That Impeachment Thing....
|
That impeachment thing....
They can claim it's about "protecting Constitution etc" but mostly it's about distracting Americans of how bad their candidates are.
[+]
If they were that concerned about Trump they would have impeached him as soon as he was elected. Not one year before the next election.
[+]
Impeachment was not meant to be used to overturn an election. But I guess that is what the Democrats want to do.
[+]
I'll laugh really hard if the Republicans do the same thing to the Democrats. Then all the fake outrage by the liberals.
"You can't impeach our President in the same manner we did" !
[+]
Caitsith.Shiroi said: » fonewear said: » Really though. How does impeachment benefit the average American ? You aren't going to make any profit out of it if that's the question since somehow every single issue seems to be about that with the republicans here. Trump is being impeached because he crossed a line asking a foreign government a political favor to help him in the 2020 elections. If this is seen as ok and not a big deal, then you are opening a massive can of worms. Now sure, it won't pass the senate, but it's still the duty of congress to investigate/impeach. Just like Bill Clinton lying under oath, even if it's about a ***. Oh please, the Democrats aren't doing this out of "duty". Obstruction in the Obama years was so heavy that 47 of the nation's 73 IG's signed a letter condemning him and his administration for stonewalling investigations and refusing to turn over necessary documents. And now the Democrats have a "duty" to impeach Trump for obstruction? Get your idealistic head out of the sand and give me a break. This is politics.
[+]
Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Pelosi wouldn't have started an impeachment proceeding until there was actually something impeachable. Um, she just did, soooooooo........
[+]
The funny thing is Trump can't even say his pressure campaign against the Ukraine is actually over. Sure he released the money, but his personal lawyer was literally just in Kiev trying to dig up dirt on the Bidens, and Trump was touting it. Whats that all about?
[+]
fonewear said: » Like or hate Trump he is still our President. And you should want him to succeed. If you want him to fail you probably have some sort of mental disorder. Or are very petty. He's an operative of the Canadian government, of course he wants the US President to fail, all the better to push his nations agenda. Bahamut.Ravael said: » They obstructed Hillary from taking the throne and abused his power by leading an economic boom.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Pelosi wouldn't have started an impeachment proceeding until there was actually something impeachable. Um, she just did, soooooooo........ The police wouldn't charge you with a crime unless you committed that crime. Lets think about that mind set for a minute and realize what it means to give those folks power.
[+]
Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Yes they are. There are two articles drawn up. One for obstruction, one for abuse of power. The impeachment started because of the abuse of power, the obstruction part is because they did not comply with subpeonas on that investigation. So no, the impeachment proceeding did not start because of obstruction. Moving the goalposts doesn't help your case. Obstruction is obstruction, and Trump hasn't obstructed any more than the last president, but that is still half of the Democrat's case here. It's worth noting that the Democrats have been abusing their power to bring forth an abuse of power impeachment article. "Duty" was never a part of it. If their core constituents were against it, their "duty" would have been abandoned for political expedience in a heartbeat.
[+]
It amazes me that anyone could still think that things like this could happen in a vacuum, especially when nearly everyone involved is a politician. Even in public matters of law, politics often play a huge role in which cases get prosecuted and how heavily convicts get hit. You could commit a crime that gets a low-balled prison sentence 99% of the time only to have a someone in government decide on a whim that they want to "send a message". Boom, max sentence.
Impeachment is the most political procedure imaginable. They didn't "have" to do this. They want Trump gone. It's literally that simple.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Yes they are. There are two articles drawn up. One for obstruction, one for abuse of power. The impeachment started because of the abuse of power, the obstruction part is because they did not comply with subpeonas on that investigation. So no, the impeachment proceeding did not start because of obstruction. Moving the goalposts doesn't help your case. Obstruction is obstruction, and Trump hasn't obstructed any more than the last president But this has nothing to do with the last president. When a person is charged with a crime, there is no legitimate defense that is based on other people's similar or same actions. There are 15k+ murders annually in the US, but a person charged with that crime cannot use the defense that others are murdering too. That is not logical thinking. The obstruction article I believe is due to Trump ordering his staff to ignore subpoenas from Congress. That's about as obstructing as one can get.
