It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Impeachment Resolution ‘Loophole’ Allows Democrats to Reject White House Witnesses

page: 6
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat


the founder's didn't try to impeach members of other political parties just because they lost in the last presidential election


Therein lies the problem, which is predicated on a false argument: that you and others believe the above statement to actually be true.

When it is anything but.




posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Democrats will nominate someone who will not win, but will appease the extreme of their base.


That's the problem ... the extremes are not the middle, but the media only promotes the extremes.

I'm tired of the puppet show.


Who do you consider democrat extremes and democrat moderates, in the current race?

Honest question.


Do you mind if I just do the "front runners" ?

Bernie and Warren are extremists. Beto is pretty extreme.

Harris, and Buttigieg, Gabbard are middle-left.

Biden is centrist-right.


Ok, now I know for sure you're just feeding everyone a load of BS. Biden centrist-right? Wow.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
“If” the dEms lose

When they lose next year it will be because the Republican candidate (President Trump) has so much support from the people.

I imagine not one dem supporter will be screeching the words “popular vote” this time around


I'll make a prediction now.

There is going to be so much election tampering that it will throw the entire election process into chaos, which is what they want.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Democrats will nominate someone who will not win, but will appease the extreme of their base.


That's the problem ... the extremes are not the middle, but the media only promotes the extremes.

I'm tired of the puppet show.


Who do you consider democrat extremes and democrat moderates, in the current race?

Honest question.


Do you mind if I just do the "front runners" ?

Bernie and Warren are extremists. Beto is pretty extreme.

Harris, and Buttigieg, Gabbard are middle-left.

Biden is centrist-right.


All support free health care for illegals, the New Green Deal, are anti-2A and need us to pay more taxes for things like Universal Health Care.

They technically are all to the left of Stalin on a political chart.

Thanks for telling us your opinion though... it makes me understand you a little better.

A passive Progressive.




posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Trump appeals to the middle of his base

Hence his massive support



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DanDanDat

219 affirmative votes in the House and Trump could be impeached for his hairpiece.

That's the power of the House authorized in the Constitution.



Sure, ends always justify the means when your an idealog.


LOL. I guess the Founders were idealogs then.


I'm sure some of them where.

However the founder's didn't try to impeach members of other political parties just because they lost in the last presidential election ... they did just collectively fought a war for their independence; so they likely had more loyalty toward country and their fellow countrymen than our current crop of polititions. That kinda thing helps to put feelings of sour grapes and personal ambitions in to prospective.


I'm assuming you meant ideologues.

I think you'd have to say the Founders as the Revolutionaries who won, were pretty ideological, yes.

It's far too simplistic to argue, in my opinion, that the Democrats are only moving toward impeachment because Hillary lost in the Electoral College. Trump has done plenty, again, in my opinion, to be impeached for. Clinton was impeached for lying about oral sex, stack that up against Trump. Johnson was impeached for saying mean things about the Congress. STack that up.

If past impeachments are any guide, then there will be NOTHING amiss in Trump's impeachment. Of course, I don't believe he will be removed because no President has ever been removed. Those Founders you're talking about were damned cagey for my part of it at least.

They gave the House incredible power in Impeachment, but balanced it out perfectly in the Senate.

Opinions vary, that's mine.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

You’re probably right. It wouldn’t surprise one single person.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: DanDanDat


the founder's didn't try to impeach members of other political parties just because they lost in the last presidential election


Therein lies the problem, which is predicated on a false argument: that you and others believe the above statement to actually be true.

When it is anything but.


The founders tried to impeach each other from office as if it were a common political tool to be used?



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

A passive Progressive.


Oh hell, you owe me a keyboard!

LOLZ!!!



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Democrats will nominate someone who will not win, but will appease the extreme of their base.


That's the problem ... the extremes are not the middle, but the media only promotes the extremes.

I'm tired of the puppet show.


Who do you consider democrat extremes and democrat moderates, in the current race?

Honest question.


Do you mind if I just do the "front runners" ?

Bernie and Warren are extremists. Beto is pretty extreme.

Harris, and Buttigieg, Gabbard are middle-left.

Biden is centrist-right.


All support free health care for illegals, the New Green Deal, are anti-2A and need us to pay more taxes for things like Universal Health Care.

They technically are all to the left of Stalin on a political chart.

Thanks for telling us your opinion though... it makes me understand you a little better.

A passive Progressive.



Nope, not even close in even one factoid, to laughable limits.

I'm glad you think you've got me figured out. For the record, I do not support free healthcare for anyone, the Green New Deal is a joke, I'm not anti-anything in the Constitution, and the Second is very clearly there, taxes are a fact of life and Universal Healthcare is a great goal but I haven't seen one viable plan yet.

You keep telling me what I believe though Lumi. It's actually pretty hilarious.
edit on 31-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Format



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Lumenari

A passive Progressive.


Oh hell, you owe me a keyboard!

LOLZ!!!


Did you spit up again, Cowboy?

Define progressive. Hell for that matter, define passive.

I know you have the ability to think logically beyond the blinders. Enlighten me.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: DanDanDat


the founder's didn't try to impeach members of other political parties just because they lost in the last presidential election


Therein lies the problem, which is predicated on a false argument: that you and others believe the above statement to actually be true.

When it is anything but.


The founders tried to impeach each other from office as if it were a common political tool to be used?


How many presidents were impeached? Hardly common.

How many impeached because of a "lost election" as you claim? Even less.

That's why it's predicated on the false argument that you believe it's because of a lost election.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Democrats only want to hear witnesses that indict Trump.

They don't want to hear any evidence to the contrary.

Kangaroo Court.


What evidence would that be? That Trump didn't make the phone call to Zelensky? That there wasn't a quid pro quo?

