Impeachment Round Two (2 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

    Yggdrasill

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Aug 12, 2020
    Messages
    201
    Reaction score
    290
    Age
    63
    Location
    Seattle
    Offline
    I am in the camp that Trump must -not should- be impeached. If not this President, for this behavior, then what bar would have to be cleared to merit impeachment?

    Impeachment not only sends a signal to the country and the world that fomenting a coup is unacceptable and will be punished, but it also removes much of the threat Trump could pose going forward as, I understand it, he would lose his pension, his access to daily security briefings, free medical care and other amenities and benefits afforded to former Presidents. If impeached, he would not meet the definition of a Former President under the Former Presidents Act. I don't think it is clear whether he would continue to receive Secret Service protection.
     
    Kerry Won Ohio said:
    You're kind of contradicting yourself. You said you don't think Trump was that big of a threat, and then you concede that what he did after the election and on January 6th was horrible.

    It looks to me like the Democrats were correct and you were wrong.
    Click to expand...
    Its not a contradiction. I was saying he wasn't as big of a threat looking at his entire term. Once again, if he was that big of a threat before the election why did the Democrats give him more power instead of restricting him? His actions after the election were very concerning.
     
    SaintForLife said:
    Its not a contradiction. I was saying he wasn't as big of a threat looking at his entire term. Once again, if he was that big of a threat before the election why did the Democrats give him more power instead of restricting him? His actions after the election were very concerning.
    Click to expand...

    His actions after the election and leading up to 1/6 were criminal, imo.
     
    Roofgardener said:
    So Twitter (and its like) control who can - and cannot - become president ? Most interesting.
    Click to expand...

    Is this your genuine takeaway from that statement? I am trying to clarify whether you are trolling or actually this unable to understand basic statements.
     
    zztop said:
    this guy again
    Click to expand...

    So, VP Harris has personally bailed out rioters who then went out and committed crimes. Cool, she needs to be impeached for being an active participant in our legal system. :9:


    Way to keep Americans informed Sen Graham, without you, how would we ever learn the truth about what is going on in the world?

    This is what I've been talking about, R's have zero intention on being truthful to their electorate, they will continue dishing out disinformation and outright lies so that they will get what they want and that is absolute power. Say what you want about the D's, but their motives have been about lifting up those in need. What are the goals of elected R's?

    Edit: right on Grahams queue, Right wing media has gone on a full blitz campaign to further dumb down their readers/listeners:

    www.the-sun.com

    Kamala 'could be IMPEACHED for bailing out BLM rioters', Graham says

    LINDSEY Graham has called for Republicans to impeach Kamala Harris for “bailing out” Black Lives Matter activists. The lawmaker told Fox News how former president Donald Trump is ready …
    www.the-sun.com www.the-sun.com

    www.newsbreak.com

    Kamala Harris-Supported Minneapolis Freedom Fund bailed out dangerous criminals along with protesters - NewsBreak

    Minneapolis Freedom Fund, a group that took in millions in the days following George Floyd’s custodial death — thanks to support from A-list celebrities and political bigwigs, including newly minted vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) — bailed out violent criminals along with...
    www.newsbreak.com www.newsbreak.com

    www.washingtonexaminer.com

    Kamala Harris pushed bail fund that helped murder and rape suspects get out of jail while awaiting trial - Washington Examiner

    A charitable bail organization talked up by Kamala Harris is drawing scrutiny amid increased rioting and violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and Portland, Oregon.In addition to Harris, Joe Biden's running mate on the Democratic ticket and a California senator, Minnesota Freedom Fund has attracted...
    www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
     
    Last edited:
    SFL, just because I don’t hate on The Lincoln Project like you do doesn’t mean I am a big fan of them.

    I didn’t respond because I thought your whataboutism was pretty ridiculous and revealing. I don’t really care one way or another about the Lincoln Project. I do know you posted a series of tweets about them that were misleading in my opinion, so I pointed that out. 🤷‍♀️

    Everything isn’t totally one way or the other, I can feel ambivalent or neutral on someone and still recognize when content is misleading. That doesn’t make me their biggest fan.

    They do make good ads, though. It’s okay to like some of their ads, right? Or is that not allowed, lol.
     
    So, there wasn’t any evidence that Harris actually contributed to the fund, although she did “support” it by tweeting about it.

    Nobody arrested during the protests “committed more damage” after being bailed out. There were actually very few protestors who needed bail money.

    This fund simply allows poor people to make bail just like people with more money. It doesn’t set bail, the courts do that. To me, if someone accused of committing a violent crime is allowed to be released by the court and they go on to commit another crime, that’s on the court for setting bail at all.

    It seems there was one person that the fund bailed out who committed another act of violence while out on bail. It was not a “BLM protestor”. The fund has issued a statement saying they are looking at this case and may change their procedures.

    This is a very small charity who got a great deal of money after being tweeted about by Harris. They need to adjust their way of helping and it seems they are doing that. They did not generally have enough money to make bail for people accused of violent crimes in the past, but with the influx of cash they were able to help people who had larger bails. They relied on the courts; they assumed if bail was set, the person was judged as okay to be released. That was naive on their part. They realize that now.

    Lindsey Graham is just a totally rotten human being. It’s hard to comprehend just how terrible he is.
     
    donato said:
    ...I don’t think Trump has a chance next cycle. Without a voice from mainstream social media like Twitter, he’s not winning anything.
    Click to expand...
    roofgardener said:
    So Twitter (and its like) control who can - and cannot - become president ? Most interesting.
    Click to expand...
    cuddlemonkey said:
    Is this your genuine takeaway from that statement? I am trying to clarify whether you are trolling or actually this unable to understand basic statements.
    Click to expand...
    It seems like a straightforward enough response to Donato's post, cuddlemonkey. Which part did you have an objection with ?
     
    Roofgardener said:
    It seems like a straightforward enough response to Donato's post, cuddlemonkey. Which part did you have an objection with ?
    Click to expand...

    The part where that's obviously not what he meant and it was clear to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how Trump used the platform to ascend to the presidency.
     
    MT15 said:
    So, there wasn’t any evidence that Harris actually contributed to the fund, although she did “support” it by tweeting about it.

    Nobody arrested during the protests “committed more damage” after being bailed out. There were actually very few protestors who needed bail money.

    This fund simply allows poor people to make bail just like people with more money. It doesn’t set bail, the courts do that. To me, if someone accused of committing a violent crime is allowed to be released by the court and they go on to commit another crime, that’s on the court for setting bail at all.

    It seems there was one person that the fund bailed out who committed another act of violence while out on bail. It was not a “BLM protestor”. The fund has issued a statement saying they are looking at this case and may change their procedures.

    This is a very small charity who got a great deal of money after being tweeted about by Harris. They need to adjust their way of helping and it seems they are doing that. They did not generally have enough money to make bail for people accused of violent crimes in the past, but with the influx of cash they were able to help people who had larger bails. They relied on the courts; they assumed if bail was set, the person was judged as okay to be released. That was naive on their part. They realize that now.

    Lindsey Graham is just a totally rotten human being. It’s hard to comprehend just how terrible he is.
    Click to expand...

    Graham is a really bizarre human being. I think being a closet homosexual his whole life has had a really negative impact on his mental well-being.

    Politics is all this man has. He has no family. He has no significant other. He is so desperate to be a part of Trump's dysfunctional family that he is willing to do anything for Trump's approval. I actually feel sorry for the man.
     
    Now the MAGAs are even mad at long-dead tv stars!





    .





    2C7B0169-A479-463A-9898-83BC68445B31.jpeg
     
    zztop said:
    this guy again
    Click to expand...


    Just for the information to be out there..There is precedent against this.

    Senator William Blount was impeached after being expelled from Congress. His lawyers argued that he was not a "civil officer" as mentioned in the constitution's section regarding impeachment, and that there is a separate process for removing members of congress. The matter was debated, and the impeachment was dropped because the Senate agreed with that argument.
     
    Roofgardener said:
    It seems like a straightforward enough response to Donato's post, cuddlemonkey. Which part did you have an objection with ?
    Click to expand...
    cuddlemonkey said:
    The part where that's obviously not what he meant and it was clear to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how Trump used the platform to ascend to the presidency.
    Click to expand...
    And so precisely WHAT did Donato mean when he said "... ...I don’t think Trump has a chance next cycle. Without a voice from mainstream social media like Twitter, he’s not winning anything. .." ? It seems entirely clear to me that he is saying that Twitter is a key component of Trump's chance of winning the next presidential election. Ergot, twitter has a key role in deciding who can, and cannot, become president ?

    Rudimentary enough ?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom