leh-nerd skin-erd

Ah, well, in that case, thank you for your service.

Yes, most partisan impeachment(s) in the history of the country, and both failed in/at the senate because of it. Are we arguing?

Perspective is a strange thing. Trump, a guy folks have criticized as bombastic, ignorant, shoot from the hip and a say anything guy, complains loudly and bitterly about a stolen election. The Dems in power— the leaders of the liberal crowd complained loudly and bitterly of an illegitimate presidency set up by the Rooskies in 2016, using at time far harsher rhetoric to inspire their supporters. The Dems lost both times they impeached, and the one time they set the power of the govt out to crush some ties. As so often happens with Trump, the argument seems to be that suddenly Trump is so keenly brilliant and cunning, that he conspires with fringe elements to storm the freaking Capitol, using code words like “peaceful” and leaving no apparent direct evidence of his involvement. Then, in a move you really could only write in a Hollywood script, he’s taken to task not in a court of law for the OBVIOUS call to storm the Capitol (as claimed by Dems), they decide to press the issue in a largely symbolic gesture that ultimately means..nothing. The story now seems to be that politics only came in to okay during the vote, and that the senators who voted to acquit are co-conspirators a d also wanted the Capitol breached. It’s preposterous. History will show that in two clearly partisan attempts to suppress the votes of millions of non-dem voters, with virtually all the cards in their hand, they failed. History will show that I the multi-year Mueller inv, with incredible power, and unlimited power and very few restrictions, they failed. I know you consider yourself an independent distrust of both parties, and I respect that. I can understand hated of Trump but allowing the party in power to destroy by innuendo is not the answer and assures only more of the same. I can understand wanting Trump out. I’ll say again what I said to some of my frenemies here— if there is evidence of Trump conspiring, aiding or abetting the terrorists who stormed the Capitol, handle it in the court of law away from cameras, politicians then hallowed halls of Congress where back room deals and screwing the public is the soup du jour. Prosecution. Defense. Witnesses. Juries. This was an explosion in the freak show at a circus, for the second time.

The riots that started this issue occurred less than 45 days ago. The matter was “investigated”, proceeded through the house and senate, sidestepping questions of constitutionality, the absence of the Chief Justice of the SC, does not follow the processes associated with our criminal court system, and the Dems control the house, senate and executive branch. Just prior to the acquittal a hubbub and stir is created about witnesses—call em, don’t call em, if you call yours we’ll call a hundred!— like a middle school mock trial. But sure, the acquittal, long a forgone conclusion, is THE bad politics. 🤣 0-2 for obvious reasons.

That’s a lot of words for “acquitted”.

Her comments were typical throwaway stuff. It’s an example of an otherwise educated person not using common sense in the appropriate venue, and it’s a non-issue for me. Besides, on a scale of 1-10, the sitting president has acknowledged groping 8 women, taken to task only because of his extreme hypocrisy on #istandwithher which in his case was actually #igottosecondbasewithher. If liberal voters support that sort of thing as they clearly do, it would be extremely hypocritical and discriminatory to shame this simply tone deaf female attorney.

Did you reference cotton in your first post to me because you think I'm Tommy Hilfiger?

You have to live your truth. I understand.

This is really fascinating to me, this sort of post. The record shows that Obama bounced ambassadors on the eve of his departure, participated in surveillance on a political rival, trashed Trump as a vile human being, and the evidence shows he knew an awful lot about the Steel dossier in early January of the year Trump took office. What he was briefed on was huge news, and certainly would have gone a long way towards assuaging the fears of the that nation that Steele offered anything of credible or of value. In the meantime, the dem leadership pounded the table on an illegitimate election, a coup, threats and calls to violence against rs and their reporters. If a photo op of an outgoing pres is enough to convince you that the peaceful transition of power took place in spite of the 48 months that have passed, then I'd suggest the kind note left to Biden, as described by Biden, is indicative of Trump's peaceful transition of power.

One of the fundamental rules of successfully navigating the internet is to avoid clicking on links from sources deemed untrustworthy. Given your predilection for silencing dissent, you are in that category.

Not going to happen Vanilla Ice, but thanks for reminding me.

