Chumpettes: How Do You Explain This Guy Flipping On Impeachment Eve

[Spurtacular]

Seems like the absolute worst time if the president is truly supposed to be a villain. But this guy left the Dems and even did a press conference with him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S6rOxlFrbY

[DMC]

Kawhi Leonard of politics

[ElNono]

He literally never mattered

[DMC]

He literally never mattered

Except as a number. The amount of chest thumping the left did over mid terms merits at least some comments about this defector.

[Winehole23]

^^^Behold the puny gloating of DMC.

so puny

[ElNono]

Except as a number. The amount of chest thumping the left did over mid terms merits at least some comments about this defector.

They should totally gloat about it, it was so overwhelming that even this ‘defector’ doesn’t matter in the least. Frankly, I wish more of the ‘blue dog’ would also exit left.

[Spurtacular]

Dems can say one seat doesn't matter. Fair enough. But this guy's story does do damage.

Trying to coerce him to vote for impeachment, or else have support withheld?

:lmao That's eerily similar to the charges against Trump in the impeachment.

[ElNono]

He has voted consistently against the party positions in many wedge issues, clearly this was a matter of time. Not the first or last guy to switch sides.

Obviously, it would’ve been much more complicated if the House had a slim majority. Not the case here.

[Spurtacular]

He has voted consistently against the party positions in many wedge issues, clearly this was a matter of time. Not the first or last guy to switch sides.

Obviously, it would’ve been much more complicated if the House had a slim majority. Not the case here.

Well, one seat is not likely to make a big difference except possibly on a committee level somewhere, sometime; even then.

But like I said, his story just contributes to the Democrats' demise.

Don't worry though. Repubs are soulless. They always give it back rather quickly.

[ElNono]

I think it would be alarming if this guy was somehow a major progressive, even center.

[Spurtacular]

I think it would be alarming if this guy was somehow a major progressive, even center.

I think that's a convenient outlook.

It's the progressives who said they'd withhold support if he didn't vote for impeachment.

:lmao Doing what they're accusing the president of doing
:lmao Damning
:lmao Dumbocrats

[ElNono]

Same president that said he wouldn’t support the GOP nominee if it wasn’t him?

We can pick and choose about team blue and red all day. This is what partisan politics look like and it never looked good.

[Spurtacular]

Same president that said he wouldn’t support the GOP nominee if it wasn’t him?

:lol This is desperate, tbh.

[Spurtacular]

We can pick and choose about team blue and red all day.

Blue team doing what they're accusing red team of doing / impeaching for. SOP at this point.

[ElNono]

:lol This is desperate, tbh.

It’s true too

[ElNono]

Blue team doing what they're accusing red team of doing / impeaching for. SOP at this point.

I’m not even sure you understand what the POTUS is being impeached for. This person wasn’t an opponent until he decided to switch parties, at which point, what the Dem party thinks no longer matters.

[DMC]

The impeachment effort is akin to a UN Resolution to abhor an act by a nation. It doesn't really do anything. UN RES 1441 ring any bells? There were several useless resolutions prior to desert storm. They set the stage for the US to invade Iraq, but in and of themselves they are toothless. The impeachment process is toothless if it doesn't result in the removal of the POTUS. There's a Clinton library in Arkansas, along with the Bill and Hillary Clinton airport. They are still fixtures in politics. Bill was impeached. Big deal.

[Spurtacular]

I’m not even sure you understand what the POTUS is being impeached for. This person wasn’t an opponent until he decided to switch parties, at which point, what the Dem party thinks no longer matters.

I don't think you understand this guy's story. You're explaining sh** that doesn't matter.

[Spurtacular]

The impeachment effort is akin to a UN Resolution to abhor an act by a nation.

Not one Republican vote. It's a sham.

[ChumpDumper]

Never heard of this guy. Did anyone besides ElNono even know he existed before this?

