What's new
By:
Filters

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

NPC D4617 said:
Oh, you mean like the thoughts we are told to have? Is that what you mean by thought of your own? I thought not parroting all the left leaning propaganda would be closer to having a thought of my own. But maybe you can tell us what to think.
Click to expand...
You think it’s left because a news organization whose entire mission was to call the media leftist came into existence.

By the way, there are some at that organization that are flabbergasted by Trump and his defenders.

I have a compass that is aligned with facts (or at least the best empirical data we have if that level of precision is important to you). I have no issue having nuanced views, or an allegiance to principle over party. I’ve been a registered independent my entire life and it will stay that way unless there is a tactical reason to change that.

Your boy is a rotten, terrible person.
 
infection said:
“Neither of us are privy to the facts.” We’re supposed to infer, no? Also, I’m not alleging any of these things. I’m saying what would (easily) be argued if the script was turned upside down.


My argument isn’t that people would think it’s ok for Hillary to break the law, or collide with other nations to get dirt. It’s that those questions wouldn’t even be relevant. It’s not whether it’s ok for her to do those things, it’s about the spin of what those things are. If you’re wondering how the left could possibly spin it, just look at how the right is arguing it currently, and that’s what the left would be arguing.

This is like officiating of any game. You’re going to view the officiating through the lens of your fandom. As ridiculous as people are in sports, there’s at least a modicum of self-reflection among some in the fan base that don’t want to look like absolute homers. In politics, there’s absolutely no self-reflection. On this forum there’s never been a single controversy on the left. None. They’re all out of context. There’s have also been multiple scandals on the right of corruption and lies. All of them. And vice versa. It’s a statistical anomaly for the ages.
Click to expand...
I guess if you view the entire world as filled with nothing but bad actors spinning facts to suit their narrative you could see things this way. Not to say that doesn't happen, but it's not quite as pervasive as you think imo, certainly not around here where some of the loudest voices on this controversy are conservative.

Your both sides are bad position fails to grapple with the unique criminality of Donald J Trump. Perhaps the reason that there are so many right wing controversies talked about on this site, has more to do with that, and less to do with it being filled with liberals pushing left wing talking points.
 
Zombie said:
I guess if you view the entire world as filled with nothing but bad actors spinning facts to suit their narrative you could see things this way. Not to say that doesn't happen, but it's not quite as pervasive as you think imo, certainly not around here where some of the loudest voices on this controversy are conservative.

Your both sides are bad position fails to grapple with the unique criminality of Donald J Trump. Perhaps the reason that there are so many right wing controversies talked about on this site, has more to do with that, and less to do with it being filled with liberals pushing left wing talking points.
Click to expand...
Here’s my prediction:

When Democrats take the White House, I’ll go back into the woodwork. When Republicans retake the White House, the new fear mongering narrative will be as follows: Trump was a narcissist who was out for himself and, therefore, destructive, but ______ isn’t just a narcissist, he/she is an ideologue! And this is even more dangerous. ______.

When Democrats retake the White House, we’ll hear about how much more dangerous ______ is that Obama (15 lbs of muscle!). But I’ll be in the woodwork.

When I surface from the woodwork to point out the cyclical hyperbole and limited self-reflection, it will be secondary to my political bias, because I really fail to grasp the clear and present danger ______ is to our country.

And, yes, the image of Trump will soften. No, he won’t be liked, but the hatred of _____ will distort past memory. It sure as hell did for Bush.
 
infection said:
Here’s my prediction:

When Democrats take the White House, I’ll go back into the woodwork. When Republicans retake the White House, the new fear mongering narrative will be as follows: Trump was a narcissist who was out for himself and, therefore, destructive, but ______ isn’t just a narcissist, he/she is an ideologue! And this is even more dangerous. ______.

When Democrats retake the White House, we’ll hear about how much more dangerous ______ is that Obama (15 lbs of muscle!). But I’ll be in the woodwork.

When I surface from the woodwork to point out the cyclical hyperbole and limited self-reflection, it will be secondary to my political bias, because I really fail to grasp the clear and present danger ______ is to our country.

And, yes, the image of Trump will soften. No, he won’t be liked, but the hatred of _____ will distort past memory. It sure as hell did for Bush.
Click to expand...
To everyone’s detriment moving forward.
 
infection said:
And, yes, the image of Trump will soften. No, he won’t be liked, but the hatred of _____ will distort past memory. It sure as hell did for Bush.
Click to expand...

No it won't - simply because he doesn't have the sense to retreat into the background like Bush did. He'll undoubtedly use whatever knowledge he acquired holding a post that only 44 other men held to personally enrich himself while continuing to have the Russians and Saudis underwrite his self-promoting ventures.

However, I'd gladly be willing to concede him all that as long as, in exchange, he'd accept a life-time ban from Twitter.
 
Last edited:
Heathme said:
Click to expand...

You realize that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden's innocence or guilt has nothing at all to do with Trump's innocence of guilt, right? Like if Joe Biden turns out to be a corrupt dirty POS that got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired to protect his son that doesn't equal Trump's innocent. That just means both Trump and Biden are guilty.

You do get that, right?
 
Heathme said:
Click to expand...



This is a photo of Joe, his son, and Hunter's business partner from Rosemont Devon Archer.

We've already talked about Devon Archer extensively in this thread. Why does this photo change any of what we've already talked about on that topic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Looks like the administration will stonewall on the impeachment inquiry, just as it has been doing for some time, in denying the Legislative Branch's constitutionally mandated right of oversight over the Executive branch:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pom...date-bully-state-department/story?id=65979397

"Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday accused the Democratic chairs of three House committees investigating the State Department's role in Rudy Giuliani's efforts in Ukraine of trying to "intimidate, bully, and treat improperly" five State Department officials called for depositions.

In the fierce letter addressed to the House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., Pompeo blasted the depositions in the impeachment probe as rushed and potentially in violation of executive privilege, accused committee staff of not following protocol, and appeared to say the officials will not show up."

 
I'm listening to the local radio station talking about whether Hunter Biden's board appointment is ethical. They've acknowledged that it doesn't appear to be illegal. But they've brought up his second quickie marriage, his drug problems, the salary, etc. as evidence that something shady is going on.

Interesting that they aren't spending time on whether Trump's actions are ethical. And heaven knows they aren't talking about the myriad examples of unethical behavior of Trump's kids, including affairs, alcohol issues, actively trying to sell access to their father, etc.

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Gameface said:
You realize that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden's innocence or guilt has nothing at all to do with Trump's innocence of guilt, right? Like if Joe Biden turns out to be a corrupt dirty POS that got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired to protect his son that doesn't equal Trump's innocent. That just means both Trump and Biden are guilty.

You do get that, right?
Click to expand...

There are no clean shirts in a political fight.
 
sirkickyass said:
This is a photo of Joe, his son, and Hunter's business partner from Rosemont Devon Archer.

We've already talked about Devon Archer extensively in this thread. Why does this photo change any of what we've already talked about on that topic?
Click to expand...

Heathme is basically illiterate. You should keep your expectations low.
 
Beautiful....

Conned: Road to Trump impeachment may have begun with Giuliani getting played by Ukrainian prosecutor:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...uliani-getting-played-by-ukrainian-prosecutor

"President Trump faces impeachment because personal attorney Rudy Giuliani was manipulated by a disreputable official who hoped to avoid being fired by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, according to regional analysts and anti-corruption activists.

“Consider the notion that Rudy Giuliani, who is no fool, was conned,” a U.S.-based Central European policy specialist who is active in Ukrainian issues told the Washington Examiner.

A consensus has been forming for months, in both Ukraine and in the U.S. government, that Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko, who earned the distrust of local anti-corruption activists during his three years in office, lured President Trump's personal lawyer into a rash pursuit of dirt on Democrats that could ultimately bring the American president down.

Lutsenko, 54, convinced Giuliani that he had evidence of corruption involving former Vice President Joe Biden. But his back channel meetings are widely perceived as an attempt to forge the kind of political alliance with Trump that would make it difficult for Zelensky to oust him....

....“The president has done things ... based on his obvious presumption that there is something to be found about Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton in Ukraine,” said the Central European specialist. “What if there's no there there? It means, then, that Giuliani may have drawn Trump into a situation which is, politically, extraordinarily damaging — for no purpose.”
 
Last edited:
John Solomon reports that there were three active investigations into Burisma in Ukraine, and that only one of them was dormant at the time the prosecutor was fired (March 2016). The latter two investigations were not closed until January of 2017. One of those investigations was for corruption at Burisma. Solomon says ABC News and NY Times corroborated the story.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations. Those reports are wrong. A British-based investigation of Burisma's owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met. But the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.

After I first reported it in a column, the New York Times and ABC News published similar stories confirming my reporting.

(ABC News story -- https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/...s-foreign-business-dealings-promises-63820806)

Joe Biden has since responded that he forced Shokin’s firing over concerns about corruption and ineptitude, which he claims were widely shared by Western allies, and that it had nothing to do with the Burisma investigation.

Some of the new documents I obtained call that claim into question.

In a newly sworn affidavit prepared for a European court, Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” Shokin testified.

“On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation,” Shokin added.

Shokin certainly would have reason to hold a grudge over his firing. But his account is supported by documents from Burisma’s legal team in America, which appeared to be moving into Ukraine with intensity as Biden’s effort to fire Shokin picked up steam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top