• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 74 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
NWRMidnight said:
This statement: " The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the President can name his son Barron, he can't make him a baron "

That's it. Anyone complaining about it is taking it out of context and missing the real point of the comment. It really had NOTHING to do with the child at all, other than using his name to make a point.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I was aware of the quote but I wanted the other poster to post it and explain why it was out of bounds. It’s the most pathetic thing I’ve heard and the fact that the pro anti bullying First Lady had a problem with it is laughable.
 
compuwiz1 said:
Sometimes I wish Democrats were as good of people, in practice, as they claim to be. Tolerant, accepting, fair, etc. Sure....as long as those involved play for the correct side, otherwise it's knives and arrows. Minor children are off limits and I said that when people made digs at Obama's kids too.
Click to expand...

So where's your conviction? You still need to take up that $100 bet or ah heck off?
 
compuwiz1 said:
Sometimes I wish Democrats were as good of people, in practice, as they claim to be. Tolerant, accepting, fair, etc. Sure....as long as those involved play for the correct side, otherwise it's knives and arrows. Minor children are off limits and I said that when people made digs at Obama's kids too.
Click to expand...

Do you own a mirror? Have you heard of the term projection?
 
compuwiz1 said:
Sometimes I wish Democrats were as good of people, in practice, as they claim to be. Tolerant, accepting, fair, etc. Sure....as long as those involved play for the correct side, otherwise it's knives and arrows. Minor children are off limits and I said that when people made digs at Obama's kids too.
Click to expand...

Please. Barron wasn't the butt of the joke. It was just a silly play on his name & disparaged him not in the least. I mean, none of us got to choose our parents, right?
 
It seems Turley's basic argument was, "People are angry." His schtick is that he doesn't think that what Trump did is kosher, but he doesn't think it's a crime and he certainly doesn't think it's impeachable. The country is divided, see, and we're all angry, and this is moving way too fast, so we should just drop it and move on.

If I'm angry at a judge for taking a bribe to give a criminal a joke sentence, is that an argument that the judge should or should not be removed from his job?

I'd love to have a congressperson ask him to confirm that. "If a hypothetical president asked a foreign leader to assist in his election in exchange for something...would you consider that an impeachable offense?"

Under questioning, though, he seems to be willing to agree with whatever ridiculous nonsense the Republicans throw his way, so who the fuck knows.

The vast majority of Trump fans are not going to care about professors opinions. They are indoctrinating our youth. Except maybe the professor who was not in favor of impeachment
 
VRAMdemon said:
It seems Turley's basic argument was, "People are angry." His schtick is that he doesn't think that what Trump did is kosher, but he doesn't think it's a crime and he certainly doesn't think it's impeachable. The country is divided, see, and we're all angry, and this is moving way too fast, so we should just drop it and move on.

If I'm angry at a judge for taking a bribe to give a criminal a joke sentence, is that an argument that the judge should or should not be removed from his job?

I'd love to have a congressperson ask him to confirm that. "If a hypothetical president asked a foreign leader to assist in his election in exchange for something...would you consider that an impeachable offense?"

Under questioning, though, he seems to be willing to agree with whatever ridiculous nonsense the Republicans throw his way, so who the fuck knows.
Click to expand...

He's anticipating a SCOTUS vacancy.
 
Can Nancy just make Schiff the head of whatever committee the way members can be bounced around between them at will?
 
Gabe323 said:
Can Nancy just make Schiff the head of whatever committee the way members can be bounced around between them at will?
Click to expand...

She won't. Those choices were made after the election. I don't remember such things happening before the GOP moved Jim Jordan to the intelligence committee for the impeachment hearings.
 
interchange said:
Oh noes she made a joke she realized was over the line and apologized for it! The horror! This proves Trump's innocence!
Click to expand...

In the meantime Trump wants to take food out of the mouths of 750k who need it including minor children. The orders of magnitude of real harm these respective acts represents is incalculable.
 
Jhhnn said:
Please. Barron wasn't the butt of the joke. It was just a silly play on his name & disparaged him not in the least. I mean, none of us got to choose our parents, right?
Click to expand...

Yeah I think that is pretty important. She wasn't targeting Barron in any way. And it's not like there's any secret that Trump has a son named Barron. His name was literally the only thing having to do with him in the joke. I don't agree with the joke, actually more because impeachment is a solemn matter we should approach with reluctance and duty than referencing a minor, but I can't imagine anything more than a simple apology and move on is indicated here.
 
compuwiz1 said:
Sometimes I wish Democrats were as good of people, in practice, as they claim to be. Tolerant, accepting, fair, etc. Sure....as long as those involved play for the correct side, otherwise it's knives and arrows. Minor children are off limits and I said that when people made digs at Obama's kids too.
Click to expand...

Yea, this is clearly a bothsides kind of situation.
*puts gun in mouth, pulls trigger*
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
In the meantime Trump wants to take food out of the mouths of 750k who need it including minor children. The orders of magnitude of real harm these respective acts represents is incalculable.
Click to expand...

God wanted Trump to be President. And if God didn't want poor people to be fucked he wouldn't have made it so easy. It's a plan made in heaven.
 
OrByte said:
The hardcore ~35% of Americans that support Trump will never change. The democrats understand this.

The effort is to show the remaining ~65% of America that 1. This is important and 2. This impacts them 3. Americans need to do something about it (IE Americans need to CARE.) whether through impeachment, or voting, or protests, or anything other than sticking their collective fingers up their noses.

I don't see Democrats gaining traction in any of the above 1/2/3.
Click to expand...
The problem is the 35% of voters that aren't hardcore Trump or straight D just don't give a fuck, and/or legit think a Fox headline is every bit as valid as any other headline.
 
Jhhnn said:
Piglosi? Gawd. I'm sure there are a lot of GOP politicos who'd like to be able to put a little air between themselves & Trump. Just enough to attract swing voters & hold the Trumpetized base at the same time. They won't have that option after an impeachment vote.

And, let's face it- Trump is likely to fuck up left, right, deep & repeatedly in a highly offensive fashion before we get to the election. We'll be lucky if he doesn't blow up the world in some way or another.
Click to expand...

*Sufficient verbiage to allow this to post*

https://twitter.com/x/status/1202264300779450368
 
Jhhnn said:
Please. The evidence is entirely sufficient to support the charge. If more evidence were forthcoming Dems would already have it. So just stuff it down Mitch's throat. The less time he has to think about it, the better.
Click to expand...

It's very striking how different Democrats and Republicans fight for their goals. Had the tables been turned, they would have strung it all to the election and voted right before it in the House if they couldn't enforce the subpoenas, and/or they would have attempted to use inherent contempt. Democrats? Let's just drop it all!

IAOR5DMCPJFT3FWHV2HEAC5YFQ.jpg
 
Maxima1 said:
It's very striking how different Democrats and Republicans fight for their goals. Had the tables been turned, they would have strung it all to the election and voted right before it in the House if they couldn't enforce the subpoenas, and/or they would have attempted to use inherent contempt. Democrats? Let's just drop it all!

IAOR5DMCPJFT3FWHV2HEAC5YFQ.jpg
Click to expand...

Because a president that abuses his power and is willing to use his power to help ensure his re-election is a direct threat to our democracy. Stringing it out to win elections would mean putting their party before the country. Democrats, unlike republicans, aren’t traitors, so they do what’s right, not what’s advantageous.
 
Maxima1 said:
It's very striking how different Democrats and Republicans fight for their goals. Had the tables been turned, they would have strung it all to the election and voted right before it in the House if they couldn't enforce the subpoenas, and/or they would have attempted to use inherent contempt. Democrats? Let's just drop it all!

IAOR5DMCPJFT3FWHV2HEAC5YFQ.jpg
Click to expand...

Seriously. If the remedy for crimes by using the office for personal gain is waiting to an election, what the hell is the point of impeachment existing at all??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top