Opinion: Trump’s Senate impeachment trial won’t be a waste of time

[Leftfield 2,636]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, unless you have proof of a conspiracy, in this case, it’s just emotion.

What does a conspiracy have to do with this? From a legal standpoint It doesn't matter what his intentions were, only his words and actions that were constantly aimed at sowing distrust in the system and the government, and using increasingly aggressive and even violent rhetoric to rally like-minded people to his cause.

Keep calling it emotion. You seem to confuse emotion with logic very easily. Explains a lot.

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Free speech does not include a provision that the speech has to be true. 

No, but like any speech it is no longer protected when it leads to illegal acts.

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

 Trump has little credibility left and was voted out of office for that very reason.  In essence he was already impeached by the citizens of the United States. 

And yet he still has a ridiculous level of influence over millions of people and a sizable portion of the Republicans in Congress. 

Let's also not forget there is a very good chance he would still be President if not for the pandemic.

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Anything else is vindictive politics that will turn around and bite the Dems in the a$$.

Would you agree with this if there were "proof" (as you define it) of a conspiracy he hatched in order to stay in power?

I simply don't understand the thinking that, since he's out of office, he should not be held to account for his actions while he was there. It sends a message to future office holders that there are no standards that they will be held to.

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

I know it was horrifying (emotional) to see the Capitol being stormed, but there is little, if any, proof Trump took part in it by just the words he spoke.

There is proof, you just refuse to see it. Just because he didn't know exactly what was going to happen does not mean he was not responsible. It's the exact same thing as if someone had yelled "fire" as a joke to have fun seeing everyone scramble. If someone was trampled and killed, the person who yelled fire is responsible.

The biggest question in all this was already asked by @homersapien: Would the riot have happened if Trump had conceded the election? The answer to that is all you need to know.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,926]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

1) Why exactly did MAGA rioters assault the capitol?

2) Who planted this idea in their head (for months and months)?

 

You are a perfect example of a cultist.  Actual reality has no standing when pitted against the "reality" of your delusions.

1), You would have to ask the rioters that assaulted the Capitol that question. Even then, research would have to be done to verify any answer they gave.  A tall task to have that done by next Monday.  We don’t want a rush to judgment, do we?

2), I have listened to Trump for months about his perception that the vote were fraudulent and didn’t come away with any notion that he wanted to have people storm the Capitol Building.  The term extremist has been used in this situation for a reason.  If anybody can prove this notion then you will have something. 

I believe a cultist will go along with what he/she has been told and make decisions on pure emotion instead of facts.  You might want to look in the mirror.

[CoffeeTiger 5,154]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

.  Trump has little credibility left and was voted out of office for that very reason.  In essence he was already impeached by the citizens of the United States. 

 

To moderates and democrats, yes.

 

To Republicans, Trump is still the most popular and trustworthy figure in politics to them right now. 

Heck, not an insignificant portion of the Republican base would swear on the Bible that they believe Trump is the true president of the U.S. and that Biden is a usurper who committed a coup. 

 

You are trying reallly hard to make average Republicans seem more thoughtful and nuanced than they actually show themselves to be. 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,926]

58 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Keep calling it emotion. You seem to confuse emotion with logic very easily. Explains a lot.

By this logic a Bernie Sanders was responsible for one of his extremist followers for shooting up a Republican baseball practice a few years ago.  Remember, Bernie said the Republicans were trying to kill you with regard to health care.  Seem like violent rhetoric to me, but it’s Democrat so he gets a pass right?  How about all the violent rhetoric Democrats have used when talking about the unrest in the country over the summer?  Are they responsible for the 20+ deaths during the riots?

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

And yet he still has a ridiculous level of influence over millions of people and a sizable portion of the Republicans in Congress. 

Let's also not forget there is a very good chance he would still be President if not for the pandemic.

Yes he does, but does that give the Democrats the right to bar him from running again?  This after all is the only reason they want him impeached.  The pandemic is the only reason Trump isn’t President IMO.  Remember, the only reason Biden received the nomination was the Democrats believed he was their best chance to beat Trump.  That was the Democratic platform; Biden isn’t Trump.

