The Impeachment Thread

[Septic]

I refuse to allow you to limit the parameters of this discussion.

Bite me.

Unless Obama was impeached for anything remotely similar, stop attempting to hijack the conversation with feels.

 

[Septic]

Septic literally defended the banana republic that the democrats are burning our republic to be, due to the fact that he/they don't like the "carnival barker" style of the president they're trying to pull the coup against.

Now... Do you think septic is that stupid? (I don't. There are those here who are that partisan and stupid, but septic isn't.)

Or do you think we take septic at his word and write him off as an internet troll that just posts extreme positions because he's a slave to the dopamine dump he gets from thinking he's raised a stranger's blood pressure?

Are you going to cry again?

 

[37L1]

Unless Obama was impeached for anything remotely similar, stop attempting to hijack the conversation with feels.

I repeat, Bite Me. I'll post what I "feels" like. For the record, I wasn't referring to only Obama, note the plural used. So one of those was impeached, but not for the same thing. Trump has yet to be impeached so. . .

 

[Grand Vol]

Went out of my way to make it as generic as possible throwing in a single parenthetical that ties it into Trump in this case.

You haven’t had your coffee yet.

Three cups...well, working on the third.

It doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to know you were invoking Trump considering this is the Impeachment thread.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Are you going to cry again?

Thanks for proving my point. Hugs and kisses.

The thing about fungi is it dies in the light.

 

[Grand Vol]

I'd rather not have a completely corrupt president pretending that he's a 'didn't dunuffin' while patting himself on the back for exposing corruption. So no, I'd rather he not be part of the problem he's balls deep in. I especially don't 'rather' have him attempting to use his position to solicit foriegn influence to maintain his grip on power.

The problem is, the corruption and hypocrisy on both sides would not have been discovered unless events unfolded as they have.

Nearly every President has been a didn't dunuffin when they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Trump has good company in that regard.

 

[37L1]

The problem is, the corruption and hypocrisy on both sides would not have been discovered unless events unfolded as they have.

Nearly every President has been a didn't dunuffin when they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Trump has good company in that regard.

But he has no plausible deniability. In fact, he takes credit for it and does more of it in broad daylight in front of everyone. Talk about transparency.
because he din do nuffin.

 

[37L1]

Thanks for proving my point. Hugs and kisses.

The thing about fungi is it dies in the light.

That why he's kept in the dark and fed sh!t.

 

[Grand Vol]

That why he's kept in the dark and fed sh!t.

No, Septic is actually pretty well informed.

He just like stirring the pot when he thinks he can get a rise out of someone.

 

[37L1]

No, Septic is actually pretty well informed.

He just like stirring the pot when he thinks he can get a rise out of someone.

I know. I make bad joke. Septic is a smarty pants.

 

[RockyTop85]

Ok I agree with that. And what we are dealing with now is the “appearance of impropriety” in which Trump isn’t helping himself as usual for sure. At this point I’m wondering if he’s doing it just to see if he can get any of the lib leadership to pop a blood vessel as nobody in their right mind believes he is going to get removed from office over this. FFS we now have a 2nd IC “whistleblower” consulting with the NYT that they are considering filing a complaint. First off that’s just an IC threat, 2nd even going to the press is a major breach of the whistleblower protocol, and third if this “whistleblower” has given one piece of information to the NYT they’ve likely broken the law and lost all whistleblower protections anyway and the correct title is “leaker”.

It looks like a bad game of stupidity chicken seeing which side can out do the other. But one side is laughing their ass off knowing they are in the position of power and likely trolling while the other has sheer terror and acting from desperation. And on here you will see people talking right past each other on which side is which and I do find that highly entertaining

This is what I meant earlier about willingness to draw inferences. I don’t agree with what you’re saying that it’s merely an appearance of impropriety.

I see this situations as being like a man who is arrested shortly after breaking into a jewelry store after hours. In TN, burglary requires an intent to commit another crime. Usually theft or assault. So how do you prove he intended to steal jewelry? I’m not relying on that as a defense because it’s a pretty easy inference for the jury to make, based on the facts. Of course he wanted to steal jewelry, what else could he have been doing?
Of course Trump wanted dirt on the

Democrats/Biden. What else could he have been doing?

Mostly that’s based on the idea that relitigating the 2016 election is of no benefit to anybody but Trump, military aide to Ukraine is a benefit as they’re engaged with one of our enemies, and the Joe Biden thing could and should have been handled independently. The Ron Johnson story from yesterday sheds light on Trump’s intent, IMO, as well.

I don’t expect us to agree about what Trump’s intent was or what the intended trump/America benefit “ratio” was. I don’t think they’re reasonable points of disagreement, and of course I think I’m right, but I expect you feel the same.

That’s why I think it’ll end up like Mueller. There is never proof of intent and I think the benefits of foreign policy Is a complex topic that makes the reasons Mueller couldn’t charge Trump seem like a cake walk. At least I see it that way.

 

[RockyTop85]

Three cups...well, working on the third.

It doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to know you were invoking Trump considering this is the Impeachment thread.

No kidding? Is that what this thread is about? I wondered why I put in this case in there.

 

[Grand Vol]

No kidding? Is that what this thread is about? I wondered why I put in this case in there.

Poor angry fellow. You should get a Cinnabon roll or something to sooth your ire.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, Septic is actually pretty well informed.

He just like stirring the pot when he thinks he can get a rise out of someone.

He just gets REALLY, REALLY defensive when you point him to the personality profile of the person that stirs the pot because he likes thinking he gets a rise out of someone.

Actually mocked me for supposedly calling him a big meanie-pants while literally, simultaneously calling me a big meanie-pants name-caller for pointing him to that "dark-tetrad" psychological profile of stunted emotions and self-loathing.

 

[Grand Vol]

He just gets REALLY, REALLY defensive when you point him to the personality profile of the person that stirs the pot because he likes thinking he gets a rise out of someone.

Actually mocked me for being a big meanie-pants while literally, simultaneously calling me a big meanie-pants name-caller for pointing him to that "dark-tetrad" psychological profile of stunted emotions and self-loathing.

You are a big meanie pants.

 

[RockyTop85]

Poor angry fellow. You should get a Cinnabon roll or something to sooth your ire.

I’ll treat your abandonment of that silliness as a concession and accept your unspoken apology.

 

[Grand Vol]

I’ll treat your abandonment of that silliness as a concession and accept your unspoken apology.

Which silliness would that be?

You're not impartial and won't be objective over the matter at hand?

That even if Trump did do this for personal gain, that Biden is guilty of the same measure since it directly benefited his family?

That even though both might be investigation worthy, only one will ever be truly dug into because of the hypocrisy of the media and the left?

That this whole impeachment movement is a sham that the Democrats have been lying to the American people about?

Specifically?

 

[NorthDallas40]

This is what I meant earlier about willingness to draw inferences. I don’t agree with what you’re saying that it’s merely an appearance of impropriety.

I see this situations as being like a man who is arrested shortly after breaking into a jewelry store after hours. In TN, burglary requires an intent to commit another crime. Usually theft or assault. So how do you prove he intended to steal jewelry? I’m not relying on that as a defense because it’s a pretty easy inference for the jury to make, based on the facts. Of course he wanted to steal jewelry, what else could he have been doing?
Of course Trump wanted dirt on the

Democrats/Biden. What else could he have been doing?

Mostly that’s based on the idea that relitigating the 2016 election is of no benefit to anybody but Trump, military aide to Ukraine is a benefit as they’re engaged with one of our enemies, and the Joe Biden thing could and should have been handled independently. The Ron Johnson story from yesterday sheds light on Trump’s intent, IMO, as well.

I don’t expect us to agree about what Trump’s intent was or what the intended trump/America benefit “ratio” was. I don’t think they’re reasonable points of disagreement, and of course I think I’m right, but I expect you feel the same.

That’s why I think it’ll end up like Mueller. There is never proof of intent and I think the benefits of foreign policy Is a complex topic that makes the reasons Mueller couldn’t charge Trump seem like a cake walk. At least I see it that way.

However I’d submit that thus far the testimony on record appears to clearly state that the administration’s position is no quid pro quo. Did Trump get all giggly to himself and maybe even his most trusted confidants? There’s clearly a chance of that for sure. FDR sure loved him some Machiavellian string pulling (no Trump is not FDR...) however people have to prove that and even if they do if the benefit is still correlated with national interests that is the dialog that will won the day.

Yovanovitch could possibly still throw a wrench in State’s thus far unified position. I’m guessing she isn’t appreciative of getting fired. And I was wondering about the glowing... but extremely brief... mention of Yovanovitch in Volker’s opening statement. No examples of her own actions given as he did elsewhere through out the document. But I admittedly could be reading more into it than is there. Might still be some quality TV coming!

 

[0nelilreb]

Interesting, I always assumed the American exceptionalism mentality by the right would have set a higher bar. Then again the MAGA crowd isn't exactly known for a exhibiting shame.

And I always thought a banana republic was somehow different than this , I’m pleasantly surprised . If this is as bad as it gets I’m good with it . Somehow I feel more secure now than I did during the Cold War ( except for the liberals trying to take my guns and outlaw free speech ) and reading about the Cuban missile crisis I’m positive we are much further away now from getting the big mushroom dropped on us then we were . I guess it really is about perspective .

 

[Orange_Crush]

And I always thought a banana republic was somehow different than this , I’m pleasantly surprised . If this is as bad as it gets I’m good with it . Somehow I feel more secure now than I did during the Cold War ( except for the liberals trying to take my guns and outlaw free speech ) and reading about the Cuban missile crisis I’m positive we are much further away now from getting the big mushroom dropped on us then we were . I guess it really is about perspective .

Don't undervalue the damage the Democrats are doing to the republic right now. He wasn't calling Trump a banana republic. He was accusing trump of style problems while using those style preferences as a defense for the banana republic that the Dems have turned our country into.

The dems have made it plenty bad and it's no bueno to understate that fact.

 

[RockyTop85]

Which silliness would that be?

You're not impartial and won't be objective over the matter at hand?

