The First Trump Impeachment Thread

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Redux said:

I'm probably just going to stop responding to you so people can actually discuss things and not wade through you being condescending responding once or twice to every post I make.  I've made my opinion to you known, you feel the need to poke holes in every opinion I have regardless of how I explain it to you.  It's not productive or fun for me and I honestly don't care what you think of me.

 

Well, the only way I'm not going to "poke holes" in your opinion is if I agree with you.  Which.....I haven't seen anything on this subject I can agree with yet.

So, if you don't want to discuss the subject with someone that doesn't agree with you...well....then....

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

I've explained my thoughts on it and people don't agree.  It's not thsg I haven't, it's just falling on deaf ears.  I think this was a waste because it wasn't well thought out.  The lack of evidence (HOW CAN HE EVEN SAY THAT) will ruin any hope they had to oust him.  And the Dems have looked like total tools on the televised hearings.  Again, the Dems should have fully backed a candidate they believed in and focused on that instead of having this backfire and get Trump more support.  Beat him in an election.  But they know they can't with their current pool and sitting presidents typically win reelection, so they threw a hail mary.  It missed.

 

But..yet...you admitted to not listening to the evidence.....and then turn around and claim there's no evidence.  

Can you see why I'm confused or don't fall in line with your thought process?

[knapplc]

5 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

I've explained my thoughts on it and people don't agree.  It's not thsg I haven't, it's just falling on deaf ears.  I think this was a waste because it wasn't well thought out.  The lack of evidence (HOW CAN HE EVEN SAY THAT) will ruin any hope they had to oust him.  And the Dems have looked like total tools on the televised hearings.  Again, the Dems should have fully backed a candidate they believed in and focused on that instead of having this backfire and get Trump more support.  Beat him in an election.  But they know they can't with their current pool and sitting presidents typically win reelection, so they threw a hail mary.  It missed.

 

Your contention is that there isn't sufficient evidence to show wrongdoing by Trump.

[Redux]

25 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Your contention is that there isn't sufficient evidence to show wrongdoing by Trump.

 

My contention is that this was a wasted effort, effort that could have been spent finding a real candidate to challenge him.

[knapplc]

Just now, Redux said:

 

My contention is that this was a wasted effort, effort that could have been spent finding a real candidate to challenge him.

 

You specifically said "lack of evidence" which is a line that comes from...

 

Spoiler

Trump

 

Oddly, you also claimed you didn't watch any of the hearings, but also said, " And the Dems have looked like total tools on the televised hearings" which is a spin that comes from...

 

Spoiler

Trump

 

And you have repeated (twice now) the spin that these hearings are an attempt to redo the election the Democrats lost.  Which comes from...

 

Spoiler

Trump

 

Which ignores the fact that Trump is attempting to bribe Ukraine to influence the outcome of the 2020 election using our tax dollars.

 

But you're not a Trump supporter.

[Redux]

Bud Kilmer said it best....

[knapplc]

Another Republican coming forward with an unequivocal statement. Still not enough.

 

 

[Landlord]

Don't think I've ever seen someone so readily admit that they're not informed on a subject and then continue to act like they have a legitimate opinion, and then get frustrated when people don't listen to it or give it any validity in the realm of being correct as much as Redux consistently does

[funhusker]

29 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

My contention is that this was a wasted effort, effort that could have been spent finding a real candidate to challenge him.

I've seen this talking point several places, and it still confuses me.  Where do people get the idea that the House of Representatives is responsible for nominating Presidential candidates.  

 

However, ONE of their jobs is to provide oversight of the federal government.  I would actually see it as a waste of time and money if they did choose to campaign for a Presidential nominee, even if that person was amazing.

[QMany]

16 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I've seen this talking point several places, and it still confuses me.  Where do people get the idea that the House of Representatives is responsible for nominating Presidential candidates.  

 

Since the facts and law are not on their side, Trump deflectors will throw every rationalization against the wall.

 

Not even the House as a whole either; this work has been mostly done by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Their efforts should be spent finding a candidate? I wish we weren't forced to swat down every crazy deflection, but here we are.

[QMany]

 

https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

 

I. The President's Misconduct: The President Conditioned a White House Meeting and Military Aid to Ukraine on a Public Announcement of Investigations Beneficial to his Reelection Campaign

The President’s Request for a Political Favor | The President Removed Anti-Corruption Champion Ambassador Yovanovitch | The President’s Hand-picked Agents Begin the Scheme | President Trump Froze Vital Military Assistance | The President Conditioned a White House Meeting on Investigations | The President’s Agents Pursued a “Drug Deal” | President Trump Pressed President Zelensky to Do a Political Favor | The President’s Representatives Ratcheted up Pressure on the Ukrainian President | Ukrainians Inquired about the President’s Hold on Security Assistance | The President’s Security Assistance Hold Became Public | The President’s Scheme Unraveled | The President’s Chief of Staff Confirmed Aid was Conditioned on Investigations

II. The President's Obstruction of the House of Representatives' Impeachment Inquiry: The President Obstructed the Impeachment Inquiry by Instructing Witnesses and Agencies to Ignore Subpoenas for Documents and Testimony

An Unprecedented Effort to Obstruct an Impeachment Inquiry | Constitutional Authority for Congressional Oversight and Impeachment | The President’s Categorical Refusal to Comply | The President’s Refusal to Produce Any and All Subpoenaed Documents | The President’s Refusal to Allow Top Aides to Testify | The President’s Unsuccessful Attempts to Block Other Key Witnesses | The President’s Intimidation of Witnesses

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, QMany said:

 

Since the facts and law are not on their side, Trump deflectors will throw every rationalization against the wall.

 

Not even the House as a whole either; this work has been mostly done by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Their efforts should be spent finding a candidate? I wish we weren't forced to swat down every crazy deflection, but here we are.

 

One of the biggest statements that leaves me rolling my eyes is that the Democrats need to stop doing the impeachment and get back to work on legislation.

Hmmm....First of all, like you said, this is a small minority of Representatives that are involved with this.  Second, I read somewhere that there are actually a lot of bills that the House has passed and the Senate isn't acting on them.  Impeachment hasn't even gotten to the Senate yet and the REPUBLICANS are refusing to act on any legislation in front of them.

[ZRod]

2 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

Yep, over 400 bills:

 

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/11/30/do-nothing-gop-democrats-passed-400-bills-trump-impeachment-tantrums.html

One even decriminalized marijuana I believe.

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Redux said:

 

I've explained my thoughts on it and people don't agree.  It's not thsg I haven't, it's just falling on deaf ears.  I think this was a waste because it wasn't well thought out.  The lack of evidence (HOW CAN HE EVEN SAY THAT) will ruin any hope they had to oust him.  And the Dems have looked like total tools on the televised hearings.  Again, the Dems should have fully backed a candidate they believed in and focused on that instead of having this backfire and get Trump more support.  Beat him in an election.  But they know they can't with their current pool and sitting presidents typically win reelection, so they threw a hail mary.  It missed.

But you still have no idea what was said during the testimonies do you? Please do yourself a favor and put them on in the background during work or something. It's easy to twist a sound bites, it's much harder to brush off the full context of what was said.

 

Trump is attempting to influence an election with tax money, after he literally just stepped out of another investigation about a foreign government influencing our election. Why should we let him try to cheat his way to a second term?

[Redux]

1 hour ago, funhusker said:

I've seen this talking point several places, and it still confuses me.  Where do people get the idea that the House of Representatives is responsible for nominating Presidential candidates.  

 

However, ONE of their jobs is to provide oversight of the federal government.  I would actually see it as a waste of time and money if they did choose to campaign for a Presidential nominee, even if that person was amazing.

 

And who is running the house?  The point is that this impeachment was a grand group effort, and they dropped the ball.