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 Cow Poke View Post
    Look what you're doing, Jim. You're implying that I'm not "sensible", just because I don't agree that the Democrat's impeachment sham is warranted.
    No, I'm implying that sensible people see a large number of things happening with Trump has done intolerable and inexcusable for a POTUS. I know it still says you are not sensible in terms of your tolerance of Trump, but the reason for that is not related to what the Democrats are trying to do. It's not a partisan thing. So lets take stock of what I'm saying.

    1) I am saying I don't think it is sensible to want Trump in office. He's done too many bad things for me to think that is a sensible thing
    2) That is not in any way related to party politics. It is 100% based on the immoral/unconscionable things Donald Trump has done.

    What I am not saying

    1) I am NOT saying you or people that are not sensible from my perspective about how they view Trump are bad people. I'm just saying that overlooking some of the things trump has done makes no sense to me.


    I think he'll be impeached, but I also think this incredible blunder on the part of the Democrats is why Trump will be reelected. And I just saw one of the nutty congresswomen saying "we'll impeach him again". The Democrats are weaponizing impeachment because they can't beat him at the polls, Jim.
    A Question for you. If a president is violating laws, his oath of office, the constitution, and the majority of the people in the US are OK with that, is it still the duty of the Congress and the Senate to impeach him? Or is it ok for the people of the US to prefer a lawless president that abuses his power and the law and the representatives they elected are then obligated to stand down?
    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, I'm implying that sensible people see a large number of things happening with Trump has done intolerable and inexcusable for a POTUS.
      OK, not impeachable, right?

      I know it still says you are not sensible in terms of your tolerance of Trump,
      As opposed to a Democrat who would be PRO-ABORTION, anti-Christian values, etc...

      but the reason for that is not related to what the Democrats are trying to do. It's not a partisan thing. So lets take stock of what I'm saying.
      Jim, it is undeniable it is a partisan thing, in that the ONLY bipartisanship in this whole thing was two DEMOCRATS crossing over and voting WITH REPUBLICANS.

      1) I am saying I don't think it is sensible to want Trump in office. He's done too many bad things for me to think that is a sensible thing
      2) That is not in any way related to party politics. It is 100% based on the immoral/unconscionable things Donald Trump has done.
      I don't WANT Trump in office - but I don't want him kicked out of office by a bunch of partisan hacks who weaponize impeachment as their means to get rid of him.

      What I am not saying

      1) I am NOT saying you or people that are not sensible from my perspective about how they view Trump are bad people. I'm just saying that overlooking some of the things trump has done makes no sense to me.
      What, exactly, am I overlooking, Jim?

      A Question for you. If a president is violating laws, his oath of office, the constitution, and the majority of the people in the US are OK with that,
      False premise. I never said I'm "OK with that", and I think there are a whole lot of other people who also think it's "not OK", but it's not impeachable.

      is it still the duty of the Congress and the Senate to impeach him?
      ONLY if there is --- in Nadler's own words, WIDE PUBLIC SUPPORT, and SIGNIFICANT BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT.

      Or is it ok for the people of the US to prefer a lawless president that abuses his power and the law and the representatives they elected are then obligated to stand down?
      Again, you have a bogus premise, and I reject it out of hand.

      Here's the deal.... you have indicated you would vote for a Democrat....

      OK, so Trump's a boob, and does nutty things, and MAY HAVE made a bad judgment deal with regards to Ukraine....

      On the OTHER HAND, what Democrat is NOT going to be FOR so many things that you and I as Christians stand AGAINST?

      A SENSIBLE CHRISTIAN would have to weigh those factors as well, and not be absolutely totally driven by "Trump is a bad man".
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        I don't WANT Trump in office - but I don't want him kicked out of office by a bunch of partisan hacks who weaponize impeachment as their means to get rid of him.
        You would think liberal voters would be furious at the Democrat party for so badly botching this whole affair and all but guaranteeing that Trump won't be leaving office until January 2025.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          You would think liberal voters would be furious at the Democrat party for so badly botching this whole affair and all but guaranteeing that Trump won't be leaving office until January 2025.
          That's pretty much what has happened --- it's as if the Lord has blessed the Democrats with the Gift of Stupid.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            it's as if the Lord has blessed the Democrats with the Gift of Stupid.
            Well I guess it's better than not having no gift at all...
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Well I guess it's better than not having no gift at all...
              My oldest daughter, who has returned from slopping pigs and is serving the Lord () reminds me that I had always said God gave her the "gift of Stupid" in her rebellion, because, as smart as she was, she always managed to leave clues as to where she was and what she was up to.

              One time, she skipped school, and went joy-riding with friends, and ran out of gas ----- UPHILL from a gas station where she could have coasted right down the hill into the station ---- and left her car in the middle of the highway with the emergency lights flashing.

              Praise God, she now seems to have the gift of mercy, as she has been ministering to persons who were in trouble like she was.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Jim, lemme try this another way....

                I view major challenges in two different veins --- temporal and eternal.
                When making difficult decisions, I weigh the impact on both the temporal and eternal.

                Trump is temporal. He is finite. He will be out of office in a year, 5 at the most, and dead not long after that.
                Whatever "damage" he does, or has done, or can do - is temporal.

                What he has done with regards to abortion, supreme court, Israel..... those are far closer to eternal, particularly the abortion issue.
                His impact on religious liberty will be around for quite some time --- that affects me FAR more than a Russia/Ukraine squabble.
                His impact on SCOTUS may have stopped a whole bunch of demonic things for decades to come.
                His impact Israel will be long lasting, and directly related to Kingdom work.

                Obama had his own international screw-ups, and a series of presidents the last couple decades have had us in Afghanistan, apparently on a bunch of lies.
                Biden had his whole thing with Ukraine and his own son on... well, you'll probably argue that one...

                Eternal vs temporal, Jim.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Interesting four point defense...

                  The GOP’s Four-Point Defense Of Trump Is Devastating

                  Basically, the 4 points are....

                  1. both Trump and Zelensky say there was no pressure applied.
                  2. the transcript does not indicate Trump making any demands or setting any conditions.
                  3. Ukraine was not aware that the aid was delayed.
                  4. aid flowed without any announcement of investigations.


                  Taken together, these four defenses have more than enough weight to crush the Democrats’ case, but lets look at them one by one....


                  It was amusing to watch the Democrats become quite agitated declaring that Zelensky was a HOSTAGE (blink blink) who is ONLY saying that because he's in fear for his life, and one of them actually said "he has a GUN TO HIS HEAD".

                  The Dems are showing themselves to be horrible debaters, and emotional basket cases.
                  I agree that the republicans in the judiciary committee did a better job than the democrats. They were good at disrupting the democrats and going off topic which, I thought, was quite effective in weakening the impact of the democrats.

                  Previously, Goldman stated that he would put the merits of this impeachment up against any of the cases he prosecuted over ten years and I totally agree with him. I’ve read lots of convictions that had far less evidence and when you compare it against other circumstantial evidence reliant cases then this would be one of the stronger ones.

                  1. Undue influence is when one party, for whatever reason, exerts extreme influence over another to the point their actions can’t be reasonably said to be of their own volition(like a gun to the head). A decent argument can be made for it here.

                  2. Transcript is available for everyone to read and decide for themselves. I would say the transcript supports the democrats. The republicans argue there’s no explicit statement which, from my experience, is always a weak argument because it’s commonly the last resort. Usually, if the defence becomes ‘well they didn’t explicitly state ....’ it means they’ve conceded that the prosecutions argument/interpretation on this is valid. It’s also supported by the concerns that this call caused to several live listeners and actions of lawyers severely restricting accessability to the transcript.

                  The court also recognises that a person could hint at or make implications to communicate what they want. This would usually be an objective test of what a reasonable person would understand the meaning to be. Reading this transcript would require a subjective test because of the uncommon nature of surrounding circumstances.

                  Consider:

                  How a reasonable person in this situation (eg. newly elected, knowledge of relevant facts before call, phone briefing points, anti corruption agenda, war with Russia, wants White House visit etc) would understand the call to mean. <- fact finders job

                  3. The call, if nothing else, confirms Trumps interest in these investigations to Zelensky who was previously informed that a White House visit was conditioned on it. Zelensky is placed in a difficult position and reluctant to be involved in a foreign election. Ukrainians stop enquiring about the White House visit. Within the next few weeks Zelensky becomes aware of the freeze on aid. Questions on why the aid is withheld is asked to US Diplomats in Ukraine who follow up with their own enquiries back home. Ukrainians are told that they have no idea why this has happened but was done by Trump.

                  At this point Zelensky would presume the connection between aid and the favour. At the very least, Zelensky is aware that doing the favour is his only option to either get the aid or put himself into a position where he could directly enquire about it with Trump.

                  4. Zelensky agrees to make the announcement on CNN and interview is booked. The statement he has to make is edited by Volker to include Burisma and 2016.

                  Trump is notified of that whistleblower report will go to Congress and Zelenskys decision to make announcement in the days before aid is finally released. Either event could have influenced the release.

                  Comment


                  • The Senators have to swear an oath to god before the Senate trial begins that they will be an impartial jurist, and yet Senator Moscow Mitch has already admitted that there is no way that the Senate will convict and also admitted that he is coordinating with the White House as to exactly how to best handle the process in the defense of the president.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                      I agree that the republicans in the judiciary committee did a better job than the democrats. They were good at disrupting the democrats and going off topic which, I thought, was quite effective in weakening the impact of the democrats.

                      Previously, Goldman stated that he would put the merits of this impeachment up against any of the cases he prosecuted over ten years and I totally agree with him. I’ve read lots of convictions that had far less evidence and when you compare it against other circumstantial evidence reliant cases then this would be one of the stronger ones.

                      1. Undue influence is when one party, for whatever reason, exerts extreme influence over another to the point their actions can’t be reasonably said to be of their own volition(like a gun to the head). A decent argument can be made for it here.

                      2. Transcript is available for everyone to read and decide for themselves. I would say the transcript supports the democrats. The republicans argue there’s no explicit statement which, from my experience, is always a weak argument because it’s commonly the last resort. Usually, if the defence becomes ‘well they didn’t explicitly state ....’ it means they’ve conceded that the prosecutions argument/interpretation on this is valid. It’s also supported by the concerns that this call caused to several live listeners and actions of lawyers severely restricting accessability to the transcript.

                      The court also recognises that a person could hint at or make implications to communicate what they want. This would usually be an objective test of what a reasonable person would understand the meaning to be. Reading this transcript would require a subjective test because of the uncommon nature of surrounding circumstances.

                      Consider:

                      How a reasonable person in this situation (eg. newly elected, knowledge of relevant facts before call, phone briefing points, anti corruption agenda, war with Russia, wants White House visit etc) would understand the call to mean. <- fact finders job

                      3. The call, if nothing else, confirms Trumps interest in these investigations to Zelensky who was previously informed that a White House visit was conditioned on it. Zelensky is placed in a difficult position and reluctant to be involved in a foreign election. Ukrainians stop enquiring about the White House visit. Within the next few weeks Zelensky becomes aware of the freeze on aid. Questions on why the aid is withheld is asked to US Diplomats in Ukraine who follow up with their own enquiries back home. Ukrainians are told that they have no idea why this has happened but was done by Trump.

                      At this point Zelensky would presume the connection between aid and the favour. At the very least, Zelensky is aware that doing the favour is his only option to either get the aid or put himself into a position where he could directly enquire about it with Trump.

                      4. Zelensky agrees to make the announcement on CNN and interview is booked. The statement he has to make is edited by Volker to include Burisma and 2016.

                      Trump is notified of that whistleblower report will go to Congress and Zelenskys decision to make announcement in the days before aid is finally released. Either event could have influenced the release.
                      Here are the basic facts of the case: Nobody inside the Trump administration has testified that they were ever given any such directive from the Oval Office that the release of military aid was tied to the investigations, and Gordan Sondland testified that President Trump told him explicitly that he wanted no reciprocation from Ukraine. Furthermore, multiple people in the Ukraine government have said that they were never under any pressure from the Trump administration, were never under the impression that release of military aid was tied to agreeing to undertake any investigations, and Andriy Yermak, one of President Zelensky's top advisers, said he was never told anything of the kind, contrary to Sondland's sudden "recollection" that he may have spoken to Yermak about it. Then there's the transcript itself which shows nothing explicitly illegal or improper. Finally, Ukraine took no specific action to get the aid released.

                      Now you can spin all the theories you want, but unless they can account for those basic facts, or you have other facts that call them into question, then any fair trial in America would have to deliver a verdict of not guilty.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                        Mitch has already admitted that there is no way that the Senate will convict...
                        And based on the flimsy case the House is planning to hand them, the Senate really has no other choice.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          And based on the flimsy case the House is planning to hand them, the Senate really has no other choice.
                          "Everything I do I'm coordinating with White House council, there is no difference between the presidents position and our position. There is no way the president is going to be convicted." Moscow Mitch. That's not a trial, that's a partisan jury rigging the trial before it begins. The republican party is now as corrupt as Trump himself is.

                          Besides that, Trump could shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th ave and you'd still call the evidence flimsy.
                          Last edited by JimL; 12-13-2019, 06:27 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            The Senators have to swear an oath to god before the Senate trial begins that they will be an impartial jurist, and yet Senator Moscow Mitch has already admitted that there is no way that the Senate will convict and also admitted that he is coordinating with the White House as to exactly how to best handle the process in the defense of the president.
                            There was no way the Democrats were not going to impeach. That's exactly what I've been saying all along --- this whole sham is entirely political.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              "Everything I do I'm coordinating with White House council, there is no difference between the presidents position and our position. There is no way the president is going to be convicted." Moscow Mitch. That's not a trial, that's a partisan jury rigging the trial before it begins. The republican party is now as corrupt as Trump himself is.
                              Jim, everything that Schiff and Nadler did was coordinated with Moscow Nancy --- and this all started 2 years BEFORE the impeachment hearings. It was all rigged ahead of time - no chance that there would NOT be an impeachment - it was a sham from start to finish. The ONLY thing bipartisan about it was two democrats joining the Republicans in recognizing this for the kangaroo court it was.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                                "Everything I do I'm coordinating with White House council, there is no difference between the presidents position and our position. There is no way the president is going to be convicted." Moscow Mitch. That's not a trial, that's a partisan jury rigging the trial before it begins.
                                What are you talking about? They have the transcripts from the secret hearings (or at least the portions Shifty Schiff has seen fit to release), they know what was testified to publicly, they've read the articles of impeachment. It's not like the Senate is going into this blind. The entire Democrat case is a matter of public record, and the Senate knows as well as you and I that there is no substance to it. An immediate vote to acquit is the only just thing to do.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                157 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
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X