Impeachment Hearings

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-18-2019, 10:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You applaud a system of checks and balances, then accuse one of those branches of doing it wrong.

Does that get you going?

So you accept obstruction as a form of governing. Which is no surprise. That ideal gave birth to the current shit stain on American politics that is the modern day Republican party...

No further questions. 

[Benton]

(12-18-2019, 10:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: When did the "other side" start their crucifixion? 

Answer that honestly and you might see what others find dangerous and abhorrent. 

Personally, I have 0 issue with Congress bringing articles of impeachment. I just have been entertained about the Constitutionlist Dems starting off with how "sad" of a day this is and then getting a chubby when they exclaim: Impeach. impeach, impeach. PVT Trip had it right.

The Dems?

Around the time evangelicals rallied around a guy who leads off cheating on his wife by grabbing women's vaginas and who advocates nuking countries as a way to solve problems.

[BmorePat87]

(12-18-2019, 10:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course that was not the question posed. But that has never stopped anyone in this forum. 

Of course it wasn't, but it answered a far better question than the one you posed.

Nadler absolutely should have called Gohmert out on promoting Russian propaganda, especially after intelligence officials briefed the Senate that it was Russian propaganda and a former advisor on Russia for the administration told the House that it was Russian propaganda. Promoting Putin's lie on the House floor in defense of the President's abuse of power after being told by administration officials that it was Putin's lie is very dangerous.

[*bfine32*]

(12-18-2019, 11:15 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So you accept obstruction as a form of governing. Which is no surprise. That ideal gave birth to the current shit stain on American politics that is the modern day Republican party...

No further questions. 

I accept Checks and Balances. Hopefully that comes as no surprise. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-18-2019, 11:18 PM)Benton Wrote: The Dems?

Around the time evangelicals rallied around a guy who leads off cheating on his wife by grabbing women's vaginas and who advocates nuking countries as a way to solve problems.

Folks often get POTUS confused with Pope; on both sides it appears. 

I've freely admitted Trump is evil. As are we all. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-18-2019, 11:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Of course it wasn't, but it answered a far better question than the one you posed.

Nadler absolutely should have called Gohmert out on promoting Russian propaganda, especially after intelligence officials briefed the Senate that it was Russian propaganda and a former advisor on Russia for the administration told the House that it was Russian propaganda. Promoting Putin's lie on the House floor in defense of the President's abuse of power after being told by administration officials that it was Putin's lie is very dangerous.

Its almost like it doesn't matter how un-American you go. The pack mentality, party over country shit show the R's (i don't even want to call them Republicans, I used to have a little respect for them) are putting on is a total disgrace. 

The lack of colorful opposition pisses me off. The calm cool and collective responsible individual gig isn't working. Get a jock strap jim, numb nuts nunes, gohmert pyle level jackass screaming and hollering. Fight fire with fire. Maybe it will strike a cord with the hardcore R's.

[*bfine32*]

(12-18-2019, 11:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Of course it wasn't, but it answered a far better question than the one you posed.

Nadler absolutely should have called Gohmert out on promoting Russian propaganda, especially after intelligence officials briefed the Senate that it was Russian propaganda and a former advisor on Russia for the administration told the House that it was Russian propaganda. Promoting Putin's lie on the House floor in defense of the President's abuse of power after being told by administration officials that it was Putin's lie is very dangerous.

Folks answering questions they asked instead of the question posed by the person they are "answering" is also not uncommon in this forum.

Let's pretend the question I asked is "far less better". What do you think about a Chair accusing a fellow Congressman of "spouting Russian Propaganda"? Don't go with the BS "called him out" as many told folks to address the chair. I'm asking your thoughts on the Chair accusing a fellow Congressman of "Spouting Russian Propaganda" in this setting. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-18-2019, 11:54 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Its almost like it doesn't matter how un-American you go. The pack mentality, party over country shit show the R's (i don't even want to call them Republicans, I used to have a little respect for them) are putting on is a total disgrace. 

The lack of colorful opposition pisses me off. The calm cool and collective responsible individual gig isn't working. Get a jock strap jim, numb nuts nunes, gohmert pyle level jackass screaming and hollering. Fight fire with fire. Maybe it will strike a cord with the hardcore R's.

All I asked was folk's opinion on The Chair accusing a fellow Congressman of "spouting Russian propaganda" in this setting. 

Do you think the Chair has been bi-partisan in their oversight of this proceedings? A yes or no is all that is required. 

[BmorePat87]

(12-18-2019, 11:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks answering questions they asked instead of the question posed by the person they are "answering" is also not uncommon in this forum.

Let's pretend the question I asked is "far less better". What do you think about a Chair accusing a fellow Congressman of "spouting Russian Propaganda"? Don't go with the BS "called him out" as many told folks to address the chair. I'm asking your thoughts on the Chair accusing a fellow Congressman of "Spouting Russian Propaganda" in this setting. 

I answered that question in the post you just quoted. Gohmert did spout Russian propaganda (as identified by intelligence officials) and Nadler was correct in chastising him for it for the reasons I stated. 

[BmorePat87]

(12-18-2019, 11:54 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Its almost like it doesn't matter how un-American you go. The pack mentality, party over country shit show the R's (i don't even want to call them Republicans, I used to have a little respect for them) are putting on is a total disgrace. 

The lack of colorful opposition pisses me off. The calm cool and collective responsible individual gig isn't working. Get a jock strap jim, numb nuts nunes, gohmert pyle level jackass screaming and hollering. Fight fire with fire. Maybe it will strike a cord with the hardcore R's.

When you're actively promoting a narrative that the intelligence community has told Congress is one developed by the Kremlin to defend abuse of power, you're no longer standing for the nation or the constitution. It's sad how far they have fallen and for such a despicable human being too. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-18-2019, 11:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks often get POTUS confused with Pope; on both sides it appears. 

I've freely admitted Trump is evil. As are we all. 

R's argument in a nutshell. I know he is evil. But.. (insert horseshit)

[*bfine32*]

(12-19-2019, 12:14 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I answered that question in the post you just quoted. Gohmert did spout Russian propaganda (as identified by intelligence officials) and Nadler was correct in chastising him for it for the reasons I stated. 

Glad you shared your view on how the chair should rule. 

Chastising you say? 

[*bfine32*]

(12-19-2019, 12:21 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: R's argument in a nutshell. I know he is evil. But.. (insert horseshit)

Not sure where I stated "but"...Dude is a narcissistic asshole. 

Of course you didn't answer the question posed to you (perhaps a tactic in a nutshell)

Do you think the Chair has acted in a bi-partisan manner? 

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-18-2019, 11:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All I asked was folk's opinion on The Chair accusing a fellow Congressman of "spouting Russian propaganda" in this setting. 

Do you think the Chair has been bi-partisan in their oversight of this proceedings? A yes or no is all that is required. 

Yes.... The White House rejected his invitation to participate.

Now you answer one. 

Did house Republicans ever approach these hearings in a bi-partisan manner? Could be tied in, but you can choose not to answer since I only get one. Will senate R's be non-partisan in taking up this subject that means a whole hell of a lot to many Americans? (hint.. some have already answered for you)

[BmorePat87]

(12-05-2019, 06:13 PM)jj22 Wrote: So what I'm learning and what Trump and his supporters are getting slammed about, is all politicians kids can be attacked (Obama's/Bidens/Clintons) but someone can't mention the name of Barron....

Whose the snowflake again.

Social media won the day today.

The fake outrage was called out and should have been given the attacks on Bidens son all this time.

Are political opponents kids off limits or not?

Trump just mentioned Barron at his rally as a means of attacking Elizabeth Warren and the large crowds she has been gathering.

“I could have Barron Trump go into Central Park and he’d get a crowd. He’d get a bigger crowd,” 

Classless move by a Republican "president". Pres. Trump uses a teenage boy who has nothing to do with this joke of an election (and deserves privacy) as a punchline. And what's worse, it's met by laughter in the convention center. What is being done to this country is no laughing matter. 

A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Donald Trump, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it. 

[NATI BENGALS]

So a little rundown for my memory.

Most Americans did not vote for the lying conman.

Most Americans did not vote for Moscow Mitch.