It's become unfashionable to request that 'open/obvious/everyone can see it' evidence be provided by those in full froth. Here's the way it plays out: them: It's quite obvious there was incitement. reasonable people: Why do you think that? them: Well, calls for peaceful protests are obvious dog whistles to breach the Capitol. rp: Do you have anything more than pretend dog whistles? I'm willing to listen. them: What else would we need. We're liberals. Everyone can see it. Anyone who cannot is a complicit co-conspirator. rp: Righto, but what else do you have? It seems if 'peace = violence' this should take 5 minutes. them: No, that's enough. We can't have some people calling for peaceful protests using pretend dog whistles. Don't be obstinate. rp: No, seriously. Are you at all concerned this is political theater run amock? them: No. There are no politics in play at all here. These dems are legit and pure. rp: So are you anticipating a conviction and 100% vote on guilty? them: No. Some in attendance are consciously unlistening. Conviction is highly unlikely. It's all political. rp: They are acting politically, but the other side is not? them: Yes. You don't understand. Every crime ever committed has been decided on circumstantial evidence and has been committed by Trump. There literally is never any evidence. rp: Every crime ever is Trump's fault? them: Yes. Both the existence of evidence and the lack of evidence are indicators of guilt. When you think about it, there was no evidence that Trump was involved in the Brown/Goldman murders, but who else could it have been but Trump? rp: So you can do nothing at all and be guilty? them: Of course. That's how it works-- we accuse someone of something and they are guilty. Look at Russia. rp: That doesn't sound right. What happened to Trump after the Russia investigation? them: Nothing. That's the point. Nothing isn't anything, it's something. Duh.

Every zealot and true believer follows your calculated approached to inter-personal interaction. It reveals your personal limitation on thought and reason, which is your problem, not mine. As you fumble about for examples to buttress your argument, like a pimply faced adolescent working to solve the mystery of the front latching bra in 1982, you move farther to the fringe while demanding others see the world through your own pair of rose colored glasses. I decline, and agree that no further discussion is warranted.

There has been more opportunity to find common ground on this board in the last several posts from @oldmanfan, @SoCal Deekand @All_Pro_Bills then there has been in a long time. While the conclusions differ on DJT, his actions and the charges against him, the reality is that we all agree that congress is the last place in America that we might want to look for anything approaching fairness, decency and people acting in the best interest of We The people. My epiphany came post W Bush. I won't bore you with the details, but I've been a centrist and get-along guy my whole life. It's not just a political thing, I'm the middle child of a close family and you learn early on that together, everyone achieves more (TEAM for those of you in Rio Linda). In non-internet settings I have perfectly reasonable conversations about Trump/Pelosi/Biden/McConnell/Obama and the like. While my friends/associates and I disagree on some substantive issues, it's hard to argue facts rationally. The reality is that Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct, the same reality that reveals that Biden has been as well. Trump makes off the cuff comments that make you shake your head, tis true, but 15 seconds and an internet search reveals some whoppers from Biden as well. Anyway--back to W. The dealio was that he claimed that SH was pursuing/had WMD, and he prosecuted a war on that basis. Ultimately, the argument was that W lead the USA into that war under false pretenses, that he sent young men and women into battle to fight and die for oil--something I believe any reasonable person on this board would consider a massive deal-breaker when it came to fostering/establishing/maintaining a close personal relationship with the man (and his sycophants like Cheney) in the future. Yet, in spite of that stinging accusation, post W, look at what we get. Obama/Bush together, all lovey dovey. The Chosen and The War Criminal hand in hand, sharing cough drops and getting photographed at the inauguration of another supporter of the war for oil, Joe Biden. Cheney's daughter, a senator herself, sitting in judgement of Trump while her father--allegedly the architect of the war fro oil and shooter of people's faces, he's off living a life of privilege, nary a thought or accusation since the day he left office. There is one major political party in this country, with slight variations on the fringes, and it runs on the 'keep the folks in steerage arguing' platform. Back to Trump. It's obvious by now that I concur with the assessment as laid out by All Pro, but I would be among the first to acknowledge there may be facts I am unaware of. Personally, I would discount virtually any slightly controversial fact as alleged by the impeachment tribunal much like I would have cautioned my daughter to avoid believing rumors from cross-town rivals in the local cheerleading competition. I would assume folks on the left would do the same, mostly because they have over the past 4 years. For my efforts at being open-minded on this issue many claim is slam dunk, btw, I've been labelled by a sometimes rational poster as head of the local My Pillow Guy Fan club and a supporter of the abhorrent assault on the Capitol. If there is solid, conclusive evidence, the logical place to vet the accusations is in the court of law, not some hopped up kangaroo court. The players simply cannot be trusted, we all know it, and they all stand far too much to gain or lose to be considered credible or ethical. I support the oldman/deek ticket, and allpro for AG. Let me know where to send the check.