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Would you agree with this if there were "proof" (as you define it) of a conspiracy he hatched in order to stay in power?

I simply don't understand the thinking that, since he's out of office, he should not be held to account for his actions while he was there. It sends a message to future office holders that there are no standards that they will be held to.

Absolutely, if there was proof that he hatched such a plan he should be hung for treason.

I don’t understand the thinking of the Democrats that believe impeachment is a cumulative thing.  There is a charge for each impeachment attempt.  Are prior bad acts permissible in an impeachment?

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Would the riot have happened if Trump had conceded the election? The answer to that is all you need to know.

The answer is, no there would not have been a riot, but that is too simplistic of an answer.  

[I_M4_AU 7,926]

8 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

To moderates and democrats, yes.

So this gives the Democrats the right to ban him from running for public office?  That would be like the Democrats not allowing a Republican Representative on a committee because she has differing views.   That would go against the norms.

Is this where we are headed?  The Majority get to oppose their will on the Minority?  That God for the filibuster.

13 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

You are trying reallly hard to make average Republicans seem more thoughtful and nuanced than they actually show themselves to be. 

I am the average Republican, you seem to think the average Republican is what you read about in the bias news media.

[CoffeeTiger 5,154]

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

I am the average Republican, you seem to think the average Republican is what you read about in the bias news media.

I'm active on Facebook. 90% of all my facebook friends are self described Republican Conservatives. I also follow and fairly regularly read conservative outlets like the Babylon Bee, Dennis Prager, and Chad Prather. 

 

I don't get these views from liberal media outlets I get them from regularly reading comments and articles from Conservative Republicans themselves.  

 

You'd be considered a socialistic RINO to many of the Republicans I see and know of. There are of course those conservatives who ARE more nuanced in their thinking and have actual logical arguments to back up their beliefs, but those types of conservatives are not the vocal portion of the party and they certainly arent the portion that is guiding Republican policy or leadership.

[I_M4_AU 7,926]

4 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I'm active on Facebook. 90% of all my facebook friends are self described Republican Conservatives. I also follow and fairly regularly read conservative outlets like the Babylon Bee, Dennis Prager, and Chad Prather. 

 

I don't get these views from liberal media outlets I get them from regularly reading comments and articles from Conservative Republicans themselves.  

 

You'd be considered a socialistic RINO to many of the Republicans I see and know of. There are of course those conservatives who ARE more nuanced in their thinking and have actual logical arguments to back up their beliefs, but those types of conservatives are not the vocal portion of the party and they certainly arent the portion that is guiding Republican policy or leadership.

FB is ridiculous as most just what to get a rise out of their posts.  I listen to conservative outlets and most preach their views based upon what they see and not overly radical IMO.  These outlets admittedly bias which is more than I can say about the CNNs and MSNBCs of the world that try to pass themselves off a objective.

Each party has those vocal minority (or so it used to be), but in this world of shock and awe posting, who knows where each party lies?

[Leftfield 2,636]

21 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

By this logic a Bernie Sanders was responsible for one of his extremist followers for shooting up a Republican baseball practice a few years ago.  Remember, Bernie said the Republicans were trying to kill you with regard to health care.  Seem like violent rhetoric to me, but it’s Democrat so he gets a pass right?  How about all the violent rhetoric Democrats have used when talking about the unrest in the country over the summer?  Are they responsible for the 20+ deaths during the riots?

You made this comparison before. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. First of all, I believe what Bernie said (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the Republican proposals would end up killing a lot of people, not that Republicans were trying to kill people. That's a significant difference. Secondly, he never said anything to the effect of "using strength" or marching to government buildings to make sure bills weren't passed, or "joked" about harming public officials.

There were many people who spoke irresponsibly during the riots, and I do not agree with violent protest. You would have to give me a specific example for me to know if they had anything to do with any deaths. 

 

28 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes he does, but does that give the Democrats the right to bar him from running again?  This after all is the only reason they want him impeached. 

