The Case for Censure Over Impeachment

6,915 Views | 115 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by RD2WINAGNBEAR86
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Kyle said:

twd74 said:

Kyle said:

twd74 said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:



YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE


If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?


You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.
If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.
In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!
The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.
So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.
Nice spin. If you cannot see the difference between Biden and Trump then your jersey is stuck on your head.
I definitely see the difference. Both asked for a favor. Biden unequivocally threatened Ukraine. Someone feels Trump did. Trump provided more aid than Biden's boss. Biden's son has a sweet gig with the guy the threatened.
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Not to beat a dead horse, but James Comey and Loretta Lynch let Hillary Clinton off on numerous violations of the Espionage Act because they couldn't *prove* intent...

...Yet this entire impeachment story is build on *presumed* intent of a call for which we have the transcript.
Exactly. Apparently, the ****** law professor similarly is presuming intent and making emotional judgments - if she was not a lesbian, she'd never be at Harvard.

Again, the guy Trump supposedly asked the favor says "there was no condition." The guy Trump supposedly asked a favor of got more aid than ever. The only crime seems to be investigating corrupt Democrats.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

Get a refund.
I'm not the one trying to get a refund on the 2016 election. That's you.
You know what I'm talking about: you have no business saying Biden has Parkinson's. And you're wrong, time to stop doubling down.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

Get a refund.
I'm not the one trying to get a refund on the 2016 election. That's you.
You know what I'm talking about: you have no business saying Biden has Parkinson's. And you're wrong, time to stop doubling down.
Ok. I am wrong that I don't have proof of that specific illness.

But I'm not wrong saying there something wrong with him mentally as video evidence has shown on several occasions.

And yes you have TDS. Yes you don't critique the Democrat party enough. I can't take you seriously when you only show outrage for one party. I can't take you seriously when you criticize Trump and ignore Biden talking nonsense.

Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dots starting to connect of why this is occurring: https://www.dailywire.com/news/husband-of-democrat-in-impeachment-hearings-took-700k-from-firms-tied-to-ukrainian-oligarch-accused-of-ordering-contract-killings-reports-say/?fbclid=IwAR20JXwtb-uOEQbNUGUMlVE9CnWJ8NKj8Wivs7hDNFx4ucDiHwm0X462jpI

The husband of Democrat Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, reportedly took $700,000 from firms connected to a Ukrainian oligarch who has allegedly been "accused of ordering contract killings."
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

Get a refund.
I'm not the one trying to get a refund on the 2016 election. That's you.
You know what I'm talking about: you have no business saying Biden has Parkinson's. And you're wrong, time to stop doubling down.
Ok. I am wrong that I don't have proof of that specific illness.

But I'm not wrong saying there something wrong with him mentally as video evidence has shown on several occasions.

And yes you have TDS. Yes you don't critique the Democrat party enough. I can't take you seriously when you only show outrage for one party. I can't take you seriously when you criticize Trump and ignore Biden talking nonsense.


Then you are the one with TDS. I don't give a rip about Biden because he is utterly irrelevant to me. He is not in office. I would never vote for him. And if you think you can give speeches all day without screwing up then go for it.

Trump, on the other hand, is my president. I have every right to disagree with his policies. He says plenty of stupid stuff unrelated to policy but you don't see me on here calling him mentally unfit.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

twd74 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

Kyle said:

twd74 said:

Kyle said:

twd74 said:

Kyle said:

twd74 said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:



YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE


If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?


You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.
If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.
In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!
The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.
So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.
Monies appropriated by Congress may have all manner of conditions to the request. When the receiving Country has been shown to be compliant with all conditions, with signoff from State to such, and when a President adds a request, and places a hold on the deal for no stated reason, when the request has no valid purpose other than to give the President a Political advantage, is it unreasonable to question whether the request is a corrupt one, and the President is abusing his office by holding funds for a corrupt purpose?
So let's be clear - you oppose investigation corruption?

Corruption = using the IRS to penalize groups that disagree with you, which (at least for now) is not illegal. Corruption does not = asking a foreign government to investigate potentially corrupt U.S. officials.

Do you believe we should just not investigate corruption? (Yes or No would be fine, please no predictable whataboutisms or ad homs).
Kyle, you really aren't as clever as you believe yourself to be.

If you don't like whatboutism, why are you bringing up Obama?

