Trump Impeachment # 2

[TGHusker]

Plenty of hypocrisy to be found,  courtesy of @RedDenver again

 

 

[Enhance]

20 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I guess stick with the three scenarios for brevity sake:

 

Maxine Waters 

Kamala Harris (multiple occasions I’m sure you are aware since you follow the news closely) encouraging the rioting and in interviews saying they won’t stop, along with bailing out the arrested rioters which in turn encourages more rioting since there are no repercussions for rioting.

Bernie Sanders rhetoric prior to the congressional DC shooting by one of his supporters.  

I looked into these (had trouble finding the Bernie rhetoric?). My overall verdict is that I don't think the situations are as comparable as you do, and some of your claims here are opinions and not verifiable facts.

 

I see some similarities as it relates to brash and reprehensible rhetoric, but they fail to match the equivalency and facts of the below IMO:

 

• the most powerful man in the world
• falsely claimed an election was stolen from him, repeatedly
• Held rallies and news conferences to push this false message, without hard evidence
• The day of the electoral confirmation process, held a rally that fired up his angry/emotional supporters before telling them to go march on the federal capitol building. And what was the messaging for those two months? 'Stop the steal.'

 

I think it's illogical to try to put all of those on the same playing field as if they're equivalent to one another. I'm not defending or condoning how many Democratic officials conduct and carry themselves, but if we're going to say it's equivalent to things Trump said and did, then the situations should share a majority of clear equivalencies. For the most part, they don't.

 

Additionally, and as I mentioned earlier, all of your examples are not impeachable by the letter of the Constitution. Those three people could've been expelled from their roles, but they can not be impeached.

 

[ZRod]

4 hours ago, Redux said:

 

What Mitch says to save face and what Mitch does are two different things.  You can keep using the angle that "BUT HE SAID", it literally does not matter.

Why doesn't it matter? It's his explanation of what he did, and what he believes.

[Redux]

9 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Why doesn't it matter? It's his explanation of what he did, and what he believes.

 

Do his nonsense words change how he shaped the outcome?

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

I looked into these (had trouble finding the Bernie rhetoric?). My overall verdict is that I don't think the situations are as comparable as you do, and some of your claims here are opinions and not verifiable facts.

 

I see some similarities as it relates to brash and reprehensible rhetoric, but they fail to match the equivalency and facts of the below IMO:

 

• the most powerful man in the world
• falsely claimed an election was stolen from him, repeatedly
• Held rallies and news conferences to push this false message, without hard evidence
• The day of the electoral confirmation process, held a rally that fired up his angry/emotional supporters before telling them to go march on the federal capitol building. And what was the messaging for those two months? 'Stop the steal.'

 

I think it's illogical to try to put all of those on the same playing field as if they're equivalent to one another. I'm not defending or condoning how many Democratic officials conduct and carry themselves, but if we're going to say it's equivalent to things Trump said and did, then the situations should share a majority of clear equivalencies. For the most part, they don't.

 

Additionally, and as I mentioned earlier, all of your examples are not impeachable by the letter of the Constitution. Those three people could've been expelled from their roles, but they can not be impeached.

 

Thanks for your insight.  Obviously I disagree, but it’s good to know where you are coming from.  
 

Expelled is even better than impeached!  And my bad for confusing the lingo. 

[TGHusker]

I think both tweets hit the nail on the head. 

[Enhance]

25 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Expelled is even better than impeached!  And my bad for confusing the lingo. 

To be honest, I'm kind of surprised you can't literally impeach a senator or congressperson, but I'm assuming the founders had some reasoning that I just haven't looked into. Expulsion is certainly an effective alternative and, for all intents and purposes, probably accomplishes many of the same things. Although, I did just read that there have been senators that were expelled and later re-elected. Seems bizarre but .

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Redux said:

 

Do his nonsense words change how he shaped the outcome?

It changes the basis of the conclusion you've been making here. Below you are implying that Trump was aquitted based on evidence or lack there of, and because Trump was aquitted it means that evidence was inconclusive.

 

On 2/16/2021 at 1:59 PM, Redux said:

 

And since the evidence was assumption based and open to interpretation, he was acquitted.

 

McConnell's own words say Trump is guilty based on that evidence and was aquitted on a non-existent technicality unrelated to any evidence, which makes your argument seem like a logical fallacy.

[Redux]

7 minutes ago, ZRod said:

It changes the basis of the conclusion you've been making here. Below you are implying that Trump was aquitted based on evidence or lack there of, and because Trump was aquitted it means that evidence was inconclusive.

 

 

McConnell's own words say Trump is guilty based on that evidence and was aquitted on a non-existent technicality unrelated to any evidence, which makes your argument seem like a logical fallacy.

 

My conclusion is based off of reality and how the results actually concluded.  I don't care what Mitch said before or after the fact, I can't believe people are trying to hold the guy to his word.

 

The evidence was s#!t, end of story.  I'm not repeating myself over and over for you.  A conviction wasn't happening, they had a handful of quotes that weren't worth a piss without an admission from Trump himself that states "Why yes indeed I was hoping my supporters would interpret the things I said in a different more violent way than I said them!".    Disagree all you want, the end result will be the same.  Dems suck at Impeachment process.

[knapplc]

Funny how the burden is all on the Democrats, when they laid out a rock solid case based almost exclusively on trump's own words.

 

And the Republicans who put party, and loyalty to trump, over country and ignored all that evidence, bear no blame, and (apparently?) got it right.

 

Kinda seems like someone is being REALLY partisan in their analysis of the conviction vote. 

[Redux]

7 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Funny how the burden is all on the Democrats, when they laid out a rock solid case based almost exclusively on trump's own words.

 

And the Republicans who put party, and loyalty to trump, over country and ignored all that evidence, bear no blame, and (apparently?) got it right.

 

Kinda seems like someone is being REALLY partisan in their analysis of the conviction vote. 

 

[knapplc]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. 

[Redux]

I can't imagine you actually typed out the words ROCK SOLID CASE with a straight face

[Archy1221]

15 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Funny how the burden is all on the Democrats, when they laid out a rock solid case based almost exclusively on trump's own words.

 

I guess we will see how “rock solid” the case was when Obama DOJ does or doesn’t win a conviction against Trumo for incitement 

[knapplc]

Just now, Archy1221 said:

I guess we will see how “rock solid” the case was when Obama DOJ does or doesn’t win a conviction against Trumo for incitement 

 

What?