Trump stated it on national air. Mulvaney admited it on national air.

If that's impeachable, what possible evidence can there be to counter that?

If it's impeachable there is no need to investigate, impeach.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Democrats will nominate someone who will not win, but will appease the extreme of their base.


That's the problem ... the extremes are not the middle, but the media only promotes the extremes.

I'm tired of the puppet show.


Who do you consider democrat extremes and democrat moderates, in the current race?

Honest question.


Do you mind if I just do the "front runners" ?

Bernie and Warren are extremists. Beto is pretty extreme.

Harris, and Buttigieg, Gabbard are middle-left.

Biden is centrist-right.


Fair enough.




posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Democrats only want to hear witnesses that indict Trump.

They don't want to hear any evidence to the contrary.

Kangaroo Court.


What evidence would that be? That Trump didn't make the phone call to Zelensky? That there wasn't a quid pro quo?

Trump stated it on national air. Mulvaney admited it on national air.

If that's impeachable, what possible evidence can there be to counter that?

If it's impeachable there is no need to investigate, impeach.


Apparently the House leadership feels differently.

Did I mistake your position? Weren't you in favor of both parties getting a crack at investigations?

Why the rush?



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

That didn't reveal to you the inner workings of my political soul? LOL.

Apparently does for the ardent Trump supporters in the gang.

What's your take on the Democratic field?



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DanDanDat

219 affirmative votes in the House and Trump could be impeached for his hairpiece.

That's the power of the House authorized in the Constitution.



Sure, ends always justify the means when your an idealog.


LOL. I guess the Founders were idealogs then.


I'm sure some of them where.

However the founder's didn't try to impeach members of other political parties just because they lost in the last presidential election ... they did just collectively fought a war for their independence; so they likely had more loyalty toward country and their fellow countrymen than our current crop of polititions. That kinda thing helps to put feelings of sour grapes and personal ambitions in to prospective.


I'm assuming you meant ideologues.

I think you'd have to say the Founders as the Revolutionaries who won, were pretty ideological, yes.

It's far too simplistic to argue, in my opinion, that the Democrats are only moving toward impeachment because Hillary lost in the Electoral College. Trump has done plenty, again, in my opinion, to be impeached for. Clinton was impeached for lying about oral sex, stack that up against Trump. Johnson was impeached for saying mean things about the Congress. STack that up.

If past impeachments are any guide, then there will be NOTHING amiss in Trump's impeachment. Of course, I don't believe he will be removed because no President has ever been removed. Those Founders you're talking about were damned cagey for my part of it at least.

They gave the House incredible power in Impeachment, but balanced it out perfectly in the Senate.

Opinions vary, that's mine.


I understand, thanks for sharing your opinion.

And thank you for correcting my spelling; I am dyslexic and I have been struggling with my disability for a long time
Unfortunately some words are to close to each other for me to differentiate. Even spell check doesn't always help.

However; my opinion is that it is not overly simplistic to believe Democrats are trying to impeach the president because their party lost in 2016 (I don't think it has much to do with Hillary, but the party itself.) ...

Its the world we live in right now, from college students shutting down other people's right to express themselves ... to white people marching on mass with tiki torches and blue polo shirts ...

To many people have an over inflated scene of entitlement and ego. Blame it on social media, or social balkanization or a bunch of other contributing factors we are living with in our modern times.

Our political leaders aren't immune; in fact its logical to believe they are hyper sensitive to the phenomenon given the line of work they are in.

I think its perfectly logical to believe the Democrats would spend three years looking for a reason, any reason, to impeach Donald Trump. This is true regardless of whether or not Trump invites their ire every chance he gets.
edit on 31-10-2019 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Lumenari

A passive Progressive.


Oh hell, you owe me a keyboard!

LOLZ!!!


Did you spit up again, Cowboy?

Define progressive. Hell for that matter, define passive.

I know you have the ability to think logically beyond the blinders. Enlighten me.


You?

I'd define you as a "Respected Foe". Remember those?

Personally, if you, me, Lumenari all sat down and opened a bottle of scotch, we'd just end up laughing a lot and then getting embarrassing tattoos.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Democrats only want to hear witnesses that indict Trump.

They don't want to hear any evidence to the contrary.

Kangaroo Court.


What evidence would that be? That Trump didn't make the phone call to Zelensky? That there wasn't a quid pro quo?

Trump stated it on national air. Mulvaney admited it on national air.

If that's impeachable, what possible evidence can there be to counter that?

If it's impeachable there is no need to investigate, impeach.


Apparently the House leadership feels differently.

Did I mistake your position? Weren't you in favor of both parties getting a crack at investigations?

Why the rush?

I was simply pointing out that if they had enough to impeach they would. The fact they aren't means they don't. Investigate Biden and Trump. Make it bipartisan and get the facts. Democrats have zero interest in that. I am not for the sham we have now, I have no problem with an honest investigation into everyone.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: DanDanDat


the founder's didn't try to impeach members of other political parties just because they lost in the last presidential election


Therein lies the problem, which is predicated on a false argument: that you and others believe the above statement to actually be true.

When it is anything but.


The founders tried to impeach each other from office as if it were a common political tool to be used?


How many presidents were impeached? Hardly common.

How many impeached because of a "lost election" as you claim? Even less.

That's why it's predicated on the false argument that you believe it's because of a lost election.


Because it was uncommon in the past; that in and of its self is proof that it is serious and sober in the present?

Like that time Republicans held up a supreme court justice nominee for a full year so that their opostion party would lose out on their choice... since that never happened in the past than that is proof its self that the Republican's where not at all being partisan in their maneuvering? But rather it was a serious and sober act in order to give "the people" the choice?



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join