He asked you to clarify, and you became intentionally obtuse... so not quite.
Donald Trump - All things impeachment.... | Acquitted in the Senate
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
- Status
So basically nothing has happened? And people like me come in the thread to ask the same thing and people get the hump?
Alright. They attribute racism to him. However, he doesn't say racist things. He says things that people attribute to racism, but the actual things are not.
Yeah, that's why the Democrats voted against impeachment three times before the whistleblower complaint.
If you genuinely believe this, you need to turn off the Fox News. The transcript of the call is damning enough in and of itself. It has all of the context and evidence needed to demonstrate Trump used military assistance as a tool to push for a politically motivated investigation of the man he perceives to be his strongest opponent. The transcript itself sets out that they were both discussing the aid the US provided, and Donald Trump even mentions how great the US has been to Ukraine in providing so much aid. Zelensky then mentions the desire to buy more Javelins to which Trump responds that he needs "a favor though" with regards to the Russian disinformation Crowdstrike story and Joe Biden. All of this shows Trump approaching Zelensky and Ukraine in the same way he does everything else: transactionally. You give me what I want then I'll give you what you want. It's the same reason the White House meeting kept getting pushed back as the announcement of the Biden investigation was delayed. Zelensky still hasn't gotten his White House meeting.
Getting into the witness testimony, Gordon Sondland is not a second or third hand source. Neither are Bill Taylor, George Kent, Col. Vindman, nor Kurt Volker. They had to work with Giuliani in his pursuit of dirt on the Bidens, not corruption, the Bidens. They had to do all the work surrounding the call before and after to deal with Donald Trump and Giuliani's demands. Donald Trump told Gordon Sondland he wanted the investigations of the Bidens and the Russian fairy tale he believes about Crowdstrike and that the White House meeting was contingent upon them. We also learned that the Ukrainians knew about the aid hold the day of the call.
If Donald Trump wanted to pursue legitimate investigations, they would have brought it to the attention of Bruce Swartz, who's responsible for liaising with other countries about criminal investigations. Another conspicuous sign of Trump's malfeasance is that he and Giuliani pushed Zelensky for a public statement on CNN announcing the investigation. If they wanted a legitimate investigation, it would be done through normal channels and announced if criminal activity were uncovered. Donald Trump only cared about Zelensky announcing the investigation because it hurts Joe Biden. He couldn't care less if the investigation finds anything, since there is no evidence of violation of the law, just that it hurts Joe Biden politically.
Additionally, if Trump were innocent, why would he be preventing others with first hand testimony from testifying to exonerate him? If they have exculpatory evidence, why aren't they presenting it to Congress? Why did Mick Mulvaney say there was a quid pro quo and that political considerations would enter into foreign policy on national television?
No rational person in America can believe that Donald Trump cares about corruption, except for how he can get in on the action. This is a man who consistently complained he couldn't bribe foreign officials because of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and that it should be repealed. His casino was fines millions of dollars for violating money laundering regulations. He worked with some of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's cutouts and corrupt individuals on a project in Baku. He awarded the contract to hose the next G7 summit to himself! Any other public official awarding a government contract to themself worth millions of dollars would be on their way to prison already. He's bilked American taxpayers out of millions of dollars visiting his properties and playing golf--forcing the government to spend money at his businesses and lining his pockets.
Cute... I don't even watch it.
I never said it was.
I just asked what these half truths and less than half truths were.
You do know of course that the House by itself cannot make laws?
So the people who were convicted did not in fact kill civilians? How are they scapegoats?
What a spectacularly stupid question. It obviously depends on the process. In this example the process is impeachment. Impeachment of the duly elected president comes from the duly elected House of Representatives - a coequal branch of government exercising its constitutional right and duty. If it fails I would call it a failed impeachment, as would anybody else with a semblance of intelligence.
Calling it a coup is such an exercise in sheer dumbfeckery that you can't possibly be serious. It doesn't even constitute an attempted seizure of power and is in fact the literal exercise of a core feature of American democracy.
perfect example of projection right thereno real evidence? you must be joking? did you even see any one of the hearings? Trump's own cronie Sondland who was directly involved himself testified it was a quid-pro-quo in addition to a number of career diplomats involved in the situation. Other people who were involved in this were directly prohibited by the white house from testifying. Tell me why were they prevented from testifying if Trump had done nothing wrong?
And btw get at least one fact correct in your argument. Impeachment hearings and inquiry is not the court of law.
Sure his son got that job because of being Vice President's son (which is wrong but again let me do a bit of whataboutism with Trump's kids and his relations in his office) but do you have any evidence that Biden directly got his son that job. And you're conflating this to blackmailing a sovereign country using taxpayer's money? Either way, Trump wanting investigation on Biden was on a matter that he got Ukraine's Attorney General fired to protect the company his son was working at. But again this was completely based on alternative facts when the actual fact was that the entire western world was asking for Attorney General's firing because of his involvement in protecting the corrupt companies.
At least try to bring in some facts when you are showing this much confidence/arrogance in your arguments.
You come across like the kinda person who also thinks that there are good people on both sides.
It's bordering on wummery.
The whole post is pretty disgusting tbh, but that last sentence is a beauty. So everyone else is wrong?
The Gettysberg address and the Constitution say otherwise. The Government is not supposed to be corrupt, yes it may always have been to some extent but Trump does it in the open with no fecks given and zero accountability. No weekly press conferences, no visitor logs. Closed meetings with foreign leaders and no transcripts. Countless members of the cabinet in jail and many more facing charges. Nepotism on a scale never seen before. Scandal after scandal. Destruction of decades old alliances and openly working with dictators. The removal of job protections, environmental protections, and allowing more destruction purely for profit. I could spend hours listing reasons he could and should be impeached. But what would be the point? You would just excuse or defend it or blame someone else. Probably Obama or Hillary.
This is bigger than Trump. This is about the world, peoples lives, jobs, futures. This is about a system that has been abused and manipulated and exposed, then exploited so much that if things don't change then things will never, ever get better. Luckily many care and can see this. I just hope enough care to make a difference.
What are the odds that Gator Nate is from Florida? @Florida Man
Good call.
that is probably the funniest thing I've read in this thread. Well done, you are in the category of stupid I've only heard stories of.
Last edited:
Bullshit
You’ve either got to be trolling or think we are as limited as you are.
Probably the same odds as me removing him from my best newbie promoted nomination.
Too much to address here and it would be a waste of my time to do so. But I do love to bold really ironic statements. Our education system has failed once again.
Yo @Gator Nate where were you when some other guy was trying to seriously label this a coup by posting a secondary definition that has no relevance to the coup that is referred to in the context of politics. Where is your lecture about not being smart enough to understand the process for him?
“I don’t like Trump, but...”
“I didn’t vote for Trump, but...”
Anyone who predicates their argument with the aforementioned need to quit being little bitches hiding behind a pretend veil and own the feck up on your love for Trump.
“I didn’t vote for Trump, but...”
Anyone who predicates their argument with the aforementioned need to quit being little bitches hiding behind a pretend veil and own the feck up on your love for Trump.
Oh but I am serious. From this side of 'the pond' it looks like the Democrats for their own political purposes want to remove Trump and replace him with the VP, presumably because they believe they will have a better chance against Pence. The Democrats are using the constitutional impeachment process to enact a coup**, a political coup, but the problem is they know from the get go that it wont be successful, so it becomes a failed coup. It could be argued that using the impeachment process in this way, when they know it will not be successful in removing the President, is itself an abuse of power, by the Democrats.
(** as defined in the Little Oxford Dictionary (fourth edition 1969) p121)
Are you just stupid?
Oh dear I'm so terribly offended, your succinct question has me at a loss!
Words fail me.
Yes. He very much is.
Maticmaker is always good for a laugh on the rare occasions I venture back onto this site now.
They are the master (or at least think they are) of putting forward an argument while pretending to only be playing devil's advocate and not necessarily to support that viewpoint.
Or they're just trolling.
Either way, gives me a good chuckle.
They are the master (or at least think they are) of putting forward an argument while pretending to only be playing devil's advocate and not necessarily to support that viewpoint.
Or they're just trolling.
Either way, gives me a good chuckle.
Co-signed.
“Be nice to them, treating them like the idiots they are is why Trump got in”.
No, feck them. They’re not stupid, they’re wilfully ignorant because Trump gives them a little chub in their pants with all the hate he spews.
Mm:
1. It appears that activity appropriate to the charge took place, so the Democrats are both justified and pretty much obliged to impeach Trump.
2. Your view regarding the Dems' motivation is merely an opinion - and speculation - and not demonstrable fact. In this, it's similar to my opinion about the roots of Brexit (with Trump, Johnson, Farage et al conspiring together); I can't prove that, so it remains simply an opinion.
Well said Steve.
If you're at a loss, I can help you out. The answer is 'yes'.Oh dear I'm so terribly offended, your succinct question has me at a loss!
It's always funny, and a bit sad, when people look up the dictionary definition of a word and use that as proof of what they are saying, despite not quite understanding it.
I've heard that the Democrats are going to attempt another coup on 3 November 2020.
Why are you using the word coup? Linguistically it’s correct, but its other meaning is as a shortened form of coup d’etat and so using it in this context is liable to cause confusion. I can only think that you are either using it for that reason, or because you are trying to cover for others when they use it as a means to accuse the democrats of attempting a coup d’etat.Oh dear I'm so terribly offended, your succinct question has me at a loss!
The definition of coup you say you are using has nothing to do with political manouevering or the removal of a person from office so I assume you use it in other contexts? You would, for example call Trump’s election to office a coup? And if he was to not be re-elected, you would designate it an attempted or failed coup?
Last edited:
The use of coup is intentional and comes with a full understanding of the colloquial meaning of the word.
The intent is to introduce the term into the common vernacular and define the impeachment process as an illegal attempt to usurp power by Congress rather than an obligatory legislative action when a President has committed a serious crime.
The intent is to introduce the term into the common vernacular and define the impeachment process as an illegal attempt to usurp power by Congress rather than an obligatory legislative action when a President has committed a serious crime.
we've spent the last two pages to explain that difference to that poster. Either he is too stupid to tell the difference or just too arrogant to accept his mistake. Or just trolling.
- Status