Page 13 of 25 FirstFirst ... 39101112131415161723 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 371

Thread: Robot roll call Impeachment

  1. #181 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    President Zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform...and, unlike Trump, may actually be a man of character. Add to that the fact that he knows he must retain the good-will of the United States...and getting involved in the politics of the US might prove, over the long run, to be destructive of that end.

    Not all politicians in this world think only in short-term terms. President Zelensky almost certainly saw through the transparent extortion attempts...and decided not to get involved...or at very least, to delay involvement in what was obviously an attempt to get him involve in Trumpian politics.

    President Zelensky even knew that the investigations were not necessary. He was being extorted just to pretend they were being made...just to make a public announcement that they were being made. There was no question that it was a ruse to help the Trump campaign.

    So...the answer to your question is NO.
    Interesting theory lol.

    I can construct a counter-theory that has Zelensky being oblivious to any extortion attempt by Trump. And my theory would have the advantage of Zelensky’s two public statements that contradict your theory and support mine.

    Which one do you think would stand up in court?
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  2. #182 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,252
    Thanks
    13,539
    Thanked 12,184 Times in 7,628 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    Interesting theory lol.

    I can construct a counter-theory that has Zelensky being oblivious to any extortion attempt by Trump. And my theory would have the advantage of Zelensky’s two public statements that contradict your theory and support mine.

    Which one do you think would stand up in court?
    I doubt either would "stand up in court."

    In any case, if you want to suppose Trump was not trying to extort President Zelensky...go ahead and think it. My opinion is that he was.

  3. #183 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I doubt either would "stand up in court."

    In any case, if you want to suppose Trump was not trying to extort President Zelensky...go ahead and think it. My opinion is that he was.
    To the extent this nonsense is even worthy of a trial I think the jury would have to go with my theory lol.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  4. #184 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,252
    Thanks
    13,539
    Thanked 12,184 Times in 7,628 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    To the extent this nonsense is even worthy of a trial I think the jury would have to go with my theory lol.
    Like I said, I doubt either would "hold up in court." I further doubt that any jury "would have to go" with either of the "theories."

    There are some people who think your way...and some who think my way on this issue. Polls seem to think the split is about 50/50. So I have no idea of why you think your "theory" would be so much more popular to a jury than what I said may be the case.

  5. #185 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Like I said, I doubt either would "hold up in court." I further doubt that any jury "would have to go" with either of the "theories."

    There are some people who think your way...and some who think my way on this issue. Polls seem to think the split is about 50/50. So I have no idea of why you think your "theory" would be so much more popular to a jury than what I said may be the case.
    So now we are subjecting presidents AND the country to impeachments based on competing *suppositions*?

    How did we get here, Frankie?
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  6. #186 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,252
    Thanks
    13,539
    Thanked 12,184 Times in 7,628 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    So now we are subjecting presidents AND the country to impeachments based on competing *suppositions*?

    How did we get here, Frankie?
    One...we are subjecting Trump to impeachment because he has done things to deserve being impeached, Darth. No need for Trump supporters to worry, though, the spineless Republicans in the Senate will not even consider convicting him. He will be acquitted.

    Two...the next time you call me "Frankie" rather than Frank, I will put you on IGNORE. I won't bother to notify you further, I simply will do it. I really would like to have discussions with you, so I hope you accommodate me on this.

  7. #187 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    One...we are subjecting Trump to impeachment because he has done things to deserve being impeached, Darth. No need for Trump supporters to worry, though, the spineless Republicans in the Senate will not even consider convicting him. He will be acquitted.

    Two...the next time you call me "Frankie" rather than Frank, I will put you on IGNORE. I won't bother to notify you further, I simply will do it. I really would like to have discussions with you, so I hope you accommodate me on this.
    My goodness Frank.....oops, that was close lol.

    The ‘spineless’ republicans are the ones trying to put a stop to this insanity. House Democrats are abusing impeachment to try and get rid of Trump—before he gets elected again. *While* they accuse him of election election meddling.

    It’s literally true that Democrats accuse Republicans of what they themselves are guilty of. It’s become an axiom. The only question is whether they realize they’re doing it or not.

    Pelosi herself said impeachment should be bipartisan or not at all. Anyone who knows anything about how the founders felt about impeachment knows it’s true. And it’s that way for reasons that should be obvious. Turning impeachment into a partisan political weapon used against duly elected presidents subverts the will of voters.

    In this case, 63 million of them.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  8. #188 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,815
    Thanks
    301
    Thanked 943 Times in 675 Posts
    Groans
    20
    Groaned 10 Times in 10 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I doubt either would "stand up in court."

    In any case, if you want to suppose Trump was not trying to extort President Zelensky...go ahead and think it. My opinion is that he was.
    The problem is that there is only opinion and no proof.

  9. #189 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    "Originally Posted by Darth Omar
    Interesting theory lol.

    I can construct a counter-theory that has Zelensky being oblivious to any extortion attempt by Trump. And my theory would have the advantage of Zelensky’s two public statements that contradict your theory and support mine.

    Which one do you think would stand up in court?"


    Your theory has the added vice (in addition to ignoring the massive weight of evidence of Trump's attempt crimes) in that it presumes the President of the Ukraine is a moron and doesn't listen to and digest conversation or think like a human, but instead adopts a robotic verbal disentanglement algorithm in which successive sentences and meaning are surgically separated and hermetically sealed from each other.

    Conversational prose is fluid and thoughts relate to one another in temporal space and between the parties.


    In this democracy, our president, in the course of his official duties, asked the ruler of a foreign government to announce a corruption investigation against his political rival- crime committed

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Micawber For This Post:

    Frank Apisa (12-15-2019), PoliTalker (12-15-2019)

  11. #190 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,252
    Thanks
    13,539
    Thanked 12,184 Times in 7,628 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    My goodness Frank.....oops, that was close lol.

    The ‘spineless’ republicans are the ones trying to put a stop to this insanity. House Democrats are abusing impeachment to try and get rid of Trump—before he gets elected again.
    Darth, there is no way "the Democrats" think they can get rid of Trump before the next election, where he may very well be re-elected. They know the spineless Republican senators will acquit Trump even if the charge were that he shot someone on Fifth Avenue and there was video of it. The suggestion the are doing it for that reason is more than just a stretch.




    *While* they accuse him of election election meddling.

    It’s literally true that Democrats accuse Republicans of what they themselves are guilty of. It’s become an axiom. The only question is whether they realize they’re doing it or not.
    I totally disagree with this...but discussing it is not going anywhere.

    Pelosi herself said impeachment should be bipartisan or not at all.
    She did!

    And if you remember...I DID ALSO. I was very much against impeachment at all...but certainly against it unless it was joined by a significant number of Republicans.

    I did what is known as "a change of mind." So did Pelosi.

    My was occasioned by the fact that the extortion became more evident at the same time as the acquiescence of the Republicans become more evident also.

    I became aware that the impeachment was a necessity...even though there might be serious political cost to the side I favor.


    Anyone who knows anything about how the founders felt about impeachment knows it’s true. And it’s that way for reasons that should be obvious. Turning impeachment into a partisan political weapon used against duly elected presidents subverts the will of voters.
    I think not. I think this particular impeachment is exactly what the founders had in mind when they included it in the Constitution.

    In this case, 63 million of them.
    The 63 million will get their opportunity to re-elect this abomination next November. We both know that...and so do all the Democrats who are moving the impeachment along.

  12. #191 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Micawber,

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    I opened the thread before signing in and saw this ignorant post, and thought it deserved my attention to school people on your side
    who are not versed in law.

    You misapprehend "evidence" definitionally to such an extent it appears you believe the only real evidence is what amounts to a confession
    of the accused in the form of a statement that also defines the crime.

    Here is what real evidence is: any fact that tends in reason to make another fact (a fact that is of consequence to determination of the action) (see element) more or less probable.

    That's it^ So ANYTHING that fits that def. is REAL evidence. Now I know you drones are defending your queen bee under attack, so your would not admit it was raining if we were standing in it, but

    if proving it had rained in the morning were the relevant to an offense, REAL EVIDENCE of it, and by that I mean admissible evidence of it would include ALL the following:

    it was cloudy that day,
    there are umbrellas laying around on front porches,
    some people are still wearing rain coats
    there are puddles of water,
    the almanac recorded that it had rained,
    25 people said it rained
    farmer brown is wear golashas
    your goat is muddy
    it rained again that same day
    someone told me that someone told them they were in the rain that morning


    ALL OF IT. Each these is REAL evidence. And the cumulative value of all the uncontroverted witnesses testimony over weeks was damning and
    in a REAL lawsuit would guaranfuckingT a verdict or judgment in the plaintiff's or people's favor.

