Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

[Gun Nut]

I've seen nothing to make me think Halfies' posts are parodies. There are many millions of people who believe and say the very same things he does. Most of them just don't come to sites like this.

So you've actually heard someone use the term "fuddy duddy" in serious conversation? What year was it?

the year of the "no malarkey tour"

 

[Gun Nut]

No, he just claims that women fantasize about being raped by men:



"A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused."

" A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously."

"The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday — and go to Church, or maybe to their "revolutionary" political meeting."

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8682503/bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy

I imagine you are immediately thinking of ways to discredit this. But, if Trump wrote this....well.....I don't need to tell you what leftists would be saying about it. But Bernie says it and it gets swept away.

Also keep in mind Bernie Sanders was kicked OUT OF A COMMUNE IN 1970 for being too useless. he was using all the stuff and refusing to contribute anything.

So basically, what you're saying is that you had to go back over four decades to find some dirt on Sanders. You got anything more recent? Of course you don't.

The same standard is not applied to Trump. If he said something dumb when he was 7, the media would be all over it. I believe people still call him "Bonespurs" for not going to Vietnam. That was in the late 70's. Guess you guys can't use that against Trump anymore. It's too old.

So his draft dodging bothered you, I guess.. since you don't want that "used" anymore. What else bothers you about him, if you are allowed to say?
You are not even hiding your whataboutism anymore.. you literally begin many of your posts with the actual words, "what about...". It's as if you think that nothing Trump has done or ever will do should ever be looked at or even discussed, at least until every OTHER imaginable possible instance of it is investigated and completely resolved first.
Where does that happen in reality? When you're just flowing with traffic and you are the one getting pulled over for speeding, how does the "everyone else is doing it / why didn't you pull over the other guy" defense work for ya?

 

[Jarhyn]

The same standard is not applied to Trump. If he said something dumb when he was 7, the media would be all over it. I believe people still call him "Bonespurs" for not going to Vietnam. That was in the late 70's. Guess you guys can't use that against Trump anymore. It's too old.

So his draft dodging bothered you, I guess.. since you don't want that "used" anymore. What else bothers you about him, if you are allowed to say?
You are not even hiding your whataboutism anymore.. you literally begin many of your posts with the actual words, "what about...". It's as if you think that nothing Trump has done or ever will do should ever be looked at or even discussed, at least until every OTHER imaginable possible instance of it is investigated and completely resolved first.
Where does that happen in reality? When you're just flowing with traffic and you are the one getting pulled over for speeding, how does the "everyone else is doing it / why didn't you pull over the other guy" defense work for ya?

What I find telling is that, "what about" and "both sides" implies that they know it's wrong. That they think that it's wrong when "the other side did it". Well two wrongs don't make a right.

Maybe if "both sides" do something wrong, then your side has an obligation to be better, rather than merely lowering the bar.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What I find telling is that, "what about" and "both sides" implies that they know it's wrong. That they think that it's wrong when "the other side did it". Well two wrongs don't make a right.

Maybe if "both sides" do something wrong, then your side has an obligation to be better, rather than merely lowering the bar.

Well yeah. Every time I've said "both sides" I am pretty explicit (not implicit) about both sides being corrupt, that they are both wrong, that they should both stop doing what they are doing.

 

[Gun Nut]

What I find telling is that, "what about" and "both sides" implies that they know it's wrong. That they think that it's wrong when "the other side did it". Well two wrongs don't make a right.

Maybe if "both sides" do something wrong, then your side has an obligation to be better, rather than merely lowering the bar.

Well yeah. Every time I've said "both sides" I am pretty explicit (not implicit) about both sides being corrupt, that they are both wrong, that they should both stop doing what they are doing.

So you agree that those murdering car drivers are just as bad as the murdering gun users.. both sides cause death. same same. WHAT ABOUT all the car deaths??? forget any shootings.. don't look there until no one ever dies in or around a car... ever.... look over at the REAL problem of the OTHER causes of death... those people causing vehicular deaths every single day!

 

[Gun Nut]

OK, so I got it wrong. He said, "The polls say." It's still not just him blurting it out.

The polls said he has the most loyal people. HE said that he could do that as HIS way of describing how loyal they are to him. It's not that hard. The key is that he said, "WHERE I could...".. that is the bit of English that says, "What this means to me is..."
For you to be in the realm of correct would require that poll to have asked the question "would you vote for trump even if he shoots someone on 5th avenue". Can you find that poll he was referring to, perhaps?

Regardless.. what matters is that to be a Trump supporter, you have to have a distorted set of "facts"... like, in this example, your "fact" that trump would never have said that.. that someone else said it (people are saying).. or in your case, the "polls" said it.

I think you're really reaching on this one.

No, I am just using basic common sense with common English. You are lying. you are intentionally misrepresenting. Why is the important question at this point. Obviously you want to separate Trump from the statement he made.. blame someone else... I guess you have a problem with what he said, but an even bigger problem with having a problem with anything he said, it seems. That's lying. dishonesty.. being a piece of shit that isn't worth the dirt it stands on... that kind of thing.

