Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    How is that proof the impeachment itself is 'all (only?) about politics'?
    In and of itself, it's not. Which is why I said "further" proof.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      In and of itself, it's not. Which is why I said "further" proof.
      Perhaps I asked the wrong question then. This would need to first be evidence it's all about politics to be usable in a proof of the same, or to become 'further proof'.

      So I'll reword my question:

      How is that evidence the impeachment itself is 'all (only?) about politics.
      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-13-2019, 11:44 AM.
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        I don't think that is the correct use of the term.
        Correct use of what term?

        It would need to first be evidence it's all about politics to usable as proof, or become 'further proof'.

        So I'll reword my question:

        How is that evidence the impeachment itself is 'all (only?) about politics.
        Both sides are using this thing for face time with the cameras, Jim. It's ENTIRELY along partisan lines. Nancy Pelosi slipped up and, in trying to defend the notion that "we're not rushing", admitted they've been working on this for 2 1/2 years. THEN they focus entirely on the Ukraine thing which hadn't even happened back then.

        Show me how this is NOT all political.

        You have ONLY the Democrats on the committee voting for impeachment, when ONLY Democrats voted for the impeachment process to begin. The ONLY thing bipartisan about this is the fact that TWO Democrats voted WITH the Republicans NOT to begin the impeachment process.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Correct use of what term?



          Both sides are using this thing for face time with the cameras, Jim. It's ENTIRELY along partisan lines. Nancy Pelosi slipped up and, in trying to defend the notion that "we're not rushing", admitted they've been working on this for 2 1/2 years. THEN they focus entirely on the Ukraine thing which hadn't even happened back then.

          Show me how this is NOT all political.

          You have ONLY the Democrats on the committee voting for impeachment, when ONLY Democrats voted for the impeachment process to begin. The ONLY thing bipartisan about this is the fact that TWO Democrats voted WITH the Republicans NOT to begin the impeachment process.
          I didn't make the claim it was all or only political, neither did I say there is no political element, so I don't have any burden of proof.

          However, if the impeachment is about what Donald Trump did in abusing his power with the Ukraine for personal gain and contrary to US national interests, then the fact some will use that event opportunistically for political gain is not proof or even evidence the event itself is only about politics. What Trump has done is very bad, and it is very dangerous for the leader of the free world and this nation to be so bereft of moral fibre as to do such a thing. So there are very valid reasons to pusue impeachment that are, in fact, completely independent of politacal considerations.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • Meanwhile, Democrats are bracing for the likelihood that they will lose more than just the TWO Democrats who voted against initiating the impeachment.

            Even if they only lose half a dozen (and impeachment still passes - they would need to lose 17 or more for it not to pass) it's obvious they have gone BACKWARDS.

            It's no longer bribery, collusion, or obstruction of justice, or quid pro quo ---- it's the flimsiest of charges ever.

            If they only lose FOUR Democrats - they've gone BACKWARDS.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Meanwhile, Democrats are bracing for the likelihood that they will lose more than just the TWO Democrats who voted against initiating the impeachment.

              Even if they only lose half a dozen (and impeachment still passes - they would need to lose 17 or more for it not to pass) it's obvious they have gone BACKWARDS.

              It's no longer bribery, collusion, or obstruction of justice, or quid pro quo ---- it's the flimsiest of charges ever.

              If they only lose FOUR Democrats - they've gone BACKWARDS.
              You are so completely wrong as to 'flimsy'. Perhaps you are referring to the evidence supporting the charge rather than the charge itself?
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-13-2019, 11:54 AM.
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                I didn't make the claim it was all or only political,
                I did.

                neither did I say there is not political element, so I don't have any burden of proof.


                However, if the impeachment is about what Donald Trump did in abusing his power with the Ukraine for personal gain and contrary to US national interests,
                Jim - Pelosi let the cat out of the bag --- they've been working on this for 2 1/2 years --- well BEFORE "the phone call" and the whole Ukraine thing.

                then the fact some will use that event opportunistically for political gain is not proof or even evidence the event itself is only about politics. What Trump has done is very bad, and it is very dangerous for the leader of the free world and this nation to be so bereft of moral fibre as to do such a thing. So there are very valid reasons to pusue impeachment that are, in fact, completely independent of politacal considerations.
                Trump is a (that word I promised not to use again) and has tons of faults. The Democrats have failed miserably to demonstrate that any of that rises to the level justifying impeachment.

                They are losing fellow Democrats, they have pretty much lost the American public - they are definitely losing Independents. Jim - that should tell you something -- the INDEPENDENTS are not convinced that impeachment is justified.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  You are so completely wrong as to 'flimsy'.
                  You are entitled to your opinion, Jim, but even Democrats are retreating from this sham.

                  Perhaps you are referring to the evidence supporting the charge rather than the charge itself?
                  The whole thing is a sham. The Democrats are weaponizing impeachment because they hate Trump.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    You are entitled to your opinion, Jim, but even Democrats are retreating from this sham.



                    The whole thing is a sham. The Democrats are weaponizing impeachment because they hate Trump.
                    No. Trump is being impeached because he tried to force Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political rival and used 400 million in funds allocated by congress as leverage. And it is a very, very sad thing that you, or anyone, can consider such an act 'a sham'. Heaven help this nation when it's people can excuse such an act by it's president.
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      No.
                      Yes.

                      Trump is being impeached because he tried to force Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political rival and used 400 million in funds allocated by congress as leverage.
                      No.

                      And it is a very, very sad thing that you, or anyone, can consider such an act 'a sham'. Heaven help this nation when it's people can excuse such an act by it's president.
                      It's very sad that you're jumping on the bandwagon with a bunch of leftist political hacks who - on a very PARTISAN basis - search high and low and wide for ANYTHING they could use to impeach Trump, having declared 2 1/2 YEARS AGO that's what they were going to do - WAY BEFORE the Ukraine thing was even an issue.

                      Jim, Nadler is doing the very thing he warned against in the past --- this is ENTIRELY a partisan effort. Again, the ONLY thing about this that is NOT partisan is the fact that TWO DEMOCRATS crossed the isle to vote AGAINST this abuse of power by the rabidly partisan Democrats.

                      It is a sham.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        Heaven help this nation when it's people can excuse such an act by it's president.
                        Let me come back to this, because I think this is really important. It is NOT "excusing such an act" that's at issue.

                        It's WEAPONIZING IMPEACHMENT to deal with this, when there are other options. THAT is the sham.

                        Even some of the Democrats seem sincerely concerned that they didn't go for "censure" or something besides impeachment.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • FURTHER evidence this is all a sham.....

                          Even Before Ukraine Uproar, 10 of 13 Democrats on Intel Panel Backed Trump Impeachment Probe

                          In July, Rep. Andre Carson, a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, voted for the then-most recent resolution calling for the ouster of President Donald Trump from office.

                          “I think it represents a larger, more important conversation that we need to have about … what we’re willing to tolerate as a citizenry from our commander in chief,” Politico quoted the Indiana Democrat as saying, “What responsibility the commander in chief has to the electorate in terms of not fanning the flames of Islamophobia, xenophobia, and outright hatred.”

                          The intelligence committee has taken the lead role in the impeachment investigation of Trump, focused on Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which the two leaders discussed former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and a Democratic computer server.

                          But 10 of the 13 Democrats on the committee discussed an impeachment inquiry, actual impeachment, and the removal of, or resignation by, Trump well before news broke of the controversial phone call.

                          Of the 10, three intelligence committee members—Reps. Carson; Eric Swalwell, D-Calif.; and Peter Welch, D-Vt.—were among 95 lawmakers who voted to advance the July impeachment resolution sponsored by Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, and that time it was about Trump insulting four first-term members of the House. The Green resolution was tabled on a bipartisan vote of 332 to 95.

                          In September, as news of the Trump call with the Ukraine leader broke, Carson was eager to note on Twitter his past support for proceeding with impeachment, asserting, “It may be the only way to save our Democracy.”


                          carson.jpg

                          This is NOT ABOUT UKRAINE --- this is about "GET TRUMP", and weaponizing impeachment to do it.
                          Last edited by Cow Poke; 12-13-2019, 12:24 PM.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Meanwhile, Democrats are bracing for the likelihood that they will lose more than just the TWO Democrats who voted against initiating the impeachment.

                            Even if they only lose half a dozen (and impeachment still passes - they would need to lose 17 or more for it not to pass) it's obvious they have gone BACKWARDS.

                            It's no longer bribery, collusion, or obstruction of justice, or quid pro quo ---- it's the flimsiest of charges ever.

                            If they only lose FOUR Democrats - they've gone BACKWARDS.
                            Most seem to be predicting between four and six with a few saying it could be more.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Most seem to be predicting between four and six with a few saying it could be more.
                              You can only imagine the backstage arm twisting, deals, threats, promises.... there are, what, 35?, Democrats in difficult positions regarding their own seats?
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Yes.



                                No.



                                It's very sad that you're jumping on the bandwagon with a bunch of leftist political hacks who - on a very PARTISAN basis - search high and low and wide for ANYTHING they could use to impeach Trump, having declared 2 1/2 YEARS AGO that's what they were going to do - WAY BEFORE the Ukraine thing was even an issue.

                                Jim, Nadler is doing the very thing he warned against in the past --- this is ENTIRELY a partisan effort. Again, the ONLY thing about this that is NOT partisan is the fact that TWO DEMOCRATS crossed the isle to vote AGAINST this abuse of power by the rabidly partisan Democrats.

                                It is a sham.
                                I don't think so CP. But that you view it as such is probably an indicator of why the impeachment does not have the support it should. It is the result of a successful campaign by the likes of brietbart and fox etc, and some blame also falls on other side per the 'boy who cried wolf' syndrome over the last 3 years or so. But regardless, this is a serious abuse of presidential power, and not something to be dismissed for such petty reasons.
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X