Once again you keep pushing the narrative that he's only being Impeached because Democrats don't want him to run again. First of all, even if that were so, so what? They would still need the votes for it to happen, so clearly a number of Republicans would need to agree. Do you think he is actually fit for the office or deserves that opportunity?

Secondly, while I'm certain one of the factors is that Democrats don't want him to be able to run again, the reason he's being Impeached is the reason we've gone over time-and-again in multiple threads. You keep ignoring that and trying to change the argument.

 

33 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t understand the thinking of the Democrats that believe impeachment is a cumulative thing.  There is a charge for each impeachment attempt.  Are prior bad acts permissible in an impeachment?

This makes no sense at all. Why should an impeachment not be allowed for cumulative acts? People have been speaking out against Trump's lies and rhetoric for years, and in my opinion it was worthy of impeachment even before the riot because of the damage it was doing to trust in our government, but Democrats had to consider whether they would be able to successfully convict. Until the riot, there never would have been enough Republicans to vote against Trump, as evidenced by the fact that there probably still aren't. Your argument that impeachment can't involve cumulative acts goes back to your strategy of focusing on details to avoid the overall picture.

You also seem to still be lumping me in with Democrats. I am not and never have been a Democrat (though the modern Republican Party is doing its very best to push me that way).

 

42 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The answer is, no there would not have been a riot, but that is too simplistic of an answer.  

Why?

 

[I_M4_AU 7,926]

16 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

There were many people who spoke irresponsibly during the riots, and I do not agree with violent protest. You would have to give me a specific example for me to know if they had anything to do with any deaths.

 

16 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Why?

Jacob Blake’s lawyer said from day one that he was unarmed when the police shot him.  That turned out to be untrue.  He had a knife that he admitted to several months later.  Is Blake’s lawyer (who has spread falsehoods before) responsible for the deaths that occurred in Kenosha due to the rioting or was it the 17 year old that brought an AR-15 to a protest to protect property?  Would one have happened without the other?

Blake’s lawyer had no knowledge of the 17 year old, but one could draw a conclusion that the falsehood spread by him would cause unrest and foreseen death.

25 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Once again you keep pushing the narrative that he's only being Impeached because Democrats don't want him to run again. First of all, even if that were so, so what? They would still need the votes for it to happen, so clearly a number of Republicans would need to agree. Do you think he is actually fit for the office or deserves that opportunity?

Secondly, while I'm certain one of the factors is that Democrats don't want him to be able to run again, the reason he's being Impeached is the reason we've gone over time-and-again in multiple threads. You keep ignoring that and trying to change the argument.

I don’t think, after the rhetoric he spewed after it was obvious he wasn’t going to allow it to go through the court system, that he should run for office.  He can influence who might run and put his weight behind some candidate, but probably should not run.  Saying that, he should not be denied the right to run if he chooses.  It would not be good for the party, but the Dems should not dictate that.

I’m not ignoring the reason, I just don’t agree that it rises to the level of impeachment.

37 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

This makes no sense at all. Why should an impeachment not be allowed for cumulative acts? People have been speaking out against Trump's lies and rhetoric for years, and in my opinion it was worthy of impeachment even before the riot because of the damage it was doing to trust in our government, but Democrats had to consider whether they would be able to successfully convict. Until the riot, there never would have been enough Republicans to vote against Trump, as evidenced by the fact that there probably still aren't. Your argument that impeachment can't involve cumulative acts goes back to your strategy of focusing on details to avoid the overall picture.

You also seem to still be lumping me in with Democrats. I am not and never have been a Democrat (though the modern Republican Party is doing its very best to push me that way).

The Democrats impeached Trump for the call to the Ukrainian President and was found not guilty, so they can’t use any of that rhetoric in this new impeachment.  They used that up, so that leaves just the last year to try to impeach.  The impeachment charge was only for the insurrections and not other bad acts as you see it.  If the Democrats believed there was enough evidence of Trump lies and damaging the trust in our government they would have included them in the impeachment charges.  Trump preaching his belief that you can’t trust the press and the Democrats is not distrust in our government, it is campaigning.

I have tried to use the word Democrat in describing their actions, if I used *you* it wasn’t meant.  Sorry.

The last two elections have been voted between the lesser of two evils.  Both times we got the devil we didn’t know and both times it appears we have swapped one dictator for another.  Over 40 EOs in two weeks is insane.  Where is the legislative branch.  Where is the *normalcy* that was promised?

[Leftfield 2,636]

29 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The Democrats impeached Trump for the call to the Ukrainian President and was found not guilty, so they can’t use any of that rhetoric in this new impeachment.  They used that up, so that leaves just the last year to try to impeach.  The impeachment charge was only for the insurrections and not other bad acts as you see it.  If the Democrats believed there was enough evidence of Trump lies and damaging the trust in our government they would have included them in the impeachment charges.  Trump preaching his belief that you can’t trust the press and the Democrats is not distrust in our government, it is campaigning.

What on Earth does the first impeachment have to do with the second? How can you say that it dismissed everything Trump said about election fraud until this past year (as if that by itself wasn't more than enough, anyway)? The first impeachment had nothing to do with his lies about election fraud.

You are wrong on the impeachment charge being only about the insurrection. Go back and read it. The specific lines it cites are from the rally before the riot, but they were used as examples of his overall attempts to push the election fraud narrative.

Trump did not just foment distrust in the press and Democrats. He aggressively attacked anyone who dared to disagree with him, including Republicans, as being "establishment" that didn't listen to the people and were only interested in themselves and their own power. He also touted himself as the only one who could "save the country". I'd say that's pretty much the definition of sowing distrust.

 

[homersapien 11,423]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

1), You would have to ask the rioters that assaulted the Capitol that question. Even then, research would have to be done to verify any answer they gave.  A tall task to have that done by next Monday.  We don’t want a rush to judgment, do we?

2), I have listened to Trump for months about his perception that the vote were fraudulent and didn’t come away with any notion that he wanted to have people storm the Capitol Building.  The term extremist has been used in this situation for a reason.  If anybody can prove this notion then you will have something. 

I believe a cultist will go along with what he/she has been told and make decisions on pure emotion instead of facts.  You might want to look in the mirror.

We need to ask the rioters why they did it?  Seriously? 

Listening to their statements, reading their signs isn't enough? 

The fact they congregated and attacked the formal congressional procedure of validating the election results was just coincidence?   Why do you suppose they called Pence a traitor?

Your arguments are straight out of Bizzarro world - an intellectual insult to every thinking person on this forum.  Yeah, we need to "research" the reason they attacked the capitol.

Trump has sole responsibility for creating this insurrection.  He alone created the idea of that he could not lose unless the election was fraudulent and continued to push the idea of a "stolen" election long after each and all accusations of illegal activity by any given state electoral commission was debunked in the courts. 

He could have absolutely prevented the riot before it occurred - and possibly stopped it after it started - by simply conceding he lost the election fair and square.

You have apparently taken the "big lie" to heart and are just as bad as any other true believer in the cult.  You are either a fool or crazy or perhaps both.

 

 

[homersapien 11,423]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I am the average Republican, you seem to think the average Republican is what you read about in the bias news media.

This is one of the most ironic posts I have seen in a long time.

The "average" Republican is a MAGA if one goes by the typical vote of the Republican congresspersons.  And MAGA = extreme right wing, fascist, white supremacist, vote suppressor.

I will concede there are more traditional Republicans existent, but they are typically "never Trumpers".  (And they certainly wouldn't see a legal restriction on Trump's ability to run again as being a negative thing for the future of the Republican party.)

You are MAGA.  Your arguments demonstrate it.

[homersapien 11,423]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

2), I have listened to Trump for months about his perception that the vote were fraudulent and didn’t come away with any notion that he wanted to have people storm the Capitol Building.  The term extremist has been used in this situation for a reason.  If anybody can prove this notion then you will have something. 

 

‘Be There. Will Be Wild!’: Trump All but Circled the Date

Inside Trump supporters’ online echo chambers, the chaos of Jan. 6 could be seen coming. People posted their plans to come to Washington — and showed the weapons they would carry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-trump-supporters.html

 

Trump promises 'wild' protest in DC on Jan. 6, the day Congress to count electoral votes

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/trump-promises-wild-protest-in-dc-on-jan-6-the-day-congress-to-count-electoral-votes

 

President Trump's Supporters Plan to Protest Election Results in DC on Jan. 6

Multiple groups filed permits for thousands to demonstrate near the White House

Multiple groups have applied for permits for First Amendment activity on that day, and President Donald Trump has called on supporters to descend on D.C. for a "wild" protest.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/president-trumps-supporters-expected-to-protest-election-results-in-dc-on-jan-6/2525212/

 

Jan. 6 protests multiply as Trump continues to call supporters to Washington

Threats of violence, ploys to smuggle guns into the District and calls to set up an “armed encampment” on the Mall have proliferated in online chats about the Jan. 6 day of protest. The Proud Boys, members of armed right-wing groups, conspiracy theorists and white supremacists have pledged to attend.

Pro-Trump rally descends into chaos as Proud Boys roam D.C. looking to fight

Trump, meanwhile, has continued to issue calls to supporters to converge on D.C.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trump-january6-dc-protest/2020/12/30/1773b19c-4acc-11eb-839a-cf4ba7b7c48c_story.html

 

Trump promises 'wild' protest in Washington DC on Jan. 6, claims it's 'impossible' he lost

Trump's campaign has filed a number of unsuccessful lawsuits challenging the election results

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-wild-protest-washington-dc-jan-6

 

Pro-Trump group applies for Jan. 6 rally permit days after President's tweet

https://wjla.com/news/local/pro-trump-group-applies-for-jan-6-rally-permit-days-after-presidents-tweet

 

Trump Encourages 'Wild' Protests in D.C. on Date of Electoral College Vote Count

President Donald Trump is calling for "wild" protests to occur in the nation's capital on January 6, the final date on which he and his most hard-line Republican allies desperately hope to overturn President-elect Joe Biden's victory.

Trump, who twice campaigned on being the "law and order" candidate, is hoping to create chaos in Washington two weeks before Inauguration Day. As he continues to baselessly claim that it's "statistically impossible" he lost, Trump Saturday urged his supporters to interrupt what is typically an innocuous joint session of Congress on January 6 in which they will count Biden's 306 to 232 win among state electoral votes.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-encourages-wild-protests-dc-date-electoral-college-vote-count-1556153

 

A timeline of what Trump said before Jan. 6 Capitol riot

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/11/timeline-what-trump-said-jan-6-capitol-riot/

 

[I_M4_AU 7,926]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Listening to the speeches, reading their signs isn't enough?  The fact they congregated and attacked the formal congressional procedure of validating the election results was just coincidence?   Why do you suppose they called Pence a traitor?

You live on assumptions.  You should do better.

 

22 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You have apparently taken the "big lie" to heart and are just as bad as any other true believer in the cult.  You are either a fool or crazy or perhaps both.

Trump lied about fraud in the elections as his team of lawyers could not bring to court any viable evidence that fraud had taken place.  Now you have him convicted before a trial has even started just because of what you assume is true.  If Trump is found guilty I will accept the outcome.  You have proven you would never accept any outcome that doesn’t agree with your position.  

[I_M4_AU 7,926]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

‘Be There. Will Be Wild!’: Trump All but Circled the Date

Inside Trump supporters’ online echo chambers, the chaos of Jan. 6 could be seen coming. People posted their plans to come to Washington — and showed the weapons they would carry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-trump-supporters.html

 

Trump promises 'wild' protest in DC on Jan. 6, the day Congress to count electoral votes

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/trump-promises-wild-protest-in-dc-on-jan-6-the-day-congress-to-count-electoral-votes

 

