Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

[Starbuck1975]

no. This is like arguing that Robert Byrd! Robert Byrd! Robert Byrd! is the real racist and of course democrat...despite being the only one remaining in the democratic party when teh rest of the true racists fled to capture the GOP, in order to continue their lynching, and despite the fact that this is a dude that long renounced his past and worked to heal whatever awfulness he caused....because self-reflection, correction, and apology do not matter to conservatives. it simply doesn't fucking matter, Everyone of you is the most perfect snowflake to ooze onto the earth, always pristine in your need to never think internally, change course, and learn from mistakes

not one of you.



...and yeah, concern trolling. no matter what the democrats do, especially if it's what the GOP demanded they do all along, it is still the wrong thing. Seriously, this is clown shit. It must be embarrassing to think this way.

Good thing paramedics are standing by, it sounds like some of you are about to stroke out

 

[ch33zw1z]

Good thing paramedics are standing by, it sounds like some of you are about to stroke out

You seem concerned.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Good thing paramedics are standing by, it sounds like some of you are about to stroke out

Yeah, some of us are pretty fucking furious about how disingenuous our leaders are being, and how willing our peers are to be culpable (and indeed, sometimes mimicking) to their behavior.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yeah, some of us are pretty fucking furious about how disingenuous our leaders are being, and how willing our peers are to be culpable (and indeed, sometimes mimicking) to their behavior.

Fury and irrationality tend to go together

 

[fskimospy]

Fury and irrationality tend to go together

Fury is the rational response to elected officials actively attempting to ensure that criminal behavior by the president goes unchecked.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Fury and irrationality tend to go together

Placidity and corruption tend to go together as well. I'd rather be furious and a little irrational than a toady.

 

[fskimospy]

Placidity and corruption tend to go together as well. I'd rather be furious and a little irrational than a toady.

We should all remember that the issue at stake here is the president abusing his powers of office to corrupt US foreign policy in order to rig our next election so he gets to stay president. This is in addition to a litany of other felonies he has committed while in office and in addition to the fact that he currently runs a global network of businesses where foreign leaders can directly bribe him.

That's what Republicans are defending right now. Anyone who is not furious is complicit.

 

[cytg111]

But Kavanaugh

But Kavanaugh puts your double standards on display. Again. Correct.

 

[cytg111]

Man I bet you probably wrote some scathing posts about the lack of impartiality of the lone republican witness who directly contradicted his own videotapes arguments for impeaching democratic presidents.

Hold on, I’m going to search for them and add them to this post.

Ill fill in for buck today: But Republican Witness

 

[cytg111]

Good thing paramedics are standing by, it sounds like some of you are about to stroke out

From laughing our asses off maybe.

 

[fskimospy]

Guys stop losing focus. The important thing here is to be pretend outraged that a witness talking about how the president is a criminal had the temerity to simply speak Trump's son's name. Not mock him, not disparage him in any way, just mention that he existed.

 

[cytg111]

I mean isnt it spot on? Barron is the only one he hasnt named Baron in some official capacity? The analogy holds.

 

[Starbuck1975]

But Kavanaugh puts your double standards on display. Again. Correct.

Which wall of the echo chamber are you displaying it on?

 

[zinfamous]

Good thing paramedics are standing by, it sounds like some of you are about to stroke out

not me! I have the constitution of a walrus!

 

[zinfamous]

Fury and irrationality tend to go together

yep. You've seen Trump on TV, right? Have you watched the GOP congress critters at these hearings? Their entire shtick is loud, furious yelling. They don't ask questions. They cast blame, loudly. To let us know how upset they are about whatever perceived insults have been hurled against them, that they have defined. They are never concerned with the facts of this case. Only the process. They are given sway in the process, and yet they are still irrationally angry, somehow now convinced that this is, again, injustice, for being allowed to participate in the way that they demand. It's a sight to behold!

So I definitely agree with you. It's just interesting that you fail to see it in the proper direction.

 

[interchange]

That legal argument and its validity is predicated on impartiality. The joke doesn’t matter. It’s an insight into the mind of a legal expert brought in to lend credibility, but she just couldn’t contain her TDS.

I don't understand why a witness needs to be impartial. That doesn't apply in any court that I'm aware. It does mean something, but credibility is not binary.

