Trump Impeachment 2.0

[daz28]

Here's what's wrong with America.  Marjorie Taylor Greene gets stripped of her assignments, because all of her nutbar actions were revealed.  Her favorability by Republicans goes up by 11%.  Just how stupid are people??  Really, how dumb can you be to like someone more, because they got exposed for being a nutcase????  Want to get more popular in the party, well you can start by saying the school shootings were a hoax, and set up by the Democrats.  If that doesn't work, you can chase around and harass one of the teenage kids who's friends were shot to death in front of him.  Like seriously WTF!

 

[716er]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 I still wonder why a permit for peaceful demonstration would be denied to begin with. 

 

A hunch - but probably because of the threats the FBI were aware of prior to the insurrection. The leader of the Proud Boys was arrested when he landed in DC I believe on the 4th or maybe it was the 5th of January. It's not rare, either, for demonstrations to be limited to specific locations.

[SectionC3]

35 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

If they have evidence that this was preplanned then why wasn’t the capitol prepared? And is there is no such evidence then the case is this was spontaneous? Really? 😂😂😂😂😂 Either way that dog doesn’t hunt. 

 

If it was pre-planned, and Trump said stand down (or stand by), do you really think we'd be here?  Objectively speaking, I don't.  There was a plan -- probably multiple plans, actually -- he encouraged it, and we all saw the result.  The Big Lie and the failure to prove the Big Lie left us in a spot where violence was the only solution for those who wanted Trump to stay in power despite the election results. 

[daz28]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Daz28 = hater.  I'm not really interested in your interpretation of what happened/didn't happen in real time.  I'm not trying to be rude, but your view has little to do with evidence that is clear and obvious and being presented in the senate. 

 

I'm interested in the smoking gun that leads a trail directly from DJT to the several hundred rioters who stormed the Capitol.  Given that it's fairly clear law enforcement was well aware that there was the potential for this to occur, I'd think it would be fairly clear that there must be some sort of smoking gun evidence that is irrefutable.  

 

The dems have said they have it.  They said they had the goods on Russia.  

 

 

 

 

If the fact that he cheered on while people were dying/being disfigured/wounded, as the whole nation begged him to help to stop it, doesn't bother you then fine.  if you're ok with him telling them they did a great job, and he loves them for what they did, then fine.  If you're ok with him tweeting "that's what you get", while children's fathers were dying, then fine.  If it really is going to require a video of him with the plans rolled out on a table with him plotting, then that's fine, too.  I'm sure you're a real fine individual

 

[SectionC3]

8 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Here's what's wrong with America.  Marjorie Taylor Greene gets stripped of her assignments, because all of her nutbar actions were revealed.  Her favorability by Republicans goes up by 11%.  Just how stupid are people??  Really, how dumb can you be to like someone more, because they got exposed for being a nutcase????  Want to get more popular in the party, well you can start by saying the school shootings were a hoax, and set up by the Democrats.  If that doesn't work, you can chase around and harass one of the teenage kids who's friends were shot to death in front of him.  Like seriously WTF!

 

 

The sane, moderate Republicans are leaving.  We're seeing a battle for the future of the Republican Party, and the Trumpers (not the freetrader/conservative/capitalists) are winning.  Impeachment II probably won't result in a conviction, but the managers are using it to pound away at the fissure in the Republican Party.  The best thing they (Senate Republicans) can do is convict this fool, take their lumps in midterms in 2022, and try to win it back in 2024.  But they won't.  And that's fine with me.  

Edited February 10, 2021 by SectionC3

[daz28]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

The sane, moderate Republicans are leaving.  We're seeing a battle for the future of the Republican Party, and the Trumpers (not the freetrader/conservative/capitalists) are winning.  Impeachment II probably won't result in a conviction, but the managers are using it to pound away at the fissure in the Republican Party.  The best thing they can do is impeach this guy, take their lumps in midterms in 2022, and try to win it back in 2024. 

If they become fragmented they will never win ANYTHING for a long, long time.  The idea they can get over half the population to be nutbars is a horrible strategy.  it's simply a fact more young people are progressive, and old conservative.  They latched their ponies to this maniac, and are going to pay dearly for it.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

That's nice to dredge up Russia.  But that's not the issue here.  

