Current Topics
Organic Socialism
by logtroll
0 seconds ago
The Impeachment of Donald trump
by Jeffery J. Haas
55 minutes 46 seconds ago
Long overdue Satirizing the corporate news media
by Jeffery J. Haas
Yesterday at 11:01 PM
Global warming predictions
by logtroll
Yesterday at 10:20 PM
Pacific Northwest Weather
by logtroll
Yesterday at 10:17 PM
RoundTable for Fall 2019
by logtroll
Yesterday at 07:09 PM
ocean cleanup
by jgw
Yesterday at 06:44 PM
All or Nothing OR My Way or the Highway
by jgw
Yesterday at 06:38 PM
High tech comedy classic
by Jeffery J. Haas
Yesterday at 06:02 PM
FISA Inspector General Horowitz
by pdx rick
Yesterday at 05:34 AM
Dear last-ditch hardcore Trump Nation
by Jeffery J. Haas
Yesterday at 04:19 AM
The Departed - 2019
by pondering_it_all
12/09/19 09:00 PM
Remember Pearl Harbor
by Greger
12/09/19 07:56 PM
A Southerner Moves up North
by Greger
12/09/19 05:59 PM
Duncan Hunter takes a dive.
by pondering_it_all
12/09/19 07:07 AM
Bloomberg: Xi Jinping is not a dictator
by Jeffery J. Haas
12/07/19 06:35 AM
(NYT) I worked for Alex Jones-I regret it
by Jeffery J. Haas
12/06/19 11:55 PM
The Trump/Biden/Ukraine thing
by Greger
12/06/19 06:24 PM
just arrived
by Greger
12/06/19 03:18 AM
"His Name Was Hunter S. Thompson"
by Jeffery J. Haas
12/06/19 02:30 AM
Forum Stats
6286 Members
59 Forums
16757 Topics
292792 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 2 of 62 < 1 2 3 4 ... 61 62 >
Topic Options
#316203 - 10/03/19 12:42 AM Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump [Re: Senator Hatrack]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9590
Loc: One of the Mexicos
What definition of ďallegationĒ are you using?

1:a positive assertion especially of misconduct
Some former colleagues have made serious allegations against him.
specifically : a statement by a party to a legal action of what the party undertakes to prove
2: an assertion unsupported and by implication regarded as unsupportable
_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#316204 - 10/03/19 01:51 AM Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump [Re: Ma_Republican]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 42120
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
The real abuse of power is being foisted upon America by the Dems right now. Stealing an election didn't work for them with Russia, so they invented another sham, and it is eerily similar to the last attempt, make up a story, protect a corrupt Presidential candidate, and make believe they actually believe what they are saying.

Trump requested Russian assistance, Trump received Russian assistance, Trump benefitted from Russian assistance, Trump awarded Russian assistance. Trumpís campaign team met with Russians to get dirt on Hillary and Trumpís campaign Manager gave raw polling data to Russians.

Who stole the election? mad
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#316212 - 10/03/19 04:27 AM Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump [Re: Senator Hatrack]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6975
Loc: Highlands, Tx
OMG!!!!!

Senator, this is precisely why it is so difficult to converse with a conservative.

My comments were not meant to refute, confute or provide argumentative rebuttal. They were meant to point out how ridiculous the comments were with the use of sarcasm and facetiousness.

Now if you want a fact based argument please provide me with the evidence of criminal activity of the Democrat Party in the 2016 vis a vis stealing an election and what crimes a presidential candidate has committed which would evoke an allegation of corruption. When you provide that information I would be more than happy to provide a fact based rebuttal.

The only evidence anyone has seen of actual criminal and unethical activities has been from your cult leader, Mr Trump.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#316224 - 10/03/19 05:21 PM Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump [Re: rporter314]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1655
Originally Posted By: rporter314
OMG!!!!!

Senator, this is precisely why it is so difficult to converse with a conservative.

My comments were not meant to refute, confute or provide argumentative rebuttal. They were meant to point out how ridiculous the comments were with the use of sarcasm and facetiousness.

Now if you want a fact based argument please provide me with the evidence of criminal activity of the Democrat Party in the 2016 vis a vis stealing an election and what crimes a presidential candidate has committed which would evoke an allegation of corruption. When you provide that information I would be more than happy to provide a fact based rebuttal.

The only evidence anyone has seen of actual criminal and unethical activities has been from your cult leader, Mr Trump.
You find it difficult to converse with conservatives is because they don't kowtow to your BS arguments. Twice in this topic you have taken comments out of context. That you have to do that shows the weakness of your arguments. The claim that you were using sarcasm to point how ridiculous the comments, in your opinion, are IS an attempt to refute them.

The Independent While the rigging of the primaries is not illegal it is unethical and contrary to what the DNC claims to be, an unbiased supporter of those seeking to be the Democratic Party's endorsed candidates.
Originally Posted By: The Independent
DNC spokesperson Xochitl Hinojosa, who works under current DNC chair Tom Perez, told Fox News that the partyís official policy is to not take sides during the primaries.
You have not seen the unethical behavior of the DNC either because you didn't look for it or you are a strong supporter of Clinton.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#316226 - 10/03/19 07:47 PM Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump [Re: rporter314]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17185
Originally Posted By: rporter314
This is one of the situations the Founders envisioned.

Once verified the final nail goes in that coffin, but I would like to see the clown show ... Trump supporters ingratiating themselves in the most servile and obsequious ways to throw away what little integrity any would have and certainly lose all self respect for any number of reasons.
As if on cue...

Here is one of the best deconstructions of Trump-Defender Syndrome sufferer's excuses I've read: John Harwood.

Top
#316230 - 10/03/19 08:16 PM Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump [Re: NW Ponderer]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1655
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: rporter314
This is one of the situations the Founders envisioned.

Once verified the final nail goes in that coffin, but I would like to see the clown show ... Trump supporters ingratiating themselves in the most servile and obsequious ways to throw away what little integrity any would have and certainly lose all self respect for any number of reasons.
As if on cue...

Here is one of the best deconstructions of Trump-Defender Syndrome sufferer's excuses I've read: John Harwood.
I see that you are quoting the liberal talking heads again, NW. Apparently you don't believe that Pres. Trump has the right to be defended. If you did you would not condemn someone from defending Trump you would encourage it. To say that someone suffers from "Trump-Defender Syndrome" is to criticize anyone who defends Trump.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#316231 - 10/03/19 08:33 PM Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump [Re: Senator Hatrack]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6975
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
Twice in this topic you have taken comments out of context. That you have to do that shows the weakness of your arguments.

OMG!!! The reason I "take words out of context" is to save bandwidth. Is it really necessary to include an entire comment in quotes???? And ... I select the most salient part of the comment as a focal point.

I do not do what conservatives do and select only the parts which reflect your narrative and ignore the facts which actually refute the conservative argument.


Quote:
You find it difficult to converse with conservatives is because they don't kowtow to your BS arguments.

No. Actually conservatives reject the arguments because they reject the facts or the interpretation, neither of which is predicated on BS.

Many sets of facts may be interpreted in different ways. A prime example is the Constitution. So lets examine a set of facts for the BSiness of my argument.

In 2016 the FBI was more than aware the Russians were meddling in the US election. Some of it was brute force and some very nuanced which only came to light after several years of forensic work. Early in 2016 the FBI received reports regarding two people associated with the Trump campaign who had connections to Russia and claimed Russia had "dirt" on Sec Clinton/DNC.

So I don;t have a question at this point but I do have a responsibility to investigate. Only after an investigation begins does the FBI become aware Russians are stumbling into each other and into Trump campaign workers.

Now at this point I have a question. If you don't have a question, then I may conclude you are a Russian asset, hoping no one notices. My question is, is the Trump campaign in bed with the Russians? If Sec Clinton had Russians, Iranians, Chinese, or Canadians all over her campaign I would have had the same question.

So why are you not concerned??? Do you believe Putin over the IC???? or maybe whatever Mr trump says is the only "truth" you believe?

But let's continue.

Mueller issues a report which says he could not find enough evidence to determine if there was a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians ... and ... he concludes Mr Trump entered into a campaign of obstruction to limit or end the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

I would cite the definition of obstruction but I suspect you would reject every definition as irrelevant or I suspect you would say what Mr Trump did was not obstruction. If we allow what I suspect you believe, then if I were anyone convicted of obstruction I would file an appeal based on an argument you got from Mr Trump.

But let's look at the current Ukraine call. Do I need to cite the whole call? After all I would hate to take anything out of context.

The crux of the call and the only part which is of concern is the discussion of aid to Ukraine and the immediate pivot to a favor regarding a political rival.

So, do you believe when gangsters enter into a quid pro quo they use the words quid pro quo? or do you think they implicitly understand the capo when he says he has an offer you can't refuse? So give me an example of what a quid pro quo would look like. Strange but when they interviewed Rep McCarthy the other day and he didn't know what was in the call memo the interviewer had an opportunity to ask if the word Rep McCarthy said was not in the memo was used would it be evidence of quid pro quo, and when he would say yes, then show him the actual memo with the word.


You see I would agree it would be a difficult to a nonexistent case to make if Mr Trump suggested Ukraine stop all corruption .... full stop. But that is not what happened.

