The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[Jazzta]

What is the reason to investigate Biden?

Using his influence to place his son as a board member in an energy company from one of the most corrupt nations in the world could bring out some questionable connections to say the least. My point is that the people should demand to be represented by men and women who look after the people’s interests, not their own.
Unfortunately we just use these instances to further the strong bipartisan system we find ourselves in.

 

[One Brow]

Using his influence to place his son as a board member in an energy company from one of the most corrupt nations in the world could bring out some questionable connections to say the least. My point is that the people should demand to be represented by men and women who look after the people’s interests, not their own.

So, you have some evidence Joe Biden actively used his influence? Or, are you saying that Hunter got the job because Joe was VP? If that latter, we'll have to open up investigations in to just about every member of Congress, as well.

Unfortunately we just use these instances to further the strong bipartisan system we find ourselves in.

As long as we have government, we'll have people seeking to influence those in charge.

 

[str8line]

The mind of a pathological liar.

 

[colton]

For me the sticking point is abortion. While I don't see it as equivalent to murder I do believe the unborn deserve some rights and see the abortion anytime culture as a huge blight on our nation. If there were a Democratic candidate that supported any sort of limitations on abortion I would likely vote for him or her. But none believe in any limitations at all, as far as I can tell. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) The rest of my moderate to conservative views I could set aside and possibly even register as a Democrat, but not that.

So, this was in my news feed this morning. I've said it before, but if the Democrats do not defeat Trump they will have only themselves to blame.

 

[silesian]

Using his influence to place his son as a board member in an energy company from one of the most corrupt nations in the world could bring out some questionable connections to say the least. My point is that the people should demand to be represented by men and women who look after the people’s interests, not their own.
Unfortunately we just use these instances to further the strong bipartisan system we find ourselves in.

Done on a bipartisan basis, both Republicans and Democrats alike, and it's not illegal.

Focusing on one person out of tens of thousands (Biden) is the partisan aspect.

Your best bet is to change the laws so this is illegal. I bet you have an ally in Pelosi on this.

We are going to need more lawyers if we start investigating everyone who makes money based on questionable connections. Not sure we want to give the federal government that sort of power over private industry board hiring decisions. A pretty big step towards socialism.

 

[Red]

Regarding the written answers to questions, that Donald Trump submitted to Robert Mueller(answers, btw, that included 36 versions of "I don't recall".), the House General Council has revealed that lawmakers are investigating whether Trump lied to Mueller, and thus committed perjury. Testimony at the Roger Stone trial certainly raised that possibility:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...ing-whether-trump-lied-to-robert-mueller/amp/

 

[Deleted member 365]

For me the sticking point is abortion. While I don't see it as equivalent to murder I do believe the unborn deserve some rights and see the abortion anytime culture as a huge blight on our nation. If there were a Democratic candidate that supported any sort of limitations on abortion I would likely vote for him or her. But none believe in any limitations at all, as far as I can tell. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) The rest of my moderate to conservative views I could set aside and possibly even register as a Democrat, but not that.

I’m not sure if there are any Democrats when support “no limitations” abortion.

All the Democratic candidates I know of support maintaining the status quo, which is maintaining Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade certainly keeps limitations on abortion. So do you believe Roe v Wade should be overturned and restrictions increased? If so, which restrictions should be placed?

I didn’t check all candidates, so I picked out the two most liberal frontrunners to see what they are advocating for. Warren and Sanders aren’t promoting no limitations abortion. They are however, advocating for universal health care and greater access to education and contraception. But one are advocating for massive reforms to abortion law. Are there candidates in this election more liberal than they? Or am I just misreading their websites?

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/protect-womens-choices

https://berniesanders.com/issues/womens-rights/

I know after several states passed restrictive anti-abortion laws earlier this year (clearly trying to overturn Roe) there was a backlash from the left. But I’m unaware of any of the presidential candidates going full “woke” and advocating for abortion to be limitless.

 

[babe]

So, you have some evidence Joe Biden actively used his influence? Or, are you saying that Hunter got the job because Joe was VP? If that latter, we'll have to open up investigations in to just about every member of Congress, as well.



As long as we have government, we'll have people seeking to influence those in charge.

And as long as we have actual laws on the subject, we will actually have people breaking the laws. When we decide someone doesn't need to be prosecuted for breaking those laws, we will have elitist, professional established government people profiteering from their group's effectual immunities against prosecution.

It's been a problem a long time, and it's been getting worse and worse all my lifetime, but exponentially worse since Bill Clinton.

Mr. Ostrich Bro, as long as you track with the progressive crowd and justify them, you're one of them, even if you don't get your share of the payola.

