The First Trump Impeachment Thread

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Redux said:

Corrupt accusing the corrupt is hardly as noble as it's being made out to be.

So, we get it....because everyone (in your eyes) are corrupt, we shouldn't investigate anyone.

 

You do realize it's the Republican's strategy to paint everyone investigating Trump as corrupt....right?

[Redux]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, we get it....because everyone (in your eyes) are corrupt, we shouldn't investigate anyone.

 

Yup, that's what I said.  Keep spinning it.

 

Dislike Trunp for using his power for personal gain.  How is that any different than the Dems trying to remove him from office?  They aren't doing it to be noble.  It's all hypocritical 

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Redux said:

 

Yup, that's what I said.  Keep spinning it.

That's exactly what you are saying.  How is it not?

You specifically came on here to tell everyone this is a bunch of BS because everyone is corrupt in Washington so why are we waisting our money investigating Trump.

 

 

[QMany]

What irony, this impeachment process started with the corrupt desire for a "CORRUPTION!" statement without any basis in fact.

[Redux]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

That's exactly what you are saying.  How is it not?

You specifically came on here to tell everyone this is a bunch of BS because everyone is corrupt in Washington so why are we waisting our money investigating Trump.

 

I also said they would have been more successful had they focused their time and money on supporting a legitimate candidate to oppose him in the election.

[Nebfanatic]

3 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Dislike Trunp for using his power for personal gain.  How is that any different than the Dems trying to remove him from office?  They aren't doing it to be noble.  It's all hypocritical 

Trump is using his power for personal gain which is against the constitution. The democrats on the otherhand are upholding the constitution by trying to remove the president. That is the difference. One is trying to enrich themselves, the other is complying to their constitutional duty. 

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

I also said they would have been more successful had they focused their time and money on supporting a legitimate candidate to oppose him in the election.

So, you admit that's what you came on here and said.....which....then you claimed what I said wasn't what you said.  

 

So....because the Democrats put up a corrupt candidate.....we should be OK with Trump being corrupt.  

 

Why shouldn't we have the attitude of....Hillary was corrupt so we should be glad she's not in office.  Now, we need to hold the person who DID win accountable and make sure he isn't as corrupt or worse than what Hillary would have been?

 

I thought Republicans supported the constitution.  Who would have guessed that was a sham.

[TGHusker]

Bret Baier : Trump give Schiff another article of impeachment in real time. 

 

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/foxs-bret-baier-trump-gave-schiff-a-new-article-of-impeachment-in-real-time-with-twitter-attack-on-yovanovitch/

Quote

 

The dramatic moment during Friday’s House Impeachment hearing in which Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) read out President Donald Trump’s tweet blasting former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch in real time — with Yovanovitch saying she finds the tweet “very intimidating” — may have amounted to an on-the-spot article of impeachment, according to one Fox News anchor.

Weighing in immediately after the hearing went to recess, Fox anchor Bret Baier said that the president gave Schiff ammunition in real time on Friday morning with the attack.

“That enabled Schiff to then characterize that tweet as intimidating the witness, or tampering with the witness, which is a crime, adding essentially an article of impeachment in real-time as this hearing is going on,” Baier said.

The Fox anchor went on to opine that that entire nature of Friday’s hearing will change as a result of the Trump tweet — with Republicans now forced to defend, or walk back, the president’s comments.

“That changed this entire dynamic of this first part of this hearing,” Baier said. “And Republicans now are going to have to take the rest of this hearing to probably try to clean that up.”

 

 

[Redux]

4 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Trump is using his power for personal gain which is against the constitution. The democrats on the otherhand are upholding the constitution by trying to remove the president. That is the difference. One is trying to enrich themselves, the other is complying to their constitutional duty. 

 

I believe that you believe that

[Redux]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, you admit that's what you came on here and said.....which....then you claimed what I said wasn't what you said.  

 

So....because the Democrats put up a corrupt candidate.....we should be OK with Trump being corrupt.  

 

Why shouldn't we have the attitude of....Hillary was corrupt so we should be glad she's not in office.  Now, we need to hold the person who DID win accountable and make sure he isn't as corrupt or worse than what Hillary would have been?

 

I thought Republicans supported the constitution.  Who would have guessed that was a sham.

 

You're literally arguing points against me I'm not making but you wish I was making because you want to argue with a Trumper.  I'm not a Trumper, so walk it back a bit.

[Nebfanatic]

18 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

I believe that you believe that

Is it not Congresses constitutional duty to impeach a President abusing his powers for personal gain? Isn't that the very idea of seperation of powers and checks and balances?

[Redux]

2 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Is it not Congresses constitutional duty to impeach a President abusing his powers for personal gain? Isn't that the very idea of seperation of powers and checks and balances?

 

Because the Democrats are doing this on principle and duty and have absolutely nothing to gain from Impeaching the president.  Because Congress isn't full of lifelong politicians that have personal agendas.

[FrankWheeler]

34 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

You're literally arguing points against me I'm not making but you wish I was making because you want to argue with a Trumper.  I'm not a Trumper, so walk it back a bit.

 

Trying to get a handle on your point - is it that none of this matters?

[Landlord]

There's no sense trying to talk sense into someone so nihilistic and cynical and unwilling to actually engage in a conversation other than to say, "HERR YEA WELL OTHER PEOPLE DO IT TOO"

 

So can we all just ignore Redux's depressing as f#&% attitude and actually keep the conversation on Trump's impeachment? Plenty of substantive things to talk about on topic without engaging such a careless and dangerous attitude.

[BigRedBuster]

55 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

You're literally arguing points against me I'm not making but you wish I was making because you want to argue with a Trumper.  I'm not a Trumper, so walk it back a bit.

Well....then you are doing a horrible job of communicating what your point is.  The three points I’ve gotten from you are:

 

a) Everyone is corrupt So why are we investigating Trump?

 

b) This is a waste of money. 
 

c) I’m glad we knew about Hillary’s corruption before the election so that she’s not president. 
 

Is that not your three main points?