Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Impeachment now certain

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by smr   » Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:28 pm

smr
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1466
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:18 pm

Question, do they tape all of the President's phone calls? Yes they do! I wonder why they do not introduce that into evidence because it's hearsay or did not take place! We have the transcript of the phone call and that shows no quid pro quo took place. What this hoax shows is their is a sucker born every minute. Please astound the patrons of this forum with the truth rather than conspiracy theories about Trump.

I see you never bothered to find out the truth about that Navy Seal that you were 100% sure that he was guilty. I guess since you have had all this time to reply that you found out that their were some serious problems with the case. I know you did not bother to do the homework to ascertain whether the verdict was correct. What is your excuse this time?

gcomeau wrote:
smr wrote:Since you know how the American system works. You can explain the rules of an Impeachment Trial is going to work in the Senate. Just remember, I am an ignorant Country boy from Texas. As a result, please explain thoroughly and use simple sentences. :D

I ask our fellow forum posters to allow Gcomeau to dazzle us with breath of knowledge and insight of American Law and how the the Senate Trial will work.


It hardly requires a JD to know this stuff smr, only a marginal interest in, you know, learning what you are talking about.

For instance, if only people who talked directly with someone accused of a crime counted as witnesses in criminal trials the VAST majority of criminal trials would end in acquittal and all the criminals would go free.

"Sure, I saw that guy running out of the bank with a bag of money and a gun, then shoot at the cops as he made his getaway, but I didn't TALK to him and ask him if he robbed the place and get him to tell me that yes he did. Oh darn, I'm not a witness, I can't testify."

Now, does that sound right to you, or does it sound like something only a freaking idiot would believe was how things worked?

Taylor didn't talk to Trump about this, but he did directly witness the extortion of the Ukrainians being carried out in Ukraine (which was his area of responsibility) by Trump's appointed representatives and can testify to that.

Hill didn't directly talk to Trump about this, but she did directly witness the Ukrainians being pressured by Trump's appointed representatives to initiate the politically motivated investigations he specifically personally tried to get Zelensky to launch against the Bidens in the White House where she was working and she can testify to that.

Holmes didn't talk to Trump directly about this, but he did directly hear Trump talking to Sondland about getting the investigations launched and he can testify to that.

Etc. So no, it's not going to be only one allowed witness in the Senate trial. It's going to be ALL of them. And the GOP may try to pull this "this is all inadmissible hearsay" BS but they aren't presiding. Roberts is. And he actually knows how the law works, even if he is biased.
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by Daryl   » Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:46 pm

Daryl
Admiral

Posts: 2914
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

PeterZ. Point out where I've supported Clinton? The discussion was on Trump. My contention was that he couldn't have risen to leader in my country for a number of reasons related to poor character. Just one bankruptcy or infidelity would have kept him out.
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:59 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2354
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

smr wrote:Question, do they tape all of the President's phone calls? Yes they do!


No, they do not.

Presidents have been pretty down on having their conversations taped since Nixon.

I wonder why they do not introduce that into evidence because it's hearsay or did not take place!


You can't introduce things that do not exist into evidence.

We have the transcript of the phone call and that shows no quid pro quo took place.


Zelensky asks for next stage of aid. ("This")

Trump responds with "I would like you to do us a favor though" and requests investigations into his domestic political opponent. ("for That")

Do you know what Quid Pro Quo means?

I see you never bothered to find out the truth about that Navy Seal that you were 100% sure that he was guilty.


If you mean I didn't go dredging through random YouTube videos that you think are the source of Ultimate Truth... no, no I did not. :roll:
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by PeterZ   » Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:21 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6338
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Daryl wrote:PeterZ. Point out where I've supported Clinton? The discussion was on Trump. My contention was that he couldn't have risen to leader in my country for a number of reasons related to poor character. Just one bankruptcy or infidelity would have kept him out.

My point was that Clinton had risen to one election from being a leader of my country because of leftists that you support. We had a choice to make and chose the less bad of two bad options. As it turned out he s doing quite well, but he was chosen because the more mainstream options was seen as being corrupt or ineffectual.

I am glad President Trump could never be elected to a leadership role in your country. Any place someone with your values would like to live in is a places I would prefer to avoid. Any leader you would value is one I would likely vote against.
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by Daryl   » Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:07 am

Daryl
Admiral

Posts: 2914
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Once again you make the incorrect assumption that anyone who disagrees with you falls into the designation of a "leftist".
I have a variety of values and opinions, and it's true that many would be seen by you as being "leftist". However I am fiercely to the right on personal and country security.
As to Clinton and Trump, I was surprised that a country of 320M plus put those two up. Neither would get any respect from me.
My values include patriotism, security, respect for the less fortunate, total lack of respect for the dishonest, and a general fair go for all.
I admit to not respecting religion, or those who worship the dollar. We are all products of our environment, mine is different to yours, but closer to western Europe.

PeterZ wrote:
Daryl wrote:PeterZ. Point out where I've supported Clinton? The discussion was on Trump. My contention was that he couldn't have risen to leader in my country for a number of reasons related to poor character. Just one bankruptcy or infidelity would have kept him out.

My point was that Clinton had risen to one election from being a leader of my country because of leftists that you support. We had a choice to make and chose the less bad of two bad options. As it turned out he s doing quite well, but he was chosen because the more mainstream options was seen as being corrupt or ineffectual.

I am glad President Trump could never be elected to a leadership role in your country. Any place someone with your values would like to live in is a places I would prefer to avoid. Any leader you would value is one I would likely vote against.
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by PeterZ   » Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:49 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6338
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Daryl,
In a previous post you proudly proclaimed that you were progressive if you had to choose a label. That you believed the progressive ideals would eventually supplant other beliefs such as mine in the fullness of time. I took you at your word. Thank you for clarifying your belief structure further.

That does not refute my objections to your initial post. You supported Clinton and believed she was the best candidate based on your values. Well and good. Yet, those values would seem a bit flexible if Clinton passes muster for you in terms of her honesty, patriotism, concern for the less fortunate and belief in giving everyone a fair go.

I hope that your country never has to deal with choosing between a known unpleasant candidate and an apparently less unpleasant unknown candidate with the potential of being better. It was a hope and prayer election that has turned out to be better than I had feared. Our leftists here have fought the President's America First agenda tooth and nail. Which I take as evidence that he is doing the right thing for our nation.

This last point is based on the US progressives' complete disgust for any thing remotely considered US patriotism. I love my adopted country dearly, just as you love yours. Being attacked in part because of that love of country does not endear them to me in the slightest.
Daryl wrote:Once again you make the incorrect assumption that anyone who disagrees with you falls into the designation of a "leftist".
I have a variety of values and opinions, and it's true that many would be seen by you as being "leftist". However I am fiercely to the right on personal and country security.
As to Clinton and Trump, I was surprised that a country of 320M plus put those two up. Neither would get any respect from me.
My values include patriotism, security, respect for the less fortunate, total lack of respect for the dishonest, and a general fair go for all.
I admit to not respecting religion, or those who worship the dollar. We are all products of our environment, mine is different to yours, but closer to western Europe.
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:25 am

TFLYTSNBN
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

PeterZ wrote:Daryl,
In a previous post you proudly proclaimed that you were progressive if you had to choose a label. That you believed the progressive ideals would eventually supplant other beliefs such as mine in the fullness of time. I took you at your word. Thank you for clarifying your belief structure further.

That does not refute my objections to your initial post. You supported Clinton and believed she was the best candidate based on your values. Well and good. Yet, those values would seem a bit flexible if Clinton passes muster for you in terms of her honesty, patriotism, concern for the less fortunate and belief in giving everyone a fair go.

I hope that your country never has to deal with choosing between a known unpleasant candidate and an apparently less unpleasant unknown candidate with the potential of being better. It was a hope and prayer election that has turned out to be better than I had feared. Our leftists here have fought the President's America First agenda tooth and nail. Which I take as evidence that he is doing the right thing for our nation.

