Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.
It's pretty clear they are primarily trying to impeach him for abusing his power to influence the election. Are you really only paying attention to media sources that point out why he shouldn't be impeached? They will probably tack on a couple obstruction articles for ordering everyone he can to not cooperate and also attacking the witness on twitter last week mid-testimony. Oh is it clear? Because to me it is clear they are pushing removal and resistance first then manufacturing evidence to support these actions later. This is all about butthurt over losing in 2016. The left are tyrants that cant tolerate a peaceful handover of power. They must be in charge at all times, and if they can't be they will stomp their feet, scream, and burn it all down. Why would anyone cooperate with this? Obstruction of what cupcake? You mean like obstruction of the Russia investigation that also never happened? I do recall a lot of "Obstruction" words being batted around back in the Days of Mueller. But it all seemed to fade away. But I do think that Twitch has a point, that Trump abused his power to influence the election. Just remember the Repub debates. Trump against 16 or 17. Next it was just Trump. You know that was unfair. His superior abilities against their inferior abilities. And then Trump abused his power by beating Hitlery. The proof is that he won, see?  |
|
|
|
....
Mueller Report: Not a big shift.
Mueller Testimony: Not a big shift.
Ukraine Scandal: Obvious big shift.
Wait... So now there's an actual "Ukraine Scandal?" I learned something today. Have they decided what is in the box labeled Ukraine Scandal? |
|
|
|
I think these are pretty insane to look at for a second. 45 percent of Americans (which is a large portion of Americans) think that the Impeachment inquiry should end right now. That's pretty much all the support that a President needs to win the electoral college in the modern time. This is without a doubt why Trump thinks he's going to be able to win with just his base, some Republicans, and a couple indys to win.
Yes I do know there is the other half -- the 55 percent of Americans that think this should proceed. But I EXPECTED the 'should this proceed' question to be at least 70-30 and maybe support for impeachment to be around the ballpark of 50-50. But this is pretty crazy to truly look at.
Shows that there is truly a silent portion of the population that does support this President, and doesn't really care about the wrongs he commits. We'll see in the coming days, weeks, months if that is going to hold.
Either that or they don't see any evidence of wrong doing, and see the left flailing frantically to try to create a scandal before 2020 because it is their only hope. Who knows? Maybe it's headed for a Bimbo Explosion. Oh wait... That was Bill Clinton... |
|
|
|
herp derp retarded people throwing retarded ideas out. derp herp.
If yall could actually have an actual conversation with you know, sourced information from reality instead of shit out of your assholes, you wouldn't have your comments deleted.
But instead, shit from assholes = required to post. And then whine when other people remove the shit.
inb4 this post is removed too.
Why would anyone delete this golden evidence of the kind of mind that justifies totalitarian censorship? I'm good as long as they don't mention subpoe— |
|
|
|
Yes, it is real. Now we are experiencing a hotter weather than before. It is because the layer which hold on the direct sunrays is gradually decreasing, thus the sunlight is directly penetrating the earth. It is caused by the greenhouse effect and sometimes it is caused by humans who burn plastic and rubber which affect the ozone layer. Here in the philippines, we happen to experience "El Niño" or sudden drought due to too much heat from the sun. I think we must be alarmed for it may lead to extinction making all forms of life in this earth end. Please save our mother earth.  El Nino and La Nina are perfectly natural climate variations. |
|
|
|
Yes I believe global warming is real, it's clear Theres a lot of sign expample on the is earthquakes and other worse calamities they experience this recent days.
And according from the expert and science test the cause of this global warming because of pollution came from the manufacturing and from the waste of the people around the world.
Earthquakes? Now earthquakes are caused by GW? You guys are really brainwashed. |
|
|
|
We've already covered that global warming doesn't mean all of the globe all of the time. It means warmer on average, but also leads to more volaitle weather in general. I'll not cover the warm air 'holding' more water again, but global warming = disruption. More droughts and heatwaves, yes, but also stronger hurricanes, worse rainfall and flooding and also, in some places, colder winters.
