Senate acquits Trump in historic vote as re-election battle looms

[riclag]

 

 

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You have obviously been missing the news.

 

The GOP Senators did not vote to say Trump did not do what is alleged, many openly agreed he did.

 

They votes not to remove him from office for the allegations on which he was and remains impeached.

 

As more evidence of his crimes is revealed they’ll have to explain their vote.

He was impeached by a partisan radical dem house majority. He was proclaimed Acquitted by the Chief Justice of the highest court in accordance to the laws of the constitution !

 The founders have spoken!

Edited February 6, 2020 by riclag

[muzley]

15 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

What a JOKE this posting is: 

Look it up in this Gallop poll, the 92% uptick is Republicans. His Democratic suport is 8%. As an Independent I laugh at the cultist Democratic posts attaching them. Pay attention to what your looking at. Republicans are now just trump cultist. Same Same

 

No joke according to Gallup. Maybe you should pay attention to what your reading!

"Trump's approval rating has risen because of higher ratings among both Republicans and independents. His 94% approval rating among Republicans is up six percentage points from early January and is three points higher than his previous best among his fellow partisans. The 42% approval rating among independents is up five points, and ties three other polls as his best among that group. Democratic approval is 7%, down slightly from 10%."

[JHolmesJr]

52 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Funny how your opinion of the senate has suddenly   become more favorable 

I wonder if your opinion will persist when it becomes Democratic next election.

I would ask you the same question...about the House of Representatives 

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

and what does Hunter Biden has to do with Trump obstruction of justice, is Hunter Biden running for a government post, if so, go ahead investigate him and his relatives, that's the job of the US different security/investigative offices but he's not POTUS nor is he running for an election,  don't mix apples and oranges  (already asked you the saem question 4 times and you can't provide any plausible answer)

"and what does Hunter Biden has to do with Trump obstruction of justice"

 

I do pretty well answering posters and unless you can show me the 4 times then to my knowledge I don't recall you ever asking it once.  Because the question is, to me at least, nonsensical.  Of course Hunter Biden has nothing to do with the false charge of Trump obstructing justice.  There's no relationship whatsoever nor can there be.  I sincerely have no idea of what your question is trying to allude to.

 

As to plausible answers, let's be clear.  Chances are good to great that there are no plausible answers that you would ever accept.  Logically speaking, if that were the case then you would be in agreement on at least some of the points I and others make.  But I have not seen you in agreement with any of our points at all (of course I haven't seen every post you've ever posted so can only truthfully speak of my current experience).  So the statement is merely a catch 22 since there can be no plausible answer ever.  If you're asking for a plausible answer you must be at least willing to accept one.

[earlinclaifornia]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

 

 

He was impeached by a partisan radical dem house majority. He was proclaimed Acquitted by the Chief Justice of the highest court in accordance to the laws of the constitution !

 The founders have spoken!

The FOUNDERS had no say what so ever! The republican party solely were responsile for voting to acquit! Some people just make stuff up because they think is sounds GOOD! LOl

[Tippaporn]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You have obviously been missing the news.

 

The GOP Senators did not vote to say Trump did not do what is alleged, many openly agreed he did.

 

They voted not to remove him from office for the allegations on which he was and remains impeached.

 

As more evidence of his crimes is revealed they’ll have to explain their vote.

I've never stated that no Republicans were fooled.

[earlinclaifornia]

6 minutes ago, muzley said:

No joke according to Gallup. Maybe you should pay attention to what your reading!

"Trump's approval rating has risen because of higher ratings among both Republicans and independents. His 94% approval rating among Republicans is up six percentage points from early January and is three points higher than his previous best among his fellow partisans. The 42% approval rating among independents is up five points, and ties three other polls as his best among that group. Democratic approval is 7%, down slightly from 10%."

So his approval is still NEVER EVER a POSITIVE! LOL

[riclag]

7 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

The FOUNDERS had no say what so ever! The republican party solely were responsile for voting to acquit! Some people just make stuff up because they think is sounds GOOD! LOl

Yes in spirit   they did, for it was the  Chief Justice who declared acquittal and the constitution that was authored by the founders which the process was guided by,that won the day! 

Edited February 6, 2020 by riclag

[muzley]

3 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

So his approval is still NEVER EVER a POSITIVE! LOL

Still improved thanks to the democrats! LOL

[riclag]

8 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

The FOUNDERS had no say what so ever! The republican party solely were responsile for voting to acquit! Some people just make stuff up because they think is sounds GOOD! LOl

The process is complete and legitimized by the CJ, of the highest court, acquitted! 

4 out of a possible 5 on to November

[MaxYakov]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

4 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

In 2024, Trump will be a difficult act to follow.

Hopefully he'll still be behind bars by then. 

If the Thai economy/tourism keeps suffering, he should be able to pick up some on the cheap in Pattaya (aka PartyYeah!) and elsewhere in Thailand.  ????

[Tippaporn]

20 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Republican senators dont agree, some have said he did it but it doesnt warrant removal.

 

do you know how hypocritical it sounds when you say there is no proof after denying evidence at the trial.

The House had a rock solid case which proved conclusively that Trump was guilty.  Schiff said so.  Complain to Schiff for failing to provide evidence to convict in the Senate.

 

There was no proof to conclude guilt.  As to the proof of that statement the House was unable to draw up an article of impeachment with a charge of a specific crime or otherwise worthy of removal consideration.  That did happen (or did not happen).  It's not the function of the Senate to investigate.  Allowing new witnesses would be a furtherance of the House's investigation and not a trial of the facts produced by the House's investigation.

 

You should now agree: no hypocrisy.

[candide]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The House had a rock solid case which proved conclusively that Trump was guilty.  Schiff said so.  Complain to Schiff for failing to provide evidence to convict in the Senate.

 

There was no proof to conclude guilt.  As to the proof of that statement the House was unable to draw up an article of impeachment with a charge of a specific crime or otherwise worthy of removal consideration.  That did happen (or did not happen).  It's not the function of the Senate to investigate.  Allowing new witnesses would be a furtherance of the House's investigation and not a trial of the facts produced by the House's investigation.

 

You should now agree: no hypocrisy.

There were plenty of proof. It was a cover up.

[BobBKK]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

There was no coup attempt. 

Nah, just trying to rig the 2020 election. Dem's these days can't even count how many people there are in a room!

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

There were plenty of proof. It was a cover up.

There was plenty of evidence.  Evidence is not proof.  Evidence is used to produce a conclusion which, hopefully, would amount to proof.  Use logic.

 

An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case).  Inductive arguments lack deductive validity and must therefore be asserted or denied in the premises.  Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion; this is in contrast to deductive reasoning. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.

 

Succinctly put: deduction is about certainty/necessity; induction is about probability. Any single assertion will answer to one of these two criteria.

 

The evidence supplied by the House witnesses did not meet the criteria of certainty.  They met the criteria of probability.

 

If you want to argue against established tenets of arguments of logic then please step up.  Otherwise, the evidence given by witnesses in the House were based on probability and not certainty.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed. 

[Jingthing]

deleted

Edited February 6, 2020 by Jingthing

[Mavideol]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

What the trumpists don't get is that even if Hunter Biden is proven to be a mass murderer worse than Jeffrey Dahmer , a  cannibal, and a rapist, it still will not change what trump did one iota.   

do agree with you and quite sure they would find another scapegoat

[candide]

47 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

There was plenty of evidence.  Evidence is not proof.  Evidence is used to produce a conclusion which, hopefully, would amount to proof.  Use logic.

 

An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case).  Inductive arguments lack deductive validity and must therefore be asserted or denied in the premises.  Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion; this is in contrast to deductive reasoning. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.

 

Succinctly put: deduction is about certainty/necessity; induction is about probability. Any single assertion will answer to one of these two criteria.

 

The evidence supplied by the House witnesses did not meet the criteria of certainty.  They met the criteria of probability.

 

If you want to argue against established tenets of arguments of logic then please step up.  Otherwise, the evidence given by witnesses in the House were based on probability and not certainty.

Ok. Only a large set of converging evidence, uncontradicted by other evidence.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, candide said:

Ok. Only a large set of converging evidence, uncontradicted by other evidence.

Not contradicted by other evidence????  You sure you want to stick by that assertion?

[candide]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Not contradicted by other evidence????  You sure you want to stick by that assertion?

Which evidence?

[PatOngo]

10 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

I think most if not all voted their conscience. It doesn't make sense to essentially say only the people who agree with me voted their conscience.

 

My two cents.

 

Be frankly honest now, was he (Trump) morally right or wrong?

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

What the trumpists don't get is that even if Hunter Biden is proven to be a mass murderer worse than Jeffrey Dahmer , a  cannibal, and a rapist, it still will not change what trump did one iota.   

Let's try the one-step-at-a-time approach:

 

STEP 1

Fact:  Trump requested assistance from Zelensky on investigating the Bidens.

 

So far we should not be in dispute.

 

STEP 2

Possible conclusions:  A) Trump was asking with the intent of fighting corruption.  B) Trump was asking not with the intent of fighting corruption but with the intent of harming a political opponent.

 

There are (at least) two possibilities concerning intention.  We should be in agreement here as well.

 

STEP 3

Allegation:  B) is true.

 

This was the charge by Democrats.  This also should not be a matter of contention.

 

A) is rejected as being true by default.

 

Logically, only one possibility can be true.  Again, indisputable so agreement among us.

 

STEP 4

Plea:  A) is true.

 

STEP 5

Proof (conditional):  a) If the Bidens engaged in corruption then A) would most likely be true.  b) If the Bidens were not engaged in corruption then B) would most likely be true.

 

This is logical analysis of the issue.  We should be in agreement up to this point.

 

Now here is where we have a problem.

 

The Dems/libs go from STEP 1 directly to STEP 3 while omitting STEP 2 entirely.

Since there is no STEP 2 neither is there a STEP 4.  STEP 4 cannot exist without STEP 2.

STEP 5 also does not exist for them because STEP 5, as STEP 2, introduces the reality of probabilities / possibilities.

 

So the Dems/libs are, in essence, denying the existence of probabilities and possibilities.

 

In short, proof of Biden corruption would be a devastating blow to the Dems allegation that STEP 2, B) is true.  Bye, bye impeachment attempt.

 

Logically then the Dems could not afford to call witnesses who might prove STEP 2, A to be true.  Thus they had to, again, logically speaking, come up with some sort of plausible reasoning, even if it leaked like a sieve, to deny those witnesses who could prove STEP 2, A to be true.  What they did, or were by necessity forced to do (as their goal was impeachment), was to pretend that STEP 2 did not exist, though knowing full well that it did, and claim falsely that there's no relation between STEP 1 and STEP 3.

 

Are you now any closer to understanding the true relevance of the Bidens?

[AussieBob18]

3 hours ago, edwinchester said:

Presiden Reagan's highest approval rating was 71....Trumps highest is 49.

I said: "Trump has the highest ratings ever among Conservative voters for a GOP POTUS - even more than Reagan"

[AussieBob18]

5 hours ago, Thaidream said:

Agreed.  He was acquitted as I and others knew he would be.  According to the Republicans in the Senate what he did was not considered by them- to be an impeachable ofense.

 

Actually impeachment is a political event  going back to the acquital of Andrew Johnson after the Civil War and to  Bill Clinton.

 

Trump admitted to what he had done. However, he claimed he was  going after corruption in Ukraine. However, the only corruption just hapened to be the son of one of his opponents in the 2020 election.

 

The law is really quite clear- if Trump really needed to out this type of corruption- he should have notified the Justice Department and an investigation started.  The Preident of the US does not send his personal lawyer; withold funds that were already voted and approved by the US Congress and cavort with  known  felons in search of 'dirt'.

 

He has been acquited but not vindicated. Even the most ardent Trump supporters have to know that this man has no respect for the US Constitution, the one document that protects all Americasn from tyranny.

 

It is up to the American people in November to decide on whether  the Nation will vote for the ideals that made the US a Nation where truth and justice prevails not just for those who have riches but for those who have nothing.

 

Remember this, if you are American, your  grandfathers and grandmothers (unless Native Americans) ventured from their original country to a new frontier in search of opportunity and to build a Nation.  They were poor; they were dishelved and could not speak English.  Some of them were people of color.

 

My own grandparents came  a century ago from Europe. poor, without much education and a note pinned on their chest indicating they could not speak English.  They managed to build a pretty good life for themselves and for us.

 

In the World of Donald Trump- his idea of building America is only for the chosen few; the wealthy .  He would not allow into America those who cannot speak English- the uneducated- the downtrodden.  In Donald Trump's World your  relatives and mine would not be able to enter.

 

Donald Trump has no understanding of what built Amereica.  He never broke a sweat working at a job; he has never walked down the street- always riding in his own limo; he doesn't understand discrimination or racism because he practices it on a daily basis unaware of the suffering some Americans have to endure.

 

Donald Trump has never spent a minute in uniform; having beat consription into the Vietnam War with exemptions from a doctor friend.  He has no understanding of what the Vietnam Memorial stands for or the white croses - at Arlington.

 

Does anyone really believe Donald Trump  paid any attention to the words of Dr. Marting L. King or what  the marches on Washington; Selma and Memphis meant or the suffering and discrimination  endured by millions of black Americans. How could he- he was sued for discrimination by the State of New York.

 

If Donald Trump and his philosophy are then what you really believe to include his bullying of the downtrodden; making fun of the disabled; indicating that people in the KKK are decent people and generally making America hated around the World you are selling your country for a few pieces of silver which are going to eventually turn to copper.

 

I don't know who I will be voting for yet- but I do know who I won't be voting for.

 

That is called diatribe - 'a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something."

Thanks for sharing why you hate Donald Trump - there is not enough words to describe why I like him.

But to answer a few points:  

Clinton was proven guilty and the offenses were worthy of impeachment - but the Dems said no - big difference.

Legal Immigration is good - I am a legal immigrant - but the issue is illegal immigrants and fake refugees.

The rest of your diatribe is like the Dems Impeachment - full of innuendo and false accusations without proof.

 

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Let's try the one-step-at-a-time approach:

 

STEP 1

Fact:  Trump requested assistance from Zelensky on investigating the Bidens.

 

So far we should not be in dispute.

 

STEP 2

Possible conclusions:  A) Trump was asking with the intent of fighting corruption.  B) Trump was asking not with the intent of fighting corruption but with the intent of harming a political opponent.

 

There are (at least) two possibilities concerning intention.  We should be in agreement here as well.

 

STEP 3

Allegation:  B) is true.

 

This was the charge by Democrats.  This also should not be a matter of contention.

 

A) is rejected as being true by default.

 

Logically, only one possibility can be true.  Again, indisputable so agreement among us.

 

STEP 4

Plea:  A) is true.

 

STEP 5

Proof (conditional):  a) If the Bidens engaged in corruption then A) would most likely be true.  b) If the Bidens were not engaged in corruption then B) would most likely be true.

 

This is logical analysis of the issue.  We should be in agreement up to this point.

 

Now here is where we have a problem.

 

The Dems/libs go from STEP 1 directly to STEP 3 while omitting STEP 2 entirely.

Since there is no STEP 2 neither is there a STEP 4.  STEP 4 cannot exist without STEP 2.

STEP 5 also does not exist for them because STEP 5, as STEP 2, introduces the reality of probabilities / possibilities.

 

So the Dems/libs are, in essence, denying the existence of probabilities and possibilities.

 

In short, proof of Biden corruption would be a devastating blow to the Dems allegation that STEP 2, B) is true.  Bye, bye impeachment attempt.

 

Logically then the Dems could not afford to call witnesses who might prove STEP 2, A to be true.  Thus they had to, again, logically speaking, come up with some sort of plausible reasoning, even if it leaked like a sieve, to deny those witnesses who could prove STEP 2, A to be true.  What they did, or were by necessity forced to do (as their goal was impeachment), was to pretend that STEP 2 did not exist, though knowing full well that it did, and claim falsely that there's no relation between STEP 1 and STEP 3.

 

Are you now any closer to understanding the true relevance of the Bidens?

I  don't even understand this post.  are you somehow trying to claim with this convoluted reply that trump was fighting corruption,??????  everywhere in the word?  and Bidend was just one among many? Or perhaps the only corruption in the world was being committed by the Biden clan. ?  Are you saying that there was no other corruption in the Ukraine, only the Biddens?    that That everyone that testified in the House hearing was lying, and all the ones  . that Bolton was lying? that everyone was lying except trump who never lies? ????????????,  

[Monomial]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

...

 

Logically, only one possibility can be true.  Again, indisputable so agreement among us.

 

...

 

Hold on for a second. This is Washington we are talking about. It is not true that only 1 possibility can be true. In fact, I would wager my left arm that both allegations are true. Namely, Biden was corrupt (name a politician at his level who isn't) and Trump was going after an investigation to harm a political opponent. (Again, name a politician at his level who hasn't done that.)

 

The real issue is that since both points of view are likely correct in substance, which one is more in line with the reality of how politics operates today?

 

I have no doubt Trump was probably guilty. I just don't think there was ever any hope of convicting him, because what he did simply did not rise to the level of abhorrence necessary for an impeachment. Just like my buddy Bill. So what if he got fellatio in the oval office and lied about it. Hardly something that I could not see anyone doing. And so what if Trump decided to press a questionable investigation for political advantage. Again, hardly something to get worked up over.

 

I have engaged many Trump supporters in reasoned conversation. Without all the snarling and spitting that occurs on this forum, and the above is basically what you find. 