This last point is based on the US progressives' complete disgust for any thing remotely considered US patriotism. I love my adopted country dearly, just as you love yours. Being attacked in part because of that love of country does not endear them to me in the slightest.
Daryl wrote:Once again you make the incorrect assumption that anyone who disagrees with you falls into the designation of a "leftist".
I have a variety of values and opinions, and it's true that many would be seen by you as being "leftist". However I am fiercely to the right on personal and country security.
As to Clinton and Trump, I was surprised that a country of 320M plus put those two up. Neither would get any respect from me.
My values include patriotism, security, respect for the less fortunate, total lack of respect for the dishonest, and a general fair go for all.
I admit to not respecting religion, or those who worship the dollar. We are all products of our environment, mine is different to yours, but closer to western Europe.



Just to comment on this aspect of the 2016 election and also the 2008 election.

I was no fan of Senator McCain because I remembered the Keating Five Savings and loan scandal. His only claim to virtue is that he was the one Senator who didn't accept the briefcase full of cash. Given the fact that his wife was an extremely wealthy heiress of a beer distributorship, that was no great virtue.
I was also vaguely aware of Senator MacCain's enthusiastic philandering after his release from the Hanoi Hilton. Although there were mitigating circumstances, it didn't speak well of him.
More importantly to me, Senator MacCain's efforts to redeem himself for his involvement in the Keating Five scandal by "reaching across the aisle" offended me. He was also a complete idiot on energy policy.

As a result of my displeasure with Senator McCain, I seriously evaluated Senator Obama. At the time, Senator Obama had positioned himself as a moderate liberal. He professed opinions on several issues that I actually respected. Obama lost any chance of getting my vote when his association with the Reverand Wright was exposed and Obama gave his infamous "crazy uncle in the attic" speech.

I was willing to "hold my nose and vote for McCain" until he selected Governor Palin to be VP. I was familiar with Governor Palin because I am an energy policy geek. He staunch advocacy of paying dividends to citizens on oil extraction is brilliant policy to motivate the electorate to make intelligent decisions. Her other positions on tax policy and spending met with my approval. I confess that I didn't know what Governor Palin looked like until Rush Limbaugh's drooling over the radio inspired me to call my then 18 year old son and ask him to turn on the television news. His "oh my God," reaction was priceless. Given my concerns about demographics and population implosion, the prospect of an accomplished VP then President who had given birth to five children was exactly what was needed to inspire Americans to start procreating rather than just fornicating. America elected Obama and birth rates have fallen to historic lows as a result.

Unfortunately; Senator McCain's "I'm suspending my campaign to work on the mortgage crisis" revealed him to be a panicked old man. Obama managed to appear to be confident if not competent. Bush was to eager to pass the buck to his successor. Governor Palin was pilloried for having the audacity to talk about who and what had caused the mortgage crisis. (Read Architects of Ruin).

Romney was a none entity to me who received my vote only because I hated Obama.

Fast forward to 2016 and Trump was absolutely not my first choice for President. I was well aware of his repeated philandering. His bankrupties were far from unusual in the real estate industry and the creditors usually suffer minimal losses, but it was unimpressive. Then Governor Palin anointed Trump. It became obvious that the two had made plans over a very public pizza lunch in 2012. I then listened very carefully to Trump during the debates. He was the only man with a plan (Congresswoman Bachman was not doing well).

Now fast forward to the current impeachment proceedings. President Trump is accused of threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine to motivate their President to reopen an investigation of an oil and gas company that gave Vice Pressident Biden's cocaine addicted son a multimillion dollar per year for a job that he was totally unqualified for in return for VP Biden using his influence to get the US to give billions of dollars in US aid to Ukraine. This is in context of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exploiting her position to solicit hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation slush fund. The Democrats also want to expand the investigation to include alleged Emoluments because certain governments or government officials rented rooms in Trump's hotels.

Exactly whose alleged corruption should we be investigating?
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by gcomeau   » Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:54 am

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2354
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
<snip eye rollingly insane assessment of Palin as actually having firing synapses between her ears>

Now fast forward to the current impeachment proceedings. President Trump is accused of threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine to motivate their President to reopen an investigation of an oil and gas company that gave Vice Pressident Biden's cocaine addicted son a multimillion dollar per year for a job that he was totally unqualified for in return for VP Biden using his influence to get the US to give billions of dollars in US aid to Ukraine.