I live in western europe, which is kept artificially warm by the gulf stream. We are at the same latitude as Canada and Siberia, but we don't have their winters. If the gulf stream shuts down - as it may with global warming - then our winters get a hell of a lot colder. Because of global warming.
No, I mean literally that you are spewing nonsense. Sure it's just what you were told, does not matter. Look at it... ....global warming doesn't mean ...warmer ... on average,... more volaitle weather ...global warming = disruption. ... More droughts and heatwaves, ... stronger hurricanes, ... worse rainfall and flooding ... colder winters. If something means everything, then it means nothing. |
|
|
|
Forget the polls whereit claims that people really think that Trump should be impeached for the hullabaloo regarding the Ukrainian issue, this issue has even galvanised lots of people regarding the witch hunt that the Democrats have exhibited during the entirety of the Trump presidency, initially it was the alleged Election and Russian collusion and having spent close to 3 years and a whole lot of money, the whole thing wasn't determined and now they have moved on to this which is very absurd.
Just want to point out that the Mueller investigation was not all about Trump, despite Trump making it seem like it was. The investigation concluded that Russia did in fact interfere with the 2016 election. They also figured out how they did it, which will help to defend against it in the future. Also, as of last week, 6 Americans directly involved with the Trump campaign are convicted felons for things like failing to register as a foreign agent and lying to congress about Trumps business deals in Russia. Many of these guys were also convicted of Bank/Tax fraud which resulted in the overall investigation being profitable for the federal government. This will discourage future campaigns from doing illegal things, or hiring people that do illegal, which is a good thing for the country as a whole. Just sayin. But those guys had to be strung up either for entrapped charges (Flynn) or for stuff all those guys in the District of Criminals do routinely (not reporting offshore investments and income). In fact there was a large investment firm that catered just to that market segment (UBI). If anything, this reinforces a view in DC that if you are on the correct side, you can get away with a wide variety of things, and if you are on the wrong side, you may be convicted for the slightest of things. And that just encourages the sociopaths to get into politics. |
|
|
|
I think FiveThirtyEight .... So, regardless of the facts, impeach? |
|
|
|
|
This thread appears to link political ideas with crypto currency use.
There really is no such link. People use what they want to use, and banks and institutions adjust or change or die.
|
|
|
|
November 22nd perhaps? For impeachment. Let's see.
What would be quite interesting would be if the House voted for impeachment, and did not reach a majority. I think the vote will look similar to the impeachment inquiry. Overall, it'll pass in the House but Republicans don't give a shit about the laws Trump breaks on a daily basis. Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now. How about impeach the guy just for Being Trump? |
|
|
|
We've already covered that global warming doesn't mean all of the globe all of the time. It means warmer on average, but also leads to more volaitle weather in general. I'll not cover the warm air 'holding' more water again, but global warming = disruption. More droughts and heatwaves, yes, but also stronger hurricanes, worse rainfall and flooding and also, in some places, colder winters.
I live in western europe, which is kept artificially warm by the gulf stream. We are at the same latitude as Canada and Siberia, but we don't have their winters. If the gulf stream shuts down - as it may with global warming - then our winters get a hell of a lot colder. Because of global warming.
Totally baseless fear mongering. Aside from being ridiculous, your arguments are dated. Today, acolytes and the faithful use the words "Climate Change." "Global Warming" is no longer the phrase that interests people. Have you not been told? |
|
|
|
Two consecutive events can imply guilt. Are you saying that they can't?
You mean like Biden's son getting a high paying job at a company being investigated for corruption after his dad threatens to have the lead prosecutor fired and hold back aid if they don't? Good point. No, that is two consecutive events along with other data. Biden himself links the two events as cause and effect of his action. |
|
|
|
...