[ElNono]

The impeachment effort is akin to a UN Resolution to abhor an act by a nation. It doesn't really do anything. UN RES 1441 ring any bells? There were several useless resolutions prior to desert storm. They set the stage for the US to invade Iraq, but in and of themselves they are toothless. The impeachment process is toothless if it doesn't result in the removal of the POTUS. There's a Clinton library in Arkansas, along with the Bill and Hillary Clinton airport. They are still fixtures in politics. Bill was impeached. Big deal.

Yup. Given the composition of Congress it’s largely procedural and a historical record, barring any new developments that changes that equation. However, it doesn’t mean it didn’t have to be done, even if we all knew the outcome wasn’t removal.

[Trainwreck2100]

because after some of his earlier votes, he was going to get primaried, and he likes his cushy ass job

[ElNono]

I don't think you understand this guy's story. You're explaining sh** that doesn't matter.

I know more about this guy than you do. From my former state, I know his constituency well, I know the district he represents, I know his voting record. I posted it in another thread not long ago.

What do *you* know about this guy? And have you even heard of him before he announced he was switching parties?

[DMC]

Yup. Given the composition of Congress it’s largely procedural and a historical record, barring any new developments that changes that equation. However, it doesn’t mean it didn’t have to be done, even if we all knew the outcome wasn’t removal.

I see it as sending a mixed message. On one hand it says "you're a POTUS, not a CEO" and on the other it says "You can act as a CEO if you don't mind the word "impeached"".

[boutons_deux]

The flipper was obvious a DINO, did not vote with the Dems, and obviously, like every pol, put himself above the preferences of the voters who elected him.

This POS will regret,like they all will, hitching is shit wagon to Trash, who pardons sadistic, psychopathic murderers.

[ElNono]

I see it as sending a mixed message. On one hand it says "you're a POTUS, not a CEO" and on the other it says "You can act as a CEO if you don't mind the word "impeached"".

I would change CEO for King, and there are very specific and direct messages about democracy vs kingdom, separation of powers and how our democracy works. I don’t think there’s mixed messages at all. The Constitution makes the bar for removal extremely high, and rightly so, I think. At the same time, it’s not so impossibly high that it cannot be overcome if democracy is clearly in peril.

[boutons_deux]

I would change CEO for King, and there are very specific and direct messages about democracy vs kingdom, separation of powers and how our democracy works. I don’t think there’s mixed messages at all. The Constitution makes the bar for removal extremely high, and rightly so, I think. At the same time, it’s not so impossibly high that it cannot be overcome if democracy is clearly in peril.

USA, thanks to the oligarchy's coup d'etat over the past 45 years, is WAY PAST and WAY DOWN from your naive theoretical bullshit

USA was not founded as democracy, and never has been

The white, male, slave-owning, land-owning FFs, aka the colonial oligarchy of 18th century, were horrified by the demos actually electing people, so they screwed democracy with the Electoral College, and blocked (hysterically incapable, emotional) women, Native Americans, and blacks from voting.

[Th'Pusher]

I see it as sending a mixed message. On one hand it says "you're a POTUS, not a CEO" and on the other it says "You can act as a CEO if you don't mind the word "impeached"".

Do you think the articles of impeachment drawn up by the house are warranted?

[ChumpDumper]

Do you think the articles of impeachment drawn up by the house are warranted?Good luck getting an actual take from that guy.

[DMC]

I would change CEO for King, and there are very specific and direct messages about democracy vs kingdom, separation of powers and how our democracy works. I don’t think there’s mixed messages at all. The Constitution makes the bar for removal extremely high, and rightly so, I think. At the same time, it’s not so impossibly high that it cannot be overcome if democracy is clearly in peril.

I use "CEO" loosely. He's accustomed to making unilateral decisions, firing people on a whim and being the big cheese. Now he's the big Cheetos, but he lacks the understanding of how government actually works. This could be a wakeup call for people wanting "change at all costs". Putting someone in office who doesn't know anything about diplomacy or politics is risky business. I think some of his constituents thought they could control him. You have to admit though he's draining at least part of the swamp.

[DMC]

Do you think the articles of impeachment drawn up by the house are warranted?

I think it's all partisan politics. The stats support my opinion, especially the voting records.

[Th'Pusher]

I think it's all partisan politics. The stats support my opinion, especially the voting records.

Remove partisan politics from the equation. Based on the evidence, do you think the articles of impeachment drawn up by the house were warranted?

[DMC]

Remove partisan politics from the equation. Based on the evidence, do you think the articles of impeachment drawn up by the house were warranted?

There would be no impeachment without partisan politics. If the articles aren't supported by both sides, they are partisan, unless you think one side holds all the virtue coins.

It's akin to a flop with a small amount of contact. Fans of one team feel it's a foul, the other side feels it's a flop. What the ref does often is more about the flow of the game than what either side wants. There's no ref in this process, just the teams making moves. If the judiciary gets involved, that's different.

[Th'Pusher]

There would be no impeachment without partisan politics. If the articles aren't supported by both sides, they are partisan, unless you think one side holds all the virtue coins.

It's akin to a flop with a small amount of contact. Fans of one team feel it's a foul, the other side feels it's a flop. What the ref does often is more about the flow of the game than what either side wants. There's no ref in this process, just the teams making moves. If the judiciary gets involved, that's different.

So you’re incapable of looking at the evidence on its face and making a determination as to whether or not the two articles drawn up by the house are impeachable offenses. That’s staggering to me.

[Spurs Homer]

So you’re incapable of looking at the evidence on its face and making a determination as to whether or not the two articles drawn up by the house are impeachable offenses. That’s staggering to me.

Maybe if you asked him the same question -
but added:

"lets say Obama did...a, b & c - "

im sure he would have a solid "opinion" then lololol

[DMC]

So you’re incapable of looking at the evidence on its face and making a determination as to whether or not the two articles drawn up by the house are impeachable offenses. That’s staggering to me.

There are plenty instances where biased accusations get dismissed even if there's evidence of wrong doing. The left was crying impeachment before Trump was even elected and have been for 3 years. Do you trust the government to do the right thing? Yes or no?

[DMC]

Maybe if you asked him the same question -
but added:

"lets say Obama did...a, b & c - "

im sure he would have a solid "opinion" then lololol

I voted for Obama twice. I didn't think Bill should have been impeached. You can change your user name but you're still the same low information dipshit.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol det stonewalling

[DMC]

:lol det stonewalling

Do you trust the government to do the right thing? Yes or no

[Spurs Homer]

I voted for Obama twice. I didn't think Bill should have been impeached. You can change your user name but you're still the same low information dipshit.


u still the same doxxMC lololol

[ChumpDumper]

Do you trust the government to do the right thing? Yes or noThat wasn't the question you were asked to answer.

I trust myself to be able to make a judgment on whether impeachment was warranted.

You don't trust yourself or are somehow reluctant to say what that judgment is.

[Th'Pusher]

There are plenty instances where biased accusations get dismissed even if there's evidence of wrong doing. The left was crying impeachment before Trump was even elected and have been for 3 years. Do you trust the government to do the right thing? Yes or no?

Whether or not I trust the government to do the “right thing“ is immaterial. Based on the evidence presented, did Trump’s behavior meet the criteria for impeachment as described by in the constitution?

[DMC]

Whether or not I trust the government to do the “right thing“ is immaterial. Based on the evidence presented, did Trump’s behavior meet the criteria for impeachment as described by in the constitution?

So you won't answer whether or not you trust the federal government but you want me to?

[DMC]

That wasn't the question you were asked to answer.

I trust myself to be able to make a judgment on whether impeachment was warranted.

You don't trust yourself or are somehow reluctant to say what that judgment is.

:lol det stonewalling

[ChumpDumper]

:lol DistractMC

Why are you so afraid to express any opinion about anything to do with Trump?

[DMC]

:lol DistractMC

Why are you so afraid to express any opinion about anything to do with Trump?


Do you trust the government to do the right thing? Yes or no

[Spurs Homer]

DMC = the Susan Collins of spurstalk lol

[DMC]

2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard voted “present,” meaning that she did not vote for or against. “I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process,” she said in a statement following the vote.

The first article of impeachment accusing Trump of abuse of power was adopted by a majority in the House with 230 votes. No Republicans voted in favor.

Not bipartisan

[DMC]

DMC = the Susan Collins of spurstalk lol

And you're the Silverblk Mystix of Spurstalk.

[Th'Pusher]

So you won't answer whether or not you trust the federal government but you want me to?

I don’t see how it’s pertinent to my question. I asked you to remove partisan politics from the equation and weigh in with your personal opinion based on the definition of impeachment as described in the constitution and the evidence presented.

For some reason, that’s a difficult thing for you to do. Are you not familiar with the evidence? Are you unfamiliar with provisions of the us constitution regarding impeachment?

[ElNono]

I use "CEO" loosely. He's accustomed to making unilateral decisions, firing people on a whim and being the big cheese. Now he's the big Cheetos, but he lacks the understanding of how government actually works. This could be a wakeup call for people wanting "change at all costs". Putting someone in office who doesn't know anything about diplomacy or politics is risky business. I think some of his constituents thought they could control him. You have to admit though he's draining at least part of the swamp.

I don’t know what you call the swamp necessarily. If we talking about corruption, greed and lies, he’s the personification of the swamp.

[ChumpDumper]

2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard voted “present,” meaning that she did not vote for or against. “I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process,” she said in a statement following the vote.

The first article of impeachment accusing Trump of abuse of power was adopted by a majority in the House with 230 votes. No Republicans voted in favor.

Not bipartisanBased on the evidence, how would you have voted?

[Th'Pusher]

2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard voted “present,” meaning that she did not vote for or against. “I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process,” she said in a statement following the vote.

The first article of impeachment accusing Trump of abuse of power was adopted by a majority in the House with 230 votes. No Republicans voted in favor.

Not bipartisan

So you’re deferring you’re opinion to Tulsi Gabbard?

[Spurs Homer]

And you're the Silverblk Mystix of Spurstalk.


DoxxxMC

24/7

[ChumpDumper]

I don’t see how it’s pertinent to my question. I asked you to remove partisan politics from the equation and weigh in with your personal opinion based on the definition of impeachment as described in the constitution and the evidence presented.

For some reason, that’s a difficult thing for you to do. Are you not familiar with the evidence? Are you unfamiliar with provisions of the us constitution regarding impeachment?He's simply afraid to answer.

[ChumpDumper]

So you’re deferring you’re opinion to Tulsi Gabbard?DMC votes present in basically every thread here.

[Th'Pusher]

He's simply afraid to answer.

I think he know he’ll be logically destroyed if he answers honestly

[DMC]

I don’t see how it’s pertinent to my question. I asked you to remove partisan politics from the equation and weigh in with your personal opinion based on the definition of impeachment as described in the constitution and the evidence presented.

For some reason, that’s a difficult thing for you to do. Are you not familiar with the evidence? Are you unfamiliar with provisions of the us constitution regarding impeachment?

You cannot remove the fact that impeachment was brought about by partisan politics. You're asking me to decide on evidence presented by what I consider to be extremely dishonest groups of people for political gain.

If you trust the government to do the right thing, then there shouldn't be any issues. If Trump isn't removed from office then obviously the impeachment wasn't warranted. If he is, then obviously the impeachment was warranted. Do you want to remove partisan politics now?

[DMC]

DoxxxMC

24/7

Weren't you permanently banned for refusing to stop trying to doxx someone here?

[ChumpDumper]

DMC's answer is no one in office should ever be impeached for any reason.

[Spurs Homer]

#1) We have a written confession - the memo/partial transcript
#2) We have two verbal confessions - trump (ukraine & china both invited to the party) on nat'l tv and mulvaney on nat'l tv admitting to holding up aid and to "get over it"
#3) 18 Corroborating trump appointed trump administration witnesses - all career professionals who risked their careers to testify under oath and ONE trump toadie to who donated a cool MILLION to be given a cushy ambassador position - and even this Cultist admitted that "everyone was in the loop and all were taking orders directly from trump to julie-yanni to the staff members in the loop"
#4) 100% Cover up of all documents and strong arming by trump of all top tier staff positions to refuse to testify under oath

which all point to the obvious - Trump did it. admitted it. Provided written and verbal proof of his crime.

Still time for trump and any trump witness to testify under oath to "exonerate" trump and every senator should be open to any and all facts - but based on current evidence - any REASONABLE person can have a really informed opinion of trumps guilt or innocense.


Unless you are a complete pussy and have no nutsack to even state your opinion?

[Spurs Homer]

Weren't you permanently banned for refusing to stop trying to doxx someone here?

no

were you?

[DMC]

no

were you?

:lol sure

[Th'Pusher]

You cannot remove the fact that impeachment was brought about by partisan politics. You're asking me to decide on evidence presented by what I consider to be extremely dishonest groups of people for political gain.

So? Are you incapable of making a decision based on the evidence presented?


If you trust the government to do the right thing, then there shouldn't be any issues. If Trump isn't removed from office then obviously the impeachment wasn't warranted. If he is, then obviously the impeachment was warranted. Do you want to remove partisan politics now?

I asked you to weigh in with your opinion. If you thought the articles of impeachment were warranted I think it’s difficult to take issue with bringing them to the senate considering the congressional oath of office. I didn’t realize it would be so difficult for you to weigh in with an opinion.

[DMC]

So? Are you incapable of making a decision based on the evidence presented?


I'm not compelled to do so since I don't trust the evidence presenters or gatherers. If I trust the government, then whatever the outcome is, I will support that.


I asked you to weigh in with your opinion. If you thought the articles of impeachment were warranted I think it’s difficult to take issue with bringing them to the senate considering the congressional oath of office. I didn’t realize it would be so difficult for you to weigh in with an opinion.

Since no republicans and a few democrats disagreed with impeachment, it's not a cut and dry case. It's just about numbers of each party. Right and wrong is now about who holds power in which house. For that reason I will wait for the outcome before passing judgement.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm not compelled to do so since I don't trust the evidence presenters or gatherers. If I trust the government, then whatever the outcome is, I will support that.

Since no republicans and a few democrats disagreed with impeachment, it's not a cut and dry case. It's just about numbers of each party. Right and wrong is now about who holds power in which house. For that reason I will wait for the outcome before passing judgement.

I disagree. I think there was enough evidence presented to make a decision as to whether or not the president’s behavior warranted impeachment.

[DMC]

I disagree. I think there was enough evidence presented to make a decision as to whether or not the president’s behavior warranted impeachment.

Of course you do. You're a democrat though and through.

[ChumpDumper]

If any POTUS murders someone in cold blood in front of hundreds of witnesses and on national television, DMC thinks he shouldn't be impeached.

[Th'Pusher]

Of course you do. You're a democrat though and through.

No, I’m able to remove partisan politics from my decision making process. I think the evidence that he obstructed congress is pretty cut and dry. I also think a pattern has been established. The mueller report teed up multiple counts of obstruction of justice even though they weren’t considered in the articles of impeachment. I use that to inform my opinion.

The abuse of power is less straightforward, but the evidence is compelling. I mean you already kind of conceded you agree with this article. You described him as an uncontrollable CEO upstream. But you don’t want to be pinned down as supporting the articles of impeachment so you come up with bullshit excuses about not trusting the evidence gatherers.

[DMC]

No, I’m able to remove partisan politics from my decision making process. :lol no, you just feel justified in being partisan because you think you're right.

I think the evidence that he obstructed congress is pretty cut and dry. I also think a pattern has been established.
And many people in congress disagree.

