Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
I must insist that you answer my question first. I asked my question first, so fair is fair, right?
Click to expand...


I already gave you two perfectly legit answers to your question, which are two more than fair. And I told you how valuable I think your answer to my question would be for me. Now act accordingly. :nope:
 
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...

Some of us wouldn't even see that same worn out shtick if others wouldn't keep quoting it!
 
Paul2 said:
That doesn't mean that Trump didn't commit impeachable offenses. If it did, then any president who could point out someone saying he should be impeached early in his presidency could then commit impeachable offense and claim your point as a defense.
Click to expand...
In any objective court of law, your point is correct. My response to him was pointing out that impeachment inquiries, charges, and the subsequent trials does not involve all of the same objectivities that are afforded in an institution such as a municipal or federal court environment. So there is no filter to select alternative jurors or prosecutors. Pointing out the conduct of Democratic members prior to his impeachment hearings is not a defense to Trump taking objectionable action or even impeachable action. Only that both parties are and were clearly aware of their situations, and I feel they handled it very poorly for the demands that they're seeking at this stage in a trial.

Paul2 said:
All that matters is the President's behavior and whether it rises to the level of impeachment and conviction.

I think we can agree that, even in the best circumstances, democracy will be a messy business.
Click to expand...

Agreed on both points. General disagreements exist on what parts of his behavior rise to that occasion, but I appreciate that you took the time to give a constructive response. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
I already gave you two perfectly legit answers to your question, which are two more than fair. And I told you how valuable I think your answer to my question would be for me. Now act accordingly. :nope:
Click to expand...

I went back and Re-read your post and I see your direct answer. My mistake. I’ll go back and answer your question in my next post.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
I see the Democrats the same way you see the Republicans. That is because Democrats read and watch fake news and we don't. Recall that fake news said the "White Hispanic" was guilty, Darren Wilson was guilty, Trump colluded with Russia, and the list goes on and on. We're operating from different databases.

Oh, I think we did agree that Amanda Knox was innocent, but that did require ignoring fake news, as I recall.
Click to expand...

"Fake news"? Like climate science? And I don't have a clue who White Hispanic is. Or Darren Wilson.

Is everything reported on the news accurate? I never hinted that it was. I was just about to make a post about how much harder it is to read the news today because so many headlines are gross exaggerations and occasionally althogh not often, outright fabrications.

But Trump is a far bigger liar than the media could ever hope to aspire to be. Trump DID collude with Russia and he did it PUBLICLY! Trump lied about the popular vote. Trump lied about Ukraine. Trump lies almost constantly. I've never seen anyone like him in my entire life and my older brother was a sleazeball lawyer, I mean liar.

Truth matters to me. The media often exaggerates their headlines but almost always tells the facts as best they know in the body of the story. That doesn't mean they don't use language as a tool to support a misleading conclusion.

Take FOX for example. The editorials are all pretty much far right and almost insanely biased. But the news reporting is as good as you would find anywhere. Sadly, that is only a tiny slice of their broadcasts. They try and drown it out.
 
Childlike Empress said:
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?
Click to expand...
I do not agree, although I will admit that defining “defining characteristic” is needed if we really wanted to do this right, even though I’m not really up for it. So, continuing in a casual way, I’d say his most defining characteristic is his lying.

A lot of liberals get upset about the wrong thing when he lies. His lying not really so pointed, it’s merely that he says whatever will make him look good and others look bad, and if what he says turns out to be true, fine; if it turns out to be false, fine. True or false is not the point, so it’s not like he is trying to tell a deliberate lie for some pointed purpose, like how most people think of lying, I’d imagine.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
In any objective court of law, your point is correct. My response to him was pointing out that impeachment inquiries, charges, and the subsequent trials does not involve all of the same objectivities that are afforded in an institution such as a municipal or federal court environment. So there is no filter to select alternative jurors or prosecutors. Pointing out the conduct of Democratic members prior to his impeachment hearings is not a defense to Trump taking objectionable action or even impeachable action. Only that both parties are and were clearly aware of their situations, and I feel they handled it very poorly for the demands that they're seeking at this stage in a trial.
Click to expand...
Understood.

Grizzly Bear said:
Agreed on both points. General disagreements exist on what parts of his behavior rise to that occasion, but I appreciate that you took the time to give a constructive response. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I try in my own small way.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Do you really think that the testimony of McGahn, Bolton, Mulvaney et al might not add anything to our understanding of the events in question?
Click to expand...

I don't think the Republicans are worried about Mulvaney or Guialini testifying. I think they drank the Kool-Aid a long time ago, and are perfectly willing to lie under oath for their Dear Leader. Its McGahn and Bolton that will scare the pants off them, especially Bolton. His testimony would be like a bomb going off inside the Senate.
 
smartcooky said:
I don't think the Republicans are worried about Mulvaney or Guialini testifying. I think they drank the Kool-Aid a long time ago, and are perfectly willing to lie under oath for their Dear Leader. Its McGahn and Bolton that will scare the pants off them, especially Bolton. His testimony would be like a bomb going off inside the Senate.
Click to expand...

Why didn't they just have Bolton testify in the House, then?
 
Childlike Empress said:
One of the funs about Garrison is that he's objectively extremely talented as a cartoonist, which exposes everyone who attacks his skills as a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

He is a talented artist. He is a terrible political cartoonist. Get a bad artist to copy the layout and wording of his cartoons and you would quickly realize how much he sucks.
 
shemp said:
When it comes to partisan hacks, I suppose we must defer to your expertise in the matter.
Click to expand...


No you don't. You know enough about me to be certain that I'm not a partisan of the US Republican party. You actually should know if you paid any attention that I think Tulsi Gabbard is about the only adult in the room in that shiny thing on the hill, which she has proven yet again. Your criticism of Garrison's skills (not world-view) and your knowingly false proclamations about my position (typed up because you can't outwit me) speak about the corner you are in, shemp. It isn't a healthy place to be.

And I say that also to a lot of other regular posters in this thread (not least because I usually don't even lurk in these hate threads so there is a rare opportunity). You are brutally propagandized and the awakening will be hard.
 
Paul2 said:
The only hope is for public opinion to try to move McConnell. If you think the odds of that are very low, the cost of doing so until the beginning of next year is very low, too. We don't know if Pelosi will wait much longer.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of other things to consider.

1. 71% of people polled want witnesses called to testify in a Senate trial of POTUS. The 79% of Democrats and 72% of Independents are not surprising, but the 64% of Republicans is... I find it stunning.

2. As those Senators return to their constituencies over the Christmas break, they could come under a lot of pressure from them to allow witnesses.

3. All it would take is four Republican Senators to feel enough pressure, and vote for witnesses to be called, that it would stymie Moscow Mitch's attempt to have his "do-nothing" Senate run a sham trial.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom