Political Discussion

Todays evidence presented was very damning. Definitive facts and timelines

And they essentially dared Republicans to vote for acquittal.

Republicans have been put in a position where history will look down on them very poorly if they vote for acquittal. There is no reason to vote for an acquittal based on the evidence presented unless they make it political.

The question is now, will we gain any more republican support for a. conviction?
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Todays evidence presented was very damning. Definitive facts and timelines

And they essentially dared Republicans to vote for acquittal.

Republicans have been put in a position where history will look down on them very poorly if they vote for acquittal. There is no reason to vote for an acquittal based on the evidence presented unless they make it political.

The question is now, will we gain any more republican support for a. conviction?
Click to expand...
No.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Todays evidence presented was very damning. Definitive facts and timelines

And they essentially dared Republicans to vote for acquittal.

Republicans have been put in a position where history will look down on them very poorly if they vote for acquittal. There is no reason to vote for an acquittal based on the evidence presented unless they make it political.

The question is now, will we gain any more republican support for a. conviction?
Click to expand...
Honestly will be surprised if they don't lose some. If you are referring to the ones who voted that it was constitutional to hold the trial.
 
dhodo said:
Honestly will be surprised if they don't lose some. If you are referring to the ones who voted that it was constitutional to hold the trial.
Click to expand...

Oh, I wouldn't be surprised at all. But if that happens, hell, if a conviction doesn't happen, it will be looked back in the history books as a very sad day in American history. Based on the evidence, there should be no other possible outcome but a conviction.

Some might say that the Republicans tried to dodge having to vote on a conviction by saying the trial is not constitutional because Trump is now a private citizen. And that now that there is a trial, they will have to vote. But I have no faith whatsoever that they will do the right thing.
 
dhodo said:
Honestly will be surprised if they don't lose some. If you are referring to the ones who voted that it was constitutional to hold the trial.
Click to expand...
Me too. I think it depends on the Senator, if their line of thinking is that they didn’t think it was constitutional but since it was voted through as constitutional then they now review the evidence and determine that based on the impeachment articles the former Prez committed impeachable offenses, I could see a few voting to impeach. I almost think you could get the likes of John Thune and Mitch McConnell, who has been very coy in how he views the impeachment. Obviously most are cowards and Trump won’t actually be impeached but I could see them getting somewhere between 7 and 10 Republican votes.
 
Yup, my father is going on about conspiracies and voter fraud still.

This is the latest text I got from my father.

HUGE DEVELOPMENT: Hand Recount Finds Dominion Voting Machines Shorted EVERY REPUBLICAN Candidate in Windham, New Hampshire, 300 Votes!
Click to expand...

Earlier today he called the democrats treasonous yet again over this impeachment.

SMH
 
Watching on and off today I was struck by how much of a deplorable, dishonest, shady, double talking, rude, shallow piece of shit our former President was. Seeing all this in one string after another in a readers digest version makes me scratch my head how ANYONE isn't seeing the obvious............how do these republicans sleep at night?
 
AnthonyI said:
Watching on and off today I was struck by how much of a deplorable, dishonest, shady, double talking, rude, shallow piece of shit our former President was. Seeing all this in one string after another in a readers digest version makes me scratch my head how ANYONE isn't seeing the obvious............how do these republicans sleep at night?
Click to expand...
Also, Mike Lee is a phony bitch coward.
 
Joe Mac said:
I was just reading this and it struck me how odd the idea of playing the national anthem before domestic club sporting events is. It’s just not something that would be done in Europe. I kinda get it, but equally hate because patriotism is a cancer, before international events but club? Bananas.

www.skysports.com

Dallas Mavericks told by NBA they must play national anthem before games

Mike Bass, NBA chief communications officer: With NBA teams now in the process of welcoming fans back into their arenas, all teams will play the national anthem in keeping with longstanding league policy.
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
Click to expand...
When your democracy is as fragile as ours, you have to insist on nationalism.
 
www.cnn.com

GOP senators signal they plan to acquit Trump despite visceral presentation by House Democrats

The House impeachment managers presented senators with videos of their colleagues fleeing a pro-Trump mob, which breached the US Capitol shouting "stop the steal." They showed the rioters searching for then-Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and rummaging through the...
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

While they were struck by the impeachment managers' presentation, these Republicans said that the House Democrats did not prove Trump's words led to the violent actions. They compared the January 6 riot to last summer's racial justice protests and criticized how the trial is being handled.
Click to expand...

Sen. Lindsey Graham said he couldn't believe "we could lose the Capitol like that" but added that it didn't change his mind on whether to acquit Trump during the trial.
"I think there's more votes for acquittal after today than there was yesterday," the South Carolina Republican said.
Click to expand...

Sen. Mike Braun said the managers' visual presentation was "riveting," adding, "It's just as kind of hard to take now as it was then." But when asked if it had changed his view, the Indiana Republican said, "When you think the process is flawed in the first place, I think it's going to be different to arrive at a conclusion on the facts and the merits itself."
Click to expand...

And Sen. Ted Cruz said a direct link from Trump to the pro-Trump riot was "strikingly absent." The Texas Republican claimed that "there's not a political candidate in the country," including "every single one of the Democratic senators," who hasn't used the same language as Trump, who told his supporters "to fight like hell."
Click to expand...

"They spent a great deal of time focusing on the horrific acts of violence that were played out by the criminals, but the language from the President doesn't come close to meeting the legal standard for incitement," Cruz said of the managers' presentation.
Click to expand...

It goes on an on.

Some are even still saying they don't believe this to be constitutional, so they cannot even consider anything but acquittal.
 
Last edited:
Going back to what Cruz said that any connection to Trump and the riot was "strikingly absent".

How can he even come to that conclusion based on the house managers presentation? They set up a clear timeline in the months leading up to January 6 and all the ground work Trump laid out to incite these rioters.

Like really? Fuck Cruz
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Some are even still saying they don't believe this to be constitutional, so they cannot even consider anything but acquittal.
Click to expand...
To the above point, when only 56 senators voted that it was constitutional I stopped paying full attention because I knew that number was the ceiling for the possible number of senators who would vote to convict.

The rest is really just pandering.
 
Djxfactor511 said:
To the above point, when only 56 senators voted that it was constitutional I stopped paying full attention because I knew that number was the ceiling for the possible number of senators who would vote to convict.

The rest is really just pandering.
Click to expand...

I'm still following it, but yeah, when only 56 senators voted that it was constitutional I lost all faith that they would do the right thing.

100% of constitutional scholars agree that this is constitutional. And that framers specifically wrote the constitution for situations such as these, former officials. And in the 1800's it was held up as constitutional decisively the 3 times it came up.

The republicans keep holding onto Nixon and Watergate which is the only modern equivalent. They choose not to impeach because he resigned stating it's best for our nation to move on instead of drag us through this again. The republicans are using that as the precedence that this is not constitutional. But for Nixon, they never ruled it wasn't constitutional. They just said they choose not to pro sue it.
 
Djxfactor511 said:
To the above point, when only 56 senators voted that it was constitutional I stopped paying full attention because I knew that number was the ceiling for the possible number of senators who would vote to convict.

The rest is really just pandering.
Click to expand...
Yeeeeep. This is me. Now I'm just wondering what's happening with that new Covid stimulus bill.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
I'm still following it, but yeah, when only 56 senators voted that it was constitutional I lost all faith that they would do the right thing.

100% of constitutional scholars agree that this is constitutional. And that framers specifically wrote the constitution for situations such as these, former officials. And in the 1800's it was held up as constitutional decisively the 3 times it came up.

The republicans keep holding onto Nixon and Watergate which is the only modern equivalent. They choose not to impeach because he resigned stating it's best for our nation to move on instead of drag us through this again. The republicans are using that as the precedence that this is not constitutional. But for Nixon, they never ruled it wasn't constitutional. They just said they choose not to pro sue it.
Click to expand...
Honestly I think it's more shallow than that and they're using all of their current excuses to hide the real reason.

They don't want the only president in history to be impeached and convicted to be a Republican. In a party that's already fractured by the Trump base squawking about creating a new political party altogether, having another black eye on the GOP is the last thing they need.
 
nolalady said:
Yeeeeep. This is me. Now I'm just wondering what's happening with that new Covid stimulus bill.
Click to expand...
It will pass. Even if it's only the 50 democrats that vote for it.

It will have little to no republican support though.

The question is still do the democrats hold strong, or do they try negotiate with the republicans who want nothing more than to keep cutting it every time a revision comes up.

The Republicans have been shoving things through without any negotiation for years. No compromises with democrats.

Now they are accusing us of doing the same and calling them out for not following through with their promise for unity.
 
www.cnn.com

Former Republican officials float possibility of forming 'center-right' party

A group of more than 100 former Republican officials have discussed the possibility of forming a "center right" party due to their unhappiness with the direction of the GOP under former President Donald Trump and the likelihood he'll be acquitted at the end of his second impeachment trial...
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Well, this is interesting. Former Republican officials are not happy about the direction of the GOP today and the likely acquittal. They are considering starting their own center right conservative party.

Further signs that this or them devision in government is further fracturing us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top