U.S. House to launch Trump impeachment inquiry over Ukraine controversy

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I've already pointed out to RideJocky that not complying with subpoenas was the third article of impeachment against Nixon.  However Trump's base is impervious to facts.

Pretty much shows the intellect of trump supporters. Facts are so rare to them that they dont recognise them.

[wayned]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I've already pointed out to RideJocky that not complying with subpoenas was the third article of impeachment against Nixon.  However Trump's base is impervious to facts.

He doesn't believe it because Trump told him to not believe anything you hear or see, only believe what he, or one of his clone say.  He is a true follower of the Trumpian cult!

[RideJocky]

I've already pointed out to RideJocky that not complying with subpoenas was the third article of impeachment against Nixon.  However Trump's base is impervious to facts.

He is only “required” to comply with a subpoena after he has exhausted all legal means to avoid or delay, correct?

You guys should be happy, his non-compliance is just another nail in his impeachment coffin, yes?

Every week he commits another impeachable offense and every week shiftless call to move forward and Nancy wrings her hands and delays.

I’m starting to think Nancy might be another Russian asset working in cahoots with Tulsi to keep Trump in office...

[doggie1955]

On 9/25/2019 at 5:28 AM, dimitriv said:

 

Don't you realize that Trump is a corrupt president ?

 

Even as a Republican you should not want to keep a president like this.

 

 

 

That is okay, "We the People' like Trump... So how is your President/PM doing in your country. Becuse in America we are doing Great!

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

 

[heybruce]

52 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

He is only “required” to comply with a subpoena after he has exhausted all legal means to avoid or delay, correct?

You guys should be happy, his non-compliance is just another nail in his impeachment coffin, yes?

Every week he commits another impeachable offense and every week shiftless call to move forward and Nancy wrings her hands and delays.

I’m starting to think Nancy might be another Russian asset working in cahoots with Tulsi to keep Trump in office...
 

Impeachment is not the same as a criminal trial.  It is a political trial, and acting guilty increases the chances of being judged guilty by the public and thus convicted by the Senate.

 

In Trump's case I assume he has determined that being open and honest will definitely result in a conviction, so he will be opaque and obstruct to the best of his ability, and take his chances with appearing guilty.

 

BTW, before you question the use of the words "trial", "convicted" and "conviction", educate yourself on the roles of the House and the Senate in an impeachment.  It has been explained in this forum many times, but some people are slow learners.

[bristolboy]

12 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

And both Presidents Nixon and Clinton cooperated fully, yes?
 

 

Nice try at deflection. You began by questioning the secrecy of the proceedings. When I pointed out that secrecy in the preliminary stages of impeachment investigation also was the case for Nixon and Clinton, you pivot to whether or not it's right to resist. Clearly, there are no valid legal grounds to question the closed door hearings.

[bristolboy]

Here's a nice graphic showing how many of the whistleblower's claims have solid backing.  

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/26/opinion/trump-whistleblower-letter.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

[RideJocky]

Impeachment is not the same as a criminal trial.  It is a political trial, and acting guilty increases the chances of being judged guilty by the public and thus convicted by the Senate.
 
In Trump's case I assume he has determined that being open and honest will definitely result in a conviction, so he will be opaque and obstruct to the best of his ability, and take his chances with appearing guilty.
 
BTW, before you question the use of the words "trial", "convicted" and "conviction", educate yourself on the roles of the House and the Senate in an impeachment.  It has been explained in this forum many times, but some people are slow learners.

Rather than going on and on about how stupid I am, why not answer the question?

[RideJocky]

Nice try at deflection. You began by questioning the secrecy of the proceedings. When I pointed out that secrecy in the preliminary stages of impeachment investigation also was the case for Nixon and Clinton, you pivot to whether or not it's right to resist. Clearly, there are no valid legal grounds to question the closed door hearings.

How is commenting on how previous Presidents cooperated deflection from commenting on how the current President, unless of course you define deflection as pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.

To be clear, I don’t think I ever questioned the secrecy of the hearings.

I’m not sure where you (and others here) got that idea, but I’m guessing it’s from a statement I made about why Trump is not cooperating. Why Trump is not cooperating really has nothing to do with whether or not the left has the right to keep the hearings secret.

In any event, I know why the left wants to keep the investigation private, why would I question it?

[rabas]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Impeachment is not the same as a criminal trial.  It is a political trial, and acting guilty increases the chances of being judged guilty by the public and thus convicted by the Senate.

 

In Trump's case I assume he has determined that being open and honest will definitely result in a conviction, so he will be opaque and obstruct to the best of his ability, and take his chances with appearing guilty.

 

BTW, before you question the use of the words "trial", "convicted" and "conviction", educate yourself on the roles of the House and the Senate in an impeachment.  It has been explained in this forum many times, but some people are slow learners.

A defendant in a political trial may offer a "legal defense" or a "political defense". A technical defense would argue that the alleged crime did not occur as a matter of fact or law. In a political defense, a defendant may assert the political motivations behind the conduct in an attempt to convince the jury or the public of the justness of the political motivations and of the injustice of the prosecution.