President Trump's Supporters Plan to Protest Election Results in DC on Jan. 6

Multiple groups filed permits for thousands to demonstrate near the White House

Multiple groups have applied for permits for First Amendment activity on that day, and President Donald Trump has called on supporters to descend on D.C. for a "wild" protest.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/president-trumps-supporters-expected-to-protest-election-results-in-dc-on-jan-6/2525212/

 

Jan. 6 protests multiply as Trump continues to call supporters to Washington

Threats of violence, ploys to smuggle guns into the District and calls to set up an “armed encampment” on the Mall have proliferated in online chats about the Jan. 6 day of protest. The Proud Boys, members of armed right-wing groups, conspiracy theorists and white supremacists have pledged to attend.

Pro-Trump rally descends into chaos as Proud Boys roam D.C. looking to fight

Trump, meanwhile, has continued to issue calls to supporters to converge on D.C.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trump-january6-dc-protest/2020/12/30/1773b19c-4acc-11eb-839a-cf4ba7b7c48c_story.html

 

Trump promises 'wild' protest in Washington DC on Jan. 6, claims it's 'impossible' he lost

Trump's campaign has filed a number of unsuccessful lawsuits challenging the election results

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-wild-protest-washington-dc-jan-6

 

Pro-Trump group applies for Jan. 6 rally permit days after President's tweet

https://wjla.com/news/local/pro-trump-group-applies-for-jan-6-rally-permit-days-after-presidents-tweet

 

Trump Encourages 'Wild' Protests in D.C. on Date of Electoral College Vote Count

President Donald Trump is calling for "wild" protests to occur in the nation's capital on January 6, the final date on which he and his most hard-line Republican allies desperately hope to overturn President-elect Joe Biden's victory.

Trump, who twice campaigned on being the "law and order" candidate, is hoping to create chaos in Washington two weeks before Inauguration Day. As he continues to baselessly claim that it's "statistically impossible" he lost, Trump Saturday urged his supporters to interrupt what is typically an innocuous joint session of Congress on January 6 in which they will count Biden's 306 to 232 win among state electoral votes.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-encourages-wild-protests-dc-date-electoral-college-vote-count-1556153

 

A timeline of what Trump said before Jan. 6 Capitol riot

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/11/timeline-what-trump-said-jan-6-capitol-riot/

 

Ahhh.  The dog whistle.  I am not a dog so I must have missed it.

[homersapien 11,423]

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You live on assumptions.  You should do better.

 

Trump lied about fraud in the elections as his team of lawyers could not bring to court any viable evidence that fraud had taken place.  Now you have him convicted before a trial has even started just because of what you assume is true.  If Trump is found guilty I will accept the outcome.  You have proven you would never accept any outcome that doesn’t agree with your position.  

I trust my own eyes and ears.  You - on the other hand - are apparently looking for some sort of crazy, convoluted argument to cling to that nullifies the empirical evidence you can see and hear like the rest of us.  That's crazy cult thinking.

And you seem to be confusing an impeachment - which is a political process - with a legal trial.  They aren't the same.  Trump will be "exonerated" by his political followers.  That won't mean he's innocent of fomenting this insurrection.  Every sensible person - regardless of political party - knows better.

(Likewise, just because Republicans failed to convict Trump of asking the Ukrainian president for a "favor" in the form of initiating a bogus investigation of his U.S. political opponent, doesn't mean he's "not guilty".  We all have the empirical evidence on that also, in the form of an audio recording that Trump himself released.)

Like I said, you reside in Bizzarro world. 

[homersapien 11,423]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Ahhh.  The dog whistle.  I am not a dog so I must have missed it.

You call this record a "dog whistle" ?

A timeline of what Trump said before Jan. 6 Capitol riot

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/11/timeline-what-trump-said-jan-6-capitol-riot/

 

Apparently, the rioters of Jan. 6 had no problems understanding it.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,926]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You have proven you would never accept any outcome that doesn’t agree with your position.

 

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

(And BTW, just because Republicans failed to convict Trump of asking the Ukrainian president for a "favor" in the form of initiating a bogus investigation of his U.S. political opponent, doesn't mean he's "not guilty".  We all have the empirical evidence on that also, in the form of an audio recording that Trump himself released.)

