Jpowors

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

55,795 posts in this topic

5 minutes ago, Wokezone said:

 

 Yep totally just trolling liberals.  You sound like you are becoming radicalized.  All or nothing bro all or nothing

I agree with you. Buuuuttttt other people are saying....

mfaulk57158 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thesouphead said:

 

This is the legalese trap that I’ve been warning about.  Bribery wasn’t a criminal offense when the Constitution was written.  They shouldn’t get bogged down in trying to prove all elements of the federal bribery statute.  It’s not necessary.

HolyMoses likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jpowors said:

I agree with you. Buuuuttttt other people are saying....

Yes it's good to have all arguements present.  Echo chambers are bad.  And competing arguments help us better relate to each other and what their beliefs and motives and intentions are and we can pick the best one from it.  You know working through things not all just spewing the same rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

This is the legalese trap that I’ve been warning about.  Bribery wasn’t a criminal offense when the Constitution was written.  They shouldn’t get bogged down in trying to prove all elements of the federal bribery statute.  It’s not necessary.

The Constitution provides, in express terms, that the President, as well as the Vice-President and all civil officers, may be impeached for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, thesouphead said:

Or obstruction or WTF. A desperate party looking g for whatever advantage the can find to regain the WH. But it won't come close to working. 

Trump 2020 Landslide

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

 

 

 

^^^This is what BO has become.  

I’m wondering what Worzone did in his personal life that makes you defend him as :airquote:good faith poster:airquote:

It seems like the board consensus is in the other direction.

mfaulk57158 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wokezone said:

The Constitution provides, in express terms, that the President, as well as the Vice-President and all civil officers, may be impeached for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” 

Yes.  But bribery isn’t defined in the Constitution and there would not be a federal bribery statute making it criminal for another 80-100 years.  That’s the point.  They don’t have to prove the elements of the federal bribery statute that exists today because that statute didn’t exist when the Founders wrote the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Billy Ocean said:

I’m wondering what Worzone did in his personal life that makes you defend him as :airquote:good faith poster:airquote:

It seems like the board consensus is in the other direction.

Still trying to distract and deflect from the BS tweet you posted that lied about what Pete said.  Not falling for it.  

You posted a tweet claiming Pete compared Sanders to Trump.  The article shows that Pete was talking about Bernie SUPPORTERS and how they were disaffected and angry at the system.  Pete was sympathetic to Bernie’s supporters, not attacking Bernie.  

That tweet lied.  And your response to me pointing out that it lied was three stupid memes in a row.  

Address that.

HolyMoses likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

This is the legalese trap that I’ve been warning about.  Bribery wasn’t a criminal offense when the Constitution was written.  They shouldn’t get bogged down in trying to prove all elements of the federal bribery statute.  It’s not necessary.

The Dems have also been saying that this isn't a legal trial and do not even have to show a crime was committed.  They are aware of what you are saying here, but that doesn't mean that they can't say that it was also a crime on top of being an impeachable abuse of power.  It can certainly be both.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WFW can only imagine how bad of a letdown this faux Impeachment will be for the left, after the (following on the heels of) the faux Russian Hoax failure was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Yes.  But bribery isn’t defined in the Constitution and there would not be a federal bribery statute making it criminal for another 80-100 years.  That’s the point.  They don’t have to prove the elements of the federal bribery statute that exists today because that statute didn’t exist when the Founders wrote the Constitution.

Don't forget about emoluments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wokezone said:

Yes it's good to have all arguements present.  Echo chambers are bad.  And competing arguments help us better relate to each other and what their beliefs and motives and intentions are and we can pick the best one from it.  You know working through things not all just spewing the same rhetoric.

Let's break this down.

Whistleblower reports what they believe is improper actions.

Several people have testified under oath that what the whistleblower said is true. One of those being the President's chief of staff.

We know that several of those same people spoke to council apart from the whistleblower because they also felt that something potentially illegal was happening 

John Bolton told his people to get away from it because he suspected it was gonna blow up.

 

And after all that and the whistleblower being exposed by Republicans we find out that he's possibly a Dem and your immediate reaction is.....AHA! You dumb Dems. So despite all the evidence proving that everything he said is true......the real story here is that he might be a Dem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thesouphead said:

The Dems have also been saying that this isn't a legal trial and do not even have to show a crime was committed.  They are aware of what you are saying here, but that doesn't mean that they can't say that it was also a crime on top of being an impeachable abuse of power.  It can certainly be both.

 

 

It can be both, but if they’re going to call it a crime then they have the burden (in the public’s eyes) of proving the criminality of it.  That’s a higher and unnecessary burden that makes it much easier for Trump to defend — a lot of legal experts like Preet Bahara (or Renalto Marioto, I forget which) are saying that no prosecutor would bring bribery charges in this case.  

It muddies the message and it’s unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thesouphead said:

Don't forget about emoluments.

That’s difficult to explain because most people don’t know what emoluments are.  Most people clearly understand what bribery is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Still trying to distract and deflect from the BS tweet you posted that lied about what Pete said.  Not falling for it.  

You posted a tweet claiming Pete compared Sanders to Trump.  The article shows that Pete was talking about Bernie SUPPORTERS and how they were disaffected and angry at the system.  Pete was sympathetic to Bernie’s supporters, not attacking Bernie.  

That tweet lied.  And your response to me pointing out that it lied was three stupid memes in a row.  

Address that.

Pete attended an anti-Bernie meeting of Dem elites and followed it up by comparing Bernie to Trump. You can try to spin it however you want.

I’m just curious why you’re the only person here who defends Worzone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Billy Ocean said:

Pete attended an anti-Bernie meeting of Dem elites and followed it up by comparing Bernie to Trump. You can try to spin it however you want.

False.  Pete never compared Bernie to Trump.  Not a single line in the article has him comparing Bernie to Trump.  I actually posted the entire portion of his comments to the boards.  Here’s the link.

https://nypost.com/2019/04/21/pete-buttigieg-compares-bernie-supporters-and-trump-fans/

And here’s his comments...

Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg compared Bernie Sanders’ supporters with fans of President Trump — claiming that both camps include disaffected citizens who seek to change the status quo.

The 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, was speaking at a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Friday when he drew a parallel between followers of the diametrically opposed politicians, according to the Washington Examiner.

“I think the sense of anger and disaffection that comes from seeing that the numbers are fine, like unemployment’s low, like all that, like you said GDP is growing and yet a lot of neighborhoods and families are living like this recovery never even happened. They’re stuck,” Buttigieg told high school students in in Nashua, N.H.

“It just kind of turns you against the system in general and then you’re more likely to want to vote to blow up the system, which could lead you to somebody like Bernie and it could lead you to somebody like Trump. That’s how we got where we are.”

Buttigieg also tried to draw a distinction between himself and the 77-year-old Democratic socialist from Vermont.

“Part of running for president is you wind up competing with people that you like or appreciated or admired many years back,” he said about Sanders. “I don’t have the same views on everything that he does.”

^^^The tweet you posted was BS propaganda and an outright lie.  You don’t seem to care that you’re posting lies.

Vogelgryff likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

False.  Pete never compared Bernie to Trump.  Not a single line in the article has him comparing Bernie to Trump.  I actually posted the entire portion of his comments to the boards.  Here’s the link.

https://nypost.com/2019/04/21/pete-buttigieg-compares-bernie-supporters-and-trump-fans/

And here’s his comments...

Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg compared Bernie Sanders’ supporters with fans of President Trump — claiming that both camps include disaffected citizens who seek to change the status quo.

The 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, was speaking at a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Friday when he drew a parallel between followers of the diametrically opposed politicians, according to the Washington Examiner.

“I think the sense of anger and disaffection that comes from seeing that the numbers are fine, like unemployment’s low, like all that, like you said GDP is growing and yet a lot of neighborhoods and families are living like this recovery never even happened. They’re stuck,” Buttigieg told high school students in in Nashua, N.H.

“It just kind of turns you against the system in general and then you’re more likely to want to vote to blow up the system, which could lead you to somebody like Bernie and it could lead you to somebody like Trump. That’s how we got where we are.”

Buttigieg also tried to draw a distinction between himself and the 77-year-old Democratic socialist from Vermont.

“Part of running for president is you wind up competing with people that you like or appreciated or admired many years back,” he said about Sanders. “I don’t have the same views on everything that he does.”

^^^The tweet you posted was BS propaganda and an outright lie.  You don’t seem to care that you’re posting lies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

It can be both, but if they’re going to call it a crime then they have the burden (in the public’s eyes) of proving the criminality of it.  That’s a higher and unnecessary burden that makes it much easier for Trump to defend — a lot of legal experts like Preet Bahara (or Renalto Marioto, I forget which) are saying that no prosecutor would bring bribery charges in this case.  

It muddies the message and it’s unnecessary.

Is there a public jury in the impeachment process?  

The open hearings will make the public more aware either way.  Those that are paying attention know what has happened...those who are halfway paying attention are hearing late night comedians and hosts say what has happened...those watching the View in the morning know what has happened.  The issue isn't really explaining it to the public, it's more about if the public cares or not.  The Republicans in congress cared about this sort of thing for decades up until now. Today it's no big deal and we should just look the other way.  I'd imagine the Republican base is going to pretend the same.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Billy Ocean said:

 

Thank for perfectly demonstrating everything I’m saying about this...

I posted the entire article showing that Pete never compared Trump to Bernie.  

You respond to a tweet telling the same lie as the tweet you originally posted...both linking to the article that I posted in full demonstrating that the tweets are false.

Vogelgryff likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, thesouphead said:

Is there a public jury in the impeachment process?  

The open hearings will make the public more aware either way.  Those that are paying attention know what has happened...those who are halfway paying attention are hearing late night comedians and hosts say what has happened...those watching the View in the morning know what has happened.  The issue isn't really explaining it to the public, it's more about if the public cares or not.  The Republicans in congress cared about this sort of thing for decades up until now. Today it's no big deal and we should just look the other way.  I'd imagine the Republican base is going to pretend the same.

 

The public is the ultimate jury for impeachment.  Without strong majority support for removing Trump, there will be no conviction in the Senate.  Persuading the public to support (or oppose) impeachment is the entire game right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

Thank for perfectly demonstrating everything I’m saying about this...

I posted the entire article showing that Pete never compared Trump to Bernie.  

You respond to a tweet telling the same lie as the tweet you originally posted...both linking to the article that I posted in full demonstrating that the tweets are false.

You two should start a new thread for this insanity.  Call it the "Peter Butt" thread, please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now