Donald J. Trump has been impeached by the House

75% of Those Polled - Not anything else

these people want to see the Bidens humiliated in Public
 
Last edited:
ProV1 said:
LOL. Trump said that at the end after Taylor was putting the requirements in writing and the whole scheme was blowing up! It is mute anyway, Bolton is on record saying that Trump told him directly that there was no dollars unless they provided the dirt.
Click to expand...
You try so hard to sound so intelligent on here....and then you say "mute".
 
USA70PP said:
Welfare cut completely and the rest will take care of themselves.
Click to expand...

At least you answered, but that's pretty vague.

From you're usual stances on the site, by "welfare" I'd conclude you mean the safety net part of federal spending. So you're talking about food stamps, housing assistance, SSI payments to veterans/elderly/disabled. You don't get an argument from me on any of this. I'm with you. We've just trimmed roughly 9% off our tax burden. So if you paid 10k in federal taxes you'd now only pay $9100. Are you and 2manyBats good with that? Don't feel overtaxed anymore?
 
ProV1 said:
Get out of the Trump bubble for a second. Did you hear what Joni Ernst said Monday? She said that voters in Iowa should be listening to Pam Bondi's accusations into the Biden's. Go google Kevin McCarthy on Benghazi where he admitted the multi year investigations main goal was to discredit Hillary. This impeachment is about getting rid of Trump. Duh. Just like the announcements of investigations was about getting rid of Joe Biden. Where the heck have you been all these years?
Click to expand...
So explain to me again how ... (ProV1 quote) ....Nobody is unduly influencing an election by this process. Their whole purpose of this Impeachment is twofold:
1. Change the 2016 results by unjustly getting President Trump out of office.
2. Keep President Trump from winning again in 2020.

So again how is this not "...unduly influencing an election...?
 
MoeDude said:
So explain to me again how ... (ProV1 quote) ....Nobody is unduly influencing an election by this process. There whole purpose of this Impeachment is twofold:
1. Change the 2016 results by unjustly getting President Trump out of office.
2. Keep President Trump from winning again in 2020.

So again how is this not "...unduly influencing an election...?
Click to expand...


Exactly ..... and ADD

Remember, the witness count is already 17 to ZERO in favor of Democrats.
But they need one more (still none for GOP) to make their case?
 
MoeDude said:
So explain to me again how ... (ProV1 quote) ....Nobody is unduly influencing an election by this process. Their whole purpose of this Impeachment is twofold:
1. Change the 2016 results by unjustly getting President Trump out of office.
2. Keep President Trump from winning again in 2020.

So again how is this not "...unduly influencing an election...?
Click to expand...
Exposing truth is not unduly influencing an election. As an example, exposing that Hunter Biden got a Board position at Burisma is perfectly fine. It is fact and it is perfectly fair to expose. This impeachment is not trying to undue the 2016 election. Trump's actions were after the election. Certainly, the dems want Trump removed, but since that will not happen, they want as much evidence exposed to the American people as possible. Just like what McCarthy said about Benghazi and just like what Guiliani is doing with Biden. You may not like it, but this impeachment is legal and the evidence can be judged by the American people. The constant whining about this impeachment while at the same time supporting the same behavior on the other side is disingenuous.
 
2manyBats said:
Exactly ..... and ADD

Remember, the witness count is already 17 to ZERO in favor of Democrats.
But they need one more (still none for GOP) to make their case?
Click to expand...
First, that is a lie. Republicans had witnesses in the House. Second, this is the trial where they can call whatever witnesses they want.
 
ProV1 said:
First, that is a lie. Republicans had witnesses in the House. Second, this is the trial where they can call whatever witnesses they want.
Click to expand...


Name please? Who did the republicans call? Did you watch the house hearings (the public ones not the one in the basement) the Republicans were stop and told they could not ask a certain questions.
 
IamToz15 said:
At least you answered, but that's pretty vague.

From you're usual stances on the site, by "welfare" I'd conclude you mean the safety net part of federal spending. So you're talking about food stamps, housing assistance, SSI payments to veterans/elderly/disabled. You don't get an argument from me on any of this. I'm with you. We've just trimmed roughly 9% off our tax burden. So if you paid 10k in federal taxes you'd now only pay $9100. Are you and 2manyBats good with that? Don't feel overtaxed anymore?
Click to expand...

We have 3% unemployment and at that level we are also employing about 15M illegal aliens..... Yet we still fund welfare like we were at 15% unemployment. Why not cut welfare funding by 75%? There's actually less of a need for welfare today than there was 10 years ago - why not cut the funding?

I'm all for reducing our tax burden even further and making sure everyone pays their fair share. If we are overcharged for our taxes, the government spends that and even more. Why not determine an operational budget for the nation (military, courts, bureaucracy, etc.) and divide that up among all workers to determine a tax rate and everyone pays it. Pay the infrastructure costs by placing a tax on vehicles, fuel, etc. that is used to construct and improve roads, bridges, airports, ports, electrical grids, energy creation, etc. Split off SS and Medicare from federal management (like Fed, FDMC/FNMA) to manage the monies and benefits of the programs based on contributions. Pass a law that says the government must balance the budget, then pass a special tax on high earners/corporations to pay down the debt. It's past time to make government sustainable.
 
