Uber Liberal Kulinski points to "CNN Moving the Goal Posts."

[homersapien 11,367]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

So the party of "it's not perjury, it is only sex" during the Clinton years has now decided that we need to impeach for anything and everything going forward? You let the rest of the adults know how that turns out being part of the thought and morals police for the DC Crowd. There is not enough hours in the day to police Washington DC bad apples. If Biden gets elected, do we impeach him for the obvious quid pro quo with Burisma? 

If that is the new standard going forward, i am all for it. But dont tell me, or the American People, that we are actually going to enforce morals and ethics in DC. Aint nobody got time for that. 

I am telling you that we should.

I am telling you it's never too late to start acting on the principled intent of our founders - even if those principles were mythical at the time.

Otherwise, let's just admit defeat and just acknowledge the United States was founded on lies and myth that we have no hope of actualizing.

 

 

[homersapien 11,367]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

So the party of "it's not perjury, it is only sex" during the Clinton years has now decided that we need to impeach for anything and everything going forward?

That's a gross miss-representation of the facts. 

First, I don't know of any Democrats who denied Clinton committed perjury.  And the subject of that perjury is a legitimate consideration in determining the consequences.

Second, withholding security assistance - important for our own security - as leverage to get a foreign government to announce an investigation designed to attack a personal political rival - thus influencing our next election - is hardly just "anything and everything". 

[homersapien 11,367]

On 12/5/2019 at 9:13 PM, AU64 said:

The only benefit I see from all of these investigations is that while the Dems are focused on these "non-crimes" and vague allegations they are NOT spending time trying to take away my freedoms or raising my taxes.  

Two years of basically nothing from the Congress during which time the economy is thriving, unemployment is down and there is relative peace in the world.     Happy Thanksgiving.

1) Are suggesting that withholding congressionally-approved security assistance for the purpose of coercing the recipient country to announce an investigation into a personal political rival for the purpose of influencing the next election is not an impeachable offense? 

2) How about openly soliciting such personal political aid from a foreign country?

[AUFAN78 3,894]

On 12/9/2019 at 11:58 AM, homersapien said:

1) Are suggesting that withholding congressionally-approved security assistance for the purpose of coercing the recipient country to announce an investigation into a personal political rival for the purpose of influencing the next election is not an impeachable offense? 

2) How about openly soliciting such personal political aid from a foreign country?

Investigating corruption is not impeachable, period. It's a duty. That a potential candidate is caught up in said corruption is irrelevant. 

Asking a foreign country to assist in investigating corruption is fine by me and apparently half of America. And of course, I'm not butthurt, so there's that. 

[homersapien 11,367]

10 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Investigating corruption is not impeachable, period. It's a duty. That a potential candidate is caught up in said corruption is irrelevant. 

Asking a foreign country to assist in investigating corruption is fine by me and apparently half of America. And of course, I'm not butthurt, so there's that. 

Asking a foreign government to investigate one's political rival as a condition for receiving military aid IS corruption. That's exactly why he fired Marie Yovanovich - she was an obstacle to the whole scheme.

The spin that Trump was interested in investigating corruption in general is absurd.  You have to be a total fool to buy into such a ridiculous assertion.

[homersapien 11,367]

Trump, the corruption fighter. 

 

Judge Says Trump Must Pay $2 Million Over Misuse Of Foundation Funds

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/07/777287610/judge-says-trump-must-pay-2-million-over-misuse-of-foundation-funds

 

 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Asking a foreign government to investigate one's political rival as a condition for receiving military aid IS corruption. That's exactly why he fired Marie Yovanovich - she was an obstacle to the whole scheme.

The spin that Trump was interested in investigating corruption in general is absurd.  You have to be a total fool to buy into such a ridiculous assertion.

Your CNN spin notwithstanding, I'll stand pat thank you very much! I find your info as garbage for the butthurt, a group which I am not a part of.

[homersapien 11,367]

16 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Your CNN spin notwithstanding, I'll stand pat thank you very much! I find your info as garbage for the butthurt, a group which I am not a part of.

I don't watch CNN.  Unlike you, I did watch the impeachment hearings.

You are a gullible fool with no sense of ethics - a perfect representative of Trump's base.

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

On 12/9/2019 at 11:42 AM, homersapien said:

That's a gross miss-representation of the facts. 

First, I don't know of any Democrats who denied Clinton committed perjury.  And the subject of that perjury is a legitimate consideration in determining the consequences.

Second, withholding security assistance - important for our own security - as leverage to get a foreign government to announce an investigation designed to attack a personal political rival - thus influencing our next election - is hardly just "anything and everything". 

Many Democrats actually stated that it was okay because it was just workplace harassment. You must be one of the very very few. 

[homersapien 11,367]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Many Democrats actually stated that it was okay because it was just workplace harassment. You must be one of the very very few. 

I don't think that's true.

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

It was a different world in the 1990s. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't watch CNN.  Unlike you, I did watch the impeachment hearings.

You are a gullible fool with no sense of ethics - a perfect representative of Trump's base.

 

BS. You watched it on CNN. 

You believe anything Maxine and company spew. Think about that for a moment. Maxine? LOL

[homersapien 11,367]

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

BS. You watched it on CNN. 

You believe anything Maxine and company spew. Think about that for a moment. Maxine? LOL

**** you.  I don't even have cable. I watched the hearings on PBS. 

You are just another fool who needs straw men - or straw women - to lean on for your idiotic arguments.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

**** you.  I don't even have cable. I watched the hearings on PBS. 

You are just another fool who needs straw men - or straw women - to lean on for your idiotic arguments.

Good grief you're butthurt. And your defense of Maxine charming.