• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Baron Farms said:
I absolutely did not support Trump. (Because he is a Former New York Democrat *******) But I am quite sure this witch hunt will harm the Democrats politically.

Unless they finally come up with something illegal in all this? Rather than just things that break diplomatic conventions? Or erm.. policy they don't like?

Because so far all I see is Trump doing exactly what the voters who elected him wanted him to do.
Click to expand...

"Exactly?" Shaking down a desperate ally in order to get a ginned-up smear going on his perceived opponent? That's "exactly" what his voters elected him to do?

Boy, those voters in the US sure do have a messed up perception of how to treat other allied democratic nations. I hope we Canadians don't descend to such a pass.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, I didn't. But you can't solve definitional differences that way. It's pointless to say he's wrong, because he isn't. He's just using a different definition than you. You can have reasons to prefer your definition, and those reasons may even be good reasons, but they don't make him wrong, which is what you've been claiming. You can't really do more than say that you don't accept his definition.
Click to expand...

Yeah he is. The election was for Donald Trump to be President. An office that holds specific duties, responsibilities and limitations. Specifically that the President obey, uphold, protect and defend the United States Constitution. That same document offers a remedy to address a President that is derelict in those functions. The exercise of that remedy doesn't "overturn" the 2016 election. It addresses the abuse of that office.
 
Belz... said:
Wait a second. You're confusing the two parties of the discussion, here. Theprestige is the one framing, and then pretending that it's about definitions. It isn't, is my point.
Click to expand...

No. I'm the one who's saying it's about definitions not facts. You object to his definition because of the framing that his definition creates. And that's a legitimate reason to object to it. But that doesn't make it a dispute about facts.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. I'm the one who's saying it's about definitions not facts. You object to his definition because of the framing that his definition creates.
Click to expand...

No, I object to his definition because it's not the definition that anyone else is using, and the usual definition doesn't fit the facts. The framing is the reason why he's using another definition.
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh, FFS. This isn't even an issue of logic or reality. It's really an issue of definitions. What does one mean by the phrase "overturn an election"? theprestige is using a different definition of the term than you are. That is the full extent of the disagreement. It's the most boring and pointless thing to argue about. There is really only two things you can do here: present your definition, and state whether or not you're willing to use the other person's definition. Anything beyond that is a waste of everyone's time.
Click to expand...

In the context of this impeachment (or any other), the term "overturn the election" is a loaded one which even low-information deplorables perceive to mean something improperly done. This crafty poisoning of the well is dishonest.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
I am sorry. I don't seem to remember any aid being withheld. In fact I seem to remember the aid being boosted.

Am I wrong? Did the Ukrainians get the aid they needed or not?
Click to expand...

You probably don't remember it because you were not there. The discussions and actions were conducted in private between high level diplomats and officials. All that you could possibly remember are the news bites that were issued for public consumption after the fact.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I think the fact that you lump those three together tells us everything we want to know about what level you are arguing on.

I'd love to know what level of insane troll logic it takes to consider "Impeachment" in the "Coup/Assassination" side of the Venn Diagram and not the "Checks and Balances Side."
Click to expand...

If the president is Republican then the Constitution clearly states that impeachment is not allowed.

If the president is not a republican and in any way does something that upsets a single little republican snowflake then the Constitution requires immediate impeachment.

Right-wing logic.
 
Stacyhs said:
My original post had nothing to do with you; it was a general statement. But for some reason, you addressed it by insulting my late mother. Rather than recognizing it was wrong, you dig your hole even deeper by thinking a stupid joke regarding my mother's death is funny. Why do you feel the need to lash out in such a childish manner over something that had nothing to do with you? I would strongly suggest you just stop.

ETA: missing quote added
Click to expand...

I have noticed here that the most ardent supporters of Trump respond and write in a style very similar to the way Trump speaks and responds. The functioning filter system that most people develop as they mature seems to be in some ways deficient.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom