Trump Impeachment 2.0

[SectionC3]

13 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You could substitute Adam Schiff and Eric Swallwell in your paragraph except about the Russia hoax, and it would read the exact same way. Word, for word.  Try it! 

Before I so substituted I might read the third to last line of Volume II of the Mueller report.  I’ll even paste it for you here:

 

“At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”

 

Why engage in conduct that arguably constitutes obstruction of justice if the investigation is a hoax?  Doesn’t add up.  And doesn’t change the fact that Mueller is unable to say that the President did not commit obstruction of justice in his interactions with respect to that investigation.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 minutes ago, Scraps said:

If you believe Trump lost, shouldn't he have admitted as much and not filled people's heads with nonsense about a stolen election?  Shouldn't he have put the country first and engaged in an orderly, peaceful transfer of power like his predecessor afforded him?

 

What in the election needs to be tightened?  What lack of transparency are you talking about?  What serious **** ups along the way are you talking about? 

You do realize the Rs lost the Senate.

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.   

 

 

[SectionC3]

59 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

What I'd like  to say is yes, and I didn't take Trump's statements as a call to action and I never would, just to make you freak out.

 

What I believe is that Trump lost.  What I believe is that States had better tighten up their voting systems and be more transparent for the next election.  What I believe is that if someone is going to hold an election, it is good to show the world how fair it is, instead of just flat out dismissing questions about it and marketing it ad "the big lie".  There appear to be some serious ***** ups along the way to certifying a winner, and none of those were ever explained.  If it's such a lie, then show everyone.  I don't think that has happened yet.

 

 

Why do we need to “tighten up” what isn’t broken?  Show the need.  Maybe start with the Dominion Voting Systems lie.  And here’s the thing: there is a presumption of regularity with respect to elections.  Think there was a problem?  Prove it.  Go for it.  Take your case to court.  But you don’t get to shift the burden to the proponent of the result to prove its validity, or to disprove your lies about fraud.  That’s not how it works.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

You feel silenced, awww. 

You have to live your truth.  I understand. 

[Motorin']

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

You have to live your truth.  I understand. 

 

After calling me Vanilla Ice, is that a coded way of calling me gay?

[Tiberius]

Election was stolen 

we have to fight like hell 

If you don’t fight, you lose your country. 

 

 

Yup, he incited that scum bag Trump mob to go to the capital 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, Motorin' said:

 

After calling me Vanilla Ice, is that a coded way of calling me gay?

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

 

  

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Election was stolen 

we have to fight like hell 

If you don’t fight, you lose your country. 

 

 

Yup, he incited that scum bag Trump mob to go to the capital 

After repeatedly telling an emotionally vulnerable minority that they were victims of systemic racism, they incited multiple angry mobs, to burn, loot, vandalize and kill. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by SoCal Deek

[snafu]

18 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Why do we need to “tighten up” what isn’t broken?  Show the need.  Maybe start with the Dominion Voting Systems lie.  And here’s the thing: there is a presumption of regularity with respect to elections.  Think there was a problem?  Prove it.  Go for it.  Take your case to court.  But you don’t get to shift the burden to the proponent of the result to prove its validity, or to disprove your lies about fraud.  That’s not how it works.  

 

This is my last post on this matter...

Computer counting mechanisms count the ballots that are put into them.  They don't feel.  They're machines.  The machines aren't the issue.  People who handle the ballots are the issue.  I already said that the newly implemented voting absentee and mail-in methods were SO new that the election boards that had to implement them were not likely ready to handle the changes.  I said that way before the election.  It was obvious that States weren't ready.  It took Pennsylvania months to count primary votes.  Same with NYS.

 

It is very difficult to go to court with evidence that's not available to you, even though you ask for it.  It is very difficult to compile evidence in 30 days (between election and certification).  State legislatures held hearings (albeit Republican-dominated hearings) and took testimony of people with boots on the ground during the counting.  These people were dismissed as kooks, and some may have been -- but the messenger was killed and the message wasn't probed.  Headlines from the media on November 5th all immediately claimed that Trump was lying.  Why would they editorialize in their headlines?  Why not say "Trump alleges", instead of "Trump falsely claims".  What made the reporters of facts so factually certain?  People like to claim that Trump lost "x" lawsuits, and he (or people challenging results) certainly did, but it seems as most of those were lost on procedural grounds and not substantive grounds.  Take the Texas Case in the Supreme Court.  Did you read their brief and the briefs of the Respondent States?  The substance was never addressed, though it was laid out pretty clearly.  They had no standing, the alleged deficiencies never saw the light of day.