The mueller report teed up multiple counts of obstruction of justice even though they weren’t considered in the articles of impeachment. I use that to inform my opinion. So you considered evidence that wasn't presented. You'd make a great juror.



The abuse of power is less straightforward, but the evidence is compelling. I mean you already kind of conceded you agree with this article. You described him as an uncontrollable CEO upstream. But you don’t want to be pinned down as supporting the articles of impeachment so you come up with bullshit excuses about not trusting the evidence gatherers.You think that, because he's uncontrollable, impeaching makes sense as a way to mitigate the damage he can do but impeachment has to stand on its own merits. The insane amount of lobbying by MSM and the losing party in the 2016 election to remove a duly elected POTUS is what should stagger you. It doesn't shock me at all though, and because the partisanship knows no limits, win at all costs and such.. I don't feel compelled to participate in your conscience clearing exercises. You can exonerate yourself all day and claim objectiveness, but there's enough history here to see that's just bullshit.

[Th'Pusher]

:lol no, you just feel justified in being partisan because you think you're right.

No. I just looked at the evidence presented with an open mind.


And many people in congress disagree.
That’s the process. But if he committed an impeachable act, it’s the duty of congress to draw up articles of impeachment.

So you considered evidence that wasn't presented. You'd make a great juror.
Im not a juror and I’m not bound by rules to come to my conclusions. I use all information available. You’re welcome to do the same since you don’t trust the evidence gatherers.

You think that, because he's uncontrollable, impeaching makes sense as a way to mitigate the damage he can do but impeachment has to stand on its own merits.
No I don’t. Don’t put words in my mouth. I think he should be impeached if he committed impeachable offenses.


The insane amount of lobbying by MSM and the losing party in the 2016 election to remove a duly elected POTUS is what should stagger you. It doesn't shock me at all though, and because the partisanship knows no limits, win at all costs and such.. I don't feel compelled to participate in your conscience clearing exercises. You can exonerate yourself all day and claim objectiveness, but there's enough history here to see that's just bullshit.
This is an emotional rant. If Donald committed impeachable offenses he deserves to be impeached by the house and tried in the senate. That what the constitution dictates.

I’m sorry that you’re incapable of not looking at this through an emotional partisan lens, but you’re not in the minority here so it’s not surprising.

[DMC]

So you’re deferring you’re opinion to Tulsi Gabbard?

I am giving her opinion as an example of my position.

[DMC]

No. I just looked at the evidence presented with an open mind.

There's no way you can assess how open your mind is. Can you provide an example of you crossing the isle with your opinions?


That’s the process. But if he committed an impeachable act, it’s the duty of congress to draw up articles of impeachment.

If you trust they did their jobs correctly, then why not trust the process to play out?


Im not a juror and I’m not bound by rules to come to my conclusions. I use all information available. You’re welcome to do the same since you don’t trust the evidence gatherers.

Since impeachment isn't a judicial process, and the participants are partisan, there's no reliable information on which I can form a real opinion.


No I don’t. Don’t put words in my mouth. I think he should be impeached if he committed impeachable offenses.

But we've already determined that "impeachable" only means that a partisan group of the majority can vote to impeach. It's not decided in a court of law. So yes, that's your modus operandi. It's obvious.


This is an emotional rant. If Donald committed impeachable offenses he deserves to be impeached by the house and tried in the senate. That what the constitution dictates.
You like to repeat yourself. It doesn't make you any more correct. I already addressed the sacred "impeachable offenses" concept with the fact of partisanship.


I’m sorry that you’re incapable of not looking at this through an emotional partisan lens, but you’re not in the minority here so it’s not surprising.
You're not the benchmark for objectivity or logic and reasoning here, regardless how you fancy yourself to be just that.

[Reck]

Dems can say one seat doesn't matter. Fair enough. But this guy's story does do damage.

Trying to coerce him to vote for impeachment, or else have support withheld?

:lmao That's eerily similar to the charges against Trump in the impeachment.

Damage to himself, sure.