I know for you ... well I don't know what kind of pretzel you have to contort yourself into to defend the call, but I think I have seen all the surrogates on the circuit making fools of themselves already. Space aliens

Now let's go back to Mueller. As can be seen Mr Trump has no problem enlisting the aid of foreign governments to find dirt on his political rival in the 2020 election, so I have to wonder, is this something new or just a continuing pattern from 2016??? Now if that question did not come to your mind, then I have to wonder about your objectivity.

Quote:
using sarcasm ... IS an attempt to refute them.
OMG ... out of context but certainly the most salient feature.

Sarcasm has never refuted anything. It is used to make a point. The point being ... go back and rethink your argument!!!!
Quote:
You have not seen the unethical behavior of the DNC either because you didn't look for it or you are a strong supporter of Clinton.
As usual you are wrong.

First I was never a Sec Clinton supporter. I didn't like any Democrat candidate. My fav was a Republican who didn't run. However I did vote for Sec Clinton as I recognized Mr Trump for what he was and is, a danger to America. My hope at the time was Republicans would hold the reins and keep him from destroying America.

About the DNC activities in 2016 :: Brazzile should not have communicated with the Clinton campaign. The question leak was so obvious I have to wonder if Brazzile thought the campaign was too stupid to know what questions would be asked. Not like it was a secret gotcha question, but still.

Regarding what you see as unethical the super delegate thing ... sorry but that is the way the party machine operates. Everyone entering the campaign knows it and if they don't (like me in 1972) then shame on them for being naive.

So how about all the states not allowing primary challengers against Mr Trump? Rigged election .... anyone ... rigged



Edited by rporter314 (10/03/19 08:51 PM)
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#316232 - 10/03/19 08:35 PM Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Jeffery J. Haas Online   happy

It's the Despair Quotient!
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 14617
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: rporter314
This is one of the situations the Founders envisioned.

Once verified the final nail goes in that coffin, but I would like to see the clown show ... Trump supporters ingratiating themselves in the most servile and obsequious ways to throw away what little integrity any would have and certainly lose all self respect for any number of reasons.
As if on cue...

Here is one of the best deconstructions of Trump-Defender Syndrome sufferer's excuses I've read: John Harwood.
I see that you are quoting the liberal talking heads again, NW. Apparently you don't believe that Pres. Trump has the right to be defended. If you did you would not condemn someone from defending Trump you would encourage it. To say that someone suffers from "Trump-Defender Syndrome" is to criticize anyone who defends Trump.


You mean like when Trump uses the phrase "fake news"?
To run around calling everything "fake news" is an attempt to shut down all discussion and investigation into the truth.

Running around calling the entire Fourth Estate, save for maybe one network which is in your pocket, the "enemy of the people" is another lame attempt to shut down dissent and debate as well.

Inciting civil war is another, only that is, in and of itself another impeachable offense.
Making threats against whistleblowers is another, only that is, in and of itself another impeachable offense.

Trump thinks he's doing a bangup job defending himself already.
Have you looked at this newfangled thing called "Twitter", Senator?

Maybe he can hire another lawyer, only this time I think he's going to have to actually PAY them for a change.
_________________________
The only people pushing the Athenian Straw Man Nonexistent Threat of Slippery Slope Windyfoggery (ASMNSSW) RE DEMOCRACY are people who have a misunderstanding/problem or hatred of democracy. (See AUTHORITARIANS)

Top
#316234 - 10/03/19 08:58 PM Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump [Re: Senator Hatrack]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6975
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
Apparently you don't believe that Pres. Trump has the right to be defended

I believe you got it wrong again.

If Mr Trump (or anyone) shot someone on 5th Ave on live TV in front of God and everyone and he announced he shot someone, yes he would still have the opportunity for a legal defense.

Note the words ... legal defense.

There is no defense of him shooting someone. He did it ... and in front of God and everyone. He is guilty (barring mitigation and whatever the law allows for that).

His legal defense is to protect the legal process and keep him from being illegally charged tried and convicted. I have no problem with a defense attorney for Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin. Always protect their legal rights.

BUT .... that is not what people are defending. They are defending the very act of the crime as if it were not a crime.

Now if you don't get it ... well vote for corruption
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#316241 - 10/04/19 02:39 AM Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump [Re: Senator Hatrack]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 42120
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: Senator
HatrackTrump has the right to be defended.

I'm not sure how Trump is going to defend himself when he's admitted to what he's done on TV. To add to Mr. Trump's current woes, Mr. Trump asked China to do the same thing as he asked of the Ukraine - provide intel on a potential Democrat rival for the 2021 presidency.

Either Donald J Trump the dumbest mother fcker to ever be president, or he's just rubbing his corruption in our collective American populace faces. Hmm

_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
Page 2 of 62 < 1 2 3 4 ... 61 62 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 42 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Keridan, Chagos, Integritas, Ashevajak, Hamish Howl
6286 Registered Users
A2