And no one in their right mind believes Donald Trump was worried about corruption in the Ukraine. He was trying to damage Joe Biden and discredit the universal conclusion that Russia was meddling in our elections to get him elected.

History will write that story because the day that he loses power, every rat on his ship will turn on him.
Joe Biden doesn't need damage. He's a full blown Parkinson's patient.

You democrats are desperate to undo an election. You can't handle when Republicans win. Every waking moment of Trump's presidency is a cabal of evil democrats trying to fabricate crimes and damage.

The special counsel won you midterms. This impeachment bull**** is delaying progress.

You must hate America.
Which one of the Values of Baylor University call on you to baselessly attribute a horrific terminal disease to someone? You indicate you had family experience in this. You should know better.
Baselessly?

Are you kidding me?!

He's talking about hairy legs, roaches and kids sitting in his lap in a single unreconstructed sentence. That is most definelty a sign of Parkinson's. I can't believe you aren't calling out Democrats for USING him. Shame on you!




Some of what he says is almost as inappropriate as what Trump says. One has to do with inappropriate and impaired social skills, and the other with serious mental abnormality i.e. sociopathic and malignant narcissistic behavior.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Doc Holliday said:

twd74 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

Kyle said:

twd74 said:

Kyle said:

twd74 said:

Kyle said:

twd74 said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:



YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE


If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?


You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.
If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.
In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!
The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.
So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.
Monies appropriated by Congress may have all manner of conditions to the request. When the receiving Country has been shown to be compliant with all conditions, with signoff from State to such, and when a President adds a request, and places a hold on the deal for no stated reason, when the request has no valid purpose other than to give the President a Political advantage, is it unreasonable to question whether the request is a corrupt one, and the President is abusing his office by holding funds for a corrupt purpose?
So let's be clear - you oppose investigation corruption?

Corruption = using the IRS to penalize groups that disagree with you, which (at least for now) is not illegal. Corruption does not = asking a foreign government to investigate potentially corrupt U.S. officials.

Do you believe we should just not investigate corruption? (Yes or No would be fine, please no predictable whataboutisms or ad homs).
Kyle, you really aren't as clever as you believe yourself to be.

If you don't like whatboutism, why are you bringing up Obama?

And no one in their right mind believes Donald Trump was worried about corruption in the Ukraine. He was trying to damage Joe Biden and discredit the universal conclusion that Russia was meddling in our elections to get him elected.

History will write that story because the day that he loses power, every rat on his ship will turn on him.
Joe Biden doesn't need damage. He's a full blown Parkinson's patient.

You democrats are desperate to undo an election. You can't handle when Republicans win. Every waking moment of Trump's presidency is a cabal of evil democrats trying to fabricate crimes and damage.

The special counsel won you midterms. This impeachment bull**** is delaying progress.

You must hate America.
Which one of the Values of Baylor University call on you to baselessly attribute a horrific terminal disease to someone? You indicate you had family experience in this. You should know better.
Baselessly?

Are you kidding me?!

He's talking about hairy legs, roaches and kids sitting in his lap in a single unreconstructed sentence. That is most definelty a sign of Parkinson's. I can't believe you aren't calling out Democrats for USING him. Shame on you!




Some of what he says is almost as inappropriate as what Trump says. One has to do with inappropriate and impaired social skills, and the other with serious mental abnormality i.e. sociopathic and malignant narcissistic behavior.
Anyone running for office is likely a narcissist: this is why you see career politicians flip on their own rhetoric decade after decade. Trump is a narcissist for sure. I won't deny that.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

Get a refund.
I'm not the one trying to get a refund on the 2016 election. That's you.
You know what I'm talking about: you have no business saying Biden has Parkinson's. And you're wrong, time to stop doubling down.
Ok. I am wrong that I don't have proof of that specific illness.

But I'm not wrong saying there something wrong with him mentally as video evidence has shown on several occasions.

And yes you have TDS. Yes you don't critique the Democrat party enough. I can't take you seriously when you only show outrage for one party. I can't take you seriously when you criticize Trump and ignore Biden talking nonsense.


Then you are the one with TDS. I don't give a rip about Biden because he is utterly irrelevant to me. He is not in office. I would never vote for him. And if you think you can give speeches all day without screwing up then go for it.