 

Why NOT ask these questions (I'm referring to November, 2020)?  What is the harm in answering?  We saw the harm in dismissing the questions out of hand on January 6th.

 

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by snafu

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

After repeatedly telling an emotionally vulnerable minority that they were victims of systemic racism, they incited multiple angry mobs, to burn, loot, vandalize and kill. 

So you don’t believe in law and order, our constitution, democracy and decency. I hate we have to share a country with people like you, but so be it. 

2 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

This is my last post on this matter...

Computer counting mechanisms count the ballots that are put into them.  They don't feel.  They're machines.  The machines aren't the issue.  People who handle the ballots are the issue.  I already said that the newly implemented voting absentee and mail-in methods were SO new that the election boards that had to implement them were not likely ready to handle the changes.  I said that way before the election.  It was obvious that States weren't ready.  It took Pennsylvania months to count primary votes.  Same with NYS.

 

It is very difficult to go to court with evidence that's not available to you, even though you ask for it.  It is very difficult to compile evidence in 30 days (between election and certification).  State legislatures held hearings (albeit Republican-dominated hearings) and took testimony of people with boots on the ground during the counting.  These people were dismissed as kooks, and some may have been -- but the messenger was killed and the message wasn't probed.  Headlines from the media on November 5th all immediately claimed that Trump was lying.  Why would they editorialize in their headlines?  Why not say "Trump alleges", instead of "Trump falsely claims".  What made the reporters of facts so factually certain?  People like to claim that Trump lost "x" lawsuits, and he (or people challenging results) certainly did, but it seems as most of those were lost on procedural grounds and not substantive grounds.  Take the Texas Case in the Supreme Court.  Did you read their brief and the briefs of the Respondent States?  The substance was never addressed, though it was laid out pretty clearly.  They had no standing, the alleged deficiencies never saw the light of day.

 

Why NOT ask these questions?  What is the harm in answering?  We saw the harm in dismissing the questions out of hand on January 6th.

 

 

The courts looked at these silly points and nothing. Undermining our democracy with all this nonsense. 

 

Obviously large parts of our population want to kill our democracy. 

[SectionC3]

12 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

This is my last post on this matter...

Computer counting mechanisms count the ballots that are put into them.  They don't feel.  They're machines.  The machines aren't the issue.  People who handle the ballots are the issue.  I already said that the newly implemented voting absentee and mail-in methods were SO new that the election boards that had to implement them were not likely ready to handle the changes.  I said that way before the election.  It was obvious that States weren't ready.  It took Pennsylvania months to count primary votes.  Same with NYS.

 

It is very difficult to go to court with evidence that's not available to you, even though you ask for it.  It is very difficult to compile evidence in 30 days (between election and certification).  State legislatures held hearings (albeit Republican-dominated hearings) and took testimony of people with boots on the ground during the counting.  These people were dismissed as kooks, and some may have been -- but the messenger was killed and the message wasn't probed.  Headlines from the media on November 5th all immediately claimed that Trump was lying.  Why would they editorialize in their headlines?  Why not say "Trump alleges", instead of "Trump falsely claims".  What made the reporters of facts so factually certain?  People like to claim that Trump lost "x" lawsuits, and he (or people challenging results) certainly did, but it seems as most of those were lost on procedural grounds and not substantive grounds.  Take the Texas Case in the Supreme Court.  Did you read their brief and the briefs of the Respondent States?  The substance was never addressed, though it was laid out pretty clearly.  They had no standing, the alleged deficiencies never saw the light of day.

 

Why NOT ask these questions (I'm referring to November, 2020)?  What is the harm in answering?  We saw the harm in dismissing the questions out of hand on January 6th.

 

 

So you’re guessing about an inability to handle “changes.”  Got it.  Bottom line: you have nothing.  Not a single thing.  Vague, conclusory complaints about an inability to marshal unspecified evidence in time to make a case supporting even a single element of your voter fraud hoax.  

 

Let’s just focus on the Dominion lie here for a second.  The claim there is that there was a massive overvote in PA (there, allegedly, according to the hoax crowd, were hundreds of thousands more votes received and tabulated than there were registered voters.  Pretty simple to prove.  FOIL the voter rolls, compare the number of registered voters to the number of votes reported in the (allegedly, according to the hoax crowd) affected election district(s), and away we go.  Maybe a five or ten minute thing if we go to the local BOE in person.  

 

Having exposed just that element of the Big Lie, it’s easy to see why you and the Q/Trump/Hoax crowd want to shift the burden here from the hoaxers having to prove the invalidity of the result to others to prove the validity of the result.  Election fraud is a hoax, and the idea that a proponent of the result must prove the validity of the election is another hoax.  

[All_Pro_Bills]

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

What legal or moral limits are Democrats violating? 

 

You are basically arguing against democracy. You favor what? A Republic that doesn't allow Democrats the right to rule if they have a majority? 

 

 

Well for starters the desire to grant statehood to Puerto Rico and DC in order to perpetually stack the Senate.  And given a conservative slant to the Supreme Court demands from the left to add 2 or more justices with liberal leanings to reverse that back.

 

Both of these would push the political environment to a permanent Democratic majority and one party rule. So our "democracy" would devolve into something similar to Huessen in Irag where he got 99% of the vote in the presidential "election".  President for life.  A dictatorial democracy.  Who really wants that?  With no checks and balances.  Truth is I grew up in a staunch Democratic union household but the leaders and objectives of this party are just unrecognizable compared to the statue and integrity of their predecessors I grew to admire.  The core used to be the working man and women but now its victims and the pursuit of social grievances of all types. 

 

I could go on.  I would prefer the addition of two or more political parties to give the voters some valid options vs. the pick your poison choice as presented today. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Well for starters the desire to grant statehood to Puerto Rico and DC in order to perpetually stack the Senate.  And given a conservative slant to the Supreme Court demands from the left to add 2 or more justices with liberal leanings to reverse that back.

 

Both of these would push the political environment to a permanent Democratic majority and one party rule. So our "democracy" would devolve into something similar to Huessen in Irag where he got 99% of the vote in the presidential "election".  President for life.  A dictatorial democracy.  Who really wants that?  With no checks and balances.  

 

I could go on..

Or you could be part of a party that has ideas palatable to a majority of the people.  Either one.  

 

Also, I wasn’t in favor of Puerto Rico and DC statehood.  Lately, I’ve come around.  It’s fine to be a Republican.  It’s fine to have America First ideas.  But it’s not fine to be a Trumper, or a Q.  This nonsense — hoax this, hoax that, voter fraud, victimization, dog whistle nonsense — has to be squashed.  It would be nice if McConnell would do the deed for the betterment of the country.  But if he won’t, I’m fine with stacking the deck. 

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Well for starters the desire to grant statehood to Puerto Rico and DC in order to perpetually stack the Senate. 

So you are against Dems exercising legitimate power. The Senate is currently rigged to overrepresent ...people...from rural areas. So Dems should take that power back and at least equalize the representation. You want a rigged system. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Or you could be part of a party that has ideas palatable to a majority of the people.  Either one.  

 

Also, I wasn’t in favor of Puerto Rico and DC statehood.  Lately, I’ve come around.  It’s fine to be a Republican.  It’s fine to have America First ideas.  But it’s not fine to be a Trumper, or a Q.  This nonsense — hoax this, hoax that, voter fraud, victimization, dog whistle nonsense — has to be squashed.  It would be nice if McConnell would do the deed for the betterment of the country.  But if he won’t, I’m fine with stacking the deck. 

That kind of leads to a potential moral dilemma.  Today its decided to "squash" a couple groups viewed as marginal.  So whats to stop the powers ruling the system to move the fence in a little further and start squashing more groups or organizations.  I'm hearing Megadeth's Symphony of Destruction in my head now. 

 

The other question is how far are you willing to go to stop them?  Pass legislation making their ideas or organization illegal?  Arrest people?  Round them up and put them all in camps?  Exterminate people?  I assume they'll resist all that and fight back.  Are you willing to go all in and put your life on the line to stop them?  Or is the idea that law enforcement, the people the Democrats want to defund, are going to do all the dirty work?  What if things get ugly and turn into an all out firefight in the streets.  Are we going to enlist an Army of social justice warriors that are willing to fight and die for their cause?  I know I'm taking it to an extreme but there is nothing to suggest we're not headed there without some leadership willing to compromise and openly address people's grievances from all perspectives.  At this point we have none of that on either side.  So I am worried. 

