leh-nerd skin-erd

Well John, that wasn't what Fergie misrepresented, but thank you anyway. I won't presume you're interested in what Turley actually said about the impeachment inquiry and why he supports it, but if you were truly an Independent voter you might be a bit more open-minded. You might also wonder how Fergie came to his conclusion about what Turley said, but it's a big ask of a dem loyalist. Here's a recent piece on his perspective. In a crazy twist, he mentions he was criticized by the right. https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-testified-at-biden-impeachment-inquiry-hearing-but-found-myself-on-trial#:~:text=“While I stated that I,President Biden could be impeached.” In my testimony, I laid out the constitutional and historical baseline for impeachment inquiries. While I stated that I do not believe that the current evidence would support an actual article of impeachment, I testified that the evidence clearly satisfied the threshold for an impeachment inquiry and, if these allegations are established, President Biden could be impeached.

Ok BillSy, I'll put you in the "No one becomes wiser after age 21" breakout group with Johnny Riverside. Meanwhile, of course, you shared a meme of an individual who ran for the highest office in the land, having never held public office previously, and shocked the world by knocking off the heir apparent and widely assumed shoo-in and lady landslide for the job. Spoiler alert--he was well outside his college years when all that took place. Preemptively, this lad was not a real doctor so keep your Doogie memes in your pocket:

You can take it and file it where the sun don’t shine, playa!

Of course they are the future, and they deserve a seat at the table (though most liberals would suggest that seat at the table should not include access to firearms, or a glass of wine with dinner). However, to abdicate common sense and and traditional thoughts of about the maturation process is not the answer.

You’re asking me to provide facts alternative to Turley’s comments when you’ve misrepresented what Turley said? I replied on that issue previously, perhaps when you were mid-bender. 🤫

Your point is silly. College-aged adults tend to do some really silly things and make decisions uniformed by the wisdom that comes with experience. They often make poor decisions on which car to drive, how fast they should drive, under the influence of which substance they should drive, which college to attend, relationships they should be involved in, how to pay for college, whether or not they should pursue education, how much money to save, how much credit card debt to incur, which job they should pursue and so much more. For every wisened old soul at 19, there are countless young adults making decisions they’ll look back on later and think they wish they had that back. On the other hand, the relative innocence of a young mind certainly can offer fresh perspective.

A cursory look into the life, death and fortune (and elaborate planning to shield massive wealth) of Diane Feinstein reveals that contempt for rubes bridges the political divide.

Before harkening back to anything else, consider harkening back to what he actually said.

Read. His. Words. Not. Yours. (Dude).

Your summation is garbage. It’s not Opposite Day, Squidward, there’s not a treasure map written in disappearing ink on the back of the constitution, and the DaVinci Code was fiction. He said what he said, you should read it, again, before looking foolish (again).

We’ve addressed this Kemp, please try and keep up. You slow yourself down muttering about cults, and to be completely honest, it’s more than a tad creepy. The impeachment inquiry will continue, as it should, until it’s resolved. With luck, if Impeachment is warranted, he’s impeached. If not, well, then not. I think your commitment to Biden, and willingness to explain away serious allegations and return to business as usual reveals an unhealthy devotion to Man v country, but let’s assume it’s a smear campaign against your guy. So? That’s American politics, baby, so sit back and enjoy the ride.

If you got all the way to page 4, how did you completely f*** up page 2 (and pages 1, 3, and 5-36)?? This is what Turley said: I have previously stated that, while I believe that an impeachment inquiry is warranted, I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment. This what you stated he meant: I think he meant that these impeachment proceedings are not constitutionally bona fide. I agree in the case of the current one. Take the L here, Champ. There’s no shame in relying on what someone else told you someone else said, but it’s pretty shameful to dig in and lob insults at someone just trying to rightsize your thought process.

I had no idea what Turley said about guardrails or anything else. When you brought it up as if you did, I asked what he said. The really interesting part is that you apparently had no idea, either, since you misunderstood (on a massive scale) or misrepresented what Turley actually said. I’ll give you credit here because while you screwed up this point, you did so spectacularly.

It’s not tough for me in the least Kempy. The world keeps turning, but thank you for your concern. As for the impeachment inquiry, settle in and sit tight. There’s plenty of time for dialogue, testimony and evidence. Worst case scenario is it’s all a big misunderstanding.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/30/hunter-bidens-daughter-represented-peru-while-living-in-the-white-house/ There’s a lot of money to spread around.

I’m not sure where you got that impression, that’s not what he said. He offered support for the impeachment inquiry, listed 10 areas of concern specifically related to the behavior of Biden and the Biden family, and suggested there were others as well. He rightly suggested that Biden may have explanations for the behavior, and that inferences, assumptions and bias often come into play on both sides of the aisle. He also provided a brief historical review of impeachment proceedings, the impact of politics, power and the evolution to the Biden inquiry, and the erosion of trust in government that these types of proceedings tend to produce. You asked me (several posts ago) what I thought about his “guardrails”, pulling one word from 36 pages of testimony. I admire his desire to find common ground, to restore trust in the institution, and his appeal to politicians to do better than before. I’d support reasonable “guardrails” so long as all participants followed the same rule. Sadly, I think that’s a pipe dream, and we have to deal with the here and now. The Rs should push forward in the world we live in now, play the game the way it is played, and continue to hammer Biden on these issues irrespective of the call for guardrails.

Well then, share their thoughts for clarity. What did they think he meant when he said what he said?

"Terrible at obfuscation.". Let that one sink in a bit. Then, thank you. 🥳 If we were having a cup of coffee discussing impeachment, and you blurted out "Jim said we gotta have guardrails. Do you agree?!", my response would be "I don't know Jim, but what do you mean by guardrails?". If that would throw you off, or cause you to believe I had some underlying desire to confuse you with words, that's on you.

The old expression "Think outside the box" comes to mind here. The problem for many people is they they are blissfully unaware that the box even exists.

Are you asking me if I believe rules, precedent and order should carry the day when it comes to impeachment? Or if congress should push forward based on prevailing political winds or who(m) is in power and when? Glad we agree on truth and transparency.

We can agree to disagree on whether or not impeachment has become a mainstream political strategy (it has), or that character assassination and innuendo isn't already a mainstream political strategy (it always has been), or that the the actions of family members are irrelevant in political operations (they aren't, and never were), but Biden brought this on himself. If you're correct, however, that no one is paying attention, then what's the harm in seeking transparency and truth?

That’s just good writing.

That’s incorrect. When a narrative is repeated over and over and over and over and over the tendency is for the mud to stick. Likewise, when you allow your political adversary to set the narrative without pushing back, or playing the same game, you do so at your own peril.

And then @Tiberius compares the Lincoln assassination with driving 55 in a 50.

Ground and pound. It works. Keep rolling this stuff out over time. Hunter sounds like a total mess in that text, you gotta be wonder how a whiny meth head like that gets paid madd staxx in the Ukraine, or would have you didn’t know what happened. It’s not your tax money, it’s just your fair share of the collective. You probably should do more, too.