What does it even mean to say that "the polls" said something? The "polls" said that some percentage of people indicated they would vote for Trump. I know for a fact that you have no belief whatsoever that the polls said anything else... because you are obviously a liar and cannot be trusted. nothing you say has any value.

 

[ZiprHead]

What I find telling is that, "what about" and "both sides" implies that they know it's wrong. That they think that it's wrong when "the other side did it". Well two wrongs don't make a right.

Maybe if "both sides" do something wrong, then your side has an obligation to be better, rather than merely lowering the bar.

Well yeah. Every time I've said "both sides" I am pretty explicit (not implicit) about both sides being corrupt, that they are both wrong, that they should both stop doing what they are doing.

What did Joe Biden do that was wrong in the Ukraine situation?

 

[Elixir]

What I find telling is that, "what about" and "both sides" implies that they know it's wrong. That they think that it's wrong when "the other side did it". Well two wrongs don't make a right.

Maybe if "both sides" do something wrong, then your side has an obligation to be better, rather than merely lowering the bar.

Well yeah. Every time I've said "both sides" I am pretty explicit (not implicit) about both sides being corrupt, that they are both wrong, that they should both stop doing what they are doing.

What did Joe Biden do that was wrong in the Ukraine situation?

He brought them The Server with the 33,000 buttery males on it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I find telling is that, "what about" and "both sides" implies that they know it's wrong. That they think that it's wrong when "the other side did it". Well two wrongs don't make a right.

Maybe if "both sides" do something wrong, then your side has an obligation to be better, rather than merely lowering the bar.

Well yeah. Every time I've said "both sides" I am pretty explicit (not implicit) about both sides being corrupt, that they are both wrong, that they should both stop doing what they are doing.

What did Joe Biden do that was wrong in the Ukraine situation?

Joe Biden allowed his son to use the untainted *snicker* reputation of the office of the VP of the US as cover for Burisma to attempt to pretty up their overall PR image which was rather tainted. Hunter Biden was not the only political member of the board. I don't believe Hunter Biden did anything wrong... or anything at all. His last name (relative to the VP of the US) was meant to be used as a shield to protect for the corporation and certainly worth the pittance they gave him (relative to their revenue). The bonus issue was a potential presumption of conflict of interest with anything on Ukraine or Burisma that comes across Biden's desk. Even at $50k a month, that amounts to $0.6 million a year.

Trump on the other hand conspired to strong arm an ally's newly elected President to collude with him in order to present a fake corruption investigation (after Giuliani found nothing himself) into one of Trump's political opponents in the 2020 Presidential Election. He did this by using around $400 million in aid to Ukraine, approved by Congress. Did I mention that the President of the United States released the smoking gun transcript?

That any equivalence is being attempted is just stupid.

1) Biden's issue is gray, Trump's is black and white.
2) There is no evidence supporting that Biden's son broke rules, Trump released the transcript proving the accusation
3) The magnitude of money involved is substantial

Moore meet Coulter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

President Trump broke out the thesaurus and wrote Speaker Pelosi a letter.

No... this isn't a joke.

It appears to be a letter that Trump dictated in part, and staffers had to fill in gaps. This is my favorite part.

Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly.

I can imagine people trying to piece together the original text.

 

[southernhybrid]

I just read most of that letter before I saw you had posted that link. The man is totally unhinged!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let's see...

Final: Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly.

Trump's Dictation: You are full of shit! You think Americans are too stupid to not notice how full of shit you are.

 

[abaddon]

Trump's Dictation: You are full of shit! You think Americans are too stupid to not notice how full of shit you are.

Probably "you must be bleeding out of your 'somewhere'" in there too, and other of his presidential euphemisms that make so many Americans identify him as "one of us".

 

[Elixir]

QUESTION

Moscow Mitch says he is not going to allow further witnesses to testify at the circus trial. At least nobody with the first hand knowledge the Repubs are demanding (because they really really want more evidence, saying there's not enough to impeach because he never said "I want a Quid Fucking Pro Fucking QUO!" in public).

Anyhow, the question:
If a vote is taken on the House floor on Wednesday and Trump is impeached, does the Senate automatically gain purvue, or can the House sit on it?

Giving Moscow Mitch total controlof the impeachment narrative at this point would be a terrible mistake IMHO. Cheato is going to continue to ramp up his election rigging activities as long as there is no vote to convict/remove him. The billions of rubles that certain people (named stuff like Firtash and Deripaska might be hesitant to spend otherwise, will certainly be enthusiastically forthcoming for investment in the TrumPutin propaganda machine, voting machine hacking, voter roll alterations etc., as soon as Cheato is crowing about his "total exoneration". I believe he will probably "win" re-election if that is the story from now to November.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Moscow Mitch says he is not going to allow further witnesses to testify at the circus trial. At least nobody with the first hand knowledge the Repubs are demanding (because they really really want more evidence, saying there's not enough to impeach because he never said "I want a Quid Fucking Pro Fucking QUO!" in public.

Anyhow, the question:
If a vote is taken on the House floor on Wednesday and Trump is impeached, does the Senate automatically gain purvue, or can the House sit on it?

I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think Constitutionally the Republicans could do something in the Senate in theory, but traditionally and due to precedents and rules set up in practice they cannot. So, for example the case files and evidence would need to be transferred, but in theory the Russianpublicans could vote anyway. Also, traditionally various House leaders act as prosecutors in the Senate. If they don't show up with those buckets of evidence, a trial could start in theory but could it really? I think the rules would need to be rewritten and too risky to try with chief justice watching close by.

 

[Elixir]

Moscow Mitch says he is not going to allow further witnesses to testify at the circus trial. At least nobody with the first hand knowledge the Repubs are demanding (because they really really want more evidence, saying there's not enough to impeach because he never said "I want a Quid Fucking Pro Fucking QUO!" in public.

Anyhow, the question:
If a vote is taken on the House floor on Wednesday and Trump is impeached, does the Senate automatically gain purvue, or can the House sit on it?

I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think Constitutionally the Republicans could do something in the Senate in theory, but traditionally and due to precedents and rules set up in practice they cannot. So, for example the case files and evidence would need to be transferred, but in theory the Russianpublicans could vote anyway. Also, traditionally various House leaders act as prosecutors in the Senate. If they don't show up with those buckets of evidence, a trial could start in theory but could it really? I think the rules would need to be rewritten and risky to do with chief justice watching close by.

Hmmm. You think, constitutionally, in theory... sounds a little short of totally conclusive.
I guess there's no law (that anyone here knows of) to prevent Moscow Mitch from rounding up his minions and holding whatever ritual devotion ceremony he wants. He can even call it whatever he wants - "The Holy Total Exoneration and Coronation Ceremony" if it strikes his fancy.
But would that constitute an acquittal?

Is this shit going to go on until Trumpism is declared the State religion by SCOTUS?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

President Trump broke out the thesaurus and wrote Speaker Pelosi a letter.

No... this isn't a joke.

It appears to be a letter that Trump dictated in part, and staffers had to fill in gaps. This is my favorite part.

Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly.

I can imagine people trying to piece together the original text.

Just to add on to this post that has a link to the letter...

Here is some fact checking of the letter:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/fact-check-trump-impeachment-letter-to-pelosi/index.html

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

President Trump broke out the thesaurus and wrote Speaker Pelosi a letter.

No... this isn't a joke.

It appears to be a letter that Trump dictated in part, and staffers had to fill in gaps. This is my favorite part.

Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly.

I can imagine people trying to piece together the original text.

Just to add on to this post that has a link to the letter...

Here is some fact checking of the letter:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/fact-check-trump-impeachment-letter-to-pelosi/index.html

Jesus. Even when he takes his time (meaning, gets others to write his shit for him), he gets it profoundly wrong.

 

[Half-Life]

I think you're really reaching on this one.

No, I am just using basic common sense with common English. You are lying. you are intentionally misrepresenting. Why is the important question at this point. Obviously you want to separate Trump from the statement he made.. blame someone else... I guess you have a problem with what he said, but an even bigger problem with having a problem with anything he said, it seems. That's lying. dishonesty.. being a piece of shit that isn't worth the dirt it stands on... that kind of thing.

What does it even mean to say that "the polls" said something? The "polls" said that some percentage of people indicated they would vote for Trump. I know for a fact that you have no belief whatsoever that the polls said anything else... because you are obviously a liar and cannot be trusted. nothing you say has any value.

I just watched the video clip and it certainly looks like he was saying it in jest. He obviously never did it to prove it and we know he never will.

People are so sensitive to comedy these days. I hate the PC world.

 

[Half-Life]

What did Joe Biden do that was wrong in the Ukraine situation?

Joe Biden allowed his son to use the untainted *snicker* reputation of the office of the VP of the US as cover for Burisma to attempt to pretty up their overall PR image which was rather tainted. Hunter Biden was not the only political member of the board. I don't believe Hunter Biden did anything wrong... or anything at all. His last name (relative to the VP of the US) was meant to be used as a shield to protect for the corporation and certainly worth the pittance they gave him (relative to their revenue). The bonus issue was a potential presumption of conflict of interest with anything on Ukraine or Burisma that comes across Biden's desk. Even at $50k a month, that amounts to $0.6 million a year.

Trump on the other hand conspired to strong arm an ally's newly elected President to collude with him in order to present a fake corruption investigation (after Giuliani found nothing himself) into one of Trump's political opponents in the 2020 Presidential Election. He did this by using around $400 million in aid to Ukraine, approved by Congress. Did I mention that the President of the United States released the smoking gun transcript?

That any equivalence is being attempted is just stupid.

1) Biden's issue is gray, Trump's is black and white.
2) There is no evidence supporting that Biden's son broke rules, Trump released the transcript proving the accusation
3) The magnitude of money involved is substantial

Moore meet Coulter.

Fox News was laughing about how "Obama was sending pallets of cash to Iran!! No impeachment! No investigation! Nothing from the Democrats! We all know if Trump did that, Dems would be screaming their heads off!!" The guy was almost in tears from laughing.