The whole problem with Trump, even if he is letting a groupie still run the CIA, the FBI, and the DOJ..... and even if he's not in favor of prosecuting Hillary, Obama, Biden, Eeinstein, Pelosi, McConnell & Co, Brennin, The FISA Gang, or the rest of the committed Coup State "managerial" statists who believe the American people have to be ruled out of the equation, is that he is not really pushing the prosecution of his opposition the way the deep state prosecutors are still gong after harmless braggart wonks like Stone, and actually effective critics like Assange.

Since Trump isn't really destroying his opposition, of course the people who voted for him are actually still being defrauded of their Constitution and their personal rights, and their economic opportunities.

 

[babe]

I’m not sure if there are any Democrats when support “no limitations” abortion.

All the Democratic candidates I know of support maintaining the status quo, which is maintaining Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade certainly keeps limitations on abortion. So do you believe Roe v Wade should be overturned and restrictions increased? If so, which restrictions should be placed?

I didn’t check all candidates, so I picked out the two most liberal frontrunners to see what they are advocating for. Warren and Sanders aren’t promoting no limitations abortion. They are however, advocating for universal health care and greater access to education and contraception. But one are advocating for massive reforms to abortion law. Are there candidates in this election more liberal than they? Or am I just misreading their websites?

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/protect-womens-choices

https://berniesanders.com/issues/womens-rights/

The problem with making these sorts of claims, or believing them, or expecting them to be consistent with future decisions or votes, is that progressives believe in lying. They have done well with gradualism, which is in effect a kind of hypocrisy, wherein they look at where the people are now, and talk the way people want to hear now, while they are constantly moving the language and the effective policies towards their real goals....

which of course, none of them really actually understand as any kind of consistent Truth that will constitute coherence with any kind of imagined utopia. It's all about being in the main stream, and being able to profit from it through public salaries and all kinds of quid pro quo from interested money people.

The Young Turks, the open society socialists, the George Soros sorts, are now openly moving into a program to deconstruct American society and the American System.

Removes all kinds of effective limits on their power and profiteering.

The Reason Geoge Soros calls China a mortal threat to the world is the fact that they do and will actually maintain their system of laws, and even George Soros can't crack their safe.

 

[babe]

that’s a laughable summary of what I’ve written and completely inaccurate. You should go back and reread my previous post, 5790. If you’re unwilling to read and honestly attempt to refute what I’ve written then we’re done here.

Discussing politics on this board should be more than incorrectly representing what someone has written and making bad faith arguments. It takes time to write posts. It just feels like such a waste when posters clearly don’t read these posts and then make inaccurate statements about was written.

Taking yourself, or your posts, seriously on an online discussion, is a kind of insanity. Get some help. And learn to actually laugh when anyone really messes with you.

I understand there's actually quite a lot of effort being made by progressives to make the internet their tool for change. I mean, you can actually get people to pay you for your work setting up shop and working the traffic to recruit new believers. But oh the genius of getting the recruits to financially support the site, and work for free.

But, still, ...... the insanity of believing a fake reality site promoting a fake ideological utopia.......and focusing on a fake reality show hawkster.....to make a new sort of diabolical superhero "Orange Man Bad"

 

[One Brow]

And as long as we have actual laws on the subject, we will actually have people breaking the laws. When we decide someone doesn't need to be prosecuted for breaking those laws, we will have elitist, professional established government people profiteering from their group's effectual immunities against prosecution.

Since this was about the Bidens, do you have a particular law that one of the Bidens broke?

It's been a problem a long time, and it's been getting worse and worse all my lifetime, but exponentially worse since Bill Clinton.

I guess you have forgotten about Reagan, Johnson, Rossevelt, Hoover, Harding, Wilson, etc.

Mr. Ostrich Bro, as long as you track with the progressive crowd and justify them, you're one of them, even if you don't get your share of the payola.

Thank you. That's very kind of you. I don't need a check to support the right thing.

... harmless braggart wonks like Stone, and actually effective critics like Assange.

I think you for the irony of calling me an ostrich, while calling Stone harmless and Assange a critic in the same post. Very amusing, indeed.

 

[babe]

Once you make the fundamental decision that Syria is not the USA, and that there is a negative cost/benefit attached to the maintenance of the facility, the next question is how to score some positive results in letting it go. Russia and Syria share our goal in regard to ISIS, and some other fundamental values we could have in our foreign policy. Lot's better having someone take it off our hands who shares those values than other parties who don't.

I don't really believe progressives questioning any kind of "America First" logic, they are as a class fundamentally unrealistic and their views are more like "Me First" in immediate economic consequences..... You know, like Joe Biden and his gunny sack boy.