That is pure fiction. There never was an investigation into your unfounded conspiracy theory. There was an investigation into events involving that company that predated Hunter Biden ever being hired which Biden was in no way a part of.

Trump was demanding a completely new previously nonexistent investigation be created into conspiracy theories HIS OWN INTEL STAFF had already briefed him were fraudulent, because he *liked* those conspiracy theories because they worked for him politically.

This is in context of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exploiting her position to solicit hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation slush fund.


Another thing that never happened.

The Democrats also want to expand the investigation to include alleged Emoluments because certain governments or government officials rented rooms in Trump's hotels.


You do realize another way of saying that is "certain foreign governments paid Trump money" right? Or in other words, "certain foreign governments paid Trump Emoluments".

Which is directly in violation of the US constitution. Not that you care about that.

Did you notice Zelensky went out of his way to make sure to tell Trump on their call that he had gotten rooms at one of his hotels on his last visit? Which is another way of saying he went out of his way to make sure Trump was aware he had been paid.
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by gcomeau   » Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:26 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2354
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

PeterZ wrote:
Daryl wrote:Moral turpitude? As in being bankrupt six times, but only lost other people's money? (Unlike in the US, we hold one bankruptcy to be shameful).
Cheating on his first wife with his second, then cheating on his second with his third. Then cheating on his third while she was pregnant with his child, with porn stars. Boasting about assaulting women. Telling lies virtually every time he speaks (seen him on TV myself, not just second hand). Boasting about himself, cowardice (bone spurs), bullying those who can't defend themselves, lots more but no point telling the fans as they don't see it.

Clinton was better? What choice did we have? If you honestly believe someone who set up an international foundation to sell influence to foreigners;


It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that this is fiction.

someone who aided and abetted her husband's abuse of women;


Leaving aside the questionable nature of that statement, so you decided to skip the middle man and vote for president "Grab 'em by the pussy" directly???

someone who spent her entire time in public office trying to enrich herself


Provide one example.

is a hands down better choice with respect to moral turpitude, you are guilty of what you accuse others of being.


MORAL TURPITUDE?

You want to try to claim Trump is the better choice using MORAL TURPITUDE as the evaluating criteria??? The guy who is like the walking talking billboard advertisement for every single deadly sin?

The guy sued (successfully) by the DOJ for racial discrimination in his housing properties? Twice?

The guy who was convicted of running a fraudulent university and bilking people out of their money?

The guy who cheated on his first wife with his second wife and cheated on his third wife with a porn star he illegally paid to cover it up?

The guy whose entire family is legally forbidden from operating a charity in New York state without adult supervision after his "charitable foundation" was exposed as also being fraudulent?



Once in office he has done what he promised. While the other side has repeatedly walked all over the civil rights of citizens in their quest for power. Obama's FBI illegally surveiled citizens and abused the FISA process.


One more time... no they didn't.

The Obama administration had its members' relatives serving on the board of a company under investigation for money laundering $7.4 billion.


Nope again.


Moral turpitude my great Aunt Sallty! We chose someone who may just have the incentive to clean up some of this mess.


What incentive, exactly, would that be? Trump has spent his entire LIFE wading neck deep in corruption and self dealing and any other means he found necessary to earn himself a dollar. Where exactly is this incentive you are claiming exists?

He spent most of his first year yelling at House and Senate GOP members to get himself a gigantic tax break while spending half his time golfing at his own properties and funneling taxpayer money into his own pocket in the process. Which he has continued to do uninterrupted. He has appointed almost 300 lobbyists to positions in his administration... which is kind of the opposite of "draining the swamp". Etc.

Yeah, real "cleanup" he's got going. :roll:
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by PeterZ   » Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:10 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6338
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:11 pm
Location: Colorado

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Just to comment on this aspect of the 2016 election and also the 2008 election.

