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

[JHolmesJr]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Yeah it's too much winning. lol 

 

Way too much...Im actually getting sick of it.

But it's worth it because Morning Joe, Rachel maddow, Acosta and all the others

are probably listening to every word....because they have to. LOL.

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Way too much...Im actually getting sick of it.

But it's worth it because Morning Joe, Rachel maddow, Acosta and all the others

are probably listening to every word....because they have to. LOL.

 

Yeah it is actually sort of boring. Looks like he is taking the higher road today. I guess you have to get up and rip apart documents to get attention these days. 

[Crazy Alex]

24 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

After the trial concluded, President Clinton said he was “profoundly sorry” for the burden his behavior imposed on Congress and the American people.

 

Has the Don apologised yet? He'd be more likable if played saxophone!

It's Democrats who should apologize.

[Crazy Alex]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Trump said he wouldn't accept any outcome as legitimate except his victory in 2016.  Do you think he'll do any different this time?

I think Democrats are the people struggling to accept election outcomes.

[heybruce]

14 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Comparing the USA to Thailand is disingenuous at best. 

Ok, name anyplace since the end of the cold war in which armed civilians played a significant role in resisting tyranny.

 

Your belief that the second amendment protects against tyranny is an act of faith completely unsupported by evidence in the modern world.  It might have had some merit in the eighteenth century, it has none in the twenty-first.

[Cryingdick]

No fireworks for that event. He just rallied the base. Good enough. Meanwhile in a dark room, behind closed doors, in the Capitol's basement, Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi plan their revenge.

 

 

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Ok, name anyplace since the end of the cold war in which armed civilians played a significant role in resisting tyranny.

 

Your belief that the second amendment protects against tyranny is an act of faith completely unsupported by evidence in the modern world.  It might have had some merit in the eighteenth century, it has none in the twenty-first.

 

The point of it is you do not become tyrannized in the first place. I am done with the gun thing now this thread should be more of a celebration that American democracy works. The process was undertaken and the rightful just and only outcome possible has been delivered.

 

Truly a historic day.

[PatOngo]

10 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

It's Democrats who should apologize.

Yes, they look pretty damn silly, the whole show looks pretty damn silly! Which States are United? 

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The point of it is you do not become tyrannized in the first place. I am done with the gun thing now this thread should be more of a celebration that American democracy works. The process was undertaken and the rightful just and only outcome possible has been delivered.

 

Truly a historic day.

The point is that you can't name any place in which armed civilians have prevented tyranny. 

 

The aftermath of the 2014 coup is informative.  The military censored the press, censored speech, restricted assembly, and restricted many other rights Americans have under the first amendment.  They made no attempt to restrict civilian gun ownership.  I know of no dictatorship that has attempted to confiscate civilian arms after taking power, and no dictatorship that tolerates first amendment rights.

 

The second amendment is not our defense against tyranny.  The first amendment is.  And by publicly calling the press the "enemy of the people", Trump has attacked the first amendment and undermined democracy.

[gk10002000]

This barely made the news, was barely shown on TV as compared to the lead up to the impeachment.  The only thing that was broadcast was some dwelling on the fact that Mitt Romney a Republican voted for the impeachment. Every body knew the impeachment conviction was not going to happen.  What a bunch of huff and puff and waste of the tax payer money.  Send Pelosi and her gang of Spanky, Alfalfa et al the bill for all this.

[Crazy Alex]

5 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The only difference between you and me is I can admit it. You can't see how the house raped the whole constitution right in the open. You just wanted the result which failed to happen anyway. 

 

I don't live under the pretense that politics will ever be fair on either side.  You seem to think your poo doesn't stink. I am a realist.

We are dealing with people who think the House impeachment hearings were fair and impartial, but the Senate trial was biased and partisan. People like you and I, who reside in reality, acknowledge both proceedings were biased. Indeed, we are realists. That is what separates us from lower primates- and liberals.

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The only difference between you and me is I can admit it. You can't see how the house raped the whole constitution right in the open. You just wanted the result which failed to happen anyway. 

 

I don't live under the pretense that politics will ever be fair on either side.  You seem to think your poo doesn't stink. I am a realist.

Identify any part of the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, or any statement by the Founding Fathers that the House violated.