As far as "legal argument" goes, the only thing Trump has asserted is absolute immunity. Do you think that is possibly an actually valid legal defense? Bear in mind, since he is the one preventing discovery and testimony against subpoena, it is his duty to prove that case. Also bear in mind he has refused to appear or send legal representatives to the inquiry to even make arguments on his behalf.

 

[fskimospy]

yep. You've seen Trump on TV, right? Have you watched the GOP congress critters at these hearings? Their entire shtick is loud, furious yelling. They don't ask questions. They cast blame, loudly. To let us know how upset they are about whatever perceived insults have been hurled against them, that they have defined. They are never concerned with the facts of this case. Only the process. They are given sway in the process, and yet they are still irrationally angry, somehow now convinced that this is, again, injustice, for being allowed to participate in the way that they demand. It's a sight to behold!

So I definitely agree with you. It's just interesting that you fail to see it in the proper direction.

I did a quick search for posts by Starbuck condemning their irrational fury but none came up. I'll assume that means the search function is broken.

 

[nOOky]

So what happens if all of the irrelevant witnesses the GOP wishes to call in the Senate defy their summons? Joe Biden has said he'd refuse unless he was ordered to. I'm guessing the R's would actually have the sack to do something about it, by having those witnesses arrested and jailed.

 

[zinfamous]

I did a quick search for posts by Starbuck condemning their irrational fury but none came up. I'll assume that means the search function is broken.

It's possible. I can never find a damn thing using the search function here.

 

[fskimospy]

So what happens if all of the irrelevant witnesses the GOP wishes to call in the Senate defy their summons? Joe Biden has said he'd refuse unless he was ordered to. I'm guessing the R's would actually have the sack to do something about it, by having those witnesses arrested and jailed.

No point in refusing to comply, it won’t stop senate Republicans from turning it into a circus anyway.

They will try to put Joe Biden and his son on trial because their goal is to deflect from Trump’s criminal activity.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't understand why a witness needs to be impartial. That doesn't apply in any court that I'm aware. It does mean something, but credibility is not binary.

As far as "legal argument" goes, the only thing Trump has asserted is absolute immunity. Do you think that is possibly an actually valid legal defense? Bear in mind, since he is the one preventing discovery and testimony against subpoena, it is his duty to prove that case. Also bear in mind he has refused to appear or send legal representatives to the inquiry to even make arguments on his behalf.

I also struggle to understand why the act of speaking the president’s son’s name would be indicative of bias.

 

[Starbuck1975]

From laughing our asses off maybe.

lmao

I don't understand why a witness needs to be impartial. That doesn't apply in any court that I'm aware. It does mean something, but credibility is not binary.

As far as "legal argument" goes, the only thing Trump has asserted is absolute immunity. Do you think that is possibly an actually valid legal defense? Bear in mind, since he is the one preventing discovery and testimony against subpoena, it is his duty to prove that case. Also bear in mind he has refused to appear or send legal representatives to the inquiry to even make arguments on his behalf.

Trump doesn’t have home field advantage in the House. He wants this to play out in the Senate.

Absolute immunity is not a legal defense. Trump’s entire and only defense is the partisan intent of these proceedings and he is making that case to the electorate. His supporters already buy that argument.

He can easily point to this joke as evidence of partisan bias. It falls into “you’re not helping” category.

 

[fskimospy]

lmao

Trump doesn’t have home field advantage in the House. He wants this to play out in the Senate.

Absolute immunity is not a legal defense. Trump’s entire and only defense is the partisan intent of these proceedings and he is making that case to the electorate. His supporters already buy that argument.

He can easily point to this joke as evidence of partisan bias. It falls into “you’re not helping” category.

Can you explain how what she said is indicative of partisan bias?

 

[VRAMdemon]

I doubt Melania actually even wrote the tweet. It just reeks of political victimhood - nobody can look at what Karlan said and see it as a threat, and Trump "politicized" Barron when he took office.

Todays Republicans/Trumpism is a victim and grievance cult

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

lmao

Trump doesn’t have home field advantage in the House. He wants this to play out in the Senate.

Absolute immunity is not a legal defense. Trump’s entire and only defense is the partisan intent of these proceedings and he is making that case to the electorate. His supporters already buy that argument.

He can easily point to this joke as evidence of partisan bias. It falls into “you’re not helping” category.

The electorate doesn't decide his legal defense either. Either this is a legal dispute, and partisanship/bias is irrelevant, or it's a electorate decision and the whole thing is a farce anyhow. So which is it?