No R even tries to defend the obstruction of congress article, they are just ignoring it I guess?

Moscow Mitch and Lying Conman win.. Because some shitbird from Ky who represents a tiny portion of America has ridiculous amount of power. What in the actual F*** is wrong with our country?

[BmorePat87]

Trump spoke about the late Rep. John Dingell, whose wife voted to impeach Trump tonight. He said that after he gave him an "A+ treatment" by lowering the flags, the late congressman might have been “looking up [from hell]" rather than "looking down [from heaven]" when the flags were lowered. He stressed that he went through a lot to lower the flags despite not getting anything out of it for himself. There was a notable amount of groans when he said the congressman was in hell.

He also sarcastically called the current Rep Dingell (the wife) "a real beauty".

[hollodero]

(12-18-2019, 09:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nadler's supposed to be the Chair in this thing; yet he accused a peer of "spouting Russian Propaganda" when that peer made his address to the floor. Is that dangerous?

No, it's justified. Said peer does exactly that. Why is it "dangerous" to say so?
Why am I' supposed to take issue with calling it out and not take issue with the actual Russian propaganda?

(12-18-2019, 11:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've freely admitted Trump is evil. As are we all. 

Ah...

...but no, I am not. I am severely flawed, but I am not as evil as Trump, and neither are you or probably anyone in here. "Ah, we all are evil" is really a ludicrous relativization of Trump.
One could tolerate anything with this line.

[Dill]

(12-18-2019, 08:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's not try to perpetuate the assertion that this is nothing more than partisan politics and either could give a care less about "truth". 

Except it is more than partisan politics and people working to reconstruct a reliable factual record do care about "truth."

If you simply dismiss that effort. then it is you who don't care about the truth.  Claiming "both sides" somehow equally don't care just deflects accountability.

For the country, there is no way out of "both sides do it," no plan to ever to right the ship, to restore accountability and credibility in institutions like the FBI or Congress or the Executive.  "We are all evil" just TRUMPS efforts to assume responsibility, to clarify, to fix what is broken.

(12-18-2019, 09:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nadler's supposed to be the Chair in this thing; yet he accused a peer of "spouting Russian Propaganda" when that peer made his address to the floor. Is that dangerous?

For anyone who cares about truth, the PRIMARY QUESTION here should be--Was Gohmert actually spouting Russian propaganda?  If he was--and our intel services would agree that he was--then that ought to be our first concern, not that poor Gohmert was "accused." 

And if he is spouting Russian propaganda, then yes that is dangerous. We should be concerned if the propaganda is allowed to fly unchallenged. The whole "Ukraine did it" conspiracy furthers Kremlin disruption which began with their all out effort to get the divisive Trump elected--placing a conspiracy monger and manipulable Russophile at the center of the US executive, compromising national security from inside out.

Your question mimics the logic of the impeachment defense: for the GOP the issue is not whether Trump did what he did, but that he is ACCUSED of doing it--cuz people just hate him.

(12-18-2019, 10:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You applaud a system of checks and balances, then accuse one of those branches of doing it wrong.
Does that get you going?

This implies that if one "applauds" a system of checks and balances, then either 1) the checks in that system can never go wrong, or 2) one forfeits any right to determine whether checks are working correctly (i.e., constitutionally).

It is precisely because one values a system of checks and balances that one becomes concerned when it goes out of balance--as when the foreman of a jury sworn to impartiality consults with the defendant on how best to run his trial. 

[Matt_Crimson]

(12-18-2019, 07:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Pretty wild stuff suggesting Jesus had more due process than Trump.

Especially since, you know, the WH is refusing to allow people to testify who would presumably exonerate him if he is telling the truth and declined to have Trump himself testify after he was invited to. They also get to set up the trial and the jurors are allowed to openly state that they will side with whatever Trump wants and won't look at any evidence. 

To the bold. I've seen this talking point going around a lot, and while I understand the premise of it. I'm not sure the conclusion is right.

People seem to be arguing that if Trump were so innocent he'd let witnesses testify and exonerate him. But has anyone thought that perhaps the alternative is that Trump wanted to see if the Dems would actually impeach him and felt that by them doing so would help his chances for re-election?