Ok. I won't assume you are defending Trump anymore unless you say so explicitly, sorry. There wasn't any sort of bad faith argument on my part though, the "descriptive phrases" you used are also being used to argue why Trump shouldn't be impeached, and this is a thread about the Impeachment hearings, so I think my assumption that you were presenting a defense was reasonable.
Thanks. Earlier I was "defending Trump," when it was suggested two consecutive events implied causality and hence guilt. Two consecutive events can imply guilt. Are you saying that they can't? Well, read that section and tell us what you think? |
|
|
|
I voted he'll be elected again without knowing his possible opponents. Who are they again?
Couple Socialists. Couple old white Billionaires. (one of them is Trump rich, the other is obscenely rich) A senile old man that doesn't know what state he's in. White lady that thinks she's an Indian. An Indian lady that thinks she's black. Hawaiian lady that considers herself a person of color. Millennial that likes to make out with his boyfriend on stage. Asian dude that wants to give $1,000 a month to everyone. A Vegan. Deval Patrick is also announcing he's going to run tomorrow. Don't know what to make fun of him for yet though. Who am I missing? Wait... So there ARE OPPONENTS? (who would have dreamed that the collapse of the Clinton power system internal to the Dem party would have led to this...) |
|
|
|
...
Ok. I won't assume you are defending Trump anymore unless you say so explicitly, sorry. There wasn't any sort of bad faith argument on my part though, the "descriptive phrases" you used are also being used to argue why Trump shouldn't be impeached, and this is a thread about the Impeachment hearings, so I think my assumption that you were presenting a defense was reasonable.
Thanks. Earlier I was "defending Trump," when it was suggested two consecutive events implied causality and hence guilt. |
|
|
|
....
Twitchy Seal thinks the ends justify the means. When you stand for nothing, you fall for anything. ....
But is he buying the next round of beers? It's quite interesting that Twitch has presented a thread as if it were real, about something that's only considered real in a subset of circles of discussion. He proposes to keep discussion serious, about the one ring circus. Regardless of where and on who the animals Schiff****. |
|
|
|
On break for Day 2 of hearings. I wasn't able to watch it from the beginning, but Trump is having a bit of a melt down on Twitter, attacking Marie Yovanovitch mid testimony. It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?
So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.
It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.
Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?
I don't think "Party A is better than Party B" is a valid argument, or even relevant, when it comes to whether or not a president should be impeached. Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER" Didn't mean to mis-represent. I don't think the fact that the Democrats are sore losers is a valid defense either. Or the fact that the media suggested Obama was looking and acting king-like. Neither of these things have anything to do with whether or not Trump did what he is being accused, and if he did, whether or not they are impeachable offenses. I feel like saying bad things about Democrats, past or presently in office is a bit of a cop out when it comes to discussing the impeachment hearings. ... "A valid defense"? Nowhere did I argue that this was a defense. Descriptive phrases of the political environment are not "defenses". I can't even offer "defenses" because I'm still trying to figure out what impeachable offenses defenses might be required for. There's zero need for the double talk, but one more time, don't misrepresent my comments. It's unnecessary. Everyone knows that a certain contingent wants Trump out, by any means necessary, including impeachment, for any plausible charge. And everyone knows that another contingent does not. It is what it is. I hear you, but "sore losers" is descriptive, not "bad things." [/quote] |
|
|
|
.......Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER"
This is favorite tactic of Twitchy Seal and the left in general. Don't respond to the comment or question you actually made, but to the one you WISH was made in order to topic slide and create a logically fallacious defense for a topic you can't argue and wish to avoid. This is one of the main reasons the left require censorship to function, because an open discussion reveals how little logic is at the base of their arguments.
Agreed. But I'm not convinced Twitch is at the radical end of the line like blue* and hell*. |
|
|
|
...
What that woman went through was pretty fucked up though.....
I really don't care what she went through. I saw a part of it, and saw a bunch of bitching, moaning and complaining. Didn't see any direct testimony relevant to the subject of the hearings. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