In a time where GOP members of Congress are actually leaving the party or losing hand over fist, this genius actually decides its a good idea to jump on a sinking ship. He made himself unelectable. And all for?

[Spurtacular]

I know more about this guy than you do. From my former state, I know his constituency well, I know the district he represents, I know his voting record. I posted it in another thread not long ago.

What do *you* know about this guy? And have you even heard of him before he announced he was switching parties?

I know the story he told of coercion. That's the crux of the matter you're willfully ignoring.

[Spurtacular]

Damage to himself, sure.

In a time where GOP members of Congress are actually leaving the party or losing hand over fist, this genius actually decides its a good idea to jump on a sinking ship. He made himself unelectable. And all for?

Tranny garble.

[DMC]

Damage to himself, sure.

In a time where GOP members of Congress are actually leaving the party or losing hand over fist, this genius actually decides its a good idea to jump on a sinking ship. He made himself unelectable. And all for?

You wouldn't know about switching sides, eh?

[Reck]

You wouldn't know about switching sides, eh?

No, but I bet you do. God knows you’ve been hitting on me for a couple of years now without nothing to show for it.

[Spurtacular]

No, but I bet you do. God knows you’ve been hitting on me for a couple of years now without nothing to show for it.

:lol Trannies are always imagining dudes are hitting on them.

[benefactor]

^chases dudes all over a random Spurs forum begging for attention from them

[Spurtacular]

Snitch bitch acting up. You'd better go and run to Kori, snitch bitch.

[Th'Pusher]

There's no way you can assess how open your mind is. Can you provide an example of you crossing the isle with your opinions?

If you trust they did their jobs correctly, then why not trust the process to play out?

Since impeachment isn't a judicial process, and the participants are partisan, there's no reliable information on which I can form a real opinion.

But we've already determined that "impeachable" only means that a partisan group of the majority can vote to impeach. It's not decided in a court of law. So yes, that's your modus operandi. It's obvious.

You like to repeat yourself. It doesn't make you any more correct. I already addressed the sacred "impeachable offenses" concept with the fact of partisanship.

You're not the benchmark for objectivity or logic and reasoning here, regardless how you fancy yourself to be just that.

The funniest part about this is that your position is largely inline with the GOP party line.

The only difference is that you’re using the “sham” “partisan” investigation into the president as an excuse to not offer an actual opinion on the matter.

[Spurtacular]

**

[Spurtacular]

The funniest part about this is that your position is largely inline with the GOP party line.

The only difference is that you’re using the “sham” “partisan” investigation into the president as an excuse to not offer an actual opinion on the matter.

Not one Repub voting for the impeachment sham. That's what it is. Come to terms.

[ElNono]

I know the story he told of coercion. That's the crux of the matter you're willfully ignoring.

I’m not ignoring anything, and it’s certainly not difficult to explain: His party wants him to vote a certain way, he actually voted whatever way he saw fit, mostly against the party wishes, the party let him know he’ll lose the party support, then he quit the party.

He’s obviously not important enough to run as an independent and win anything, so he joined the opposing party instead, where he’s going to have to follow that party’s wishes or lose their support.

Do tell what I missed...

[ElNono]

Not one Repub voting for the impeachment sham. That's what it is. Come to terms.

Not one Democrat voting for the Tax cuts. Is it a sham or the law of the land?

[Blake]

Based on the evidence, how would you have voted?

Good luck getting an answer out of that guy

[Spurtacular]

I’m not ignoring anything, and it’s certainly not difficult to explain: His party wants him to vote a certain way, he actually voted whatever way he saw fit, mostly against the party wishes, the party let him know he’ll lose the party support, then he quit the party.

He’s obviously not important enough to run as an independent and win anything, so he joined the opposing party instead, where he’s going to have to follow that party’s wishes or lose their support.

Do tell what I missed...

You didn't miss anything other than the connection that Dems are doing basically what they're accusing Trump of doing.

[Spurtacular]

Not one Democrat voting for the Tax cuts.

Dems are money grubbers. No surprise there.

