Jump to content
Radio Shack Killa

God save us....

Recommended Posts

@Army Frog Fan your arguments are at the core of the divide of the parties. Republicans couldn't see the forest for the trees, i.e., they nit-picked procedures vs. the guilt of the President. Why? Because they, along with a majority of the country, know he is guilty of what's charged in the Articles of Impeachment. When is the last time three-quarters of any group of randomly chosen people agreed on anything, except that maybe puppies are the cutest thing ever? When that many Americans demand calling witnesses, IN A TRIAL WITH A JUDGE, it doesn't matter what side of the Capitol it happens in. The GOP senators who voted not to listen to their constituents will be looking over their shoulder come election time, especially as more information keeps trickling out. John Bolton is going to talk and he's well-known to be credible. Lev Parnas, whatever one's opinion of his motives, has brought receipts to back up what he knows. Unfortunately, because of the cowardice of (more than likely) 53 people, this whole sorry mess won't be over for a while. When the Senate votes "no" on the Articles, the House Intelligence Committee will begin looking into the new evidence that has come to light, starting with calling Bolton to testify, followed by Parnas and others. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Army Frog Fan said:

 

What did I say that was inaccurate?  Did the House have the opportunity to call these witnesses? Yes.  Could they have waited for the Courts to compel them? Yes. Did they? No. 

 

All of those are irrefutable facts.  So the question is why did they not wait?  Are you honestly going to tell me it was not political? Consider the fact that of the 18 witnesses, on 17 transcripts were released.  The 18th was Michael Atkinson, who allegedly discussed the origin of the complaint and Schiff’s involvement.  Why has that remained classified?  Surely not politics.

 

When it gets to the senate, the senate is the Jury.  You do not go to trial hoping the jury will ask the judge to call witnesses not offered by the prosecution.

One additional irrefutable fact: Juries don't normally get to vote to choose whether to hear witnesses or not. So the simile is rather distant. But I guess that doesn't count.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Zebra Frog said:

 I choose to vote for the person, not the party.  My vote is strictly directed at removing Trump.  Bloomberg seems to make more sense than any of the others.  

 

Literally Stalin > Literally Hitler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lyle Lanley II said:

 

What do you think his chances are of winning the LP nomination?

 

Decent

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Army Frog Fan said:

 

Yang and Buttigieg both have a few decent ideas and have the chance to earn my vote.  Bloomberg tried to ban large sodas, because Americans apparently are not even free enough to choose their drink size.  That’s a hard pass from me.

 

Don't forget stop-and-frisk...

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

One additional irrefutable fact: Juries don't normally get to vote to choose whether to hear witnesses or not. So the simile is rather distant. But I guess that doesn't count.

 

That’s my exact point.  It’s pretty sad that the House relies on the Jury to prove up their case, rather than proving up their case.  Could they have gone through the courts to compel testimony? Yes.  Would that have appeased the #squad? No.  Pelosi senses she was losing control and pushed the thing through without all the witnesses.  It’s on her and Schiff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lyle Lanley II said:

Edit: nevermind.

....said the GOP. 

  • Haha  (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Army Frog Fan said:

 

That’s my exact point.  It’s pretty sad that the House relies on the Jury to prove up their case, rather than proving up their case.  Could they have gone through the courts to compel testimony? Yes.  Would that have appeased the #squad? No.  Pelosi senses she was losing control and pushed the thing through without all the witnesses.  It’s on her and Schiff.

 

For roughly 60% of the country, the case is proved and has been for a while now.  The dem desire for witnesses has nothing to do with proving the case, that Trump abused his power and obstructed justice.  For most of that 60% that case was proven in the Meuller report.

 

The dems are under no misapprehension that additional witnesses will sway the 20 reps they need to get the conviction.  McConnell and Graham have made it clear that the Senate "trial" would bear zero resemblance to a trial, and they have been true to their word.

 

The witnesses are about keeping Trumps "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the twittersphere as deep into the election season as possible.  To keep the 60% motivated to vote him out in November.

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Duquesne Frog said:

 

For roughly 60% of the country, the case is proved and has been for a while now.  The dem desire for witnesses has nothing to do with proving the case, that Trump abused his power and obstructed justice.  For most of that 60% that case was proven in the Meuller report.

 

The dems are under no misapprehension that additional witnesses will sway the 20 reps they need to get the conviction.  McConnell and Graham have made it clear that the Senate "trial" would bear zero resemblance to a trial, and they have been true to their word.

 

The witnesses are about keeping Trumps "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the twittersphere as deep into the election season as possible.  To keep the 60% motivated to vote him out in November.

 

 

I really haven't been following this stuff, but wasn't the Meuller Report about Russia and aren't the charges against the President about the Ukraine? Correct me if I am wrong but Trump allegedly withheld military aide, that the previous administration denied, but he played hard ball to get some political info and that is a no-no?

 

Also, Obstruction of Justice for lack of cooperation with a House inquiry seems very hokey to me...several administration officials did testify under subpoena.

 

Why not impeach him on war crimes or something meaningful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Lyle Lanley II said:

Imagine being the stable genius that thinks the Chiefs play in Kansas.

I saw that tweet before somebody on his staff corrected it.  It made me laugh.  And yet millions of Americans will vote for him in November.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The impeachment of President Biden over the Ukraine is going to be lit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rothbardian said:

The impeachment of President Biden over the Ukraine is going to be lit.

