Impeachment now certain

The level of delusion on display here is just astonishing. Or it would be if we weren't so used to seeing it by now. It has been pointed out repeatedly that smr's narrative is pure fiction, that everyone who wanted corruption addressed in Ukraine INCLUDING REPUBLICANS wanted that prosecutor's office reformed, that the prosecutor in question WAS NOT investigating Burisma at the time and was NEVER investigating Biden... and the three musketeers here simply do not care because it makes them feel better to stick with the fairy tale.

smr wrote:Joat42
The reaction to God or ID means subconsciously within your soul or psyche that you believe that God exists. This profound over reaction indicates that you actually believe God exists at some level. The problem is that means you are responsible for your actions and that terrifies you. If you did not believe in God, the mention of this subject would have no emotional over reaction within your soul or psyche. It's almost like you been programmed not to believe but a part of your soul rejects that internal programming. Maybe, this is just a programming error within yourself and you do not know how to handle the situation. Or maybe I am just full of crap but only your soul knows.

My reaction to God or ID?

It's very simple, I loathe bullshit and especially the deluded fools who peddles it, those who have to wave their mental crutches at people all the time. And you keep spewing bullshit because of your belief, since you can't stop projecting it on others. Which was my point and you aptly managed to demonstrate it.

Your emotional overreaction to the mention of God or ID is what I base my comments. Look at you word usage and verbage that shows that you have issues with God or ID. That indicates an incredible amount of emotional pain. For me, I have had 2 near death experiences. Those experiences have taught me that God exists. It really does not matter what you think because I have the proof in my mind of God. I do not care whether you believe or not because your salvation is your business not mine.You have some issues of anger within your soul that is clear as day or you would not be so triggered by the mention of God or ID. So be aware that you have some extreme anger issues with the mention of God and ID. This is base on your over emotional responses to these innocent posts.

quote="Joat42"]

smr wrote:Joat42
The reaction to God or ID means subconsciously within your soul or psyche that you believe that God exists. This profound over reaction indicates that you actually believe God exists at some level. The problem is that means you are responsible for your actions and that terrifies you. If you did not believe in God, the mention of this subject would have no emotional over reaction within your soul or psyche. It's almost like you been programmed not to believe but a part of your soul rejects that internal programming. Maybe, this is just a programming error within yourself and you do not know how to handle the situation. Or maybe I am just full of crap but only your soul knows.

My reaction to God or ID?

It's very simple, I loathe bullshit and especially the deluded fools who peddles it, those who have to wave their mental crutches at people all the time. And you keep spewing bullshit because of your belief, since you can't stop projecting it on others. Which was my point and you aptly managed to demonstrate it.[/quote]

smr wrote:Your emotional overreaction to the mention of God or ID is what I base my comments. Look at you word usage and verbage that shows that you have issues with God or ID. That indicates an incredible amount of emotional pain. For me, I have had 2 near death experiences. Those experiences have taught me that God exists. It really does not matter what you think because I have the proof in my mind of God. I do not care whether you believe or not because your salvation is your business not mine.You have some issues of anger within your soul that is clear as day or you would not be so triggered by the mention of God or ID. So be aware that you have some extreme anger issues with the mention of God and ID. This is base on your over emotional responses to these innocent posts.

quote="Joat42"]

smr wrote:Joat42
The reaction to God or ID means subconsciously within your soul or psyche that you believe that God exists. This profound over reaction indicates that you actually believe God exists at some level. The problem is that means you are responsible for your actions and that terrifies you. If you did not believe in God, the mention of this subject would have no emotional over reaction within your soul or psyche. It's almost like you been programmed not to believe but a part of your soul rejects that internal programming. Maybe, this is just a programming error within yourself and you do not know how to handle the situation. Or maybe I am just full of crap but only your soul knows.

My reaction to God or ID?

It's very simple, I loathe bullshit and especially the deluded fools who peddles it, those who have to wave their mental crutches at people all the time. And you keep spewing bullshit because of your belief, since you can't stop projecting it on others. Which was my point and you aptly managed to demonstrate it.

[/quote]


I myself have been clinically dead on two occasions. The second incident was not quite so scary because I was on the operating table in a cardiac lab getting an angiogram that went bad. My wife was on her own to deal with it when I went face down in my lunch.

Yep. God exists. One has to engage in far more creative mental gymnastics to explain why life exists without God then with God.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Yep. God exists. One has to engage in far more creative mental gymnastics to explain why life exists without God then with God.

"God did it" is certainly easier than "Random chance, physics, chemistry and billions of years did it".

But if "being easier to explain" and "being true" were in any way related, we wouldn't be here.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

smr wrote:Interesting tidbit about Biden, he has stated on video that he will not testify at Senate Impeachment Trial if called. Hey Joe, I sorry a hundred paid actors will not get to see a speech while you explain why you committed a quid pro quo. Remember what Joe said at the Council of Foreign Relations. You told the President of Ukraine to fire the Prosecutor that was investigating your son. You gave them 6 hours or they would lose a Billion dollars in aid.
We all can see why you do not want to testify at the Senate Impeachment Trial.

Why in the Hell are the Democrats prosecuting Trump given this context? This continues to amaze me.

As has been pointed out multiple times, this is outright fabrication.

PeterZ wrote:This will only pass if Republicans vote to impeach. As soon as this goes to the Senate, Dems lose control of the narrative. Nancy will let her Red State dems vote NOT to impeach. That will give her progressive wing people to blame AND keep the Republican Senate from looking into this.

I truly want the Republicans to vote to impeach and then as a block inform the public they want to give the President a chance to defend himself, since the Dems refuse to offer him that opportunity.

Trump's lawyers declined to participate in the Judiciary Committee hearings.

PeterZ wrote:This will only pass if Republicans vote to impeach. As soon as this goes to the Senate, Dems lose control of the narrative. Nancy will let her Red State dems vote NOT to impeach. That will give her progressive wing people to blame AND keep the Republican Senate from looking into this.

I truly want the Republicans to vote to impeach and then as a block inform the public they want to give the President a chance to defend himself, since the Dems refuse to offer him that opportunity.

Eyal wrote:
Trump's lawyers declined to participate in the Judiciary Committee hearings.

Yup. Unlike the Republicans during the Clinton impeachment, the current Dems haven't allowed President Trump to call witnesses or have any time to prepare questions for the Dem's witnesses. The current proceeding is kangaroo court-like joke the President should let stand out for US voters to evaluate. That evaluation is benefiting the President as his approval ratings have jumped to pre summer drop levels at 52%. Especially among African Americans and other minorities; likely African American voters approval rose to 31% and other minorities jumped to 60%. This trend bodes ill for the Dems.

The President is wise to give Dems all the room they need to destroy their electoral chances in 2020.
recent polls

PeterZ wrote:Yup. Unlike the Republicans during the Clinton impeachment, the current Dems haven't allowed President Trump to call witnesses or have any time to prepare questions for the Dem's witnesses.

MORE fiction.

Clinton was never allowed to call witnesses in his impeachment hearing in the House. He was allowed to call witnesses in his impeachment TRIAL in the freaking Senate. Which Trump will also be allowed to do.

How many times does the difference between an inquiry and a trial need to be explained? The only person trump would want to call, just to out them in violation of the whistleblower protections, is the whistleblower. Whose testimony became irrelevant the second their complaint was corroborated.

The Republican committee members were however allowed to request witnesses, had some of their requests granted, and it just turned out people like Morrison and Volkler gave testimony that was also against Trump because you know, EVERYONE who has gone under oath has given testimony against Trump.

Not that you care.


Also, Trump has issued blanket orders that NOBODY is allowed to testify in the most egregious act of Obstruction the presidency has ever seen, so complaining he isn't allowed to call witnesses is pathetically transparent BS.

He. Doesn't. Want. ANYONE. To. Testify.

I mean who would he call Peter? Bolton? Trump won't let him.

Pompeo? Same

Mulvaney? Same.

So WHO THE HELL are you claiming Trump would be being prevented from calling anyway?

PeterZ wrote:That evaluation is benefiting the President as his approval ratings have jumped to pre summer drop levels at 52%.

Yes, they have.

In a single poll.

Conducted by an agency that is consistently several percentage points more positive on Trump than the average of all polls conducted (A YouGov poll, conducted around the same time, shows only 41% approval).

While the overall trendline of opinion polls shows a slow trend towards an equalization, it hasn't arrived there yet; neither has it crossed over into majority approval.

PeterZ wrote:Yup. Unlike the Republicans during the Clinton impeachment, the current Dems haven't allowed President Trump to call witnesses or have any time to prepare questions for the Dem's witnesses.

gcomeau wrote:
MORE fiction.

Clinton was never allowed to call witnesses in his impeachment hearing in the House. He was allowed to call witnesses in his impeachment TRIAL in the freaking Senate. Which Trump will also be allowed to do.

How many times does the difference between an inquiry and a trial need to be explained? The only person trump would want to call, just to out them in violation of the whistleblower protections, is the whistleblower. Whose testimony became irrelevant the second their complaint was corroborated.

The Republican committee members were however allowed to request witnesses, had some of their requests granted, and it just turned out people like Morrison and Volkler gave testimony that was also against Trump because you know, EVERYONE who has gone under oath has given testimony against Trump.

Not that you care.


Also, Trump has issued blanket orders that NOBODY is allowed to testify in the most egregious act of Obstruction the presidency has ever seen, so complaining he isn't allowed to call witnesses is pathetically transparent BS.

He. Doesn't. Want. ANYONE. To. Testify.

I mean who would he call Peter? Bolton? Trump won't let him.

Pompeo? Same

Mulvaney? Same.

So WHO THE HELL are you claiming Trump would be being prevented from calling anyway?

That's right. The Clinton impeachment proceedings was based on the Ken Star Independent Counsel report that gave President Clinton the full protection of due process. They collected evidence based on federal evidentiary guidelines. The House did not need to gather any more evidence. They simply voted on impeachment based on the report.

The current House has collected testimony in ways that did not afford the President due process protections. Chief among them was not following the federal rules of evidence. Any legal challenges he has made are considered obstruction. This is a farce that more and more people see for what it is. Calls for impeachment began hours after his inauguration. Impeachment has been a foregone conclusion looking for evidence since before the President won his election.


Canadian progressives can rant all they want, but tis farce is going to bite the Dems in the butt.