as you claim, it was made so by the Democrats, who gave Bill unwavering support rather than holding him accountable. Had that impeachment gone differently, your Trump impeachment argument might have legs, but given the precedent that impeachment created, it does not. Clearly, breaking the law, a law that has been used to send people to prison, is not enough to merit removal from office. It leaves one to believe the POTUS is above the law.
 
#842
#842
NorthDallas40 said:
And yet, while I agree with everything you said on Slick Willy’s actions, I still don’t believe it met the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors and impeachment should have never been taken on.

And you’re correct on the cross party Senate vote too. Thus my reply to him right above your post.
Click to expand...
If you believe that, then perjury and obstruction should not be crimes that lead to jail time. Why should the POTUS be above the law? Why should he be able to get away with crimes that would send others to jail? And yes, that applies to Trump as well. There is political wrangling, and there is out and out breaking the law, which is what Bill Clinton did, what he admitted to doing. Think about that. He admitted he broke the law. But because of the office he held, his status, he avoided any serious punishment. Didn't we just go through a rash of people being arrested and sent to jail for lying to Congress? How is that any different than what Bill Clinton did? Are laws now subjective? Is it only a crime based on status? It's absurd, IMO, to defend Bill Clinton, who knowingly broke the law, and admitted to such. And it's absurd to say his impeachment was entirely political when he BROKE THE LAW. There is no argument of whether or not he broke the law. It's so conclusive he admitted it. Why do people continue to ignore that? He was a likeable guy and a decent POTUS, had tons of charisma, but he broke the damn law. And basically got away with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#843
#843
Weezer said:
If you believe that, then perjury and obstruction should not be crimes that lead to jail time. Why should the POTUS be above the law? Why should he be able to get away with crimes that would send others to jail? And yes, that applies to Trump as well. There is political wrangling, and there is out and out breaking the law, which is what Bill Clinton did, what he admitted to doing. Think about that. He admitted he broke the law. But because of the office he held, his status, he avoided any serious punishment. Didn't we just go through a rash of people being arrested and sent to jail for lying to Congress? How is that any different than what Bill Clinton did? Are laws now subjective? Is it only a crime based on status? It's absurd, IMO, to defend Bill Clinton, who knowingly broke the law, and admitted to such. And it's absurd to say his impeachment was entirely political when he BROKE THE LAW. There is no argument of whether or not he broke the law. It's so conclusive he admitted it. Why do people continue to ignore that? He was a likeable guy and a decent POTUS, had tons of charisma, but he broke the damn law. And basically got away with it.
Click to expand...
In Knoxville, apparently not wearing a mask in public leads to jail time. You kind of have to use common sense on when to remove the president fro office,
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#844
#844
Weezer said:
If you believe that, then perjury and obstruction should not be crimes that lead to jail time. Why should the POTUS be above the law? Why should he be able to get away with crimes that would send others to jail? And yes, that applies to Trump as well. There is political wrangling, and there is out and out breaking the law, which is what Bill Clinton did, what he admitted to doing. Think about that. He admitted he broke the law. But because of the office he held, his status, he avoided any serious punishment. Didn't we just go through a rash of people being arrested and sent to jail for lying to Congress? How is that any different than what Bill Clinton did? Are laws now subjective? Is it only a crime based on status? It's absurd, IMO, to defend Bill Clinton, who knowingly broke the law, and admitted to such. And it's absurd to say his impeachment was entirely political when he BROKE THE LAW. There is no argument of whether or not he broke the law. It's so conclusive he admitted it. Why do people continue to ignore that? He was a likeable guy and a decent POTUS, had tons of charisma, but he broke the damn law. And basically got away with it.
Click to expand...
Orange_Crush said:
In Knoxville, apparently not wearing a mask in public leads to jail time. You kind of have to use common sense on when to remove the president fro office,
Click to expand...
👆

Go ahead and call the POTUS out and issue some kind of censure or formal rebuke or whatever they decide Weez. But what Slick Willy did didn’t warrant removal of office and was the origin of this tit for tat we have now.
 
