Bob in Mich

I was trying to get the opinion of the person I originally quoted. I was hoping we might find some common ground and knew 'impeachable', while I firmly believe in it, was unlikely to find common agreement. That is why I did not say it where noted.

Yeah, I remember that Kung Fu episode...a good one. Thanks for the reminding me of David Carradine's sage advice. Here is the original post and question. What part was poorly framed? I think someone with your communication skills could surely pen a clear answer ...if they wanted to answer it. Live long and prosper.

Lenny, you are clearly a much nicer person than many Trump supporters down here but just as obvious, you wear the same orange robe. Sorry buddy but that is as honest as can be. Second, no one has yet answered the question. To claim it was unclear or poorly framed is just as I said, horseshit. Enjoy your day.

Consensus? If you are waiting for a Congressional consensus on anything, as you say in this political climate, you are going to wait forever. There is a lockstep backing of Trump by Repubs, regardless of Trump's actions. I meant wrong in the sense of was it right or wrong, morally or ethically? You can answer your own question as to right or wrong, but not mine? Interesting. How bout using that level of wrong in answering my question? I seriously doubt that many posters here would desert Trump even in the face of him being a proven Russian puppet. Why? Well of course they are so dug in that many are incapable of admitting they were wrong. The chief reason though is that, and I wish to stress this point, ANYONE CRITICAL OF TRUMP IS IMMEDIATELY DISCREDITED BY TRUMP SUPPORTERS. We see that exact thing happen time and again. This makes it reasonable to assume any and all allegations against Trump are dismissed as fake news.

Your mistake here was assuming integrity. Here there is actually pride in Trump's lack of integrity. Somehow that makes Trump even tougher that he doesn't have to be worried about such things. His minions are no longer bothered by past positions either. Integrity shitegrity....means nothing When all the backpedaling stops, these Trump lawyers here will end up at, 'Trump's actions were wrong and criminal and might be impeachable in some future case, but not in this case. In this case, impeachment wouldn't be good for our country.'

Horseshit. Simple question. The reason no one answers I presume is the desire to not be on the record saying it was wrong or impeachable. If you won't say his actions, if proven, were wrong, there is no sense conversing with you.

Lots of comments but not one answer. If Trump's behavior was as I described it, was that wrong or impeachable? Very telling. How's that song go? 'Slip sliding away.......'

Sorry, not really sure how that happened. I was trying to quote myself in order to include enough of my prior post so that the question still made sense. That second quoted part was mine.

Happy to get into that after you please answer my question. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know many won't want to see it, but trying to leverage the Ukraine aid for his own personal political benefit was attempted and was wrong. Suspend for a moment what has or will be proven. Just answer a simple question, please. If Trump's intent and actions were exactly as I just stated in the paragraph above, would you think that either wrong or impeachable?

Did you do a bit part for Monty Python as the 'black knight' guarding a bridge. You were hilarious then too.

Morning. Yes, I do believe the public testimony does tell a different story. I know many won't want to see it, but trying to leverage the Ukraine aid for his own personal political benefit was attempted and was wrong. Suspend for a moment what has or will be proven. Just answer a simple question, please. If Trump's intent and actions were exactly as I just stated in the paragraph above, would you think that either wrong or impeachable?

I will give you credit, Deek. That is a new one to my eyes. Any chance you have joined the Trump Club? I understand that is the new, smart way for Trump supporters to stay up on the latest fiction based defense positions. Comedy Central's Daily Show did a piece on the ever evolving Trump defenses http://www.cc.com/video-clips/olce4d/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-trump-club--fresh-presidential-excuses

Why, if the House is still following the broad rules of the impeachment process as laid out in the Constitution, is the impeachment illegitimate or not peaceful. I realize it is political and partisan but that is the way it was designed. They are following the process