    Here we had a dozen witnesses testify and documentary REAL evidence and you offered zero. So you can
    say that in your lay opinion you find this or that piece not conclusive, but you cannot say no evidence, of flimsy, or a dearth or thin or not real.

    Just wanted to add some real law to your ignorant right wing troll-for-a-lifestyle loser existence, clown. Now sit facing the corner with your usual duncecap affixed to your
    pointy inferior republican head.

    I wish you were on those House committees so that you could have explained this to the Republicans who expressed the same ignorance of the law.

    And the ironic thing was the number of times they complained about the procedure and said it wouldn't happen that way in a 'real' court of law.

    Proving they have zero qualms about arguing it from both sides of the knowledge issue.

    What hypocrites.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  13. The Following User Groans At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    USFREEDOM911 (12-15-2019)

  14. #192 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    "Originally Posted by Darth Omar
    Interesting theory lol.

    I can construct a counter-theory that has Zelensky being oblivious to any extortion attempt by Trump. And my theory would have the advantage of Zelensky’s two public statements that contradict your theory and support mine.

    Which one do you think would stand up in court?"


    Your theory has the added vice (in addition to ignoring the massive weight of evidence of Trump's attempt crimes) in that it presumes the President of the Ukraine is a moron and doesn't listen to and digest conversation or think like a human, but instead adopts a robotic verbal disentanglement algorithm in which successive sentences and meaning are surgically separated and hermetically sealed from each other.

    Conversational prose is fluid and thoughts relate to one another in temporal space and between the parties.


    In this democracy, our president, in the course of his official duties, asked the ruler of a foreign government to announce a corruption investigation against his political rival- crime committed
    Your baffling bullshit is at least amusing lol.

    Do you possess magical powers to get into Zelensky’s head? Or Trump’s head, for that matter? The call transcript is innocuous. The ‘favor’ was prefaced with things that our country *had already done* for Ukraine and NOT made contingent on anything else. And that should be apparent to anyone who can read on the 7th grade level.

    You can argue that it was improper or unseemly for Trump to bring up Hunter Biden but that hardly rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Then again, it can be argued that Hunter’s relationship with a sketchy Ukrainian gas firm wasn’t an unreasonable topic—at all, really. Trump has only been harping about government corruption since about 2015 or so.

    Add to it, nothing was done by Zelensky—the ‘favor’ apparently went in one ear and out the other. But I expect that goes on quite a bit with our foreign handouts. Ukraine got their lethal weapons that were withheld under Obama; therefore, Russia was prevented from taking all of Europe and invading Great Britain. Everyone should be happy.

    Remind me again what this is all about.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  15. #193 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,252
    Thanks
    13,539
    Thanked 12,184 Times in 7,628 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Chicken View Post
    The problem is that there is only opinion and no proof.
    I've heard a half-dozen former federal prosecutors say that most of the convictions in their courts for extortion...were obtained with less "proof."

    Trump attempted to extort President Zelensky. The evidence all points to that...and I feel the evidence is sufficient to be considered "beyond a reasonable doubt."

    If you don't...then you don't.

  16. #194 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Darth,

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    Speaking of evidence, the proof is in the pudding.

    Pelosi will likely not hold her caucus together on a vote. What does that *evidence* have to say about the democrats evidence?
    What that says is that representatives sometimes vote against their own beliefs if they think their constituents believe otherwise.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  17. The Following User Groans At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    USFREEDOM911 (12-15-2019)

  18. #195 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Darth,

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    Speaking of evidence, the proof is in the pudding.

    Pelosi will likely not hold her caucus together on a vote. What does that *evidence* have to say about the democrats evidence?
    What it says is that Republicans are partisan and Democrats are not.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  19. The Following User Groans At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    USFREEDOM911 (12-15-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. Prominent Conservatives Call for Swift Impeachment
    By reagansghost in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-10-2019, 08:16 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-24-2019, 10:20 AM
  3. Roll Call...New Member On The Floor
    By Felex Sanders in forum Introductions, User Announcements, Suggestions and General Board Discussion
    Replies: 223
    Last Post: 02-05-2019, 11:42 AM
  4. Dem-controlled House to call for IMPEACHMENT today Jan 3
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-03-2019, 12:55 PM
  5. Texas roll call
    By SmarterthanYou in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 12-18-2008, 11:59 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •