Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Garrison said:
That you are pursuing the same worn out schtick regardless of the fact that no takes you seriously anymore? That was my first thought. People don't get outraged by you anymore CE, they just sigh wearily.
Click to expand...


That's a nice gem of make-believe in the great scheme of Ukrainegate make-believe. I do and will enjoy watching reality catch up with you.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Do they? Is that written down anywhere?
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Cabinet posts were created by acts of Congress and are required in those acts to keep Congress informed. Executive Privilege has NEVER been used in the way you claim.

As for the absurd notion that appearing before Congress is a perjury trap. Well, it's not a trap unless you intend to lie.
 
Last edited:
Cockhead has a nice Wiki bio:
Ben Garrison is an American political cartoonist.[3] He is a self-described libertarian. His cartoons have been widely promoted among the alt-right. He has produced cartoons that showcase antifeminist, anti-vaccine, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, and racist content.[4][5][6][7] His cartoons often lionize conservative figures and nationalist politicians such as President Donald Trump.​
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Garrison
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I don't see why they'd in any way be bothered by the next official act being the Democratic Speaker obstructing the trial from even taking place. It's a win for their propaganda.



The former is true to a certain extent but a) Trump will continue to rant about it long after the fact, as will his base (see, for example, how part of the whole Ukraine business is Trump's insistence that Ukraine is in possession of Clinton's emails) anyway so that makes no difference and b) Trump ranting about things has thus far proven an effective strategy for the Republicans so I don't see why this would be viewed as a negative by them. And, as with all such things, it'll fade into the background if it's prolonged too much, after the next thing comes along. Remember when kids in cages dominated the headlines? That's not been resolved or ameliorated, but when was the last time you saw it on the front pages? Or heard anybody talk about it at all?

As for the latter, I think you're being incredibly optimistic. When has that strategy worked at all up to this point? What makes you think that the facts being on someone's side matters in the current political climate?
Click to expand...
And? Which strategy has worked for the Democrats so far? Should they just keep pretending this government is business as usual? We have a president who has literally been committing impeachable offenses since the day he took office (blatantly lying to the American people used to be an impeachable offense, and Trump has made it a daily activity) and a Senate that won't even consider bills passed by the House of Representatives.

Christ, Trump opponents complaining about the Democrats' unwillingness to fight has been a popular sport for years. Pelosi is doing something. Will it end up working? Probably not, because the Republicans have proven time and again that they don't care about anything but maintaining their power and sticking it to the liberals. But we should at least be on board with her trying to fight.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Cockhead has a nice Wiki bio:
Ben Garrison is an American political cartoonist.[3] He is a self-described libertarian. His cartoons have been widely promoted among the alt-right. He has produced cartoons that showcase antifeminist, anti-vaccine, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, and racist content.[4][5][6][7] His cartoons often lionize conservative figures and nationalist politicians such as President Donald Trump.​
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Garrison
Click to expand...


Congratulations, you saved the folks below you on the douchebag pyramid from taking the picture for what it is by an ad hominem wikipedia stunt. Great job, Sid.

btw (and for the x-th time), "wiki" is the kind of software wikipedia uses. Calling wikipedia "wiki" is an offense to all other wikis including mine (among them ACLOS where you can read up on Ukrainegate). Shame on you, read up and don't do it again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
What has any of that got to do with delaying sending the Articles to the Senate?

Whereas now they are selling exactly the same narrative, and the Democrats are helping them sell it.

What leverage? What power? The Republicans don't want a trial. The Democrats are threatening not to let them have a trial. "If you don't do what we want, then we won't do the thing you are desperate for us not to do" isn't much of a threat.
Click to expand...

You and I see things differently Squeegee. There are two narratives being pushed today about the same events. One is the Democrats were unfair in the impeachment process and now are being unfair not sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

The Democrats have just been telling the facts. That Trump used his position and 391 million dollars to get the Ukraine to announce an investigation into Trump's political opponent. And then he obstructed Congress from finding out the details. And that the Senate at this time has no intention of conducting a trial without fact witnesses.

Neither of us know at this point which story the public will buy.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Congratulations, you saved the folks below you on the douchebag pyramid from taking the picture for what it is by an ad hominem wikipedia stunt. Great job, Sid.

btw (and for the x-th time), "wiki" is the kind of software wikipedia uses. Calling wikipedia "wiki" is an offense to all other wikis including mine (among them ACLOS where you can read up on Ukrainegate). Shame on you, read up and don't do it again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
Click to expand...