[ElNono]

You didn't miss anything other than the connection that Dems are doing basically what they're accusing Trump of doing.

How so? This was not a foreigner, any support money was not earmarked by Congress to be spent there, the party has full authority to manage their support for candidates. I don’t see the similarity at all. Do explain.

[DMC]

No, but I bet you do. God knows you’ve been hitting on me for a couple of years now without nothing to show for it.

ah ha! You do want it.

[Spurtacular]

How so? This was not a foreigner, any support money was not earmarked by Congress to be spent there, the party has full authority to manage their support for candidates. I don’t see the similarity at all. Do explain.

Being a foreigner makes someone a boogeyman?

Trump did not threaten to withhold money. Established. But even if he had, that's his right as executive, snowflake. The funny thing about this is that the only one being shown to be corrupt is Biden, who is now the front runner. Ya'll never learn. You did this same exact shit with Hillary in 2016. You should've booted her corrupt ass, but you didn't; and you suffered the consequences.

But bringing it back, the threatening to withold support if a guy doesn't vote a certain way is like what the Dems are accusing Trump of doing. In both cases, a crime wasn't committed. I'm just musing the irony that Dems bring to the table on this one. SOP, really.

[Blake]

Being a foreigner makes someone a boogeyman?

Trump did not threaten to withhold money. Established. But even if he had, that's his right as executive, snowflake. The funny thing about this is that the only one being shown to be corrupt is Biden, who is now the front runner. Ya'll never learn. You did this same exact shit with Hillary in 2016. You should've booted her corrupt ass, but you didn't; and you suffered the consequences.

But bringing it back, the threatening to withold support if a guy doesn't vote a certain way is like what the Dems are accusing Trump of doing. In both cases, a crime wasn't committed. I'm just musing the irony that Dems bring to the table on this one. SOP, really.

Jesus you're fucking stupid.

[Spurtacular]

Jesus you're fucking stupid.

Cuck can't control his rage.

[Winehole23]

Not one Repub voting for the impeachment sham. That's what it is. Come to terms.Every Presidential impeachment has been partisan, tbh.

[Spurtacular]

Every Presidential impeachment has been partisan, tbh.

Yup. And they've all been travesties to that end.

[koriwhat]

^chases dudes all over a random Spurs forum begging for attention from them

^chases dudes all over facebook begging for attention from them

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[ElNono]

Being a foreigner makes someone a boogeyman?

Trump did not threaten to withhold money. Established. But even if he had, that's his right as executive, snowflake. The funny thing about this is that the only one being shown to be corrupt is Biden, who is now the front runner. Ya'll never learn. You did this same exact shit with Hillary in 2016. You should've booted her corrupt ass, but you didn't; and you suffered the consequences.

But bringing it back, the threatening to withold support if a guy doesn't vote a certain way is like what the Dems are accusing Trump of doing. In both cases, a crime wasn't committed. I'm just musing the irony that Dems bring to the table on this one. SOP, really.

1) Foreigners intervening in US elections is not a boogeyman, it’s illegal unless they’re registered. You can ask Manafort and Rudy Giuliani’s buddies how that works.

2) Trump didn’t threaten to hold the funds, he actually did hold the release of the funds, despite not having authority to do so. He’s not above Congress or their decisions, he’s simply a co-equal branch of government. If he didn’t like the law that appropriated the funds, he should’ve used his power of veto, in which case there’s no funds to hold or release. He didn’t.

3) He requested a personal favor from a foreign government to announce the opening of an investigation into his political opponent. He did so while holding the funds and over protests from the Pentagon and members of Congress.

All factual. Not hunches, no connecting the dots, etc. Biden doesn’t matter, this is all Trump. I don’t like creepy Joe, if he’s corrupt, the US has plenty of intelligence agencies to look into it. Most all of them run by the executive.

None of the above have anything remotely to do with how parties use their monies to support candidates. Zero.

[Winehole23]

Yup. And they've all been travesties to that end.Disagree.

I think they all deserved it.