House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
What I'm saying is the people so sure the Senate won't convict this criminal aren't considering the attrition of Trump Republican Senators, they aren't considering the public shift to seeing Trump for the crook that he is, and that will threaten the Senators' reelection if they stick with Trump.

Yes yes, we all know what the current sentiment of the GOP Senators are.

Look closely and you may find that sure thing being chipped away at.
Click to expand...


Or, as one MSNBC correspondent put it, we shouldn't expect Republican Senators to grow a spine, but it's possible that their cowardice will turn them in a different direction.
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
Defying orders from Trump's State Department, Ambassador Yovanovitch has testified.

Oh, Rudy, Rudy, Rudy!
Click to expand...

If I've got the story right, it was a slick move by the Dems on this. As expected, she got a late night or early morning order to not testify, but the Dems had a subpoena ready to serve, so she complied with it without waiting for the White House to contest it. Gotta love it when the bad guys outsmart themselves.
 
acbytesla said:
This is the problem with comparing the various impeachments. They are all very different and have very little in common.



That said, when the wall breaks in Donnies's stonewall, the information is likely to come flooding through. The flood for Nixon came fast as the result of the Supreme Court ruling that ordered the release of the White House tapes. Nixon was toast because it proved Nixon and the White House had been lying about it all.
Click to expand...
That kind of reasoning isn't used these days.
 
The letter isn't for anybody who knows anything about the law. It's for Trump's base, in order to push the narrative of the Deep State Rigged Witch-Hunt.
 
theprestige said:
A decade ago was 2009. I don't believe you were still giving anyone on the right any benefit of the doubt in 2009. Did you mean 1999? Or maybe 1989?
Click to expand...

That's not true. Morals and character counted to them. Or so they said.

I consider ALL religions to be a crock and IMV it demonstrates either a lack of critical thinking or cognitive dissonance. But I never questioned religious people as a whole's sincerity.

But the continuex support of Trump demonstrates a willingnes to abandon those principles.
 
acbytesla said:
That's not true. Morals and character counted to them. Or so they said.

I consider ALL religions to be a crock and IMV it demonstrates either a lack of critical thinking or cognitive dissonance. But I never questioned religious people as a whole's sincerity.

But the continuex support of Trump demonstrates a willingnes to abandon those principles.
Click to expand...

Nah. I bet if we went back ten years, we'd find that progressives were already singing this same song about the Bush years.

If we went back 20 years, we'd find that progressives were already singing this same song about the Clinton impeachment. In fact, I bet we'd find exactly the verse that goes something like "they're impeaching Clinton but what about their own sex crimes - obviously they're no longer even pretending to be sincere!"

Anyway, SG and I were both on this forum ten years ago. Her claim to have still been giving conservatives the benefit of the doubt in 2009 is implausible to me, just on a body of work basis.
 
theprestige said:
Nah. I bet if we went back ten years, we'd find that progressives were already singing this same song about the Bush years.

If we went back 20 years, we'd find that progressives were already singing this same song about the Clinton impeachment. In fact, I bet we'd find exactly the verse that goes something like "they're impeaching Clinton but what about their own sex crimes - obviously they're no longer even pretending to be sincere!"

Anyway, SG and I were both on this forum ten years ago. Her claim to have still been giving conservatives the benefit of the doubt in 2009 is implausible to me, just on a body of work basis.
Click to expand...

She didn't say "conservatives". You did. She said the "family values" crowd. I know more than a few conservatives that are atheists and see the melding together of Christian values and conservatism as a farce.
 
acbytesla said:
She didn't say "conservatives". You did. She said the "family values" crowd. I know more than a few conservatives that are atheists and see the melding together of Christian values and conservatism as a farce.
Click to expand...
For example, I suspect that if the Christian family values/social conservatism crap was stripped out of the Republican Party's core values once and for all, they'd suddenly see half of the "coastal elites" come out as Republicans. It's not like New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco are experiencing shortages of millionaires who want tax cuts and love exploiting the poor.
 
Babbylonian said:
For example, I suspect that if the Christian family values/social conservatism crap was stripped out of the Republican Party's core values once and for all, they'd suddenly see half of the "coastal elites" come out as Republicans. It's not like New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco are experiencing shortages of millionaires who want tax cuts and love exploiting the poor.
Click to expand...

They absolutely make "strange bedfellows".

Jesus who declared that we are "all our brother's keeper" and who answered the question how can we assure salvation by replying give all your money and belongings to the poor and follow him.

And atheist Ayn Rand's super selfish philosophy promoted in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

Yea, that makes sense.

But that's the Republican party these days..
 
acbytesla said:
They absolutely make "strange bedfellows".

Jesus who declared that we are "all our brother's keeper" and who answered the question how can we assure salvation by replying give all your money and belongings to the poor and follow him.

And atheist Ayn Rand's super selfish philosophy promoted in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

Yea, that makes sense.

But that's the Republican party these days..
Click to expand...
As an atheist, it probably seems weird to say that I'm more predisposed toward actual Christian values than I am to dog-eat-dog-because-first-dog-is-fundamentally-superior atheism.
 
Babbylonian said:
As an atheist, it probably seems weird to say that I'm more predisposed toward actual Christian values than I am to dog-eat-dog-because-first-dog-is-fundamentally-superior atheism.
Click to expand...

Me too. I don't believe in a god or for that matter anything supernatural but I do believe in humbling ourselves, grace, forgiveness, kindness and caring about the people around us which is emblematic of Jesus's teachings. AND ABSOLUTELY NONE of that is embodied in Trump Republicanism. Trump doesn't humble himself in any way. Cares about no one but himself. Curses the poor and downtrodden.
 
acbytesla said:
She didn't say "conservatives". You did. She said the "family values" crowd. I know more than a few conservatives that are atheists and see the melding together of Christian values and conservatism as a farce.
Click to expand...

My position is that by 2009, many progressives had already long abandoned any pretense of benefit of the doubt for the entire set of conservatives, including the family values subset. If I had to guess, I'd say the family values crowd was among the first subsets that progressives crossed off their list, probably at least another decade before that. I doubt very much that if you went back ten years on this forum, and looked at SG's body of work from that period, you'd find any charitable mention of conservatives, let alone "family values" conservatives.

This "I still had some hope in 2009" crap is only plausible if you're sixteen years old and still feel like politics started about the same time you noticed it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom