Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

modestobulldog

Game Thread: Impeachment Trial

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Yet another example of how the House +++++ed the +++++ up by not naming Amash as an Impeachment Manager,

Oh no they didn’t. Can’t give a guy looking into running third party that kind of platform and name recognition. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, toonkee said:

Of course it does. 

It's funny because MSNBC is ridiculous and it's funny because the Jay Sekulow Band is also ridiculous. 

Why not both?

 

I'll agree with both.

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, renoskier said:

There wasn't really anything linking Obama either.

That's because the IRS destroyed the evidence.  Unless you can explain why they destroyed the backups.    But we're getting off topic.

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Didn't read :P

 

jk

 

Also, what's up with your "interests" on your profile linking to a tweet? 

It's been there three months. And if you copy and paste, you'll see it's a video of FuxNews' Neil Cavuto taking Mr. Grumpy to task over all the BS our fake president had done to that point.

After the rushed "not guilty" vote which should come from the Senate Republicans in a couple weeks, Trump needs to get reelected so assuming the Dems learned a lesson this time, they won't eff up the impeachment process which is virtually certain of being needed again over the next four years.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SleepingGiantFan said:

It's been there three months. And if you copy and paste, you'll see it's a video of FuxNews' Neil Cavuto taking Mr. Grumpy to task over all the BS our fake president had done to that point.

After the rushed "not guilty" vote which should come from the Senate Republicans in a couple weeks, Trump needs to get reelected so assuming the Dems learned a lesson this time, they won't eff up the impeachment process which is virtually certain of being needed again over the next four years.

Why you making shit difficult?

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mugtang said:

In what world did I say it was acceptable?  Please state where I said it was acceptable to ask for foreign governments to interfere in our elections.  What I said was presidents have played loose with the law in the past, not saying I endorse what Trump did.  Why are you playing absolutism? 

 

So, because Obama bombed many countries without Congressional authorization does that mean you support Trump starting a war with Iran or any other nation without first going to Congress? 

Since the only issue is whether Trump asked a foreign government to investigate a political rival I am unclear as to why you brought up presidential actions that involve other activities.  There is no law against a president asking a foreign government to become involved in our domestic political process.  The issue before the Senate is whether our country is to accept that type of activity by our president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Normalizing Trump's behavior?  Sounds line Charlottesville.  Which president has traded our national security for PERSONAL gain?

None of them.  I think a more accurate statement is Trump traded Ukrainian security for personal gain.  But our national security wasn't threatened by his actions.

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sandiegopete said:

Since the only issue is whether Trump asked a foreign government to investigate a political rival I am unclear as to why you brought up presidential actions that involve other activities.  There is no law against a president asking a foreign government to become involved in our domestic political process.  The issue before the Senate is whether our country is to accept that type of activity by our president.

The issue before the Senate is whether Trump broke the law by abusing his power and obstructing Congress.

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mugtang said:

Why you making shit difficult?

Lol. Because I couldn't find the Cavuto opinion piece on FuxNews anymore in order to just post a link directly to it. Because that Cavuto piece has probably been buried by Trump's sycophants who run that network. And that's probably because Trump raised a hissy fit to the people who actually run that place: Hannity, Carlson and the Angram Ingle.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

Lol. Because I couldn't find the Cavuto opinion piece on FuxNews anymore in order to just post a link directly to it. Because that Cavuto piece has probably been buried by Trump's sycophants who run that network. And that's probably because Trump raised a hissy fit to the people who actually run that place: Hannity, Carlson and the Angram Ingle.

For the record, Hannity is a hack.

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mugtang said:

None of them.  I think a more accurate statement is Trump traded Ukrainian security for personal gain.  But our national security wasn't threatened by his actions.

The term "national security" encompasses many things: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=shxDOnuVcyYC&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=definition+of+national+security&ots=hyd9gwR-c5&sig=CqlR2NmB3-5-fSHyquwC-Dq21hY#v=onepage&q=definition of national security&f=false

Not the least of those things is the security of our elective process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mugtang said:

The issue before the Senate is whether Trump broke the law by abusing his power and obstructing Congress.

The issue is whether his asking a foreign government to help his re-election campaign was an abuse of power.  So, the central issue is the demand he made on the Ukrainian government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Not really though.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, sandiegopete said:

The issue is whether his asking a foreign government to help his re-election campaign was an abuse of power.  So, the central issue is the demand he made on the Ukrainian government. 

You're right.  I'll admit I was wrong there.

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mugtang said:

That's because the IRS destroyed the evidence.  Unless you can explain why they destroyed the backups.    But we're getting off topic.

Take off the tinfoil hat.   What evidence does anyone have of this aside from the right wing fever swamp conspiracy theories. 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Take off the tinfoil hat.   What evidence does anyone have of this aside from the right wing fever swamp conspiracy theories. 

You mean other than the IG finding the IRS destroyed evidence despite subpoenas for it? :shrug:https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2017reports/201710034fr.pdf

But ok, I’m wearing a tinfoil hat.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Take off the tinfoil hat.   What evidence does anyone have of this aside from the right wing fever swamp conspiracy theories. 

 

3 minutes ago, mugtang said:

giphy.gif

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mugtang said:

You mean other than the IG finding the IRS destroyed evidence despite subpoenas for it? :shrug:https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2017reports/201710034fr.pdf

But ok, I’m wearing a tinfoil hat.  

You asserted Obama was personally involved in having the IRS target political opponents to win an election.   You intimated that every president breaks the law and equivocated Trump's behavior.   That simply isn't true and most presidents dont do this.  You are trying to minimize and normalize the behavior.  The only president who I can think of who did anything similar was Nixon where there was a mountain on evidence. 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Akkula said:

You asserted Obama was personally involved in having the IRS target political opponents to win an election.   You intimated that every president breaks the law and equivocated Trump's behavior.   That simply isn't true and most presidents dont do this.  You are trying to minimize the and normalize the behavior.  The only president who I can think of who did anything similar was Nixon where there was a mountain on evidence. 

Ok. There’s no way Obama didn’t know about that. But you’re right, I don’t have any hard evidence of that. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Akkula said:

You asserted Obama was personally involved in having the IRS target political opponents to win an election.   You intimated that every president breaks the law and equivocated Trump's behavior.   That simply isn't true and most presidents dont do this.  You are trying to minimize and normalize the behavior.  The only president who I can think of who did anything similar was Nixon where there was a mountain on evidence. 

50/50 come on they're all the same (sarcasm)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...