Posted 1 hour ago There's zero evidence of a crime, whether it is a high crime or a misdemeanor. That makes this strictly political. Saying this is political is not a "chaff" statement. When Schiff analogized the "investigation" to a Grand Jury, he brought a criminal element into the process. Partisans have been banging the "attempted extortion" and "attempted bribery" drum. So expecting things to go like a criminal proceeding isn't a "chaff" statement, either. The fact that the two most recent Impeachments were run in a totally different, bipartisan way is also a disheartening contrast to what's going on now. Chaff is a reference to the aircraft defense tactic of trying to thwart missile attacks by discharging 'decoys' to distract the attack. The chaff is this instance is the whining about the process unfairness by those that actually know the sequence of process steps. You may not so I won't assume, but most do know that this is impeachment is a bit different. This time, unlike with Nixon or Clinton, there has been no special prosecutor that has assembled the case. The House Intel committee is doing that now. When you've got "investigators" knocking on your door looking at what you've done, wouldn't you want them to talk to anyone and everyone involved in the matter? Maybe they figure out that what they suspect you of doing isn't worthy of pursuing. That's not what's happening here. This is a one-sided kabuki show meant to influence 2020 voters. Nothing more. Like I said in my prior post, this is meant to carry on as long as possible in order to run as deep as possible into the election cycle. Republicans on the Committee have requested several witnesses to be called. Schiff shot down every one of them. These are supposed to be people investigating the matter -- NOT building a case. Otherwise, Pelosi and Schiff should stop lying about the process and stop calling it an "investigation". They are investigating and deciding whether or not to bring charges. I am unsure why that is considered an invalid step in the process. I may be just a skeptic but I suspect you know that both the Dems and the Repubs engage in political theater. The Repubs called the whistleblower and Hunter Biden. If given the opportunity Jordan would attempt to derail the Trump investigation. If it gets to the Senate, Repubs will control the witnesses. Do you think that the process may be political then? There are many reasons why someone would not come forward, but refusals are mainly based upon privilege. You can read whatever you want into a refusal to testify, but the focus is foreign policy. That's not coffee talk. Also, and more important, the phone transcript speaks for itself. It has been out in the public for nearly two months. In fact, I think the White House released another transcript related to a prior phone call. Do you know what might help us understand things a bit more clearly: the Whistleblower. Who did he get his information from about the call? He never heard it. Someone thought it was a funky situation and reported his or her concerns to THAT guy? Why him? There were 14 or so people on the call. How many thought it was a big deal? Too bad we won't get to hear from the Whistleblower, huh? Funny how it is only Schiff who controls whether he testifies or not. If the whistle blower could answer Repub questions that are not designed to unmask him to the public, that sounds perfectly reasonable. But, if the intent is public outing in order to punish and deter other whistle blowers, then I would be against that. It appears to me that some wish to out the person and wish in addition to coax the unstable to attack this person for coming forward. Too many people in Congress have concluded that Trump did something wrong, even though there's an "investigation" going on. The "investigation" is more designed to be confirmation of partisan conclusions. I think Congress should just issue Articles already and get to the vote. The transcripts were released. Lots of info yet to come but it is reasonable that folks have formed preliminary opinions. On the other hand, if they, like Lindsey Graham, declare that their mind is closed, then I think they are being overly partisan and dishonest. I disagree with your statement here, completely. Stop clutching your pearls over this. Is election interference wrong -- of course. Has that stopped anyone before -- no. Off the top of my head, I can think of four historical examples of calling on a foreign nation or individual to assist a Presidential candidate: Nixon/Vietnam; Ted Kennedy/Soviets; Obama/Russians; Hillary/Steele-Russians. Only if it turns out to be true, the only difference this time is #orangemanbad. Well, let me ask, do you think in the instances mentioned, was it ethical and OK with you or was it improper? What "spine" do you want Congressional Republicans to assert? Rolling over to this absolute sham would be spineless. Standing up to it is commendable. The point is that there does not appear to be anyone on the Repub side of the aisle that will risk their political future to stand up to Trump. I hope some would if he does shoot someone on 5th Avenue but I am certain some Repubs would not.

I don't think DR's a bot. His feelings get hurt too easily to be robotic. I am beginning to think that he enlists others at the institution to all pitch in to push out his torrents of crap. How else could it all appear so quickly while at the same time sounding so insane? I don't know, maybe not. I am still working on it.

Gary, you seem like a perceptive guy but your take on this is waaaay off. You are witnessing an attempt at an intervention. DR is still denying that he has a problem. Sometimes it can be a long process, especially when the delusions are so ingrained.

DR honey, I can tell that you are cranky again. Did you not sleep again last night? Have you considered my suggestion to take some time off from this project? In the long run, it may clear your head so that you can again act sanely when you get out and hopefully back to work. I noticed at one point recently that you were the most recent poster in about 8 threads at once. When I spot checked I also saw that in addition, you had strung 3 and 4 posts in a row in several of those threads. Not drug use? OK. Not mania? Well, ok but then why the manic activity and the need to control every discussion? Maybe you can discuss this issue in group this week or perhaps we have some mental health folks around here that will weigh in. Can anyone help DR? Anyway, good luck with your challenges and let us know when you get released.

Do you need charges? Gary, I think you are forgetting that this is a coup. We don't need no stinkin charges! Rope or lead? lol

Seriously? You are saying to the man that all congressional Repubs think in lockstep that Trump is completely innocent of wrongdoing in this Ukraine saga? It seems much more likely that they are afraid to step out of line. Trump and his followers will attack anyone that does that and then that particular pol's re-election campaign becomes much more difficult if not impossible. This is why we have seen that many of the Repub politicians that have been critical of Trump are those that have decided that they are not seeking re-election. His Congressional support most certainly holds, regardless of what evidence is brought out in this impeachment process. As mentioned I think breaking with Trump would take more integrity than appears evident.....unless the break is done by a large number of Repub pols at once. Safety in numbers if it happens, though personally I don't see this dam busting. Yes, the Dems should fear backlash. Trump will cry victim at every opportunity and it will hurt Dem chances in Trump country. But, without any Republican in Congress willing to check Trump's actions when he pushes boundaries, it seems to me that the impeachment process should go forward if not to remove Trump, only to check his future impulses with regard to illegal election interference.

