Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: Word for not-spouse?

  1. #61
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    6,829
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
    I can't believe how sanguine most Republicans are about this armed insurrection. It's a given they wouldn't be so blase' if it really had been anti-fascists that pulled it off.
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    In that that case the cliche would switch to “this is what democracy looks like”.
    Come back and both sides us when the Democrats elect a president who attempts to invalidate the results of their attempted reelection. So far in our history only one party has supported a traitor president both during and after his traitorous activities and it ain’t the democrats. I realize that republicans don’t understand the concept of shame but dang, your party doesn’t have a pretty look going on right now.

  2. #62
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    7,986
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    No. They attempted to hold him accountable for his actions once he became president.
    I believe efforts began as early as December 2016, before he took office and were formalized in early February of 2017 by Jerry Nadler and the Impeach Trump Leadership PAC. If they hadn't had to wait till the Democrats took back control of the House, the first actual impeachment would have been much earlier, perhaps in his first hundred days.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  3. #63
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    6,829
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
    I can't believe how sanguine most Republicans are about this armed insurrection. It's a given they wouldn't be so blase' if it really had been anti-fascists that pulled it off.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    I believe efforts began as early as December 2016, before he took office and were formalized in early February of 2017 by Jerry Nadler and the Impeach Trump Leadership PAC. If they hadn't had to wait till the Democrats took back control of the House, the first actual impeachment would have been much earlier, perhaps in his first hundred days.
    So do you think soliciting the aid of our country’s ally to get fake dirt on his political opponent by withholding aid that congress had passed legislatively and had been signed into law was an impeachable offense? I may be wrong but I seem to remember that’s what the turd was actually impeached for the first time. The second time he was impeached was certainly more serious but both actual impeachment’s were over rather serious offenses. Not lying about a blowjob serious but still pretty serious.

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    209
    Although it was pretty well laid out in the Mueller Report (that no Republican apparently read), the case against Trump and his henchmen is supported by recent intelligence revelations. A successful impeachment would have prevented his traitorous coup attempt.

  5. #65
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    6,829
    It's remarkable to me that the only upstanding republican politician currently is Liz Cheney. I have to assume that she's banking on trump going down once Rudy colludy starts squealing like a stuck pig. Otherwise her honorable current position makes no sense. Republican voters don't reward honor. They reward fealty to dear leader and the ability to support trump's big lie.

  6. #66
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    7,986
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Not lying about a blowjob serious but still pretty serious.
    I believe lying under oath and obstruction of justice were the actual charges, and unlike our most recent adventures in impeachment, the process didn't start until he'd actually committed the offense.

    To be honest, I don't understand Trumpism, but I have to believe it stems from the same tribalism which requires some to defend Clinton at every opportunity.

    Getting back to the point that someone else made, there are many ways to attempt the overthrow of a duly elected government and the Democratic Party leaders showed us one way before the object of their scorn even took office. If they hadn't been so anxious, maybe some people wouldn't have come to believe the entire process was an example of a desired conviction looking for an offense to charge. Hopefully everyone learned something from that mistake.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  7. #67
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    6,829
    So should there be a ‘get out of impeachment free’ card regardless of a president’s actions if a few people are speaking about impeachment before the president commits high crimes or misdemeanors?

    Perhaps Clinton’s biggest failing was agreeing to testify. Perhaps he should have gone all pre-trump and said ‘eff you. Ain’t gonna testify’. And then there would have been no lying about the blowjob so no impeachable offense.

    Apparently relying on pathetic technicalities is republican style. Do democrats get to do the same?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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