[+]
[+]
Ragnarok.Ozment said: » There are 15k+ murders annually in the US, but a person charged with that crime cannot use the defense that others are murdering too. Thanks, Sherlock, but you're missing the point again. The argument is about Shi's faulty claim that the Democrats are impeaching out of duty instead of for political reasons. Which, on one hand, is hilariously naive, and on the other hand is disproven by the way they have handled situations where their own people committed similar offenses.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Thats not the same as ignoring Congressional subpoenas. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Ragnarok.Ozment said: » There are 15k+ murders annually in the US, but a person charged with that crime cannot use the defense that others are murdering too. Thanks, Sherlock, but you're missing the point again. The argument is about Shi's faulty claim that the Democrats are impeaching out of duty instead of for political reasons. Which, on one hand, is hilariously naive, and on the other hand is disproven by the way they have handled situations where their own people committed similar offenses. I wasn't referring to the discussion between you and Shi, nor do I care. I was referring to your claim that 'Trump hasn't obstructed any more than the last president' which isn't a legitimate defense in the impeachment process. Are you able to carry on a discussion minus the descriptive name calling? I know you are frustrated, but that behavior adds nothing of substance.
[+]
[+]
Ragnarok.Ozment said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Ragnarok.Ozment said: » There are 15k+ murders annually in the US, but a person charged with that crime cannot use the defense that others are murdering too. Thanks, Sherlock, but you're missing the point again. The argument is about Shi's faulty claim that the Democrats are impeaching out of duty instead of for political reasons. Which, on one hand, is hilariously naive, and on the other hand is disproven by the way they have handled situations where their own people committed similar offenses. I wasn't referring to the discussion between you and Shi, nor do I care. I was referring to your claim that 'Trump hasn't obstructed any more than the last president' which isn't a legitimate defense in the impeachment process. Are you able to carry on a discussion minus the descriptive name calling? I know you are frustrated, but that behavior adds nothing of substance. ? When you add something of substance to a conversation, I will consider your request. For example, everything I posted was in direct reference to Shi's claim. I was not making the statement as an overall defense against impeachment. You cherry-picked a statement and made an incredibly obvious point that added nothing to the actual discussion, as evidenced by the fact that you failed yet again to quote a complete chain before responding to it.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Ragnarok.Ozment said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Ragnarok.Ozment said: » There are 15k+ murders annually in the US, but a person charged with that crime cannot use the defense that others are murdering too. Thanks, Sherlock, but you're missing the point again. The argument is about Shi's faulty claim that the Democrats are impeaching out of duty instead of for political reasons. Which, on one hand, is hilariously naive, and on the other hand is disproven by the way they have handled situations where their own people committed similar offenses. I wasn't referring to the discussion between you and Shi, nor do I care. I was referring to your claim that 'Trump hasn't obstructed any more than the last president' which isn't a legitimate defense in the impeachment process. Are you able to carry on a discussion minus the descriptive name calling? I know you are frustrated, but that behavior adds nothing of substance. ? When you add something of substance to a conversation, I will consider your request. For example, everything I posted was in direct reference to Shi's claim. I was not making the statement as an overall defense against impeachment. You cherry-picked a statement and made an incredibly obvious point that added nothing to the actual discussion, as evidenced by the fact that you failed yet again to quote a complete chain before responding to it. No, I quoted the entire chain, everything in context...look again. Help me understand though, the comment 'Trump hasn't obstructed any more than the last president' means one thing in your conversation with Shi, yet something different when said to someone else? I just want to get it correct, so I can post up to your standards. Thanks! Viciouss said: » I don't remember Obama ignoring Congressional subpoenas? Fast and Furious says hello...
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.