Trump, on the other hand, is my president. I have every right to disagree with his policies. He says plenty of stupid stuff unrelated to policy but you don't see me on here calling him mentally unfit.
I'll do that. He is mentally unfit.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

Get a refund.
I'm not the one trying to get a refund on the 2016 election. That's you.
You know what I'm talking about: you have no business saying Biden has Parkinson's. And you're wrong, time to stop doubling down.
Ok. I am wrong that I don't have proof of that specific illness.

But I'm not wrong saying there something wrong with him mentally as video evidence has shown on several occasions.

And yes you have TDS. Yes you don't critique the Democrat party enough. I can't take you seriously when you only show outrage for one party. I can't take you seriously when you criticize Trump and ignore Biden talking nonsense.


Then you are the one with TDS. I don't give a rip about Biden because he is utterly irrelevant to me. He is not in office. I would never vote for him. And if you think you can give speeches all day without screwing up then go for it.

Trump, on the other hand, is my president. I have every right to disagree with his policies. He says plenty of stupid stuff unrelated to policy but you don't see me on here calling him mentally unfit.
I'll do that. He is mentally unfit.
For a science guy, you sure seem to let your emotions get in the way of reality. I happen to like Joe Biden as a person, but it is fairly obvious when he speaks that he is about a year away from being in a nursing home. I do not believe Joe Biden is fit to be President, but that is for you Democrats to decide at the ballot box.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

TexasScientist said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

Get a refund.
I'm not the one trying to get a refund on the 2016 election. That's you.
You know what I'm talking about: you have no business saying Biden has Parkinson's. And you're wrong, time to stop doubling down.
Ok. I am wrong that I don't have proof of that specific illness.

But I'm not wrong saying there something wrong with him mentally as video evidence has shown on several occasions.

And yes you have TDS. Yes you don't critique the Democrat party enough. I can't take you seriously when you only show outrage for one party. I can't take you seriously when you criticize Trump and ignore Biden talking nonsense.


Then you are the one with TDS. I don't give a rip about Biden because he is utterly irrelevant to me. He is not in office. I would never vote for him. And if you think you can give speeches all day without screwing up then go for it.

Trump, on the other hand, is my president. I have every right to disagree with his policies. He says plenty of stupid stuff unrelated to policy but you don't see me on here calling him mentally unfit.
I'll do that. He is mentally unfit.
For a science guy, you sure seem to let your emotions get in the way of reality. I happen to like Joe Biden as a person, but it is fairly obvious when he speaks that he is about a year away from being in a nursing home. I do not believe Joe Biden is fit to be President, but that is for you Democrats to decide at the ballot box.
Except I'm not a Democrat, and I won't be voting for Biden. However, if you hold the same standard to Trump, he clearly has speech, reading and other cognitive impairment.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

TexasScientist said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

Get a refund.
I'm not the one trying to get a refund on the 2016 election. That's you.
You know what I'm talking about: you have no business saying Biden has Parkinson's. And you're wrong, time to stop doubling down.
Ok. I am wrong that I don't have proof of that specific illness.

But I'm not wrong saying there something wrong with him mentally as video evidence has shown on several occasions.

And yes you have TDS. Yes you don't critique the Democrat party enough. I can't take you seriously when you only show outrage for one party. I can't take you seriously when you criticize Trump and ignore Biden talking nonsense.


Then you are the one with TDS. I don't give a rip about Biden because he is utterly irrelevant to me. He is not in office. I would never vote for him. And if you think you can give speeches all day without screwing up then go for it.

Trump, on the other hand, is my president. I have every right to disagree with his policies. He says plenty of stupid stuff unrelated to policy but you don't see me on here calling him mentally unfit.
I'll do that. He is mentally unfit.
For a science guy, you sure seem to let your emotions get in the way of reality. I happen to like Joe Biden as a person, but it is fairly obvious when he speaks that he is about a year away from being in a nursing home. I do not believe Joe Biden is fit to be President, but that is for you Democrats to decide at the ballot box.
Except I'm not a Democrat, and I won't be voting for Biden. However, if you hold the same standard to Trump, he clearly has speech, reading and other cognitive impairment.
I think Trump is an arrogant ass and I do not like him as a person, but I happen to think it is pretty amazing how he can speak extemporaneously at his rallies for 90 minutes. By the same token, I did not care much for Bill Clinton but there is no disputing that the man was a great speaker.

You obviously are seeing something I am not.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.