 

I'll take it, since that means Trump wouldn't be re-elected.  Heck i would take about anything over Trump being re-elected, including, gasp, a Baylor national championship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

I would take about anything over Trump being re-elected, including, gasp, a Baylor national championship. 

 

No.  I'd take 4 more years of Trump and then 8 of (pick one of his moron kids) before I could stomach that.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

 

I'll take it, since that means Trump wouldn't be re-elected.  Heck i would take about anything over Trump being re-elected, including, gasp, a Baylor national championship. 

 

 

Somehow this seems appropriate...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rush Limbaugh announced today that he has “advanced lung cancer.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2020 at 4:48 PM, Rothbardian said:

 

I really haven't been following this stuff, but wasn't the Meuller Report about Russia and aren't the charges against the President about the Ukraine?

 

Yes.  And the Dems decided to punt on Meuller because Meuller didn't take the step to say "yes you should impeach Trump for these offenses."  So the Dems dithered and hemmed while Trump won the news cycle with "EXONERATED!!!" Nonetheless, the document outlined a number of actions I'd argue were at least as bad as blackmailing a foreign country to investigate his likely political opponent. Quoting myself from almost a year ago ...

 

On 3/26/2019 at 12:04 PM, Duquesne Frog said:

 

Trump and his team has given them ample cause to "speculate."  Let's remember all of the things that are still facts, even if Mueller has exonerated him on the specific charge of actively working with the Russians to throw the election: 

 

1) he hired a fellow con-man primarily known as a friend of Russian oligarchs in Ukraine as his campaign manager and that campaign manager sold private polling data during the campaign to those oligarchs,

2) numerous other people within his campaign have been charged and/or sentenced for interacting with and lying about interacting with Russian intelligence agents, 

3) he was actively trying to build a mega hotel in Moscow while he was running for president despite denying that he was,

4) he has been bizarrely deferential to Putin including that absurd performance in Helsinki,

5) his own son showed that he was willing to offer quid pro quo to Russian government proxies in return for information on Americans,

6) he persistently performed character assassinations on and, when allowed, fired Mueller, Comey, et al. for investigating Russian interference, which he didn't need to do if he knew there was nothing there for them to uncover,

7) has continued to deny that the Russians attempted to affect the election or act to do anything about it despite overwhelming evidence that they did.

 

I'm sure I'm leaving some things off but that's all I've got off the top of my head.

 

What Mueller (seems to have) exonerated Trump for is directly conspiring with Russian intelligence to throw the election.  That is a very specific charge.  Mueller has not exonerated Trump and his administration for terrible judgment, emoluments, and behavior that further speaks to his general unfitness to be President.

 

So, I don't think it is justified to dismiss concerns about Trump and Russia as mere speculation.  Still a lot of damn smoke around that dumpster fire. 

 

The Dems acted on Ukraine because the case was simple and straightforward.  Taken in total, I think Trump's behavior in office has been anti-democratic, anti-republican (small-r), self-dealing, and in many regards utterly opposed to our national self interest and security.  Hillary got eviscerated by the right (rightly, IMO, at least deserving of more criticism than I saw in the "mainstream" media) for being careless with sensitive emails, and, in turn, Trump has 1) revealed secrets of allies to adversaries, 2) has numerous confirmed inappropriate relationships with that same adversary, and 3) has undermined at every turn the very framework our country has in place to defend ourselves from those adversaries.  Hillary being careless with emails seems pretty phucing small potatoes now ...

 

Quote

Correct me if I am wrong but Trump allegedly withheld military aide, that the previous administration denied, but he played hard ball to get some political info and that is a no-no?

 

Yep.  Because the context of those two events were completely different, as you are well aware.  Obama withheld aid from Egypt, with Congressional approval, because a democratically-elected leader (one that we really didn't find very palatable BTW, and we have a history of being complicit in the ousters of such people) was ousted in a military coup.  Trump withheld aid, not only without Congressional approval but without even notifying them that he was doing it, to get dirt on a political opponent.

 

Quote

Also, Obstruction of Justice for lack of cooperation with a House inquiry seems very hokey to me...several administration officials did testify under subpoena.

 

Hokey or not, the House has a constitutional duty to investigate the activities of the executive branch, one of the vaunted "checks and balances" that we all learned about in civics class that seem to all be evaporating before our eyes.  And the Trump argument that the POTUS is above accountability is one I find deeply troubling.  Every bit as troubling as extra-judicial drone strikes.  Which segues nicely into ...

 

Quote

Why not impeach him on war crimes or something meaningful?

 

Yes, I know you think every modern president, and perhaps every president ever, should have been indicted on war crimes.  Maybe some should have.  That doesn't mean that what Trump is doing now isn't meaningful.  As a self-professed anarcho-capitalist, isn't the century-long, yet exponentially accelerating, consolidation of power in the single chief executive concerning to you? 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

 

I'll take it, since that means Trump wouldn't be re-elected.  Heck i would take about anything over Trump being re-elected, including, gasp, a Baylor national championship. 

 

That Baylor natty example is the only thing keeping me from upping this post.  I refuse to concede that I have to choose one or the other ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rothbardian said:

Maybe Trump is German...

 

 

 

In Germany's defense, is there a difference between Iowa and Colorado? 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Duquesne Frog said:

 

In Germany's defense, is there a difference between Iowa and Colorado? 

Image result for rockier than this gif"

  • Haha  (+1) 2
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...