That even if Trump did do this for personal gain, that Biden is guilty of the same measure since it directly benefited his family?

That even though both might be investigation worthy, only one will ever be truly dug into because of the hypocrisy of the media and the left?

That this whole impeachment movement is a sham that the Democrats have been lying to the American people about?

Specifically?

Aggressively repeating back to me the things I’ve already said (because you didn’t go back and read like I told you to) and sprinkling in some whackado conspiracy theories is an interesting tactic. You know there’s a thread for those, right?

The abuse of power rubric I suggested in the post you took issue with would cover Biden’s allegations. That’s why it was written generically with “(Trump, in this case)” thrown in.

The post I made immediately after that explicitly states that an individual’s willingness to make an inference (which to some degree includes bias) determines where they fall on impeachment.

So is that all? Or is honesty and integrity really the hill you want to take in defense of Donald Trump?

 

[Grand Vol]

Aggressively repeating back to me the things I’ve already said (because you didn’t go back and read like I told you to) and sprinkling in some whackado conspiracy theories is an interesting tactic. You know there’s a thread for those, right?

If you're referring to the conspiracy theory about Hillary I posted a few days ago, that was something I found amusing and decided to pass on for ***** and giggles. If you think I actually believed it considering the far out nature, you are something special.

So is that all? Or is honesty and integrity really the hill you want to take in defense of Donald Trump?

No, I'm saying the same thing I've said since the beginning.

This is a ****ing sham, Democrats still can't get over the 2016 election, they are utter hypocrites for not wanting justice equally across the board and this impeachment will do more damage to our country than Trump ever thought of doing.

 

[RockyTop85]

If you're referring to the conspiracy theory about Hillary I posted a few days ago, that was something I found amusing and decided to pass on for ***** and giggles. If you think I actually believed it considering the far out nature, you are something special.



No, I'm saying the same thing I've said since the beginning.

This is a ****ing sham, Democrats still can't get over the 2016 election, they are utter hypocrites for not wanting justice equally across the board and this impeachment will do more damage to our country than Trump ever thought of doing.

I was talking about the idea that the Democrats just made all this up. The phone call and the complaint speak for themselves. They corroborate each other.

Ron Johnson is a Republican Senator who still supports Trump. His statements speak for themselves. There’s no reason not to find him credible. Those statements corroborate the text messages between Sondland and whatever the guy’s name was. Taylor?

There’s a case there. Acting like it’s totally fictitious and unbelievable just makes your shrieking about objectivity all the more laughable.

To illustrate this: Reverse your whataboutism with Biden.

If what Trump did wasn’t wrong, as you apparently believe, then no amount of mental gymnastics can make what Biden did wrong, even assuming the absolute worst allegations against Biden as true, which is being overly generous to you.

If Biden wasn't wrong, there would have been no reason for Trump to have ever asked Zelensky to look into it.

You’re trying to use two mutually exclusive arguments and then act like I’m the one lacking perspective.

The only question is whether you think the degree to which Trump used the office to seek personal gain is impeachable. That’s totally subjective.

 

[Grand Vol]

I was talking about the idea that the Democrats just made all this up. The phone call and the complaint speak for themselves. They corroborate each other.

Ron Johnson is a Republican Senator who still supports Trump. His statements speak for themselves. There’s no reason not to find him credible. Those statements corroborate the text messages between Sondland and whatever the guy’s name was. Taylor?

There’s a case there. Acting like it’s totally fictitious and unbelievable just makes your shrieking about objectivity all the more laughable.

To illustrate this: Reverse your whataboutism with Biden.

If what Trump did wasn’t wrong, as you apparently believe, then no amount of mental gymnastics can make what Biden did wrong, even assuming the absolute worst allegations against Biden as true, which is being overly generous to you.

If Biden wasn't wrong, there would have been no reason for Trump to have ever asked Zelensky to look into it.

You’re trying to use two mutually exclusive arguments and then act like I’m the one lacking perspective.

The only question is whether you think the degree to which Trump used the office to seek personal gain is impeachable. That’s totally subjective.

There's the problem. People can't even bring up everything but Trump without getting blamed for "whataboutism." Because of both used their positions for gain, both are guilty.

Yet, only one is getting attention. Why hasn't the DNC dropped Biden like a hot rock?

They're ****ing hypocrites, that's why. Because the alternatives in the Primary are far worse than him.

If there ever has been a case of direct correlation between two people doing the same thing, this is it. Yet, we aren't allowed to point that out.

 

[RockyTop85]

There's the problem. People can't even bring up everything but Trump without getting blamed for "whataboutism." Because of both used their positions for gain, both are guilty.

Yet, only one is getting attention. Why hasn't the DNC dropped Biden like a hot rock?

They're ****ing hypocrites, that's why. Because the alternatives in the Primary are far worse than him.

If there ever has been a case of direct correlation between two people doing the same thing, this is it. Yet, we aren't allowed to point that out.

Maybe it’s because Biden was advancing a policy goal that was independently laid out by the state department as any benefit to him was tangential to the furtherance of US interests which, as you said, happens all the time.