If the evidence is there, he should be charged with specific crimes, the case prosecuted and the outcome left to a jury. I’d support that, assuming the evidence supported the charges. Given the significance of the assault on the Capitol, and the seriousness of the allegations, why do you suppose that hasn’t happened? It certainly would be very early in the investigation, unlike political impeachment where they can convict, allege, investigate and set up the gallows in less than 10 days, but there doesn’t even seem to be any appetite for pursuing this very logical process. Instead, this seems a glorified campaign event where the prosecutor and head tribunalist come from the political party able to manipulate virtually all the levers, with an incredible amount of upside in the event of victory. If the evidence is clear and convincing as many of the weekend lawyers here have been told, given the leverage and power the dems have, it seems it should be a slam dunk conviction with no defectors.

There is clearly a difference in the two scenarios offered, though the paucity of facts offered on the hypothetical POW scenario concern leave me uncertain as to how I feel about the soldiers actions. Perhaps he’s the hero, perhaps a co-conspirator in some sinister plot involving drugs or human trafficking and suffering. Be that as it may, given the limitations of the two choices you have offered, what say you about gang bangers/rioters who kill the security guard/shop owner or police officer in the street. Would you characterize the perpetrators as the American soldier or Adolph Hitler? Here’s a story about a man murdered during riots/protests from over the summer: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/us/david-dorn-st-louis-police-shot-trnd/index.html

No BLM members could be opportunistic criminals? Some member is the protest for equality fired bottle rockets, bottles, molotov cocktails at law enforcement officers huddled in groups of ten or 20. People, including LEO, were beaten savagely across the country. People were murdered at various locations throughout the summer. The perpetrators were all political agnostics who huddled within the mother breast of the crowd? I guess I'm struggling with how you get to murder is murder but some murder is worse. It just sounds as if you find certain murders palatable while others abhorrent.

Holy cow. So, you're a single mom working as a clerk at an appliance store, or as a security guard at night. 10,000 people are peacefully protesting outside, bringing attention to their cause. A splinter 10 or 15 opportunist/gang bangers see the TV section, realize that nothing defines unity like a 52" Sanyo 4D, they break in, shoot the security guard in the head and the single mom in the stomach. These murders are better than the other murders?

Fair on both counts, though it seems to me that would be obvious to the impeachment managers and part of the discussion. I could be reading too much into the other poster's thoughts, but the implication was that Trump became involved and overrode the vetoed permit with obvious nefarious intent. It would matter to me, personally, if evidence existed to that end. On the payment issue, I recall seeing stories about Trump and his org doing just that. I will say it seems quite fashionable for large businesses and many state governments to handle billing and payments in the manner outlined. It seems in the often seedy world of real estate development, developers are well known for contracting work and then ducking/dodging and stringing along vendors long after the work is completed. In some cases, payment is never rendered. I know from first hand accounts it's fairly common for NYS to contract work and get around to paying it whenever, or in some cases, never as administration and priorities change. If I'm not mistaken, Los Angeles County is currently evaluating what/who they can deny payments to for services rendered.

My son likes the Warriors and a couple times he has encouraged me to watch with him. The rainbow three pointers from way out are kinda cool, but the rest of it seems to be "squeak squeak squeak dunk pass dunk" and then in the last couple minutes it's "squeak squeak squeak pass foul squeak foul pass foul steal foul". In fairness I tapped out on baseball when I was a kid. I wish I could get into these games more, but they bore me to tears. It's probably me.

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.

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. I likely did what?

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 saw the edit--thanks for that clarification. I still wonder why a permit for peaceful demonstration would be denied to begin with.

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.