It is complete **** and the drawer is a nasty propagandist dickhead.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
MM, are you okay with Senators declaring that they will be 100% for Trump in the trial even though they have to swear an oath to be impartial?

If this isn't far from a regular trial, it's because Republicans don't want anything resembling due process.
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm fine with it. Just like I'm fine that you have already made up your mind.

In a regular trial, the jury has to be informed of the facts, and has to be instructed on the law. In this trial, all the facts are already known, and the jury members are either lawyers or they have lawyers on their staffs. You, and they, already have the information to make up your minds. I'm fine with it.

Why is it that you hold them to some much higher standard than you hold yourself? That's a serious question. They're just people. Why should they be different from you? Have you seen enough to make up your mind? Well, they have seen at least as much, and probably more.

Or maybe it's because they are on the jury and you are not? I think you're wrong about that. The real jury, for whom this trial is being conducted, are the voters in November. When you go to elect your senators, representatives, and president, you have a duty to be impartial, to weigh the facts and the implications, and vote for whomever you have decided is the best candidate. Are you living up to your obligations?


In truth, though, you probably are, at least as much as is humanly possible. It's just that you have already weighed the facts and have already reached a decision. After that happens, can anyone be called "impartial"?

All this sanctimonious blather about "impartiality" and whatnot is kind of tedious. I can remember a time when self-righteousness was primarily a right wing phenomenon, but in the last decade or two, the left has seized that ground and is solidly in control of it.


ETA: And I might add that until you understand the last sentence above, you will never understand why Donald Trump got elected president, and you will not understand why this impeachment process will be a political gain for the GOP.
 
Last edited:
Pelosi is desperately trying to get rid of Trump before the Durham hammer comes down on the whole corrupt Democrat Party.
 
quadraginta said:
Good question.

Ask that about the 300 passed bills the House has sitting on McConnell's desk in the Senate, being held back.

Pelosi is questioning the wisdom of rushing madly to send yet one more over to them, and somehow this is heinous.
Click to expand...

It's bizarrely hypocritical and absurd hearing Republicans scream and whine about Pelosi's gamesmanship considering the so many things McConnell has pulled over the last 5 years. How about this one. Not holding a single hearing on Obama's Supreme Court nomination. The Constitution is clear that POTUS has the right to appoint Justices to the the court.

But no, Pelosi is undermining the process. :rolleyes:
 
Childlike Empress said:
In general I think it's almost impossible to be POTUS without being a mass-murdering war criminal so I'm not very concerned about the nature of his/her humour as a defining thing. I'd like them to resist giggling about leaders of foreign countries being rectally impaled like Killary did about Colonel Gaddafi. Just for good taste measures.
Click to expand...
Funny that it's difficult to get a direct answer from you. I didn't ask you about giggling,, nor whether you're concerned about the nature of his/her humor. Let's try again, here's my question:


Paul2 said:
In general - forget about Trump for a second - do you think it's good to have the greatest troll in human history, who doesn't give a flying ****, be the POTUS?
Click to expand...
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
That's a response to a completely different question than the one I asked.
Click to expand...
Oops, you're right,, my bad. But going back thru our exchange I can't make sense of whether one of us further mis-read the other, or changed the subject, etc. If you're willing to pick it up, go for it. Otherwise, I'll see you 'round the bend.
 
Paul2 said:
Funny that it's difficult to get a direct answer from you. I didn't ask you about giggling,, nor whether you're concerned about the nature of his/her humor. Let's try again, here's my question:
Click to expand...


Funny that you are trying to get me into some black-and.white answer. It's a bit more difficult, Paul2. Aren't you too old for this kind of nonsense?

And let me ask you: Do you agree with my premise that his sense of humour is a defining characteristic of Trump, regardless of how you value that kind of humour?

Not that I care, but I can waste your time too.
 
Childlike Empress said:
You could have voiced your opinion without resorting to ad hominem. But you didn't. So you got schooled on a much more important topic: Don't call wikipedia "wiki"!
Click to expand...

Lol. Look at you pontificating like some puffed barnyard cock. You stick to **** posting lame propaganda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom