The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[bdb13]

So where in this post does it talk about death threats?

You're unfamiliar with Infowars?

 

[Lazybones]

You're unfamiliar with Infowars?

I’m not getting into this. I hope the moderators see this conversation and gives feedback. I’m honestly trying to make the site better. some of the people on here would rather attempted cyber bullying than have an online community. Maybe their lives suck and this is the only way to lash out. Who knows.

 

[bdb13]

I’m not getting into this. I hope the moderators see this conversation and gives feedback. I’m honestly trying to make the site better. some of the people on here would rather attempted cyber bullying than have an online community. Maybe their lives suck and this is the only way to lash out. Who knows.

I am absolutely not attempting to cyber bully and apologize if you're in part referring to me, but I'm just attempting to understand if and where the disconnect is here on this.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I’m not getting into this. I hope the moderators see this conversation and gives feedback. I’m honestly trying to make the site better. some of the people on here would rather attempted cyber bullying than have an online community. Maybe their lives suck and this is the only way to lash out. Who knows.

This seems like a massive derail waiting to happen. Seems like a conversation better served to be in either a private chat or the Mud Pit.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

did you actually go back and look at the post I quoted? It’s a twitter link and that twitter link doesn’t have the info I asked about.

I would appreciate the apology and more consideration next time.

The quote of yours that I used in post 1185 was in response to Ayo, who said:

Laughing at someone who has received harrassment and threats from a group that includes known unstable, fringe lunatics seems more than merely petty, imo.

As for your last statement, any issues you have with me can be resolved through PMs. There is no reason to derail the thread with these sorts of comments.

 

[Ayo]

This is an example of what I referenced the other day as “liberal cause of the day.”

then that only supports my impression that your scale is off - I felt like the statement then was an overstatement, and this only reinforces it

I don't think this is a "liberal cause of the day" by any stretch. I've seen it referenced once outside of here and linked it because it's directly relevant to what was happening in this thread. It's a pretty clear link to the post I quoted, imo. If you think it wasn't, that's fine. But to call it the "liberal cause of the day"? I know you deal with gauges and tools for measurement - so maybe get this one in for some re-calibration

 

[Archies Ghost]

Facebook has confirmed the identity of the whistleblower although that may not have been the intended consequence.

Facebook Plans to Remove ‘Any and All Mentions of the Potential Whistleblower’s Name’ from Platform | National Review

A Facebook spokesperson confirmed on Friday that the platform would ban ‘any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower’s name.’

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Dragon]

Facebook has confirmed the identity of the whistleblower although that may not have been the intended consequence.

Facebook Plans to Remove ‘Any and All Mentions of the Potential Whistleblower’s Name’ from Platform | National Review

A Facebook spokesperson confirmed on Friday that the platform would ban ‘any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower’s name.’

www.nationalreview.com

That is not the way I read that article. Facebook says they will remove any post which names the whistleblower not a particular name. So if you wrote "the whistleblower is Donald Duck it could be removed...

 

[Archies Ghost]

That is not the way I read that article. Facebook says they will remove any post which names the whistleblower not a particular name. So if you wrote "the whistleblower is Donald Duck it could be removed...

I suspect 90% of all current political differences in the United States is rooted reading comprehension.

 

[Ayo]

I suspect 90% of all current political differences in the United States is rooted reading comprehension.

rooted in*

 

[Tony1Sainstfan]

My prediction is and I know I’m not alone in it is the house votes to impeach but it dies in the senate. How it’s handled by both bodies is what determines if both parties end up paying for it or if only one does.

 

[MT15]

I suspect 90% of all current political differences in the United States is rooted reading comprehension.

I read it the same way as dragon. Where do you see that they are talking about a specific name, and that name only? I will admit it would be tricky to be specific enough to make it clear that only one name is affected, without naming that person. So in the absence of that sort of specificity, it may be reasonable to assume that they intend to remove any posts naming the whistleblower. No matter what name is involved.

 

[MT15]

If that doesn’t look like a severely edited hit piece, I’ve never scene one. I’m sure with your research capabilities you can pull the transcript of the speech and not use propaganda to make a valid point.

so, in this case you assume that the speech shown was edited, a “hit” piece, and then further label it as propaganda, followed up by a bit of snark about his “research capabilities”, yet you then derail the thread for several posts because someone gave you an eyebrow emoji? Going on about not being treated as if you are conversing honestly?

physician, heal thyself. It seems to me you should extend to others the same attitude you would like to see others extend to you.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

so, in this case you assume that the speech shown was edited, a “hit” piece, and then further label it as propaganda, followed up by a bit of snark about his “research capabilities”, yet you then derail the thread for several posts because someone gave you an eyebrow emoji? Going on about not being treated as if you are conversing honestly?

physician, heal thyself. It seems to me you should extend to others the same attitude you would like to see others extend to you.

Not to mention the fact that Ayo linked to a transcript of the full debate, taking the time to highlight the exact pages containing Pence's words, only for Lazy to completely ignore it.

 

[Ayo]

Not to mention the fact that Ayo linked to a transcript of the full debate, taking the time to highlight the exact pages containing Pence's words, only for Lazy to completely ignore it.

I get duped from time to time. Like everyone else. But I do try and take care to back up what I say or have the resources at my disposal to at least demonstrate how I arrived at an opinion. I agree that the edited piece can seem problematic, and I didn't vet each and every reference. I did, however, read one of them - found at the link - before I posted it.

I never mind someone asking me for a source or documentation or whatever.

And, fwiw, I did not take Lazy's comment about "research capabilities" as a shot or insult. I think LB genuinely knows that I can and will do research.

I actually took it more complimentary. And I thought his request for more information to be totally reasonable.

I'd like to think that's more or less the standard, generally, around here.

 

[MT15]

I apologize if LB didn’t mean the research comment as snark. And I appreciated that Ayo didn’t complain, just provided further information.

I think my comment about applying what we want to see in others to our own postings still applies, though. If LB had just questioned the source rather than making a blanket statement that it was “propaganda” I think it would be less confrontational.

I am making a conscious effort to post less often and only after careful consideration of the point I am trying to make. Clearly I should have waited this time.

I do hope LB makes it back to this thread and considers the effort Ayo went through to back up his point.

 

[Lazybones]

so, in this case you assume that the speech shown was edited, a “hit” piece, and then further label it as propaganda, followed up by a bit of snark about his “research capabilities”, yet you then derail the thread for several posts because someone gave you an eyebrow emoji? Going on about not being treated as if you are conversing honestly?

physician, heal thyself. It seems to me you should extend to others the same attitude you would like to see others extend to you.

I didn’t snark to ayo. He provided the speeches I asked for. The video was pretty edited to be honest.

 

[MT15]

And what do you think the transcript provided shows?