I rest my case.

[homersapien 11,423]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

I rest my case.

You don't have a "case" to rest. 

I will concede you're persistent, but persistence in the service of idiocy is not a good thing.

[jj3jordan 2,058]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

We need to ask the rioters why they did it?  Seriously? 

Listening to their statements, reading their signs isn't enough? 

The fact they congregated and attacked the formal congressional procedure of validating the election results was just coincidence?   Why do you suppose they called Pence a traitor?

Your arguments are straight out of Bizzarro world - an intellectual insult to every thinking person on this forum.  Yeah, we need to "research" the reason they attacked the capitol.

Trump has sole responsibility for creating this insurrection.  He alone created the idea of that he could not lose unless the election was fraudulent and continued to push the idea of a "stolen" election long after each and all accusations of illegal activity by any given state electoral commission was debunked in the courts. 

He could have absolutely prevented the riot before it occurred - and possibly stopped it after it started - by simply conceding he lost the election fair and square.

You have apparently taken the "big lie" to heart and are just as bad as any other true believer in the cult.  You are either a fool or crazy or perhaps both.

 

 

_AU you are doing great. If you get Homer to call you "a fool or crazy"...success. He is out of ammo.   Keep it up. He has nothing but horse hockey from Trump haters to spread.

[DKW 86 7,438]

Still: The OP was an OPINION PIECE about the Impeachment of a FORMER President. 
The precedence being set will be very bad. Should a Republican Congress go back and just start Impeaching any Democrat that is likely to run for President? Why not? Can the Republican redo Clinton's Impeachment for purgery etc? Why not?

Bad precedences abound in all this, but those OBSESSED with TDS wont have it any other way. I am old enough to know KARMA is about to rear its ugly head.Will it work? It should. Will it open a pandora's box of other issues? Almost guaranteed.The Democrats learned the Nuclear Option was bad business and loudly said so. And now they are even thinking about doing it again? 

Remember, the party in power always does bad in off year elections. The Dems are even in the Senate and small lead in the HOR. Where will they be in two years?

[bigbird 60,578]

42 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Remember, the party in power always does bad in off year elections. The Dems are even in the Senate and small lead in the HOR. Where will they be in two years?

IMO, they lost both after the keystone EO.

[bigbird 60,578]

On 2/6/2021 at 8:18 AM, bigbird said:

IMO, they lost both after the keystone EO.

I know, @icanthearyou. It really was a bad decision.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

51 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I know, @icanthearyou. It really was a bad decision.

His car must run on magical unicorn farts................

[Zeek 16,660]

Always reminded of why I don't come to this forum. It's an echo-chamber 99% of the time. 

It is a waste of time and if roles were reversed the Democrats would be losing their minds. Look at how they acted like Trump would put Hillary through similar trials and feared he'd do so to all his political rivals. Once again it's the Democrats doing what they accuse others of wanting to do.

Meanwhile we'll ignore the 40+ executive orders in 10 days. Ignore even Wall Street Journal mentioning we'll lost 1.5 million jobs under Biden's wage increase but it'll lift 900k out of poverty (sounds like a bad trade off to me). The problem is the vast majority of media leans left while only one major outlet leans right. Controlling the narrative is too easy when all of big tech and mainstream media are in your pocket. We have open anti-semites on the left who the media never once call out but if someone wants voter ID laws they're a hooded clansmen who should be canceled. Cancel culture, on both sides, is the absolute worse. There are times (this crazy lady in the R party talking about the Jewish people having lazers from space causing forest fires) where people need to be removed from positions of influence but we've moved that bar all over the place.

Regardless, I'm quite done with both sides. Tired of gaslighting. Tired of grandstanding. Tired of virtue signaling. Mostly tired of watching people s*** on our own country and willingly handing over more control and allowing the Federal government to grow and grow. We aren't heading in a good direction and quite frankly we haven't been for a long time (not proud of any president in my life time Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, Trump, and now Biden).