 

I didn't expect the impeachment to succeed.  I disagreed with the rush of charges to the Senate.  However I do think the House had to impeach to make it clear there are consequences for soliciting foreign interference in the election.  I think if the Senators had put country before self-interest the impeachment would have succeeded.

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Your surrender is noted. I'll leave you to speculate on what Trump might do to your heart's content. Have a nice evening.

I acknowledged a mistake and put it in context.  That is not a surrender. 

 

What Trump might do does not concern me as much as what Trump supporters might do if Trump refuses to concede his election loss (if it happens) and leave the White House.  Trump will never concede a loss.  Will you support Trump if he refuses to leave the White House?

[Crazy Alex]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

I acknowledged a mistake and put it in context.  That is not a surrender. 

 

What Trump might do does not concern me as much as what Trump supporters might do if Trump refuses to concede his election loss (if it happens) and leave the White House.  Trump will never concede a loss.  Will you support Trump if he refuses to leave the White House?

I will never defend any politician who doesn't leave office when their term is up.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

I will never defend any politician who doesn't leave office when their term is up.

Glad to hear it.  I suspect that if Trump loses the election he will have to be escorted out of the White House by the secret service, while he openly calls for rebellion and insists, without evidence, the election was rigged.

Edited February 6, 2020 by heybruce

[AussieBob18]

2 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

We are dealing with people who think the House impeachment hearings were fair and impartial, but the Senate trial was biased and partisan. People like you and I, who reside in reality, acknowledge both proceedings were biased. Indeed, we are realists. That is what separates us from lower primates- and liberals.

You are so right. There is a saying that is very prevelant on Twitter:  Liberalism is a mental disorder.  I tend to agree with that statement - and the evidence is overwhelming. Besides their ability to ignore facts and believe that their feelings are more important in any argument, take a look at their reactions after Trump won.  

 

An interesting aside is the medical theory that teenagers have a 'mental disorder', and that it is because their brains have not yet fully developed. And it seems that in this modern world the delay of that brain development phase is being increased, and that is why we now have 30 year old teenagers playing computer games all day. It also suggests that it is only through external influence that a person's brain develops as they grow - and what external influences the young are nowadays getting is delaying that development - especially boys.  As a long time sports coach of young boys there is a lot of validity in that - every boy I coached whose family had a tragedy 'grew up' very quickly. 

 

Liberals exhibit a lot of the traits of teenagers - especially evidenced by their behaviour after Trump was elected and in areguments on TV - not all - but many.  The truth is that it is very common for young people to be 'left wing' and for them to become 'right wing' when they grow up.  I think the analogy is valid, and a liberal's 'arguments' are just the same as teenagers - all they can see and hear is what supports their own viewpoints - and all things else are false.  Teenagers know everything and understand nothing - it is a part of the growing up process.  Speaking from experience, arguing with a teenager is usually a waste of time - they just cannot admit they are wrong and they will use the most extreme and ridiculous arguments to support themselves - and then become insulting and abusive and/or storm off to their room when all else fails.

 

 

 

[AussieBob18]

Breaking News:  While speaking to the New York Post, several House Republicans said they are considering expunging Democrats’ partisan articles of impeachment from Trump’s record if they take back the House in the upcoming elections in November.

The New York Post reported: “If McCarthy (R-Calif.) does indeed take the gavel from Pelosi (D-Calif.) in 2021, he will hold immense power to pass legislation — and a vote on expungement almost certainly would yield party-line support.”

“This is the fastest, weakest, most political impeachment in history,” McCarthy told The Post. “I don’t think it should stay on the books.”

https://trendingpolitics.com/report-gop-to-expunge-dems-impeachment-of-trump-if-they-win-house-back/?utm_source=star&utm_medium=twitter

 

This impeachment farce aint over folks - the GOP has grown a spine under Trump - at last. 

[simple1]

20 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

Breaking News:  While speaking to the New York Post, several House Republicans said they are considering expunging Democrats’ partisan articles of impeachment from Trump’s record if they take back the House in the upcoming elections in November.

The New York Post reported: “If McCarthy (R-Calif.) does indeed take the gavel from Pelosi (D-Calif.) in 2021, he will hold immense power to pass legislation — and a vote on expungement almost certainly would yield party-line support.”

