So When Do REPUBS IMPEACH BIDEN?

If Trump hadn't decided to run for President, none of this would have happened. You get my naivete award for the week.

 

wrong again. You are deservingly the current winner of naïveté award

Trump running for office has nothing to do with the charges levied against him. Trump broke the law .end of story. The prosecution has proof or would not be charging him

running for office is what trump is doing to defend himself of his crimes

Trumps only way to avoid prison is to get elected.

 

There is always a point in the hunt when the game is flushed and starts to run.

'It's this bad: Team Biden bails on MSNBC to avoid answering Hunter questions'

 

LOL-- and you get my "lamest excuse" award for the week. It is true, had Trump not been President, he never would have been charged with obstruction, for example, in not returning government records. By the same token, though, had Trump not been President, he would not have had access to secret, govt. documents. Nonetheless, it was neither his being President, nor even his absconding with a U-Haul's worth of boxes of classified government papers, which led to his indictment but, rather, his refusal to turn over the documents, and his lying about having returned them all, when he had in fact retained some of them. IOW, he was indicted not simply because he'd been a Republican President, but because of his actions, while he was President (and afterward, in the documents case).

Would you like to play the same, "Why was Trump indicted?" game, for the Smith indictments related to the 2020 election: conspiring to defraud the government, and to disenfranchise voters, as well as corruptly obstructing a Congressional proceeding? Or would you rather be more current, and talk about the Georgia state RICO indictments, that were issued tonight?

I forget-- did the Democrats charge George W. Bush, in a similar manner, just for having "decided to run for President?"

 

I'm trying to find the logic in that post but failing. If a prosecution is politically motivated then it is a political prosecution. That it is politically motivated is very obvious. Sorry. He believed he had a right to have the documents and, if he lied, then understand that lying isn't a crime. Bad behavior to be sure. But a criminal prosecution? I wasn't too impressed with Bush either but, as you say, he wasn't prosecuted for anything. Why do I have to be partisan to criticize partisan actions? Partisanship isn't necessary in politics or political positions. It has just been degraded into that.

 

No need to repeat myself.

 

Yes. And same to you for your positions.

I have done that over and over. I'm not willing to repeat myself everyone time someone demands it. You can have your positions just like I can.

Doom is what I believe will happen to the U.S. at the hands of federal government and, probably, China. You can find rational arguments all over the internet even from me if you wish to follow my posting history. Now your turn. Tell me why government is preferable to freedom in the U.S. Or did you make rational arguments about that already?

 

No, that is completely wrong. You were saying--
fmw said: ↑
Yup no question that I disagree 100% with you. Your counter argument is the opposite of what the founders had in mind when they wrote the bill of rights
<End>

-- when I pointed out that this was only "According to you."
It is your view that:

fmw said: ↑
All social spending in federal government is unconstitutional but has been ignored since the great depression and has grown into a monster.
<End>

So your saying that my opinion, which I had explained to you, was based on the long term actions of our Congress, and rulings of our Supreme Court, is just my own opinion, is a nonsensical thing to say. It is not just my opinion: it is apparently the opinion of every Supreme Court for almost a century; and also the majority opinion of every Congress, over that same span of time, since they have never changed the law. So my opinion, has MANY supporters, of authoritative stature; it is in line with the whole of our government's opinion, for many generations.

By extension, since the government is a representative for the people, on the whole, it stands to reason that it is also the overwhelming opinion of the electorates, over the past century. So that is whose opinion, I am echoing: America's opinion. Not just my own, personal view-- which is what your unorthodox & unconventional opinion is. That is why the onus is on you, to make some case, for your outsider view.

You seem terribly confused. Is it your impression, that I came into your world, to tell you that you can't have your own, personal beliefs? Nothing of the sort, is true. You are welcome to believe whatever the hell, you wish-- no matter how absurd, it is.

But it is you, who has come to a site, at which people debate their ideas. And you have done so, in order to say: "You can find rational arguments all over the internet even from me if you wish to follow my posting history," and "I'm not willing to repeat myself, everytime someone demands it?" FYI, you have espoused a position that, by all standard measures of the law, and of reality, is sheer fantasy. If you do not feel like repeating arguments you have put forth on this topic, elsewhere on the internet, then I will do what any sensible person would do, when someone voices an opinion that is patently counter to the established, consensus opinion, yet refuses to put forth a case for his viewpoint (because he feels, if his readers wanted to, they could go trawling through cyberspace, to find others who have put forth the same case)-- I will dismiss it, as nothing but the silly, baseless view of some crank.

 

You are welcome. Ah I never realized that concensus opinions were always right. Who would have guessed?

 

They are not. You missed the very obvious point: when they are wrong, those who wish to point that out, must argue their case, to whomever they are currently enlightening with "the truth." You don't expect others to just take your word for it, do you? Though tradition is not always right, it carries with it the credence which is not naturally attached to the perspectives of those challenging established views.

If I say "the Bush's are part of the line of Royal Normans, who have played a greater role in world politics than anyone else, over the last millennium-- go research it," would you do so? Or would you think it was a preposterous thing for me to expect, and that if I wanted to argue some position which was that far out of the mainstream view, the burden of proof would fall on my shoulders, regardless of my life's past conversations on the subject?

That you do not feel any desire to make your case, points to one of two conclusions:
1) You have lost any passion, for defending this unorthodox belief; or
2) You realize that your argument would not stand to scrutiny, against you current debate opponent.

 

3) I don't like repeating myself to everyone who demands it.
4) I'm here for entertainment, not to convince anyone of anything. I offer my opinions just like everyone else.

I have reasons for all of my views, all of which I have shared in the past in detail. You are free to look it up.

 

As your viewpoint is, on its face, ridiculous-- I have better ways of wasting my time.


EDIT:

If you've not noticed, "everyone else," seems to understand that it's expected they not just state their conclusions, but argue the reasoning behind those conclusions-- to have any hope of being taken seriously, at least, or of having those opinions given any consideration by others, holding differing opinions.

 

What are the Repubs waiting on? They need to impeach Biden…so maybe…maybe people will finally stop being whiny c##ts about Trumps impeachments.

 

I see no reason to believe that impeachment proceedings against President Biden, will stop any whining over Trump's impeachments; and they certainly won't stop it, over any of Trump's criminal indictments.

 

So true

 

That's fake news. If the President ordered military troops onto the Capitol it would be a military coup. That's why he makes them available to Congress and the Mayor of DC, he doesn't order them, and you know this, because we have repeatedly explained it to you.

The J6 Committee and the Lying Fake News Media has been lying in service of the anti-Trump narrative, the entire time.

Trump Did Propose 10,000 National Guard Troops On January 6th; Report


'A newly released transcript has caused a firestorm in Washington over allegations that the J6 Committee downplayed or even suppressed evidence...'

Suppressed evidence? Congress needs to depose them under oath.