The Red Wave (Tsunami) in two weeks

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

I provided definitions from different sources not refutations.

The impeachment sources were the Oxford dictionary and senate.gov to be precise.

The indictment definitions were from USDOJ.

Roger that.

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

Homer used the quotes for a reason. They're analogous.

The democrats "indicted" him in the sense that they issued a formal accusation of wrongdoing. Now impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. Rather, it's political one. 

And that's really the best they could do. The democrats can't ask the DOJ to indict Trump. The taint that would put on the process, whoo boy. 

Exactly. 

You described it perfectly.  They are essentially the same thing, only one relates to criminality and the other relates to a political process for removing someone from office. 

Democrats did all they can do (legally) by impeaching him - the functional equivalent of indictment. (After all, that is the actual point at issue - stopping Trump. )

So for 78 to insist Democrats "failed to indict" is wrong. They did "indict" him, only the Republicans refused to "convict" him which is done by vote. 

Also, to say indictment and impeachment "are quite different in principal"  is clearly wrong.  They are identical in principle, even if they apply to different spheres of government. 

78 turned this into a pedantic argument of semantics,  because he's just flat out wrong on his initial claim that Democrats failed to indict, as well as the claim indictment and impeachment are "different in principle".

0 for 2. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,911]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Exactly.  You described it perfectly.  They are essentially the same thing, only one relates to criminality and the other relates to a political process for removing someone from office. 

Democrats did all they can do (legally) by impeaching him - the functional equivalent of indictment. (After all, that is the actual point at issue - stopping Trump. )

So for 78 to insist Democrats "failed to indict" is wrong. They did "indict" him, only the Republicans refused to "convict" him which is done by vote. 

Also, to say "they are quite different in principal"  is clearly wrong.  They are identical in principle, even if they apply to different spheres of government. 

He's turned this into a pedantic argument of semantics,  because 1) he's just flat out wrong on the initial claim as well as 2)'indictment' and 'impeachment' are "different in principle".

0 for 2. 

 

 

 

 

I quoted the Senate and DOJ. You spoke for yourself. Why say more? 

[homersapien 11,393]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

I quoted the Senate and DOJ. You spoke for yourself. Why say more? 

To cut through your pedantic obfuscation, of course.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

To cut through your pedantic obfuscation, of course.

But yes, of course that's what it was. 

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Which is the point. Thanks! 

What is your point exactly?

I forget.

 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What is your point exactly?

I forget.

 

Shocking. 

No doubt Trump went about things crudely during his tenure. The so-called indictment you speak of was a political show shot down in the senate. 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

"Went about things crudely"

😆 LOL!

Using American foreign policy to attack political opponents is pretty crude allright. As well as being a legitimate reason to impeach.

What a MAGA cultist you are!

Edited November 15, 2022 by homersapien

[AUDub 11,158]

16 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Shocking. 

No doubt Trump went about things crudely during his tenure. The so-called indictment you speak of was a political show shot down in the senate. 

 

Y'all want it both ways.

You want to say the dems, doing the only thing available to them, were motivated by pure partisanship. At the same time you want to chastise them for not doing enough. 

It's weird. 

[homersapien 11,393]

As with any cultist, logic is not their strong point.

Edited November 15, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

18 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Y'all want it both ways.

You want to say the dems, doing the only thing available to them, were motivated by pure partisanship. At the same time you want to chastise them for not doing enough. 

It's weird. 

Two different phases on this one.  During the first impeachment, it was purely partisan politics.  The 2nd impeachment was rushed and Ill conceived.

Now, I hope they take their time and get it right………

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

38 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Two different phases on this one.  During the first impeachment, it was purely partisan politics.  The 2nd impeachment was rushed and Ill conceived.

Now, I hope they take their time and get it right………

 

If you dislike Trump so much, why do you place more blame on democrats for not "doing enough" to stop him than you do on all the Republicans who supported Trump and gave him leadership of you're party? 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

3 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

If you dislike Trump so much, why do you place more blame on democrats for not "doing enough" to stop him than you do on all the Republicans who supported Trump and gave him leadership of you're party? 

 

Again, for the people in the back, while he was President he did some good things despite the press and Democrat interference.  Why stop him because of a largely partisan impeachment?  However, after the 2020 election and his reaction, things changed for me. ME. I do not control the Republican Party.  I do not *blame* the Democrats for not doing enough, but I was hoping something that y’all are doing would stick.  It hasn’t.  Therefore, it will be up to the Republicans going forward.

Trump will probable announce his intention to run for the 2024 nomination today and that is where I, for awhile, have hoped someone else will win the nomination.

I doubt I will rail on the Republicans who are afraid of Trump as many of you have not railed on Biden for his blunders.  Just the way it is.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Today is the day Republicans take back the party.  HUUUGE announcement.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I doubt I will rail on the Republicans who are afraid of Trump as many of you have not railed on Biden for his blunders.

That is a powerful statement about the basis of your thinking and behavior.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Today is the day Republicans take back the party.  HUUUGE announcement.

Good thing I hadn't been drinking my coffee

[icanthearyou 4,463]

8 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Good thing I hadn't been drinking my coffee

Darn.  My timing is off.  Got to work on that.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

On 10/25/2022 at 9:29 AM, aubiefifty said:

how fitting with all that blood you repubs have on your hands...............

Please tell me, what blood do Republicans have on their hands ?

[aubiefifty 16,822]

6 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Please tell me, what blood do Republicans have on their hands ?

the kind that will not wash off and will stain their hands forever.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

16 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

the kind that will not wash off and will stain their hands forever.

So, you don't have an example ?  Not one ?

[aubiefifty 16,822]

2 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

So, you don't have an example ?  Not one ?

dude you read just like i do. you can keep your head in the sand all you want. if you want to act like you do not know then you are trolling or not very smart. i am not going to keep reposting all the crap your side has done. the fact you even need an answer is a joke. you would be better off excepting all the crap that happened and learning from your mistakes but you want to remain in denial. have fun with that.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

dude you read just like i do. you can keep your head in the sand all you want. if you want to act like you do not know then you are trolling or not very smart. i am not going to keep reposting all the crap your side has done. the fact you even need an answer is a joke. you would be better off excepting all the crap that happened and learning from your mistakes but you want to remain in denial. have fun with that.

Dude, I'm asking for only ONE example and you can't cite just ONE ?  You are hurling a serious accusation without evidence then.

[aubiefifty 16,822]

2 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Dude, I'm asking for only ONE example and you can't cite just ONE ?  You are hurling a serious accusation without evidence then.

they are not accusations when they have been proven. i am done with this. i already told you my stance. ARE YOU STUPID? i do not think so. quit acting like it.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

they are not accusations when they have been proven. i am done with this. i already told you my stance. ARE YOU STUPID? i do not think so. quit acting like it.

Okay, so that's a big NO, that you don't have just ONE example of how Republicans have blood on their hands ?  Just ONE ?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

14 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

they are not accusations when they have been proven. i am done with this. i already told you my stance. ARE YOU STUPID? i do not think so. quit acting like it.

You have typed around 100 words without really saying anything. You could have expressed ONE simple example with all that typing, but you haven't, which makes me believe you to be disingenuous.  Just ONE example, pretty please ?