I was no fan of Senator McCain because I remembered the Keating Five Savings and loan scandal. His only claim to virtue is that he was the one Senator who didn't accept the briefcase full of cash. Given the fact that his wife was an extremely wealthy heiress of a beer distributorship, that was no great virtue.
I was also vaguely aware of Senator MacCain's enthusiastic philandering after his release from the Hanoi Hilton. Although there were mitigating circumstances, it didn't speak well of him.
More importantly to me, Senator MacCain's efforts to redeem himself for his involvement in the Keating Five scandal by "reaching across the aisle" offended me. He was also a complete idiot on energy policy.

As a result of my displeasure with Senator McCain, I seriously evaluated Senator Obama. At the time, Senator Obama had positioned himself as a moderate liberal. He professed opinions on several issues that I actually respected. Obama lost any chance of getting my vote when his association with the Reverand Wright was exposed and Obama gave his infamous "crazy uncle in the attic" speech.

I was willing to "hold my nose and vote for McCain" until he selected Governor Palin to be VP. I was familiar with Governor Palin because I am an energy policy geek. He staunch advocacy of paying dividends to citizens on oil extraction is brilliant policy to motivate the electorate to make intelligent decisions. Her other positions on tax policy and spending met with my approval. I confess that I didn't know what Governor Palin looked like until Rush Limbaugh's drooling over the radio inspired me to call my then 18 year old son and ask him to turn on the television news. His "oh my God," reaction was priceless. Given my concerns about demographics and population implosion, the prospect of an accomplished VP then President who had given birth to five children was exactly what was needed to inspire Americans to start procreating rather than just fornicating. America elected Obama and birth rates have fallen to historic lows as a result.

Unfortunately; Senator McCain's "I'm suspending my campaign to work on the mortgage crisis" revealed him to be a panicked old man. Obama managed to appear to be confident if not competent. Bush was to eager to pass the buck to his successor. Governor Palin was pilloried for having the audacity to talk about who and what had caused the mortgage crisis. (Read Architects of Ruin).

Romney was a none entity to me who received my vote only because I hated Obama.

Fast forward to 2016 and Trump was absolutely not my first choice for President. I was well aware of his repeated philandering. His bankrupties were far from unusual in the real estate industry and the creditors usually suffer minimal losses, but it was unimpressive. Then Governor Palin anointed Trump. It became obvious that the two had made plans over a very public pizza lunch in 2012. I then listened very carefully to Trump during the debates. He was the only man with a plan (Congresswoman Bachman was not doing well).

Now fast forward to the current impeachment proceedings. President Trump is accused of threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine to motivate their President to reopen an investigation of an oil and gas company that gave Vice Pressident Biden's cocaine addicted son a multimillion dollar per year for a job that he was totally unqualified for in return for VP Biden using his influence to get the US to give billions of dollars in US aid to Ukraine. This is in context of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exploiting her position to solicit hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation slush fund. The Democrats also want to expand the investigation to include alleged Emoluments because certain governments or government officials rented rooms in Trump's hotels.

Exactly whose alleged corruption should we be investigating?

Your thought process is not unlike may people I know. Although I have yo say most of them are libertarian who do not have your affection for Governor Palin. A few of whom are still undecided about voting to re-elect President Trump. They are wavering because of the Dems impeachment antics. The biggest feature to Trump that they see is the scrutiny on government he seems to engender.

The deeper the Dems look, the more the more progressive party and their henchmen in the media are discovering malfeasance splashing on THEM. Their impeachment proceedings are outing THEIR partisanship and THEIR reliance on political solutions to address their electoral loss in 2016 and their pending loss in 2020. Yet, they still refuse to offer policies that will make things better than what Trump is doing. My friends are not ideological conservatives like me. They are independents and libertarians looking for sufficient policy differentiation between Dems and Republicans to lure them to vote for one of the two main parties.

Bottom line is that the President is fighting against the patently elitist attack against this populist President. All those Americans can't help but side with the person being attacked by those entitled elitist schmucks. Toss in the economy improving for them and the Dem schmucks look more and more like Mr. Potter trying to hose George Baily. To hose George Baily trying to provide solid working folk with a home they can buy for themselves.
Top

Return to Politics