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

[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.

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

[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 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 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 ing stupid.

[Spurtacular]

Jesus you're ing 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

[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 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.