 

If the Democrats want to impeach Trump, they need to find an impeachable offense. Show him torturing babies and you'll get a conviction.  The issue is that politicians have such a bad reputation these days that nobody believes Biden wasn't deserving of an investigation. And they don't particularly care that Trump tried to use the situation for political gain. 

 

Show me dead baby carcasses, and you'll get that impeachment.

 

Short of that, concentrate on the future. This is flogging a dead horse. The Democrats lost this one because they were pandering to their supporters for political reasons. There was never any expectation of a conviction.

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I  don't even understand this post.  are you somehow trying to claim with this convoluted reply that trump was fighting corruption,??????  everywhere in the word?  and Bidend was just one among many? Or perhaps the only corruption in the world was being committed by the Biden clan. ?  Are you saying that there was no other corruption in the Ukraine, only the Biddens?    that That everyone that testified in the House hearing was lying, and all the ones  . that Bolton was lying? that everyone was lying except trump who never lies? ????????????,  

Yes, the possibility that Trump was fighting corruption exists.  You just proved my entire post . . . Dems do not believe in any other possible explanations for, perhaps anything, other than the explanations they believe to be true.  You're going to have a very, very tough time getting others to go along with you.  No one wants to live in a one-sided world where others (Dems) get to decide what's real and what is not.  Good f^ing luck.

 

If you don't understand my post then I can only assume that you would not understand any explanation I would give you for the slew of other questions you put forth.  I'll save myself the trouble.

[candide]

33 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Let's try the one-step-at-a-time approach:

 

STEP 1

Fact:  Trump requested assistance from Zelensky on investigating the Bidens.

 

So far we should not be in dispute.

 

STEP 2

Possible conclusions:  A) Trump was asking with the intent of fighting corruption.  B) Trump was asking not with the intent of fighting corruption but with the intent of harming a political opponent.

 

There are (at least) two possibilities concerning intention.  We should be in agreement here as well.

 

STEP 3

Allegation:  B) is true.

 

This was the charge by Democrats.  This also should not be a matter of contention.

 

A) is rejected as being true by default.

 

Logically, only one possibility can be true.  Again, indisputable so agreement among us.

 

STEP 4

Plea:  A) is true.

 

STEP 5

Proof (conditional):  a) If the Bidens engaged in corruption then A) would most likely be true.  b) If the Bidens were not engaged in corruption then B) would most likely be true.

 

This is logical analysis of the issue.  We should be in agreement up to this point.

 

Now here is where we have a problem.

 

The Dems/libs go from STEP 1 directly to STEP 3 while omitting STEP 2 entirely.

Since there is no STEP 2 neither is there a STEP 4.  STEP 4 cannot exist without STEP 2.

STEP 5 also does not exist for them because STEP 5, as STEP 2, introduces the reality of probabilities / possibilities.

 

So the Dems/libs are, in essence, denying the existence of probabilities and possibilities.

 

In short, proof of Biden corruption would be a devastating blow to the Dems allegation that STEP 2, B) is true.  Bye, bye impeachment attempt.

 

Logically then the Dems could not afford to call witnesses who might prove STEP 2, A to be true.  Thus they had to, again, logically speaking, come up with some sort of plausible reasoning, even if it leaked like a sieve, to deny those witnesses who could prove STEP 2, A to be true.  What they did, or were by necessity forced to do (as their goal was impeachment), was to pretend that STEP 2 did not exist, though knowing full well that it did, and claim falsely that there's no relation between STEP 1 and STEP 3.

 

Are you now any closer to understanding the true relevance of the Bidens?

Fact1: Trump wanted Z to publicly discredit Biden and the Russian attempt to influence elections by announcing an investigation

Fact2: there was no official investigation into these two issues, so he was not enforcing anything. It was an abuse of power.

Fact3: these two conspiracy theories have been already debunked.

[riclag]

20 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I  don't even understand this post.  are you somehow trying to claim with this convoluted reply that trump was fighting corruption,??????  everywhere in the word?  and Bidend was just one among many? Or perhaps the only corruption in the world was being committed by the Biden clan. ?  Are you saying that there was no other corruption in the Ukraine, only the Biddens?    that That everyone that testified in the House hearing was lying, and all the ones  . that Bolton was lying? that everyone was lying except trump who never lies? ????????????,  

Didn't you watch the house hearings ! Everyone agreed under questioning that Ukraine and corruption were thicker than sap on a rubber tree! It wasn't hard to judge Barisma's  story and time line for suspicion and proved corruption  ,especially with  biden bragging of what he did. Anyway its official  the senate has started ,it is asking for HB docs from the state department .

Edited February 6, 2020 by riclag