I mean, if Trump really was doing some major quid pro quo shit with Ukraine I'm as happy as anyone else to see him gone. But just like with Russia or any of the other bullshit you have to have PROOF. I don't get how so many people fail to grasp this very simple concept.
Actually, you don't have to have proof. You just have to convince 218 representatives and then 67 senators that he did something worthy of being removed. Those are very different criteria.
You still need proof he did the thing that makes him "worthy of being removed" or you're just arbitrarily engaging in partisan fuckery and you sure as hell are not protecting democracy. Quite the opposite. I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be. You think it's ok to impeach without any proof? As long as some people want to do it? Really?
Was not in favor of that either, but to be clear they DID have irrefutable proof Clinton committed perjury. Not that I found it impeachable, but that is quite different. I'm not answering this question again. You're an adult. You know what proof looks like. Don't act like you can't tell the difference between that and a feeling or a hunch. It really isn't very complicated.
The Mueller Report determined the president committed obstruction of justice, but apparently this wasn't proof to conservatives for some reason. Or was it because it wasn't proof enough? Or the entire report invalid because Mueller's investigation was started because of the Steele dossier (a thing that isn't actually true)? Why is it that whenever proof can't be refuted, the issue becomes not the facts themselves, but how the facts were ascertained?
I wasn't talking about obstruction, I was talking about the impeachment inquiry and I never said any of this. This is like the 10th time you've made some bizarre argument like this. Also, because there are right wing dumbasses that can't interpret evidence doesn't make left wing dumbasses any less of the dumbasses they are. Your run of the mill moron liberal doesn't get to pat himself on the back just because his MAGA hat wearing neighbor is equally stupid.
Since I apparently can't make points without spelling them out, let me speak plainly. If you can't draw a parallel between you, a person who is more conservative than not, saying "you know what proof is" and me presenting proof that was waved away by conservatives as illegitimate and not see the irony, than I don't know what to tell you. That being said, it's disingenuous to talk about proof when it is clear that proof has become subjective. For some people, if Trump decided to livestream himself shooting immigrant children in an ICE facility, it wouldn't be proof of murder, but of Trump making America great again. Another great example of the right has done of ignoring facts is claiming that anything the left says is a result of Trump derangement syndrome. It's perfect because it dismisses all dissention to "haters gonna hate". It gives members of the right an easy out whenever anybody points out whatever stupid thing Trump has done and will continue to do to ruin America. Trump obstructed justice? Nah, the left is deranged! Trump asked China to investigate a political rival on live TV? No, the left is twisting his words around because they hate Trump! It's a lot easier to win arguments and own the libs when you can invalidate whatever someone says before they even say it.
It's not going to pass the Senate anyway, so who gives a fuck? If the Democrats really want to get rid of Trump, they need to provide a candidate that isn't sucking on the tit of the establishment. That's what people want. If they nominate someone like Biden or Warren, we'll get four more years of Trump.
I am not a conservative. I never said he didn't obstruct justice. What are you on about? It's because proof is subjective! It's just like if Trump was murdering children on livestream! OK BUDDY.
Sure, you're not conservative just like Bill O'Reilly is an independent. Am I the asshole for assuming all those posts you wrote defending what Trump did were a defense?
No, I wrote it saying I don't see proof Trump did the quid pro quo with Ukraine he is accused of. He may have. It is not proven yet though. Not even close. What are you missing about this? Caring about facts and honest investigations is not a conservative thing. It's not a political team concept.
My point was that you don’t need actual proof - it’s up to the discretion of Congress. If proof = conviction then Mr. Clinton would have been convicted. He definitely perjured himself under oath. Any regular citizen would have been convicted under Mr. Clinton’s circumstances, but the Constitution leaves it up to Congress, a very partisan and self-serving political body. Congress definitely does not need irrefutable proof to impeach and convict the president, just the same as they can ignore the facts and acquit him. Recall that Mr. Clinton lost his law license over his perjury, yet Congress said “Nah Bill, we good.” Just as in Mr. Clinton’s case, Mr. Trump will not be convicted by the Senate –unless something far more egregious and obvious comes out – because the collective opinion of each senator’s constituents and his/her re-election is far more important than whether the president actually committed a crime.
Technically they don't need proof, but to go ahead without any would be setting a horrible precedent. Although, I guess they crossed that bridge a long time ago. That said, I don't think they get to 218 unless something new comes out. Believe it or not, a few of the dem reps in the house actually do have integrity. Reps like Gabbard are never going to vote to impeach over frivolous bullshit, no matter how rabid the voters in their district are. Some of the other dems are in purple districts and can't just go "yes" by default either. Not if they want to keep their jobs.
It's wild to read this thread and see people who thought Hillary Clinton committed treason say things like "it's not quid pro quo because he didn't say the words 'quid pro quo'." If Hillary Clinton had done half the shit Trump has done in office, Lou Dobbs would have been the high priest to cut out her heart on live TV so Donald Trump could eat it. And while I'm here, remember when people thought they had to vote for Donald Trump because Hillary Clinton was too cozy with Saudi Arabia? Good job on that one guys. Called that one for sure. Interesting to see that no one is talking about that now.
That's because you will never put any thought into anything that comes out or is presented to you. Republican accused? Guilty as sin. Democrat? Then it's a conspiracy theory and it's all lies. Is it a D or an R? That is the only standard you have ever had or ever will have. By all means pretend you're treating these things objectively, but obviously you don't. You don't even try to. Go ahead and keep lecturing though. Oh, and Trump is corrupt as the day is long. He's shown that plenty over the last three years. Hillary was and would have been as POTUS as well. There ended up being little difference between the two in that regard. If they wanted to impeach on that I'm all for it, but they won't. Instead it's one fantasy after another because they have a base full of people like you that will believe anything they say, no matter what. No claim is too outlandish, too unsubstantiated , or too absurd. It just doesn't matter. Sorry, but after a dozen instances like this that's obviously true. Go protest about the nazis and concentration camps at the border or something.
Actually he does, Bush Senior banned the importation of semi autos after the Stockton California shooting. Like everything else there are work arounds, gun makers will manufacture everything but the receiver(the part legally considered the gun) overseas and have the receiver made in America which has to be assembled in the US or just open manufacturing plants in America to make their guns.