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.

 

dems won't accept acquittal. No, really

page: 6
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: game over man

I would imagine so, I travel internationally for business fairly often. When looking at immigration policies in other countries I tick every checkbox they usually have. However if I were to emigrate to any other country, I wouldn't want them to change their political or social policies to accommodate me. I would move fully understanding that I am there at their pleasure and not at my own.

Shame that a lot of people who are immigrating here, or encouraging increased immigration want it done as a means of changing things to how they want.




posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Since the democrats and evil leftists refuse to accept acquittal, will there be riots?

Lootings?

Burning cars?

Will there be screaming at the sky?

Will pink hats come back into vogue?

I have errands to run this weekend, just asking in case I need to change plans because the BIG NEWS is that Kansas City is playing some loser team from San Fran on Sunday.


Care to place a wager on that?

SF by 10.

You heard it here first.



I'll bet a shiny nickel.

KC for the win!


You're on Cowboy!

Woot!



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: network dude

an elected president has to do the following: act in the best interests of all his fellow citizens, regardless of his personal wishes. trump acts out of self-interest in everything he does. that has nothing to do with democracy. that's why he is constantly under attack. because he only causes chaos, because he is easy to calculate, because he can be manipulated - that makes him vulnerable to outside intervention. basically, many people are afraid that trump will unintentionally cause great damage that could have far-reaching consequences. it's not about who you vote for or which god you believe in, it's about the fact that most people feel that there's a whole lot wrong with this guy.


But on ATS, the extreme Trump cultists just love to write liberal tears, haha we win, reeeeee, libtards, dumb Lefty's, etc....they're against the extreme left but think the rest of the population will be happy with extreme right. X-Games bro! LOL

ATS also thinks they can time travel and fit right in 1789 when slavery was popping and women had a specific role in society. Most countries of the world have updated their Constitution Link



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: game over man
Jeeze, instead of replying to everyone, I wrote, REWRITE. It's from 1789, founding fathers and people/culture from 1789 are long dead. We live in a different country and world now than 1789. Anyways back to the topic.


Freedom, ethics, & morals have no shelf life.

And they never "go out of style".



Slavery, women's rights, ok...you're just disagreeing with me for stars.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: oloufo

At the heart of the matter is the question "Is there a legitimate basis for requesting an investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden's behavior in Ukraine?".
The majority of reasonable people, no matter how they feel about the President, are able to see that the whole Biden/Ukraine escapade looks shady as hell. Keep in mind, to believe there is a legitimate basis, all that is required as that an APPEARANCE of impropriety exist. That's it.
If this legitimate basis can be shown, and I think the defense team did a great job of doing exactly that (you should watch it), it is almost impossible to prove that it was done solely for political gain.

Let's say, in the heat of an election campaign, the President hears from a foreign diplomat that the campaign from the opposing party is coordinating with...Russia. He knows that if it comes out it could benefit him and his party greatly. He also thinks that, with legitimate basis, it would be in the nation's interest to investigate what could possibly be going on. He decides to investigate. Should that President be impeached?



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude
Can probably guess by now what Trump meant by "the swamp" in his first Presidential primary campaign.

Probably be in this one coming up, so I can't fault him that the swamp is worse than original estimation.



At least by giving it a name we now know what characteristics to look out for come ballot time.
The people have to do our part.
edit on (1/31/2020 by loveguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: game over man

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: game over man
Jeeze, instead of replying to everyone, I wrote, REWRITE. It's from 1789, founding fathers and people/culture from 1789 are long dead. We live in a different country and world now than 1789. Anyways back to the topic.


Freedom, ethics, & morals have no shelf life.

And they never "go out of style".



Slavery, women's rights, ok...you're just disagreeing with me for stars.


