The First Trump Impeachment Thread

[Ulty]

[Redux]

15 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Well....then you are doing a horrible job of communicating what your point is. Probably because I've wasted my morning trying to correct a bunch of misinterpretations.  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?

 

A- Most of Washington is corrupt, but that's not why I said investigating Trump is a waste.  It's a waste because what they have to impeach him isn't going to work.  They would have been in a better position to get him out of office by holding onto the Ace up their sleeve (which ended up being a 7 or 8 at best) until they had a viable candidate to oppose Trump.  The Dems pool of candidates is poor, and so far I see none of them being a threat to another 4 years of Trump because instead of focusing efforts on a real candidate they dumped everything they had into this impeachment.  You wanna investigate him based off injustices, that's fine with me.  But the basis of Ukraine was just as corrupt on the accusers side so it ends up being a bunch of finger pointing.

 

B- This is a waste of money.  Trump's vacations are a waste of money.  Paying life long politicians is a waste of money.  Paying people to argue and push exaggerated ahendas on biased networks is a waste of money.

 

C- Hillary's political corruption has been watched for years since she has been in the public eye since the early 90's.  Trump's first foray into politics came when he announced his campaign so it's a much smaller window.

 

Do you require more clarity or would you like to keep trying to defile my character because you don't like my opinions?

[Redux]

17 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

So ignore me.  But first make a post calling me ignorant to get a bunch of rep points.

[Nebfanatic]

13 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

A- Most of Washington is corrupt, but that's not why I said investigating Trump is a waste.  It's a waste because what they have to impeach him isn't going to work. 

Then you are missing the point of all if this. Its not about getting him out of office or if it will 'work' it is about upholding the constitution in the face of blatent corruption

[Redux]

Just now, Nebfanatic said:

Then you are missing the point of all if this. Its not about getting him out of office or if it will 'work' it is about upholding the constitution in the face of blatent corruption

 

That's the point of this...on the surface.

[BigRedBuster]

17 minutes ago, Redux said:

A- Most of Washington is corrupt, but that's not why I said investigating Trump is a waste.  It's a waste because what they have to impeach him isn't going to work.  They would have been in a better position to get him out of office by holding onto the Ace up their sleeve (which ended up being a 7 or 8 at best) until they had a viable candidate to oppose Trump.  The Dems pool of candidates is poor, and so far I see none of them being a threat to another 4 years of Trump because instead of focusing efforts on a real candidate they dumped everything they had into this impeachment.  You wanna investigate him based off injustices, that's fine with me.  But the basis of Ukraine was just as corrupt on the accusers side so it ends up being a bunch of finger pointing.

 

To the bolded.

 

Then why bring that up at all.  You have brought up how everyone is corrupt many times.  If that's not why it's a waste of time, then why mention it?  Unless......you think it's a waste of time because everyone is corrupt anyway.

 

Again....you've done a horrible job of explaining your point.  I'm not the only one who is struggling with it.

To the rest of "A".  So....if someone is corrupt, they shouldn't be investigated.  They should be voted out of office.  Problem here is that Trump's corruption is DIRECTLY trying to corrupt the elections that America uses to get him out of office.  

This really isn't that difficult of a concept and I'm baffled that you are struggling with it. 

 

It's also A CRIME for a President to ask for/support/cover up foreign governments influencing our elections.  I'm baffled that you really don't think that's a big deal.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

23 minutes ago, Redux said:

C- Hillary's political corruption has been watched for years since she has been in the public eye since the early 90's.  Trump's first foray into politics came when he announced his campaign so it's a much smaller window.

Are you saying you didn't know about Trump's corruption before the election?

[Nebfanatic]

7 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

That's the point of this...on the surface.

So what is the point of this if its not to uphold the constitution?

[Redux]

8 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

So what is the point of this if its not to uphold the constitution?

 

To get the opposition out of power by any means necessary, but it sounds better to glorify the reasoning and pretend it's based solely on morals and not political gain.

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

To get the opposition out of power by any means necessary, but it sounds better to glorify the reasoning and pretend it's based solely on morals and not political gain.

 

So, was Bill Clinton's impeachment and the Republicans wanting to "LOCK HER UP" nothing more than gaining power over the opposition and a total waste of time and money and only being done for political gain?(would be in the case of Hillary) The Republicans standing acting like they are standing on the moral high ground for impeaching Clinton was nothing more than a sham and for political gain?

 

What about Nixon's?

[Nebfanatic]

3 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

To get the opposition out of power by any means necessary, but it sounds better to glorify the reasoning and pretend it's based solely on morals and not political gain.

That plays more if we are talking about the impeachment of Bill Clinton. So congress should ignore their constitutional duty and lay off Trump because otherwise they are going for a power grab? Laughable logic. Especially considering you've said over and over it won't work. So if its common knowledge the Senate will not remove Trump, how exactly is this getting Trump out of power by any means neccesarry? You have made my point for me. They know it likely won't result in him being removed, but they are doing it anyway BECAUSE IT IS THEIR DUTY SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

[ZRod]

10 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

To get the opposition out of power by any means necessary, but it sounds better to glorify the reasoning and pretend it's based solely on morals and not political gain.

Would you rather he go unpunished for crimes?

[Redux]

I literally don't even know how to respond to any of this anymore.  Kudos guys, you got me.

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Redux said:

I literally don't even know how to respond to any of this anymore.  Kudos guys, you got me.

So, you don't know how to respond as to if the impeachment of Clinton or Nixon ...or if impeaching Hillary if she had won and did something against the constitution would have been a waste of money and nothing more than politicians trying to gain personal political power?

[Redux]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, you don't know how to respond as to if the impeachment of Clinton or Nixon ...or if impeaching Hillary if she had won and did something against the constitution would have been a waste of money and nothing more than politicians trying to gain personal political power?

 

Clinton was a complete and utter waste of time

Nixon's was only justified because the proof was undeniable

Hillary's laundry list is what prevented her from taking office so it doesn't matter.

 

It's all politicians trying to gain personal and political power, that's the point.