-->
@ethang5
Also, they are impeaching him for 'abuse of power', which isn't really a defined term in the Constitution. If any president, FDR should have been impeached for 'abuse of power'.
Hyprocisy
Posts
Total:
66
-->
@dustryder
After Kavenough, and now this impeachment scam, I swear the dems are moving us closer to fascism. For them, "Evidence" seems to be whatever they think.I don't think you understand the concept of evidence. Someone does not have to literally say "I did this" for us to know he did it.
Imagined actions should not be judged at all.I mean.. different actions are judged differently right?
If I'm trying to find the person who ate my cookie, the person who most likely ate it is the person whose breath smells of cookies, whose hands and mouth is covered in cookie crumbs, and the person who ten other people say did it.
If you're trying to find the person who ate your cookie, the person who most likely ate it is not necessarily the person whose breath you say smells of cookies, whose hands and mouth you say is covered in cookie crumbs, and the person who ten other people say did it, while ten others say he didn't, especially when you've been accusing the person of everything except stealing the kitchen sink since before the oven was even hot.
I'm not asking you for why you think there isn't a crime. I'm asking you if you understand why other people think there is a crime and if you can list the facts that make them think so.
And I answered you. It's called TDS. There is no crime. There was no crime on collusion. There was no crime when Shiff claimed to have proof. There was no crime with Judge Kavenaugh. No crime in the Mueller report. There was no crime with Ukraine. No bribery. No quid pro quo, and no impeding of justice, as seen from the lame charges that did not include those crimes dems swore were cookie crumbs on Trumps face.
There are two types of people calling Trump a criminal. Dishonest partisan dems, and the innocent sheep who have been fooled by the sheer repetition of accusations.
There's nothing to be impartial about really.
My guess is that if you are ever accused, you would want objectivity in your judges.
The objective facts of what he has done are plainly recorded for all to see.
And the entire Republican party, and half of America, and even some democrats don't see it! We all see the facts, your biased interpretation of those facts is the issue.
The only people seeing it are lib dems.
Or in other words, are you a honest actor and are making fair judgments based upon reading and understanding the objective facts or are you a gibbering moron without any critical thinking skills?
Lol, agree with lib dems or you're a gibbering moron without any critical thinking skills huh? Your critical thinking skills are impressive.
Do you think Shiff and Polosi are "honest actors"? Please don't make me puke talking about honesty.
If Trump is innocent until proven guilty, the burden is on his accusers to show how their understanding the objective facts prove his guilt.
You can't do so without assuming motive and intent to Trump unjustifiably. Basically, you think he's guilty because you think he's guilty.
If the American people don't stand up to this nonsense now, what happened to Kavenaugh will be commonplace.
Just an accusation, an accusation only, with the accuser offering or remembering no details, their own witnesses contradicting them, and questions to the accuser being off limits because of political correctness, will be considered proof of guilt.
Count me with the gibbering morons dusty. I find them preferable to jack booted fascist thugs.
-->
@ethang5
After Kavenough, and now this impeachment scam, I swear the dems are moving us closer to fascism. For them, "Evidence" seems to be whatever they think.
I disagree. I just think you have a high bar for what inferences can be drawn evidence. Which is fine, but it does not reflect reality as very little would be solved.
Imagined actions should not be judged at all.
I disagree. I will judge you heavily if you imagine yourself banging my dog and tell me about it. Though i would not necessarily take any action about it
If you're trying to find the person who ate your cookie, the person who most likely ate it is not necessarily the person whose breath you say smells of cookies, whose hands and mouth you say is covered in cookie crumbs, and the person who ten other people say did it, while ten others say he didn't, especially when you've been accusing the person of everything except stealing the kitchen sink since before the oven was even hot.
In this case, the breath has been thoroughly analyzed to contain particulates of cookie matter. The crumbs around the mouth were taken directly from the suspect and were also analyzed to be cookie matter. The ten others who say that he didn't were all given lollies by the suspect moments after the investigation began and are known to frequently share goodies with the suspect and before the oven was hot, he had a proven track record of stealing cookies.
And I answered you. It's called TDS. There is no crime. There was no crime on collusion. There was no crime when Shiff claimed to have proof. There was no crime with Judge Kavenaugh. No crime in the Mueller report. There was no crime with Ukraine. No bribery. No quid pro quo, and no impeding of justice, as seen from the lame charges that did not include those crimes dems swore were cookie crumbs on Trumps face.There are two types of people calling Trump a criminal. Dishonest partisan dems, and the innocent sheep who have been fooled by the sheer repetition of accusations.
You misunderstand me. I'm not asking for your interpretation of why you think they think he's guilty. I'm asking if you understand how they came to their conclusions from their perspectives.
Lol, agree with lib dems or you're a gibbering moron without any critical thinking skills huh? Your critical thinking skills are impressive.
I'm not saying that at all. If you analyze the facts and go off in the opposite direction, that's absolutely fine as long as you are able to justify why you went in that direction. This is something that you should be able to do for any position that you have (If you want any sort of credibility). At the moment you seem to just be randomly screaming that Trump is innocent and that everyone who is accusing him has TDS without any justification, evidence or logic whatsoever. You haven't shown yourself to have an informed opinion at all. Hence you are either a dishonest actor, a gibbering moron, or a troll. Oddly enough any of the three seem to be equally likely at this point.
I'm not saying that at all. If you analyze the facts and go off in the opposite direction, that's absolutely fine as long as you are able to justify why you went in that direction. This is something that you should be able to do for any position that you have (If you want any sort of credibility). At the moment you seem to just be randomly screaming that Trump is innocent and that everyone who is accusing him has TDS without any justification, evidence or logic whatsoever. You haven't shown yourself to have an informed opinion at all. Hence you are either a dishonest actor, a gibbering moron, or a troll. Oddly enough any of the three seem to be equally likely at this point.
He is probably referring to the re-reading of the Trump call transcript by Adam Schiff in Congress and having that be classified as evidence.
-->
@Greyparrot
People need to realize that they’ve been searching for a crime since Day 1 of his presidency. That basically shuts down every argument they have
-->
@ILikePie5
not even close. The FISA's were planned out day 1 of the escalator ride.
Steele dossier was put together 6 months before the election.