And surely Trump's tiny hand would slide right into that glove, so....just maybe .....

This discussion sort of got lost when this new replacement thread was started. I just saw Lindsey Graham in an impromptu interview and was reminded of it. If he ever had it, he has no integrity left. He has come down with an absolutely dreadful case of the vapors over this supposed completely unfair , illegal impeachment proceeding. Posted yesterday at 10:38 AM (edited) Good Post. I disagree on several fronts but, well stated. I am an Independent but have been of the opinion that this impeachment process should move forward. Most certainly, it is a political process that only loosely resembles assembling charges or putting on a criminal trial. Those that are unaware may be honestly upset but those knowledgeable of the process should stop throwing out this chaff. Claiming it is one-sided is true but there are 2 main reasons for that. I am sure that you are aware that this is not really yet the trial phase. That will happen in the Senate. In this phase, Democratic 'prosecutors' are making their case to bring charges to the representatives in the House. The House will likely eventually vote to (or not to) send the charges to the Senate for the trial phase. I believe that the defense will then be able to call whoever they wish, especially since the Republicans control the Senate. The other reason we don't have the Republican side of the story is that the President's defenders have defied subpeonas to testify to the House committees. There were no transcripts released from the president's soldiers because they are afraid to go under oath and testify, just like their leader. It seems to me that they are afraid of perjury. Would you want to get folks under oath speaking on your behalf if you were guilty? How about if you were innocent? Those answers should be telling to an unbiased observer. Presidents have historically overstepped their authority, that is true. Differences here are that Trump's actions appear to be for personal political gain, as opposed to being in the interests of our country. He also continues to see election interference by foreigners as acceptable. He has repeatedly proved that point. Foreign election interference taints the upcoming election. That must be stopped cold. Perhaps if the Congressional Republicans had a spine to stand up to this president, the whole impeachment process would be unnecessary. As it is today, there appears to me to be a severe integrity shortage in the Republican party in Congress.

Guess I better add this one here then too just to be sure no one misses what a tool DR is that he cannot control himself. He is a consistent jerk. This BS today is far from new. DR, why can't you control yourself? I have told you several times that discussions with you always seem to devolve into you, the crazy eyed guy at the bar, being way too close in my face screaming about lizard people! Yet, here we are again. Over the last 4-5 pages in this thread you asked me the exact same question approximately 10 times. I answered it at least 7 times, pointed out that I had already answered it repeatedly, gave you a link to more detail, and warned you to stop the repetition or you would go back on ignore. That happened....go back and look if you doubt. You then quickly asked the same question twice more and then got put on ignore. You claim to be innocently just asking but when THE SAME QUESTION IS ASKED AND ANSWERED 10 TIMES YOU ARE HARASSING, NOT CONVERSING. That is you being the crazy eyed guy at the bar AGAIN. Recognize that please! As I have told you, I would rather not engage with you. I have literally begged you many times to stop replying to me unless you are quoted. YOU WILL NOT ABIDE BY THAT VERY REASONABLE REQUEST. That is a little twisted and certainly not right, imo. I should be allowed to carry on conversations with other posters without you interjecting yourself but your butting in regularly takes over the conversation. YOUR REPLIES STIFLE THE REPLIES FROM THE OTHERS THAT I WISH TO CONVERSE WITH. When I wish to interact with you, I will quote you. Otherwise, assume I do not wish to hear from you. You butt in and claim you know everything and no one else knows the real story. That may or may not be the case but when adults are conversing and they have repeatedly asked you to stay out of their conversation, please do so. While not public, the board is designed to allow posters to interact and have discussions. Stop taking over every discussion on this topic.. You love to give advice. Try listening to some for a change. Stop acting like a know-it-all. Stop butting in, even when you think you know more. Others should be allowed to converse without your interjections. Stop harassing those that disagree with you. Please take that advice to heart. I think it could help you to become a better poster.

Harasser doesn't like harassment? Shocking

DR is a liar. Pretty much every page has his lies. The whole anyone that disagrees with him supports pedos is a lie. I mentioned that in the first post he challenged me to point out his lies but that has since left his mind. He has a lot bounding around in there, not all of it seems stable If you happen to think of him as a friend, you may consider offering a bit of advice to him. The guy exhibits the signs of mania, to my non professional eyes. I have mentioned this before and I am not joking, this is how coke heads get at times. Either of those two should not be laughed off.

Dude, your explanation for being unable to stop replying to my posts has been that you have to keep your followers here from being misinformed. That is clearly not what you are doing. You are just harassing. You really should bring this up in your next therapy session. You need some help. Honest Take a break and consider it.