Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by mchammer, Sep 24, 2019.
Will you feel better when this is over without a senate conviction or will you continue the TDS?
Never had one of those. Your comment justifies that decision.
You know, when it's good pimento cheese I like it. Gotta get the stuff made in the southeast. Just not a big fan of what I had today.
It seems that all lawyers and politicians do is misrepresent and lie. Both are ****** professions. After five minutes of watching the senate today, I never had a lower opinion of the entire bunch. What a waste of time, money and effort. Those useless m-fers need to pick up a wrench, or a saw, or a hammer and go do something that helps America move forward.
Johnny, tell him what he's won!
I believe you, but I'm going to hold off adding it to the bucket list for awhile. Maybe I'll get one after my first base jump in Switzerland.
Impeachment is a political process not a legal one. How many political processes that went against your views did you accept under previous administrations of the opposite party? There you have your answer.
So if political, it’s basically a waste of time and money? I seriously don’t remember an impeachment (I was too young for Nixon) that wasn’t a sham.
And it is legal if it prevents Trump from running for office again. Correct?
The rules are drafted by politicians. They don't follow any standard legal procedure. The bar of "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't conform to our established legal protocol. The Senate, staffed with 101 politicians, are the judge and jury. And you want to hang your hat on removal of Trump to run for a future political office makes it a legal process?
No I’m just saying this is the democrats only ploy in this sham. I honestly hope they win. I do not want to vote for Trump in 2024. He has done what I hoped he would as President. He has busted up the GOP. I don’t need 4 more years.
It's ALL partisan. You can find a political reason to put pineapple on pizza and convince half the country it's constitutional with fancy words and emotional appeals. The 6 Rs that voted for the trial think they will get favored status by the Ds because Trump isn't a Bush/Cheney/Romney/McCain Republican. It's all a farce.
You are a smart guy. Certainly you know there are legal ramifications from this process.
Read the WSJ editorial today. Dems doing it just because they think they can split the GOP on it and their base likes it. It’s not complicated. Ignore it, and enjoy a pimento cheese sandwich.
The problem with things like this is people have long memories and when the shoe is on the other foot, you can bet that foot is going straight to the throat of the Democrats.
I'm not concerned about this stupid trial, the damage is already done. The Democrats control the federal government, it's now up to the state to flex their sovereignty under what is left of the constitution.
You're both sorta right. It is a political process that has a legal consequence. It's political, because it's being decided by politicians based on political calculations. It's political, because though the people conducting it and their counsels are throwing around legal jargon, the standard for conviction is completely untethered from the legal standards for conviction.
This is why it's possible for me to take my position, which is that he should be convicted but that as a matter of law, he did not incite. The people (even lawyers) who are saying he could be charged criminally and could go to jail are generating phony clickbait and trying to manufacture an issue that doesn't exist and hurting the case against Trump. Two reasons why they should stop. First, it's dishonest. They know they're trying to create a fake story, and I don't like liars.
Second, they are blurring the Senate's role and making conviction harder to justify based on a point that's irrelevant. The fact that he could never be criminally convicted of incitement has absolutely no bearing on the merits of conviction in an impeachment trial. He doesn't have to meet the extremely onerous standards of criminal incitement to be convicted in the Senate, and pretending that he does makes the impeachment managers' job harder.
Anderson Cooper compared the riot at the Capitol to the Rwandan genocide of 1994
“Part of it, I think, just based on what you were just saying, it comes to mind, the idea of otherizing people is something I think we saw a lot of over the last four years. I mean, certainly we’ve seen a lot over the last decades, but it’s so easy to otherize people, to make people other than, other than American, other than patriotic, other than human,” Cooper said to a nodding Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), a frequent critic of Donald Trump. “You know, and we’ve seen it in Bosnia, we’ve seen it in Rwanda, where radio was telling people that you know, Hutus, were telling the radio listeners that Tutsi were cockroaches for you know, getting them ginned up for genocide.”
Liberalism will probably be listed as a disorder in the DSM-6
BS, the whole mess is BS. They will never stop until Trump is no more. What they do not realize is how dramatically this reveals how totally false are all their preachings about unity.
nash' But are enough good people paying attention?
Does Trump have any culpability for the events that transpired on 1/6?
Exactly. What kind of clown believes 1) This is legit? 2) This is Trump's fault?
Trump has free speech and has the right to say what he believes that this election is a fraud. Saying that this election is fraudulent is not overly controversial. It's only controversial because Trump said it.
If it was controversial people would have been upset with Democrats when they accused Trump of stealing 2016.
People are entitled to their opinions.
Too vague a question SH. He had a lot to do with events that day, held a rally, inspired a crowd as all speakers try to do, but was he directly responsible for the violence? I could not in clear conscience say yes. Had he said “meet me at the Capital, kick their a***es, take the Capital, or anything deliberate (as he is want to do often enough) I would be more easy to convince. But we will never convince each other because the lines are drawn by both sides. My sincere concern is just that, both sides seem so certain of their positions no one wants to listen with any discernment.
The hate for Trump (in my opinion) is so fervent I completely believe the facts matter not. Further proof of this is the obsession to eliminate EVERY action taken during his administration. They refuse to acknowledge the possibility that anything could have been beneficial. Unity my rear end.
If anyone believes the Liberal political leadership in this country didn't AT THE VERY LEAST nod and wink towards the looters then you're an idiot.
Let's break this down.
Did Trump say "meet me at the capital"? We know he promoted Jan. 6th in dozens of tweets. Encouraged his supporters to be in D.C. that day. Why that day? It was the day of the final Electoral College count, a day specified in the Constitution. So this is an emphatic "CHECK!"
Did he say "kick their a**ses"? Where do we start. We know he said "fight like hell" and "If we let them steal the election we won't have country". Pick your euphemism for "kick their a**ses" and he likely used it but he didn't say that statement exactly. NO CHECK.
Did he say "take the capital". We know he said "We're going to walk down Pennsylvania Ave to the Capital. I'll be there with you." He was certainly pointing the crowd from the rally to go TO the Capital where they would "fight like hell". What was he expecting the crowd to do when they reached the first police barriers setup hundreds of yards from the Capital Building?
The biggest clue as to what Trump was expecting are his actions after the breech. Look at that timeline. Did he send out a tweet at the moment his supporters breeched the perimeter? No. Did he tweet out an ask for peace when they breeched the building? No. He did tweet out a tweet chastising Mike Pence for not stopping the vote minutes after the mob breeched the building. This was while the mob was chanting "Hang Mike Pence". In fact, it took him greater than 1.5hrs to do anything in terms of a response to the mob activities. We're talking about a guy that lives by the TV that was most certainly watching the mob. Sleepy Joe responded 30 minutes before we heard a peep from Trump who claimed "I'll be there" to his supporters in his speech. To this "Trump hater" that says the mob was doing what Trump intended...delay the vote because we also know through Guiliani's buffoonery that they were still trying to line up Senators to delay delay delay the vote. Of course, I don't think Guiliani expected his miscall to Tuberville to be publicized.
Change the above quote to "support" for Trump and you'll have the mirror of what is on display here.
Oh brother, no response whatsoever. But hey, I appreciate the time you took.
Looks like Trump will live a long life inside some liberals heads. It is what it is.
Impeaching a former president. Boxing one's own shadow. Both are for the mentally challenged
Actually, what he said, and therefore what he expected was:
Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down.
Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
So all lies from you and your fellow leftists are just more falsehoods.
In a vacuum, I would agree about the speech. I've heard plenty of politicians from both parties use similar rhetoric. Politicians work the crowd just like rock stars and comedians do. Three things make the difference for me. First, he spent two months spreading ******** and lies that if believed, would make an assault, frankly, justifiable. That made the violence foreseeable. Second, though he didn't say to get violent, he was telling his people to pressure Congress to do something illegal. Third, I think his inaction after the riot had started matters. Once these people were starting to break the law, why didn't he order federal law enforcement to stop it? Why didn't he give a "that's not what I meant" speech? Yes, he did eventually act and speak, but it took a long time. I suspect he wanted to enjoy it for awhile.
I don't disagree with this. I think most people are not listening to facts or reason on this. I also think the unity pitch was BS from the start. It was simply a ploy to create political momentum without any sort of policy concessions or compromise. Lots of pretty extreme and unwise executive orders, and of course, the Covid bill is being pushed through on reconciliation. I'm also not convinced that unity is an inherent good. Communist China is very unified. Nazi Germany was pretty unified. North Korea is pretty unified. Forced unity imposed by the opposition just shutting up is a facet of tyranny, not something to which a free people should aspire.