 

And let's not play games on intent, either.  Rarely, RARELY, is there direct evidence of intent.  It's measured by, and inferred from, actions, because criminals generally don't announce intent before committing a crime.  E.g., putting a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger (and firing) is evidence of intent to kill and sufficient to convict of intentional murder (assuming death) even if the assailant doesn't speak his or her goal of killing the victim. 

Of course it's an issue, though it's not THE issue here.   As a citizen, it's entirely and perfectly reasonable to question the motives of political parties and to consider that actions of the past may shade opinions on actions of the present.  

 

I'm not playing games S3, and it's silly to argue about guns and bullets to the skull in a case that involves neither.   The lack of smoking gun evidence certainly does not prove innocence, but it's 100% accurate to say that in many cases, no smoking gun exists because the alleged perpetrator is not guilty of the crime that he/she is accused of. 

 

Going back to my initial point, I have no doubt that house impeachment managers and experienced political operatives can make an impassioned and one-sided argument that DJT was the second guy through the Capitol doors and a large segment of the population would immediately think "That makes sense".  That's quite literally a characteristic of a very good politician.  Our system of justice often comes down to who(m) tells the better story than the other party.  

 

I'll sit tight for the smoking gun part of the trial.  

[716er]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I'll sit tight for the smoking gun part of the trial.  

 

You likely did on 1/6/21

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

If they become fragmented they will never win ANYTHING for a long, long time.  The idea they can get over half the population to be nutbars is a horrible strategy.  it's simply a fact more young people are progressive, and old conservative.  They latched their ponies to this maniac, and are going to pay dearly for it.

 

The Republican Party was considered smashed in 2012 after Obama got re-elected.  The Democrats were considered fragmented after 2016.  The dust is still in the air and hasn't settled yet. The left has some far-left participants.  The right has some far-right participants.  The moderates of each party tolerate their votes.  This isn't a one-party phenomenon.

 

 

[daz28]

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

 

I'll sit tight for the smoking gun part of the trial.  

We know Trump did call Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama after mistakenly dialing Senator Mike Lee of Utah. Trump called Tuberville not to ask about his safety or to offer assistance, but to discuss a strategy for objecting to the count of electoral votes.

 

 

Guns still not smoking enough????

4 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

The Republican Party was considered smashed in 2012 after Obama got re-elected.  The Democrats were considered fragmented after 2016.  The dust is still in the air and hasn't settled yet. The left has some far-left participants.  The right has some far-right participants.  The moderates of each party tolerate their votes.  This isn't a one-party phenomenon.

 

 

None of those situations involved loyalty to one man over absolutely everything.  He's basically running a mafioso by threatening to primary anyone who doesn't do his bidding.  This is much different.  

[SectionC3]

11 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Of course it's an issue, though it's not THE issue here.   As a citizen, it's entirely and perfectly reasonable to question the motives of political parties and to consider that actions of the past may shade opinions on actions of the present.  

 

I'm not playing games S3, and it's silly to argue about guns and bullets to the skull in a case that involves neither.   The lack of smoking gun evidence certainly does not prove innocence, but it's 100% accurate to say that in many cases, no smoking gun exists because the alleged perpetrator is not guilty of the crime that he/she is accused of. 

 

Going back to my initial point, I have no doubt that house impeachment managers and experienced political operatives can make an impassioned and one-sided argument that DJT was the second guy through the Capitol doors and a large segment of the population would immediately think "That makes sense".  That's quite literally a characteristic of a very good politician.  Our system of justice often comes down to who(m) tells the better story than the other party.  

 

I'll sit tight for the smoking gun part of the trial.  

 

I'll summarize.  You demand a smoking gun with respect to an issue for which there is almost NEVER a smoking gun.  That's the bottom line.  Next time someone who commits a murder alerts the world to the intent to kill via writing, verbal expression, or social media post, let me know.  Until then, since there are NO Republicans getting on TV to defend Trump, maybe you can book a couple of hits on Newsmax or Fox or the MyPillowNetwork to tell the world that Trump has clean hands here. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

If the fact that he cheered on while people were dying/being disfigured/wounded, as the whole nation begged him to help to stop it, doesn't bother you then fine.  if you're ok with him telling them they did a great job, and he loves them for what they did, then fine.  If you're ok with him tweeting "that's what you get", while children's fathers were dying, then fine.  If it really is going to require a video of him with the plans rolled out on a table with him plotting, then that's fine, too.  I'm sure you're a real fine individual

 

Settle down--there's no daytime emmy for best dramatic posting on a football website. 

 

The argument has been made by the democrats in the house and senate.  It is on the organizers and leadership cabal of that party to produce the evidence.  I understand how you feel about the loss of life, and my disgust for the capitol rioters lead me to conclude early that they should have been dealt with harshly and swiftly when they breached the capitol. These people needed to be put down, and at least in one case, they were.  The series of arrests that followed were appropriate and necessary.  

 

I felt the same way when rioters set upon hapless citizen and the police this summer, and morons in the house, senate and populace seemingly encouraged the behavior with their incendiary language and apathy.   

 

Given what you and others have shared here, I would think the dems will prove their case with ample circumstantial and smoking gun evidence and the senate will vote in simpatico to convict.  When that occurs, I'll gladly stand with you on your soapbox. 

 

As for my standing in life, I do the best I can to be a decent human being.  I don't judge myself on the standards imposed by some simpleton on the internet who is a generation or two removed from being the most bloodthirsty member of the tar and pitchfork crowd. 

12 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

You likely did on 1/6/21

I likely did what? 

[716er]

Are you Rand Paul?

[snafu]

5 minutes ago, daz28 said:

None of those situations involved loyalty to one man over absolutely everything.  He's basically running a mafioso by threatening to primary anyone who doesn't do his bidding.  This is much different.  

 

Each party has its adherents to individuals. Trump has his style and the people who love him, love him. So does Bernie Sanders, whose supporters threatened, twice, to pull their support from the D party.  And they came around.

 

 

[716er]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I likely did what? 

 

Sat tight through the smoking gun evidence.

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

11 minutes ago, daz28 said:

We know Trump did call Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama after mistakenly dialing Senator Mike Lee of Utah. Trump called Tuberville not to ask about his safety or to offer assistance, but to discuss a strategy for objecting to the count of electoral votes.

 

 

Guns still not smoking enough????

 

You clearly have no idea how government works. Your example here is what goes on every time a bill is put on the floor. The leaders of the House, Senate and/or White House start working the phones to see if they have the votes or if they can sway people to their side. Unless there’s more to it...this gun isn’t smoking. How do you think it works?

[daz28]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

Each party has its adherents to individuals. Trump has his style and the people who love him, love him. So does Bernie Sanders, whose supporters threatened, twice, to pull their support from the D party.  And they came around.

 

 

People pulling support from a party, because they don't like the way their party handles their candidate is much different than a member of ones own party coercing them with their political clout to do their bidding.

[716er]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

You clearly have no idea how government works. Your example here is what goes on every time a bill is put on the floor. The leaders of the House, Senate and/or White House start working the phones to see if they have the votes or if they can sway people to their side. Unless there’s more to it...this gun isn’t smoking. How do you think it works?

 

Wouldn't you agree working the phones to sway people to the side of the insurrectionists looking to kill the VP Pence during the insurrection is a little different than working the phones to see if he's got votes?

 

I see what you are saying but to compare the two as equal is a stretch.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I'll summarize.  You demand a smoking gun with respect to an issue for which there is almost NEVER a smoking gun.  That's the bottom line.  Next time someone who commits a murder alerts the world to the intent to kill via writing, verbal expression, or social media post, let me know.  Until then, since there are NO Republicans getting on TV to defend Trump, maybe you can book a couple of hits on Newsmax or Fox or the MyPillowNetwork to tell the world that Trump has clean hands here. 

Ah.  Newsmax. Fox. MyPillow.  

 

All in response to a polite inquiry and discourse about evidence beyond what you have decided in circumstantial evidence, in a political venue, where a significant portion of the participants have expressed concerns about the proceedings.  

 

 

 

 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

You clearly have no idea how government works. Your example here is what goes on every time a bill is put on the floor. The leaders of the House, Senate and/or White House start working the phones to see if they have the votes or if they can sway people to their side. Unless there’s more to it...this gun isn’t smoking. How do you think it works?

This call took place DURING THE INSURRECTION.  It's like during a car crash worrying about how the car is before asking if your wife and kids are still alive.  It's unconscionable, and certainly demonstrates what his intentions were.