The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[Foxx]

Just now, Capco said:

 

The person who asked a question trying to characterize all insane people.

sure, not the one who implied that Dems wouldn't pick insane witnesses... gotcha.

[Capco]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

sure, not the one who implied that Dems wouldn't pick insane witnesses... gotcha.

 

So you really think those three law professors are insane?  

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Capco said:

 

So you really think those three law professors are insane?  

They are entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. They offer nothing worthwhile. They weren’t objective. They weren’t fact witnesses. 
 

They were trotted out on stage with a script written by the democrats specifically so people like you would be blinded by their academic credentials and not look any further. 
 

It worked on you. That should alarm you. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, Capco said:

"Never before, in the history of the republic, have we been forced to consider the conduct of a president who appears to have solicited personal, political favors from a foreign government."

 

Is it that Trump supporters simply think the above is bogus/hot air?  Or do they just not care and turn a blind eye even if they think he did do what he is being accused of, perhaps by citing other presidents who they think did the same or worse?  

 

I'd hope it's mostly the former.  

Sure, why not impeach a guy for what his predecessor did. Seems smart.  ?‍♀️

Meh, all the former administration's graft, pay-for-play, and spying will now come to light. Well played Democrats, well played. 

 

[Warren Zevon]

Everyone knows the 4 witnesses were not fact witnesses. 

 

A medical examiner called to the stand in a murder case is not a fact witness.

 

Why is the right gaslighting the public with this lame narrative?

Edited December 5, 2019 by Gary Busey

[Foxx]

7 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

So you really think those three law professors are insane?  

more to my point... the Dems are the ones who are insane. if you look at this whole charade objectively, it is the only logical conclusion.

 

7 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

So you really think those three law professors are insane?  

to answer your question directly here, do i think they are insane, no. but i do think #TDS is very real and could be clinically considered a 'condition'.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Foxx

[Warren Zevon]

10 minutes ago, Foxx said:

ummm.. so again... who is the one painting with a broad brush?

 

Just now, Foxx said:

more to my point... the Dems are the ones who are insane. if you look at this whole charade objectively, it is the only logical conclusion.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

[dubs]

26 minutes ago, Capco said:

Idk, but I think it would be pretty difficult to get a job as a law professor at Harvard if you were insane.  Just a hunch though.  

 

When the institution you’re applying for a job at is insane, and the people hiring you are insane, insanity is a prerequisite. 

[Capco]

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

more to my point... the Dems are the ones who are insane. if you look at this whole charade objectively, it is the only logical conclusion.

 

to answer your question directly here, do i think they are insane, no. but i do think #TDS is very real and could be clinically considered a 'condition'.

 

Right I got that.  All good.  

 

This whole tangent on insanity is DC Tom's fault anyway.  Let's just blame him.  

Edited December 5, 2019 by Capco

[RochesterRob]

4 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

Everyone knows the 4 witnesses were not fact witnesses. 

 

A medical examiner called to the stand in a murder case is not a fact witness.

 

Why is the left gaslighting the public with this lame narrative?

FIFY.

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

Everyone knows the 4 witnesses were not fact witnesses. 

 

A medical examiner called to the stand in a murder case is not a fact witness.

 

Why is the right gaslighting the public with this lame narrative?

 

CNN, the Washintgon Post, the NYT, the LA Times, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Politico, The Hill, USA Today, NPR, Vox, The Atlantic, and Bloomberg are all calling them "witnesses."

 

Who's gaslighting whom?

[Foxx]

1 minute ago, Gary Busey said:

 

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

what exactly is the point you are attempting to make here? that party affiliation has remained pretty static through the time period looked at? 

[Deranged Rhino]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

CNN, the Washintgon Post, the NYT, the LA Times, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Politico, The Hill, USA Today, NPR, Vox, The Atlantic, and Bloomberg are all calling them "witnesses."

 

Who's gaslighting whom?

up in down. 

 

Something the TDS sufferers have yet to figure out. And it’s almost too late for them to realize they’ve been had. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

The real question is; how long does RBG have to live?

This can't all be about the OIG report and the last administration's graft and spying as it will all come out in the Senate. There has to be more. A claim that a SC seat cannot be filled while a President is being impeached? Then, when the impeachment trial is over trying to say "election year so no SC seat can be filled"? The election year one I'd expect Mitch to say LOLGFY, but while under impeachment?  Think he'd still go forward with a SC nomination? 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[Capco]

42 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

They are entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. They offer nothing worthwhile. They weren’t objective. They weren’t fact witnesses. 
 

They were trotted out on stage with a script written by the democrats specifically so people like you would be blinded by their academic credentials and not look any further. 
 

It worked on you. That should alarm you. 

 

36 minutes ago, dubs said:

When the institution you’re applying for a job at is insane, and the people hiring you are insane, insanity is a prerequisite. 

 

See, rhetoric like this I find concerning.  The higher institutions of education in this country are one of its central pillars, on par with the military.  There's a reason why people around the world come here in droves to attend our universities.  

 

On some level it feels like people are being conditioned to discredit experts simply because those experts have conclusions they disagree with.  Expertise and specialized roles are very important to a high functioning society.  No one single person can become an expert in every field, and this idea that any person can do all their own research and come to more accurate conclusions than people who have focused on this one single field for a lifetime is for the birds. 

 

You can't expect every single person to be a doctor and lawyer and physicist and nutritionist and farmer and hunter and mechanic and plumber and tailor and shipwright and the hundreds of other specialized roles that feed off of each other.  That's why we lean on other people's expertise on a daily basis.  Scientific advancement would come to a crawl without collaboration between researchers, for example.  

 

But to lean on experts requires trust, and that trust is being actively eroded from without while those very same people eroding that trust claim that it is the institution itself that is eroding from within. 

 

If we need to have a conversation about reforming parts of higher education, that's fine.  But what we're seeing instead is a wholesale dismantling of the respect and trust in that institution.  That's what should alarm you.  

Edited December 5, 2019 by Capco

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Capco said:

 

 

See, rhetoric like this I find concerning.  The higher institutions of education in this country are one of its central pillars, on par with the military.  

You are exposing yourself to be a fool with the above statement. 
 

That is laughably ignorant of reality. 

[Foxx]

there is a difference between being educated and being schooled.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Capco said:

 

 

 

But to lean on experts requires trust, and that trust is being actively eroded from without while those very same people eroding that trust claim that it is the institution itself that is eroding from within. 

I am a highly educated person w an advanced degree. I went to good schools, I know first hand what they are like and who they produce. The trust erosion you’re talking about was entirely earned due to THEIR ***** ups. Not the other way around. 
 

The point here is these witnesses are not experts in ANYTHING relevant to the impeachment case being built. Not a single thing. 
 

They were trotted out to read a script and blind you with their academic credentials — not to lend their expertise on this topic. 
 

Stop appealing to authority and start thinking for yourself. It’s the only way to survive The (did)information war we are all combatants in at present. 

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

You are exposing yourself to be a fool with the above statement. 
 

That is laughably ignorant of reality. 

 

No, it actually isn't.  The modern university system was built on military cooperation, so it's entirely accurate to call them a pillar of the nation on par with the military.

 

Probably not what he meant, though.

[Capco]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, it actually isn't.  The modern university system was built on military cooperation, so it's entirely accurate to call them a pillar of the nation on par with the military.

 

Probably not what he meant, though.

 

West Point and the Army Corps of Engineers were instrumental to the building of infrastructure in the early days of the nation.  Without those engineers the nation develops much slower.  You also saw a huge boom as a result of R&D during WWII.  

 

I mean I was just quoting someone else when I said that it was a pillar on par with the military.  Not even an original idea or anything.  

Edited December 5, 2019 by Capco