"My God...it's full of stars"



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: elDooberino
a reply to: oloufo

At the heart of the matter is the question "Is there a legitimate basis for requesting an investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden's behavior in Ukraine?".
The majority of reasonable people, no matter how they feel about the President, are able to see that the whole Biden/Ukraine escapade looks shady as hell. Keep in mind, to believe there is a legitimate basis, all that is required as that an APPEARANCE of impropriety exist. That's it.
If this legitimate basis can be shown, and I think the defense team did a great job of doing exactly that (you should watch it), it is almost impossible to prove that it was done solely for political gain.

Let's say, in the heat of an election campaign, the President hears from a foreign diplomat that the campaign from the opposing party is coordinating with...Russia. He knows that if it comes out it could benefit him and his party greatly. He also thinks that, with legitimate basis, it would be in the nation's interest to investigate what could possibly be going on. He decides to investigate. Should that President be impeached?


if he clearly violates the constitution by doing so, yes. i don't know your constitution. actually, constitutions are made for just such cases. the trial against trump is about something fundamental. he lies and lies. if the leader of a group is always lying, where will he lead the group to? into chaos. into nothing. he spreads fake news as if he were a second alex jones, that alone would be enough in germany to get a politician fired directly. trump abuses his office. that's what it's all about. but if you can't or won't prove it to him, he remains unpunished and can continue to cause trouble.

if the bidens really have done something wrong, the courts will take care of it. after all, america is not a dictatorship. is there an official investigation?



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: game over man

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: game over man
Jeeze, instead of replying to everyone, I wrote, REWRITE. It's from 1789, founding fathers and people/culture from 1789 are long dead. We live in a different country and world now than 1789. Anyways back to the topic.


Freedom, ethics, & morals have no shelf life.

And they never "go out of style".



Slavery, women's rights, ok...you're just disagreeing with me for stars.


Are you implying that this old document actually has been updated, over time, to accommodate the changing landscape of this country?

Hmmm....Sounds like its working when it needs to be working. And when something changes so drastically, that the framework for our representative republic is flexible enough to accommodate change.

Kinda pops that little bubble of yours about it being out of date, huh?

After all, how many amendments (meaning changes) do we have now???? C'mon, you can say it.




edit on 1/31/2020 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 04:20 PM
link   
" if he clearly violates the constitution by doing so, yes. i don't know your constitution."

This explains all of your comments.
edit on 31-1-2020 by toolgal462 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: game over man

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: game over man
Jeeze, instead of replying to everyone, I wrote, REWRITE. It's from 1789, founding fathers and people/culture from 1789 are long dead. We live in a different country and world now than 1789. Anyways back to the topic.


Freedom, ethics, & morals have no shelf life.

And they never "go out of style".



Slavery, women's rights, ok...you're just disagreeing with me for stars.


Are you implying that this old document actually has been updated, over time, to accommodate the changing landscape of this country?

Hmmm....Sounds like its working when it needs to be working. And when something changes so drastically, that the framework for our representative republic is flexible enough to accommodate change.

Kinda pops that little bubble of yours about it being out of date, huh?

After all, how many amendments (meaning changes) do we have now???? C'mon, you can say it.


Why are you being rude? What is the point of that besides getting stars from the Trump Cult. You know exactly what I said, you know the history of the US. You tried to be slick with you're wording and you contradicted yourself. I mentioned before it's a common and predictable trait of Trump Cultists to ignore things that are non-biased, such as the link listing countries and the date their current Constitution was created, it's not part of your agenda so you just write a weird post attempting to be condescending and judgemental.

The irony of a Trump cultists using the word flexible with the impeachment trial. 😂



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted2
I would accept acquittal.

In a trial without witnesses, what else could there be? We see and hear no facts.

Long may he reign.


I bet you didn't accept the 2016 elections either. As for witnesses; there were 17. And while those 17, all called by the Democrats, testified in the house, the President's lawyers as well as the Republicans weren't allowed to be present except for the last 9 days, and even then, they were not allowed to ask questions or cross examine. This testimony was replayed for the Senate.
edit on 31-1-2020 by timequake because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2020 by timequake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy

At least by giving it a name we now know what characteristics to look out for come ballot time.
The people have to do our part.


Amen to that.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: game over man

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: game over man

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: game over man
Jeeze, instead of replying to everyone, I wrote, REWRITE. It's from 1789, founding fathers and people/culture from 1789 are long dead. We live in a different country and world now than 1789. Anyways back to the topic.


Freedom, ethics, & morals have no shelf life.

And they never "go out of style".



Slavery, women's rights, ok...you're just disagreeing with me for stars.


Are you implying that this old document actually has been updated, over time, to accommodate the changing landscape of this country?

Hmmm....Sounds like its working when it needs to be working. And when something changes so drastically, that the framework for our representative republic is flexible enough to accommodate change.

Kinda pops that little bubble of yours about it being out of date, huh?

After all, how many amendments (meaning changes) do we have now???? C'mon, you can say it.


Why are you being rude? What is the point of that besides getting stars from the Trump Cult. You know exactly what I said, you know the history of the US. You tried to be slick with you're wording and you contradicted yourself. I mentioned before it's a common and predictable trait of Trump Cultists to ignore things that are non-biased, such as the link listing countries and the date their current Constitution was created, it's not part of your agenda so you just write a weird post attempting to be condescending and judgemental.

The irony of a Trump cultists using the word flexible with the impeachment trial. 😂


Speaking of irony, I wonder if you ever think about how your militant adversarial approach to all things republican, that you were a we bit biased towards one side as well. Almost in a "cult" like fashion. It's just something that makes me smile.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 05:16 PM
link   
dems won't accept acquittal. No, really

With 'Logic' like this why would they?



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 05:20 PM
link   
If they had taken their time and let the judicial branch settle who they could call, they then could have compelled people to testify and gotten a chance to make an actual case, instead they let a lot of people that appeared to have a axe to grind against the president give sisters mothers brothers cousins best friend type testimony and patted themselves on the back for a job well done after a week or so actual investigation.

To sum up crai mor nooblet, work harder to lay the foundation and you might have gotten your wish.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: game over man

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: game over man

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Admitted2

The trial already happened in the House. The Senate just votes on the evidence the house has gathered whether to remove the president or not. Bolton could’ve been called as a witness in the House but they wanted to rush impeachment as a campaign tool because doing it the legal way would’ve taken to long and the 2020 election would already be over. It’s the only reason they rushed the impeachment vote.


Not only Bolton and other witnesses but the server too. Both parties are efffing we us. It's too bad the Republican voters are a cult. Democrat voters would overthrow corruption in a heartbeat. All the Democratic canidates are doing that to one another right now. Imagine if Republican voters kept their belief system but would also vote to remove corrupt politicians. I want the 2 party system to end, no more white house, and rewrite a 2020 Constitution instead of living by one over 200 years old written by a bunch of Free Masons.


An anti-constitutionalist. Interesting. Are you against Freedom as well, or just the USA?


Current President is against freedom of the press. Do you want to continue to go by the Constitution for another 200 years? 500 years? 1000 years? Iceland had reform.


Put limits on the 2nd, why not put limits on the 1st, specifically press freedom. Dems fired the first shots.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted2

i have watched the last 4 days of this drama the witness were all there but not in person trumps team did a good job imo though i'm not a expert as probably is 99% of the viewers the dems just didn't make there case they should just move on and get back to work



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

yaaaaaay the trolls have arrived great



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: oloufo



if he clearly violates the constitution by doing so, yes.

Nowhere in the impeachment articles has the President been accused of an actual crime.



the trial against trump is about something fundamental. he lies and lies.

No, it actually isn't. It's specifically about what is contained in the articles of impeachment.



that alone would be enough in germany to get a politician fired directly.

Hilarious that you don't think Merkel lies to you.



if the bidens really have done something wrong, the courts will take care of it.

You seem to have a very poor understanding of how things work. Before anything can happen in court, an investigation must occur, then an indictment.



is there an official investigation?

The President was just impeached for trying to get one started. You're really not paying attention.
Please do some homework before continuing this conversation.




edit on 31-1-2020 by elDooberino because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2020 by elDooberino because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2020 by elDooberino because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join