Grumps

"In impeachment proceedings, the defendant does not risk forfeiture of life, liberty, or property. According to the Constitution, the only penalties allowed to be imposed by the Senate are removal from office and disqualification from holding any federal office in the future." If the above statement is true, then removing Trump from office when he is no longer in office is what is absurd. Are you saying that the primary purpose of the impeachment is to try to keep Trump from holding any federal office in the future? If so, then I suppose it is not as silly as I was thinking.

I don't feel like I am hardly ever nasty anymore. I don't usually take things personally even if they are meant personally. I think this helps me to focus on what others are saying better than I used to because my feelings don't get in my way as much. But it may all be in my head. I really do respect what you say when it seems like you are trying to be substantive. Much of our disagreement is based on my being much more literal that almost anyone on this board. I am trying to be better. Maybe I will succeed and maybe I won't.

You may be right about me. I personally don't think that I post nearly the same way as I used to, but you can see my posts in a much different way from how I can. And I can assure you, if I was content to be where I am then I would not be viewing this forum. And I will add one other thing, and you can absolutely flame me for this one: I don't think that the Capitol building is the very foundation of our freedom and democracy.

So you feel that the impeachment is based more on what he said and tweeted before the rally/riot?

The video shows dem leaders saying that the protests should not stop. What does that mean? Answer, it depends on whether you are a dem or a repub. In the protest over the summer there was a clear distinction made between the people who were protesting/rallying and the people who were rioting and looting. Is that correct? Are you saying that asking people to continue to protest is ok in that case because they were not asked to riot? Absolutely Trump wanted people to come to support him at the rally, just like the dems wanted people to protest. For some reason, there is not allowed to be a

I could just as easily say that I am not surprised that you continue to come down on the side of no accountability for the people who actually committed crimes. I don't care what principled republicans (an oxymoron?) think. I base my opinion on the words that Trump said. I don't hold the organizers of the BLM rallies responsible for the actions of the idiots who decided to loot and burn things.

The effort worked if it was in fact an effort by the POTUS. Why should I not think that it was a bunch of idiots who decided to do something stupid and illegal? In the video I posted there were dems saying that the protests should not stop when the protest were full of rioting and looting and destruction of property. How was this different from what Trump supposedly did? I realize you think I am just playing dumb, but I truly don't understand the difference.

Sorry, that was unintentional. It was a quote of mine in a reply to you. I am not sure why it was attributed to you. Edit: I think I fixed it. Thanks for the heads up!

They should just have a poll and let the people decide whether Trump should be convicted. We don't need no stinkin' laws!

You are correct! That's why I clarified in a later post: "What party plans to have an impeachment trial for a private citizen? Remind me, can you impeach a private citizen?" This is all political. Politics is played this way now and I accept that. I am glad that Trump will soon be out of office. But that doesn't change my opinion that both of his impeachments were without merit.

"Steph Curry for the threeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"

"Here. Inject bleach into my eyes to kill the virus!"

"When you are a star you can do it. You can do anything. Grab them by their tiny testicles."

"Look! I'm finally wearing a mask!"

"Here's my chance of winning back the presidency in 2024."