[716er]

15 Senators did not attend today's proceedings.

 

[SectionC3]

5 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

That kind of leads to a potential moral dilemma.  Today its decided to "squash" a couple groups viewed as marginal.  So whats to stop the powers ruling the system to move the fence in a little further and start squashing more groups or organizations.  I'm hearing Megadeth's Symphony of Destruction in my head now. 

 

The other question is how far are you willing to go to stop them?  Pass legislation making their ideas or organization illegal?  Arrest people?  Round them up and put them all in camps?  Exterminate people?  I assume they'll resist all that and fight back.  Are you willing to go all in and put your life on the line to stop them?  Or is the idea that law enforcement, the people the Democrats want to defund, are going to do all the dirty work?  What if things get ugly and turn into an all out firefight in the streets.  Are we going to enlist an Army of social justice warriors that are willing to fight and die for their cause?  I know I'm taking it to an extreme but there is nothing to suggest we're not headed there without some leadership willing to compromise and openly address people's grievances from all perspectives.  At this point we have none of that on either side.  So I am worried. 

Stand up and say it’s wrong.  Apply the rule of law and common sense to this nonsense. Trump should be convicted.  The rioters should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  And the senators should have the balls to vote based on the (overwhelming) evidence, not based on concern over the political fallout that might follow a conviction.  

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

So you don’t believe in law and order, our constitution, democracy and decency. I hate we have to share a country with people like you, but so be it. 

 

Who is this "we" you speak of?  Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Yes, you have to share your country with people who don't agree with everything you say and think.  Is this a new concept to you? It was supposed to be part of your Kindergarten curriculum.  Were you out sick that day?

[Scraps]

46 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Yep. Except he had every right to question the results.  He's not the first politician to do so

 

This is a weasel worded response.  What he had a right to do and what he should have done are two entirely different things.  He would have had to flip multiple states that he lost by 10,000 votes or more.  This simply wasn't going to happen.  The right thing to do would have been to put the country first, concede and instruct his administration to aid in the peaceful transfer of power.

 

55 minutes ago, snafu said:

His complete screw up was not to have his legal team in place well prior to the election.  Every deadline he had was missed and every complaint he made wasn't ripe.  Those are technicalities that got him bounced out of court after court

 

His team didn't miss every deadline.  His team failed to provide convincing evidence of a problem.  If you believe he lost the election, why don't you believe the courts ruled correctly?

1 hour ago, snafu said:

There are several States which do all mail-in balloting and have done so for years and are good at it.  I don't believe that ANY state which wasn't set up for it was ready to handle a covid-19 election in a proper and efficient way. 

 

Maybe but that doesn't mean the mail in ballots were fraudulent.  There were things that could have been done before the election but state legislatures decided to not do.  That is on the legislatures and meant it might take some time to determine the winner.

 

1 hour ago, snafu said:

Pennsylvania (for one example) saw the legislature pass laws regarding voting, and then saw their Secretary of State change the law midstream.  That's actually a Supreme Court Case that hasn't been argued yet. 

 

If I'm not mistaken, the law that was changed happened in 2019, long before the pandemic.  It was in place for the primaries and Trump wasn't complaining about those results.  The only questionable issue I've heard was accepting ballots postmarked by the close of election day and accepted up to 3 days later.  Those ballots were segregated and are insufficient to change the results.

 

The bigger problem with Pennsylvania was that the Republican controlled legislature refused to change rules to allow mail in ballots to be counted before election day.  Florida used to wait until after election day too, until Bush vs Gore.  If all states were to count but not publish votes as they came in, everything would have been known on election night or very shortly thereafter.   That is a change I could get behind.

1 hour ago, snafu said:

What pipe burst in Atlanta that shut down their vote counting?    Why would someone lie about that?

 

Is this really something that would change the election?  Does every question need to be answered.  Do the questions of every Sandy Hook doubter need to be answered.

1 hour ago, snafu said:

I already said that I believe Trump lost.  I believe that EVERY vote cast for President was about Trump.  Not one had to do with Biden.

 

I'm pretty sure Joe, Kamala, Jill, Doug and their families voted for Biden.

[snafu]

31 minutes ago, 716er said:

15 Senators did not attend today's proceedings.

 

 

That cant be true. 

Their attendance is mandatory. 

 

10 minutes ago, Scraps said:

I'm pretty sure Joe, Kamala, Jill, Doug and their families voted for Biden.

 

I’m pretty sure they voted against Trump.