 

There is some question as to whether political trials are necessary or if they are a disease of politics and law.^[6]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_trial

 

[metisdead]

An off topic trolling post has been reported and removed. 

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, doggie1955 said:

That is okay, "We the People' like Trump... So how is your President/PM doing in your country. Becuse in America we are doing Great!

Not that I'm doubting you, but could you please share with us the credentials that show you speak for "We the People"? But I do doubt the evidentiary standards of those who liked your comment.

[Jingthing]

5 hours ago, doggie1955 said:

That is okay, "We the People' like Trump... So how is your President/PM doing in your country. Becuse in America we are doing Great!

More like we the 35 percent. A president is supposed to at least act like he's the president of ALL the people. 

[TopDeadSenter]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

A president is supposed to at least act like he's the president of ALL the people. 

By labeling every single American that isn't actively supporting them as "deplorables"? Is that how Presidents are supposed to act?

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

More like we the 35 percent. A president is supposed to at least act like he's the president of ALL the people. 

He does act like he's the President of all the people.  He can't help it that liberals refuse to accept him as president.  The fact that liberals refuse to accept him as President then it goes without saying that they can never say he acts like he's the President of all people.

 

Circular logic there, Jingthing.

[Tippaporn]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Here's a nice graphic showing how many of the whistleblower's claims have solid backing.  

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/26/opinion/trump-whistleblower-letter.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

LOL, they've forgotten to colour code what's been proven so far.  Or is that a big, fat zero?

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Nobody did that. Please desist with the blatant lying. It doesn't help your cause.

TopDeadSenter makes a valid point.  To say that "nobody did that" may be technically true.  But from the endless slurs and derogatory comments made by liberals against the conservatives here it's obvious that the sentiment towards us is similar to "deplorables."  Try being more honest, Jingthing.  It might help your cause.

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by Tippaporn

[Sujo]

41 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

TopDeadSenter makes a valid point.  To say that "nobody did that" may be technically true.  But from the endless slurs and derogatory comments made by liberals against the conservatives here it's obvious that the sentiment towards us is similar to "deplorables."  Try being more honest, Jingthing.  It might help your cause.

 

Well you do support

 

serial liar

bankrupt extraordinaire

fake university

serial adulterer

porn star lover

dictator date licker

cronyism king

obstructionist

reneger of deals

throwing allies to the wolves

 

all round general nice guy who you could trust with your wife and your money.

 

But when dems follow the law and the rules of impeachment that the repubs changed, then that law abiding thingy is just not good enough.

 

[Tippaporn]

22 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Well you do support

 

serial liar

bankrupt extraordinaire

fake university

serial adulterer

porn star lover

dictator date licker

cronyism king

obstructionist

reneger of deals

throwing allies to the wolves

 

all round general nice guy who you could trust with your wife and your money.

 

But when dems follow the law and the rules of impeachment that the repubs changed, then that law abiding thingy is just not good enough.

 

Your list betrays your extreme, hateful bias, Sujo.  Not something I'd be proud of admitting.

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by Tippaporn

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

TopDeadSenter makes a valid point.  To say that "nobody did that" may be technically true.  But from the endless slurs and derogatory comments made by liberals against the conservatives here it's obvious that the sentiment towards us is similar to "deplorables."  Try being more honest, Jingthing.  It might help your cause.

 

Please don't confuse conservatives with Trump fans.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL, they've forgotten to colour code what's been proven so far.  Or is that a big, fat zero?

No, those aren't assertions. So they're not color coded. But you could have figured out that for yourself by going to the original. Let me help you do that:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Your list betrays your extreme, hateful bias, Sujo.  Not something I'd be proud of admitting.

 

If it's a question of pride and shame, then it's Trump's lack of shame you should be considering.

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No, those aren't assertions. So they're not color coded. But you could have figured out that for yourself by going to the original. Let me help you do that:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html

Assertions proven by

 

That's technically incorrect since nothing's been proven yet.  If the New York Times chose to be honest it would read:

 

Assertions supported by

 

But it is, afterall, the New York Times agenda.  Some people fall for the sleight of hand miswording.  Other don't.

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

If it's a question of pride and shame, then it's Trump's lack of shame you should be considering.

Don't see much he needs to be ashamed of.  Imagine continual false allegations made against someone and then remarking that the person shows no shame.

 

I'd consider that circular logic as well.

[RideJocky]

Well you do support
 
serial liar
bankrupt extraordinaire
fake university
serial adulterer
porn star lover
dictator date licker
cronyism king
obstructionist
reneger of deals
throwing allies to the wolves
 
all round general nice guy who you could trust with your wife and your money.
 
But when dems follow the law and the rules of impeachment that the repubs changed, then that law abiding thingy is just not good enough.
 

I supported President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, and now I’m held up as a fool for supporting Trump.

They all did things I didn’t/don’t like.

I think President Obama was the first non-serial adulterer since Carter.

Is banging a porn star not covered under serial adulterer? In any event, I have more respect for someone that fools around on his wife with a porn star than with a intern or some other subordinate.

Yes, he put his name on a get-rich-in-real-estate school, some people (apparently) didn’t get rich and sued. The case was settled. Public and private schools get sued every year, never makes the news.

What is a dictator date licker?

Given the diversity of his organization, not sure what the cronyism king thing is about.

Only the left sees him as an obstructionist.

What deals did he renege on?

I did not like how he treated the Kurds, but it is no worse than what the left did in Iraq and Viet Nam.

I’m glad they’re finally moving ahead with the (almost) impeachment proceedings.

[bristolboy]

45 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Don't see much he needs to be ashamed of.  Imagine continual false allegations made against someone and then remarking that the person shows no shame.

 

I'd consider that circular logic as well.

If you think that most of those claims against Trump are false, then you're the one doing the imagining.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Assertions proven by

 

That's technically incorrect since nothing's been proven yet.  If the New York Times chose to be honest it would read:

 

Assertions supported by

 

But it is, afterall, the New York Times agenda.  Some people fall for the sleight of hand miswording.  Other don't.

 

But 

 

57 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

I supported President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, and now I’m held up as a fool for supporting Trump.

They all did things I didn’t/don’t like.

I think President Obama was the first non-serial adulterer since Carter.

Is banging a porn star not covered under serial adulterer? In any event, I have more respect for someone that fools around on his wife with a porn star than with a intern or some other subordinate.

Yes, he put his name on a get-rich-in-real-estate school, some people (apparently) didn’t get rich and sued. The case was settled. Public and private schools get sued every year, never makes the news.

What is a dictator date licker?

Given the diversity of his organization, not sure what the cronyism king thing is about.

Only the left sees him as an obstructionist.

What deals did he renege on?

I did not like how he treated the Kurds, but it is no worse than what the left did in Iraq and Viet Nam.

I’m glad they’re finally moving ahead with the (almost) impeachment proceedings.

 

What did the left do in Iraq and Vietnam?

[Sujo]

44 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

I supported President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, and now I’m held up as a fool for supporting Trump.

They all did things I didn’t/don’t like.

I think President Obama was the first non-serial adulterer since Carter.

Is banging a porn star not covered under serial adulterer? In any event, I have more respect for someone that fools around on his wife with a porn star than with a intern or some other subordinate.

Yes, he put his name on a get-rich-in-real-estate school, some people (apparently) didn’t get rich and sued. The case was settled. Public and private schools get sued every year, never makes the news.

What is a dictator date licker?

Given the diversity of his organization, not sure what the cronyism king thing is about.

Only the left sees him as an obstructionist.

What deals did he renege on?

I did not like how he treated the Kurds, but it is no worse than what the left did in Iraq and Viet Nam.

I’m glad they’re finally moving ahead with the (almost) impeachment proceedings.

 

No the porn star isnt covered because he had to pay her off to stop talking about his huge hands.

 

It wasnt a school. It was trump university where students were promised trumps trained professionals to tutor them. He lied. What a shock.

 

Best mates with putin erdogan, duterte. But even better, he loves nice guy kim.

 

Cronyism has nothing to do with his business. What are the credentials for ivanka to hold office. What experience does kushner have in middle east, or anywhere else for that matter. But a surgeon in charge of HUD. Puts thick as a tar brush betsy de vos in education, but nothing to do with the millions she donated.

 

The courts see he as obstructionist as they have ordered the doj to release full mueller report. Maybe also because he has told all to not cooperate with a lawful impeachment investigation. And you consider that as not obstructing.

 

reneging deals, heard of nafta, paris accord etc etc. The kurds arent too keen on dealing with him.

 

Yes the dems and repubs on the committees are moving ahead, but with trump ordering people to unlawfully disregard subpoenas. Sure is a transparent guy.

 

Perhaps if you changed the channel from hannity you wouldnt have to ask such stupid questions.

 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

If you think that most of those claims against Trump are false, then you're the one doing the imagining.

Look, I've said it many times here:  People who support Trump fully understand that Trump has his flaws.  Who doesn't?  You do.  I do.  Everyone does.  There is no such thing as a "perfect" individual.  It's a fact of life that you have to take the chaff with the grain.  So, in the areas that are most important to me and, I assume, others Trump has some excellent character traits.  Those worthy traits are what we focus on.

 

Hate, if allowed to run rampant, can consume an individual.  For he will be unable to see anything good within another whom his hate has targeted.  He will become biased and his bias will colour even innocent actions as nefarious.  And not only will he not see anything worthy in an individual he will also actively seek to find more about the individual that further fuels his hatred.  It becomes an endless loop.

 

A lot of, but not all, liberals are stuck in that endless loop.  And try as one may you just can't get them out of it.  Mostly because they don't want to get out of it.

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by Tippaporn