Couldn't pay me to live in a fascist control-freak nanny state society like Britain, where people are thrown in jail for Facebook posts.
Attachment 13128
Couldn't pay me to live in a fascist control-freak nanny state society like Britain, where people are thrown in jail for Facebook posts.
Attachment 13128
Attachment 13129
You must have been watching a different hearing. The one I watched had one sane person citing provable facts about the law and three overtly biased partisan hacks who donated to Democrats, who were hand-picked to for their total lack of integrity and willingness to utterly butcher the law, and who were caught repeatedly lying.
Earl (12-07-2019)
Winning will be accomplished when President Trump is exonerated in the Senate.
Innocent and he remains in office for five (5) more years.
Yes, winning and the radical Democrat Socialists lose...again.
Over 500 Constitutional scholars say Trump committed impeachable acts. They are among the best and brightest. At the hearings, there were 3 who said Trump did impeachable acts. Yet rightys trot out the outlier and claim he is the oracle of impeachment. That is silly. You can always find an ambulance chaser and claim he represents the entire law profession. Even this expert equivocated.
Trump only breaks the law and corrupts the Constitution over and over. He did expose a problem though. The founders did not designate punishment for much of what Trump does. They did not anticipate America voting in a scofflaw who would ignore the message they were sending. The other presidents honored the emoluments clause. Trump uses it for toilet paper as he flushes 10 or 15 times.
Cinnabar (12-07-2019), Phantasmal (12-07-2019)
That is probably why the orange malignancy is so concerned with toilet flushing these days...
Trump Loses It And Launches Investigation Into Toilet Flushing
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/12...-flushing.html
BLUEXITA Modest Proposal For Separating Blue States From Red
Dear Red-State Trump Voter,
Let’s face it, guys: We’re done.
It is a tragedy that so much of the work that so many men and women toiled at for so long to make this a better country, and a better world, has been thrown away, leaving us all in such needless peril.
This is why our separation in all but name is necessary.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1409...mp-red-america
Argument from randU fallacy. You are just making up numbers now.
Who are 'they'? Void argument fallacy, extending from the original argument from randU fallacy.
They do not get to declare what is an impeachable act.
Irrelevance fallacy. Strawman fallacy.
Define 'expert'. Buzzword fallacy.
What law? What point in the Constitution? Void argument fallacy.
That he did. The problem of the Deep State and the corruption in the Press.
Why would they?
You don't get to speak for the founders. You only get to speak for you.
You mean like Jackson, who personally benefited from stealing lands from the indians and selling it?
You mean like Bill and Hillary Clinton, who personally benefited from selling rooms at the White House in return for money?
What crime?
Last edited by Into the Night; 12-07-2019 at 06:24 PM.
This is a combination of an ad populum fallacy (this many people agree with me, therefore I must be right and don't have to prove my argument) and an ad vericundium fallacy (this important person or expert agrees with me, therefore I must be right and don't have to prove my argument)...and probably a lie as well.
CharacterAssassin (12-07-2019)
No, SCOTUS has not rejected the Democrat's definition of bribery.
Pretending away the evidence provided will get you nowhere.
Attachment 13159
Bookmarks