“This is the fastest, weakest, most political impeachment in history,” McCarthy told The Post. “I don’t think it should stay on the books.”

https://trendingpolitics.com/report-gop-to-expunge-dems-impeachment-of-trump-if-they-win-house-back/?utm_source=star&utm_medium=twitter

 

This impeachment farce aint over folks - the GOP has grown a spine under Trump - at last. 

You're congratulating Republican wishes to expunge the historical record? trump is already attempting to suppress Freedom of Speech' by vilifying and lying about any criticism of him, banning media organisations from attending his events and so on, Claiming only he speaks the truth (demagoguery plus false as proven 16,000+ lies and misinformation articulated by him since becoming President), even going so far at the usually non partisan National Prayer event, to claim God blesses the Republicans, lying during his SOTU address.

 

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-05/many-of-trumps-state-of-the-union-claims-dont-hold-up

Edited February 6, 2020 by simple1

[AussieBob18]

8 minutes ago, simple1 said:

You're congratulating Republican wishes to expunge the historical record? trump is already attempting to suppress Freedom of Speech' by vilifying and lying about any criticism of him, banning media organisations from attending his events and so on, Claiming only he speaks the truth (demagoguery plus false as proven 16,000+ lies and misinformation articulated by him since becoming President), even going so far at the usually non partisan National Prayer event, to claim God blesses the Republicans, lying during his SOTU address.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-05/many-of-trumps-state-of-the-union-claims-dont-hold-up

And the GOP will do it by passing laws that detail exactly how any future impeachment process must be conducted - and what constitutes evidence will be detailed.  This will then be tested in the SCOTUS to confirm legality and validity as detailed in the Constitution and as intended by the Founders.  Then the GOP House and Senate will apply those new laws/rules against the impeachments of both Clinton and Trump.  The Clinton impeachment will pass those new laws/rules, and the Trump impeachment will fail - and it will therefore be expunged from the official record.  Going forward, no future POTUS (either side) will be subjected to a partisan impeachment process by the House - there will be minimum standards set for the impeachment investigations - such as full participation in the process by the opposing Party, and full participation of the POTUS and his/her legal team, and minimum standards of evidence - like in any normal Grand Jury hearing. Those same standards will be applied to the Senate trial processes as well.  This Senate trial was dismissed and Trump was acquited for lack of evidence and undue process - happens all the time in the real world.

[Cryingdick]

26 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

And the GOP will do it by passing laws that detail exactly how any future impeachment process must be conducted - and what constitutes evidence will be detailed.  This will then be tested in the SCOTUS to confirm legality and validity as detailed in the Constitution and as intended by the Founders.  Then the GOP House and Senate will apply those new laws/rules against the impeachments of both Clinton and Trump.  The Clinton impeachment will pass those new laws/rules, and the Trump impeachment will fail - and it will therefore be expunged from the official record.  Going forward, no future POTUS (either side) will be subjected to a partisan impeachment process by the House - there will be minimum standards set for the impeachment investigations - such as full participation in the process by the opposing Party, and full participation of the POTUS and his/her legal team, and minimum standards of evidence - like in any normal Grand Jury hearing. Those same standards will be applied to the Senate trial processes as well.  This Senate trial was dismissed and Trump was acquited for lack of evidence and undue process - happens all the time in the real world.

 

They could name it the Pelosi act. 

[AussieBob18]

57 minutes ago, simple1 said:

You're congratulating Republican wishes to expunge the historical record? trump is already attempting to suppress Freedom of Speech' by vilifying and lying about any criticism of him, banning media organisations from attending his events and so on, Claiming only he speaks the truth (demagoguery plus false as proven 16,000+ lies and misinformation articulated by him since becoming President), even going so far at the usually non partisan National Prayer event, to claim God blesses the Republicans, lying during his SOTU address.

 

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-05/many-of-trumps-state-of-the-union-claims-dont-hold-up

Are byou trying to respond to my statement?  All I see is more diatribe about Trump. Answer my points if you want to quote me.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

I will never defend any politician who doesn't leave office when their term is up.

Pinned.

[simple1]

2 hours ago, AussieBob18 said:

Are byou trying to respond to my statement?  All I see is more diatribe about Trump. Answer my points if you want to quote me.

What point are you making, other than quoting a Republican sycophant's opinion? In response I provided facts regards trump's actions and behaviour since he became President, none of which you can factually refute. Nor the path he took that led to his impeachment. Even Republicans have acknowledged the errors of his ways, but decline to act according to their oaths for the trial. However, I personally think Impeachment was not the appropriate path to go down from the beginning, as it was very clearly stated by Republicans and trump they would never comply with requests by Congress for witnesses / doco. IMO should have waited for the elections to unleash their ammunition considering 70%+ of the population desired Republicans to comply with Congress requests. As a comment one would have thought it would trigger criminal proceeding to refuse to comply with Congressional requests for info.

 

BTW just read your signature - great depiction of  trump!

Edited February 7, 2020 by simple1

[Ricohoc]

1 hour ago, AussieBob18 said:

Apologies to Peter and Paul and Mary:

 

Where have all the lberals gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the liberals gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the liberals gone?
Trump has trumped them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

 

Their learning curve isn't as steep as their level of stubbornness to repeat, double-down and sometimes try to modify past failures.  They also have the added baggage of being the undisputed Champions of Unintended Consequences.

 

 

[AussieBob18]

40 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

Their learning curve isn't as steep as their level of stubbornness to repeat, double-down and sometimes try to modify past failures.  They also have the added baggage of being the undisputed Champions of Unintended Consequences.

 

 

Well said - unintended consequences is their achilles heel.

They never read or learn from the Bible - 'The road to Hell, is paved with good intentions.'

So many examples - but probably the 'rights' mandated through UN to 'refugees' is their worst.

[Ricohoc]

1 minute ago, AussieBob18 said:

Well said - unintended consequences is their achilles heel.

They never read or learn from the Bible - 'The road to Hell, is paved with good intentions.'

So many examples - but probably the 'rights' mandated through UN to 'refugees' is their worst.

The Democrat philosophy is academic and not real world.  It's all "what if" in their Utopian search for a perfect world in an imperfect world inhabited by imperfect humans.  As Dr. Thomas Sowell asks, "At what cost?"  That is the folly that leads to their unintended consequences.

 

[Ricohoc]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

. . .

By the way, there are no winners in a tariff war.

. . . 

 

It would do you some good to study Adam Smith, the Father of Economics.  Read up.  He would disagree with you, and he even outlined three situations where it is an imperative for a country to levy tariffs.

[Eric Loh]

11 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

It would do you some good to study Adam Smith, the Father of Economics.  Read up.  He would disagree with you, and he even outlined three situations where it is an imperative for a country to levy tariffs.

Adam Smith a classical free trade economist will roll in his grave to see his theory manipulated to suit the agenda of a trade protectionist. 

[Ricohoc]

22 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Adam Smith a classical free trade economist will roll in his grave to see his theory manipulated to suit the agenda of a trade protectionist. 

He wrote it himself in his book, The Wealth of Nations.  It would do you some good to read up regarding his complete views of international trade.

 

He viewed the following three situations as not only as a good trade practice, but necessary:

 

1. To preserve an industry that is necessary for a country's national defense.  Smith used the example of the British using tariffs to protect their shipbuilding industry.  Smith considered this the wisest of all exceptions because defense is superior to opulence.

 

2. To retaliate against countries placing duties and tariffs on your country's exports to them. Smith believes that at least an equal tariff be placed on their goods to give them incentive to drop their tariff. Level the playing field with reciprocal tariffs/duties.

 

3. If a tax is placed on certain producers from your country, it is necessary to balance that with at least an equal tax on their producers.  Smith did not believe that any country's industries should be left at a competitive disadvantage.  In the modern world, this would include adding a tax to goods produced in other countries that do not have a minimum wage, or do not have taxes on that country's labor (as our taxes on labor, social security, etc.)

 

Adam Smith did not believe that any country should leave themselves tossing in the winds of free trade at a competitive disadvantage and to the detriment of a country's existence.

 

There are more examples, but those are the most important; and by coincidence, the motivations behind many of Trump's tariff efforts.  Trump may have read/studied Adam Smith.

 

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies about the US-China trade war have been removed as this topic is not about that. 

 

Off topic posts and replies about the 2016 election, electoral votes etc., have been removed as this topic is not about that. 

 

Other off topic posts and the replies have been removed as well.