#845
#845
Weezer said:
Which speaks poorly of the Democrats because Bill Clinton actually broke the law. To this day, the Democrats do not like to acknowledge that fact. If Clinton's impeachment was political, as you claim, it was made so by the Democrats, who gave Bill unwavering support rather than holding him accountable. Had that impeachment gone differently, your Trump impeachment argument might have legs, but given the precedent that impeachment created, it does not. Clearly, breaking the law, a law that has been used to send people to prison, is not enough to merit removal from office. It leaves one to believe the POTUS is above the law.
Click to expand...
Democrats were not bound to vote in favor of conviction and removal from office, even if they believed that Bill Clinton had committed perjury. That is still an individual judgment call from each Senator and the reasoning for voting against conviction and removal from office was sound. Although Bill Clinton had committed perjury, his lies concerned a personal matter rather than a professional one. Clinton had not lied over a matter related to his duties as the President of the United States. He had lied about an extramarital affair and then tried to cover it up. In other words, he had not lied about his knowledge concerning the break-in of a rival political party's headquarters, and then tried to cover it up.
 
#846
#846
NorthDallas40 said:
👆

Go ahead and call the POTUS out and issue some kind of censure or formal rebuke or whatever they decide Weez. But what Slick Willy did didn’t warrant removal of office and was the origin of this tit for tat we have now.
Click to expand...
No one asked me, but I could go either way.

It was a lie. Eh...


But it was a lie under oath to Congress and the American people. I could personally be convinced that's enough of a professional/criminal hit that we don't trust him with the office any longer.
 
#847
#847
BowlBrother85 said:
It's not even party over country. It's one idiot over country. Since Dana Rohrabacher was defeated, there aren't any Republicans currently in Congress, who defend Russia the way Trump does. None.
Click to expand...
Trump is a giant, arrogant douche bag. You'll get no argument from me on that one. But there is no conclusive evidence he broke the law. There is a huge grey area on the POTUS being able to delay aid. Did he act unethically? I believe so. But did it rise to the level of impeachment when whether or not he violated the law is questionable? NO, it did not. And the Democrats knew this. They've convinced their base it should have been enough, but even Nancy knew it was not, which is why she drug her feet for so long. You bought into political theater. Being a giant arrogant d-bag is not an impeachable offense. Beating the chosen one is not an impeachable offense. Trump should never have been elected, but he was running against an opponent who should also never have been elected. And we're repeating that with this election, with the exception that the other guy who should never be elected(Biden) probably will be. Trump is an ass hat, but the Dems have yet to offer up enough that actually supports removal from office. And honestly, until COVID hit, odds are, Trump was going to be reelected. The left has taken this tragedy and used it for every ounce of political hay they can make, and Biden will be the beneficiary. But once again, the country will lose because we will elect an undeserving candidate to be our leader. But is that enough to impeach Joe? No, just as it wasn't enough to impeach Trump.

People on both sides, people I think are probably good people, have allowed themselves to have the wool pulled over their eyes. They're so convinced they are on the side of right that they fail to see both sides are wrong.
 
#848
#848
BowlBrother85 said:
Democrats were not bound to vote in favor of conviction and removal from office, even if they believed that Bill Clinton had committed perjury. That is still an individual judgment call from each Senator and the reasoning for voting against conviction and removal from office was sound. Although Bill Clinton had committed perjury, his lies concerned a personal matter rather than a professional one. Clinton had not lied over a matter related to his duties as the President of the United States. He had lied about an extramarital affair and then tried to cover it up. In other words, he had not lied about his knowledge concerning the break-in of the Democratic Party headquarters, and then tried to cover it up.
Click to expand...
Is perjury an imprisonable offense? I've seen this defense of "well, he lied over a personal matter" time and time again, but does that excuse that he knowingly broke the law? Have people been sent to prison for perjury? Yes. Did he get away with it because he was POTUS? Yes. Do you believe the POTUS should be above the law?
 
#849
#849
Orange_Crush said:
In Knoxville, apparently not wearing a mask in public leads to jail time. You kind of have to use common sense on when to remove the president fro office,
Click to expand...
For the common man. If Donald Trump walked into a store without a mask, would it apply to him?

But if he does, I expect a swift impeachment will probably occur.
 
#850
#850
Weezer said:
Is perjury an imprisonable offense? I've seen this defense of "well, he lied over a personal matter" time and time again, but does that excuse that he knowingly broke the law? Have people been sent to prison for perjury? Yes. Did he get away with it because he was POTUS? Yes. Do you believe the POTUS should be above the law?
Click to expand...
Only on seldom occasions will a perjury offense result in prison time. Laws against perjury are rarely enforced outside of the military, and even when they are enforced, there is almost always a political agenda behind it. Perjury charges tend to only be pursued when a prosecutor is desperate to nail either a politician, or an organized crime boss with something (anything), and they have nothing else that they can pin on him.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top