19AL63 said:
Name please? Who did the republicans call? Did you watch the house hearings (the public ones not the one in the basement) the Republicans were stop and told they could not ask a certain questions.
Click to expand...
Tim Morrison, Kurt Volker, and Johnathon Turley off the top of my head.
 
winbypin said:
You try so hard to sound so intelligent on here....and then you say "mute".
Click to expand...


If you had to bet your hard earned money on whether Provo knows the difference between Mute and Moot which way would you bet? That he doesn't know ? Or that he does and mistyped ? Be honest. Also , you look like a fool making an observation like that seeing that he is a lot smarter than you are
 
Last edited:
Harrycrane said:
If you had to bet your hard earned money on whether Provo , knows the difference between Mute and Moot which way would you bet? That he doesn't know ? Or that he does and mistyped ? Be honest. Also , you look like a fool making an observation like that seeing that he is a lot smarter than you are
Click to expand...
Lots of people think the word is "mute" not "moot". Considering the other incorrect words he types frequently I am guessing he is a pretend intellect.

Kind of like you. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you two are related.
 
Lets end this farce NOW before it does any more damage to the country. And if I was a democrat I would want it ended NOW before it does any more damage to their chances of winning the Presidency and holding on to the congress.

This means that I'm torn on the subject. Keeping this charade going will only strengthen Trump which I like. On the other hand it will hurt this country which I don't like so given that I think Trump wins comfortably in 2020 lets end this farce and get the Congress & Senate back to work.

But if they do call Bolton as a witness then the republicans should demand in exchange TWO witness - The "whistle blower" & Hunter Biden.

* Biden will establish that Trump had every reason to believe he and his father were engaged in corrupt actvities with the Ukraine.

* The Whistle blower will establish that he was part of an active plot within the the CIA & State Department to damage Trump. That his actions were NOT those of a whistle blower but were coordinated among several anti-Trump zealots in the bureaucracy and with Adam Schiff.
 
19AL63 said:
Name please? Who did the republicans call? Did you watch the house hearings (the public ones not the one in the basement) the Republicans were stop and told they could not ask a certain questions.
Click to expand...
I guess Turley the Law Professor could be considered a witness. All he did however was dispute what the other 2 Dem profs were subscribing to.
 
As an aside is there any more despicable republican Senator then Mitt Romney? I'm ashamed that I voted for this creature.

As bad as Obama was at least we knew where he came from ideologically. In contrast, Romney is a treacherous snake that if elected POTUS would have done irreparable damage to this country - much more then Obama did. With Bolton at his side how many more nation building wars would be in? And that open border would be a reality if Mitt was POTUS.
 
my2sense said:
Translation: I don't have a cogent response so I will attempt to devalue the truth in your post.
Click to expand...
DerpV1!!!


Uj2uCgK.gif
 
lotr10 said:
As an aside is there any more despicable republican Senator then Mitt Romney? I'm ashamed that I voted for this creature.

As bad as Obama was at least we knew where he came from ideologically. In contrast, Romney is a treacherous snake that if elected POTUS would have done irreparable damage to this country - much more then Obama did. With Bolton at his side how many more nation building wars would be in? And that open border would be a reality if Mitt was POTUS.
Click to expand...


That is why I voted for gridlock and Obama in '12. No way I'd want to see Romney with a 'Pub Legislature. God forbid.
 
ProV1 said:
I heard every bit if it. And Taylor’s. And Hill’s. And saw the texts between Volkker and Guiliani rewriting the Ukraine statement. And all the others. Plus, we will hear what Bolton has to say.

You guys are late getting your talking points. The Senators are already shifting their defense from “he did not do it” to “it is not impeachable”. Listen to them carefully over the next couple of days. If you are going to defend the God King, you have to get on message.
Click to expand...

Who cares ? So you lot tricked a few adversarial dimwits into charging out and defending positions in the neutral zone. The actual Trump battle line, the Constitution and established precedent, is firm and unassailable. The Senate numbers are what they are. Shoot your shot, stretch it out if you can. It's not going to hit anything vital, and the Demturds will look more petty, impotent, and counter-productive than ever. Maybe right up to election time.
 
SWMCinci said:
Whose version of the truth are you interested in? Because the pretenses for the impeachment have already been shown to be a lie. Much of the commentary by the House managers has been fictional at best. They created a narrative and attempted a coup based on that narrative and ignored the evidence presented (some by the same people they quote as prosecutorial witnesses) that showed a different narrative. Is it truth they are after, or to unduly influence the 2020 election because their candidates suck?
Click to expand...


giphy.gif
 
Just saw on Outnumbered there may be 3 Dems, Manchin, the guy from Alabama and one other woman (sorry I wasn’t paying close attention) seriously contemplating to acquit.
Jones Alabama, Sinema Az.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top