• 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.
Dude, don't explain the joke.

Still, she's a very credible witness.

...whose testimony is almost certainly a lie according to the GOP because.

  • She's foreign like Lieutenant colonel Alexander Vindman and so has conflicting loyalties
  • She served under Obama and therefore is a deep-state appointee
  • She's critical of the President and therefore at best a never-Trumper if not a Democrat
  • She's a woman
 
Presumably a way for Childlike Empress to avoid having to concede that their assertion was incorrect.


My original assertion was that you get no straight line about this latest circus from FOX News, but differing views from different hosts. I still think that this is true but I seem to have indeed been mistaken (and corrected by you) in thinking that FOX News is the most watched TV channel in the US.

And the boomer bit was an allusion to my previous post about the crass difference in preferences for Democratic party candidates between under 50 and over 50 populations.
 
Last edited:
Well, I was talking about the larger group of initial supporters, not the current ones.
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.
 
Last edited:
But I am quite sure this witch hunt will harm the Democrats politically.

You might be right about the last bit. However:

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?

You clearly haven't been paying attention. Extortion is a crime. Using foreign policy for personal gain is an impeachable offense, and those don't even need to be crimes. This one happens to be both, and the evidence is overwhelming, to the point where Trump has even admitted to it.
 
So what? True or not it's just a diversion from Trump's guilt. Trump's guilt is a matter of evidence, not polling.


Somewhere earlier in this thread there was a Republican politician or Fox News pundit quoted saying how terrible it was that Congress was deciding whether to impeach instead of the voters. That whole annoying Constitution thing.
 
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.

Would you consider holding back tax-funded and congressionally appropriated funds for foreign military aid in order to coerce a country suffering under an invasion from their vastly larger neighbour in order to get political favors for the coming election something that a president should not be impeached over and thus be allowed to do?
 
It's really weird that when I search Fiona Hill on Google to get some news articles on her deposition (I swear!), the second item Google proposes in the search box is "Fional Hill family".

Somehow I find that creepy. Do people really make that search, and why?
 
Would you consider holding back tax-funded and congressionally appropriated funds for foreign military aid in order to coerce a country suffering under an invasion from their vastly larger neighbour in order to get political favors for the coming election something that a president should not be impeached over and thus be allowed to do?

More simply: Should the president be allowed to use the power of his office for personal gain?
 
Ron Reagan?
Leonard Huxley?
Hans Einsten?
Anna Freud
Aage Bohr

Having famous, high achieving parents is not always beer and skittles!

Far better to be born into poverty and obscurity with no opportunities.

I have zero trouble with a child exploiting having a famous or rich parent. I don't have a problem with them complaining about the psychology of it. Take your advantages. It is part of the deal. I take mine. The world isn't fair. If you feel guilty, maybe get into public service and don't wealth seek. Or go into therapy.

But when they seek material success out of a need to "prove" themselves and then argue their success is entirely their own, implying that they didn't have it better than anyone else and their success is totally due to their hard work and imply that anyone that points out their advantages is just jealous and lazy and engage in self-pity based on that... those are the ones that are dangerous.

Anyone that starts a capital investment firm that holds itself out as being in the tradition of Cecil effing Rhodes is a bad person that probably is fine with using government influence to support his personal interests.

I mean, I really have trouble thinking of a worse tradition to emulate. It is like one degree better than naming yourself after a slave ship. Like if I started some sort of anti-capitalist org and associated it with Pol Pot. This would not speak well of me.
 
Somewhere earlier in this thread there was a Republican politician or Fox News pundit quoted saying how terrible it was that Congress was deciding whether to impeach instead of the voters. That whole annoying Constitution thing.

A: The voters should decide. This is wrong.

B: They did. Clinton got the most votes.

A: No, I mean they decided by selecting the electors. READ THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!

B: You mean like how they chose Congress?

A: YOU ARE TWISTING THINGS NOW WITH YOUR LIBERAL NONSENSE.
 
Would you consider holding back tax-funded and congressionally appropriated funds for foreign military aid in order to coerce a country suffering under an invasion from their vastly larger neighbour in order to get political favors for the coming election something that a president should not be impeached over and thus be allowed to do?
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?
 
- I get a gut feeling that a lot of "Well I agree that what Trump did was wrong but it wasn't Impeachable wrong..." is the best we're gonna get out of most Republicans and at least a couple of Democrats.

- The whole idea that impeachment is "overturning" the election is insane. By that logic everything negative done toward or at a President is that.
 
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?

More "It's not a crime if you try and fail to commit the crime" apologetics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom