The Trump Card...

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I can't account for what any particular person "hears".

But it's a safe bet that some folks hearing is more suspect than others.

"BIAS !!!"

:tearsofjoy:



I'm happy to mention "the speech" all day long.

I'm also happy to cite other speeches of the Marmalade Malfunction's where he also sought to incite and normalize violence as a political weapon.



"... mostly peaceful ..."

:tearsofjoy:




He is neither.

He's just a political opportunist, looking for rubes who he dupe for his next con ...
Hey do we know how many people (percentage or actual number ) that were at the speech and then afterwards went over to the capitol and committed an act of violence?
Asking for a friend.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter

That's actually a very good point ... and should not be forgotten.

:tonguewink:
Oh, look! I found yet another left wingnut's opinion on Twitter that I agree with. Must post to EO. Look! See?! I now have validity! See?! SEE?! I don't have my own opinions, I have them assigned to me, but here's someone that agrees with me! So there!

That's how you look. Either trolling or desperate. Maybe both. But I suspect the former. If you have an opinion or something to say, then say it. We don't need neener-neener trolling type Twits or links to other people's opinions just to try and convince us your opinion is the right one and differing opinions are somehow wrong. It's not persuasive, It's a failed argument position. It's lame. And it doesn't further the conversation. It's a troll.
 

dalscott

Expert Expediter
Tell us all about it. The witch hunt that started before he took office. I don't recall any witch hunt regarding Clinton, and certainly no special prosecutor, before he took office.

No question impeaching Clinton was just breathtakingly childish and nakedly partisan, but unlike Trump, Clinton was impeached for violating the law, for perjury and obstruction of justice (both of which he eventually admitted to).

With Trump, they (Democrats) literally invented a Russia Collusion Hoax before he was even elected and began a witch-hunt based on the same. When they impeached Trump the first time it wasn't even for violating the law, it was for "Obstruction of Congress" (not a thing) and for "Abuse of Power" (requires a legal statute to have been violated, which didn't happen). This second time, in an astonishing example of failing to uphold their oath of office, to protect and defend the Constitution, they're "doing our constitutional duty" by ignoring the Constitution and impeaching him for constitutionally protected free speech, setting aside the First Amendment, and going one step further in setting aside the Fifth Amendment, too, with one of the House Impeachment Managers actually saying out loud and in public that if Trump refuses to testify in his own defense that it will be construed as an admission of guilt. Holy crap.

The first impeachment was for illegally trying to get dirt on his opponent from a foreign country and threatening to withhold funds if they didn’t help him.

I don’t have to tell you what the second impeachment is for. He basically “yelled fire in a crowded theater” and instigated a riot. He shoots off his big mouth and hasn’t got the brains to think of the consequences. It’s about time he (and others) pay for those consequences.

As far as Clinton, if it weren’t for that witch-hunt, it wouldn’t have gotten to the point that he had to testify (and lie). It was wrong of him to lie though. While he was President-elect, I remember sitting in my van at 06:45 on a Wednesday morning in downtown Lansing, mi putting a cookie order together for a customer listening to a right-wing congressman being interviewed. He said “we’re going to run him out of office if it’s the last thing we do”.
Your side tried everything including accusing them of murdering Foster. How about that land deal that your side tried to get them on. As it turns out, they did nothing wrong. In fact they lost a lot of money in that deal.
What led up to the lie was an affair in the Oval Office (which was really stupid but not illegal).

Republicans who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The first impeachment was for illegally trying to get dirt on his opponent from a foreign country and threatening to withhold funds if they didn’t help him.
A) You mean like Joe Biden openly and gleefully admitted to doing?
B) I don't think you read the Articles of Impeachment, because trying to get dirt on an opponent wasn't one of them
C) There was evidence of wrongdoing, possible corruption, and potential criminality on the part of a front-runner candidate for the office of the President. It is part of the job description of the Executive Branch of government to investigate such possible illegal activity so the American people can be fully informed as to their choices when voting. The fact that Biden also happened to be a political opponent is a distant second in importance compared to the Oath of Office and the purpose of the Executive Branch.
I don’t have to tell you what the second impeachment is for. He basically “yelled fire in a crowded theater” and instigated a riot.
Both the FBI and the Capitol Police knew in days advance of Trump's rally speech that riotous violence was likely to occur. Pipe bombs planted and found by police before the rally and speech happened was another indication of pre-planned violence. And you think Trump's speech instigated a riot that was planned before he spoke? Interesting.
As far as Clinton, if it weren’t for that witch-hunt, it wouldn’t have gotten to the point that he had to testify (and lie). It was wrong of him to lie though.
I asked about the witch hunt that occurred before he was in office.
He said “we’re going to run him out of office if it’s the last thing we do”.
You'd be hard-pressed to find even a single president where somebody in the House and/or Senate didn't say the same thing about them. They said it about Carter, and Regan, Clinton, both Bushes, Obama, and Trump. In fact, they wrote it down as planned agenda with Trump. So, somebody saying that about Clinton is about as unusual as a sunny day in the desert.
Your side tried everything
My side? I was on Clinton's side during all that. I thought then and still think now that what the Republicans did was breathtakingly childish. So childish that I didn't think it could be topped in childishness. Then the Democrats said, "Hold muh beers."
Republicans who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
I think that's good advice for most anybody who lives in glass houses. That's not really a Left or Right kinda thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
The first impeachment was for illegally trying to get dirt on his opponent from a foreign country and threatening to withhold funds if they didn’t help him.

Correct.

I don’t have to tell you what the second impeachment is for. He basically “yelled fire in a crowded theater” and instigated a riot. He shoots off his big mouth and hasn’t got the brains to think of the consequences. It’s about time he (and others) pay for those consequences.

Strong Concur.

As far as Clinton, if it weren’t for that witch-hunt, it wouldn’t have gotten to the point that he had to testify (and lie). It was wrong of him to lie though.

Correct - and a violation of the law he swore to uphold.

While he was President-elect, I remember sitting in my van at 06:45 on a Wednesday morning in downtown Lansing, mi putting a cookie order together for a customer listening to a right-wing congressman being interviewed. He said “we’re going to run him out of office if it’s the last thing we do”.

Perhaps an early indication of the Political Right's unwillingness to lose.

In a democracy - or constitutional republic if you prefer - when one party is unwilling to lose - and is willing to subvert the rule of law by any means necessary - you no longer have either.

Your side tried everything including accusing them of murdering Foster.

Yes - the desperation of the Right to obtain (or hold on to) power is often quite apparent.

The Political Right have a number of problems, not least among them are demographics - due to finally fully embracing being the party of (so-called) "christian" white supremacy - and the (general) public's unwillingness - when they actually understand the game that is being played - to go along with their agenda.

As a consequence of that, they engage in a number of tactics (voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc.) - often under misleading pretexts which are designed to distract - whose sole focus is really obtaining or keeping political power.

For some insights, I recommend Stuart Stevens recent book: It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump

How about that land deal that your side tried to get them on. As it turns out, they did nothing wrong. In fact they lost a lot of money in that deal.

The degree to which right-wingers will go can literally boogle the mind.

What led up to the lie was an affair in the Oval Office (which was really stupid but not illegal).

Yup.

Republicans who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Generally a good idea for anyone.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Perhaps an early indication of the Political Right's unwillingness to lose.

In a democracy - or constitutional republic if you prefer - when one party is unwilling to lose - and is willing to subvert
Ya got the political parties mixed up there. You know how they say the Left accuses the a a Right of doing the very things the Left has already been doing. It's true. The Democrat Party's motto is By Any Means Necessary. And they've proven over and over again in the last 4+ years to be true to that sentiment, and have demonstrated time and again there is no such thing as 'too low' to go when attempting to get what they want. They cast aside centuries of legal norms and constitutional principles to get their way. They have ruined careers and lives simply to get their way. And they're now going after freedom of thought and silencing dissent. Republicans don't do that. Democrats do, with aplomb.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
He's not in office. Not convicted
51BUOnMmzqL._AC_UY218_.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
im·peach·ment
/imˈpēCHmənt/

noun
  1. 1.
    (especially in the US) a charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office.
  2. 2.
    the action of calling into question the integrity or validity of something.
    "the prosecutor's detailed impeachment of the character witness"
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT
Top