DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump Impeachment 2.0

Is this true?
Did anyone else see this comment?

Did you actually say this, Ballpeen?

Dude...

Trump Impeached again. This time a bipartisan result. 10 gop abandoned the big lie. The only President to be impeached twice. Only trump could get more bipartisan support for impeachment than any other Presidential impeachment in history.

I think he will be the first convicted too. First in the Senate, then in many courts.

Doesn't it have to pass in the Senate? I don't know how the process works.

The house passes an article or articles of impeachment. the Senate then checks out the proof, etc, and votes on it.

This is nothing more than a smear trying to, out of anger, finish off Trump. There probably will be no Senate vote.

It's an angle the dems have tried for 4 years. the goal is to make sure Trump can never run for public office again. I wonder why.

You knew the dems would vote for it, in the house, and there were some repub's that did due to their fear of losing their seat. After all, a seat in congress is extremely rewarding, monetarily.

You've stated you don't condone what happened last week.

Yet you don't see the need to impeach after the fascist incited an insurrection?

Its kind of sad because they made a public spectacle of themselves.

They all spoke on emotions instead of facts.

But I guess that is the liberal way.

Pelosi Violates Own Rules in Impeachment Debate, Refers to Self as ‘Wife, Mother, Grandmother, Daughter’

Alana Mastrangelo

13 Jan 2021


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) violated her own rules for the 117th Congress on Wednesday when she referred to herself as “a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter” on the House floor during the debate regarding the second impeachment of President Donald Trump.

“I stand before you today as an officer of the Constitution, as Speaker of the House of Representatives,” said Pelosi on Wednesday. “I stand before you as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter, a daughter whose father proudly served in this Congress.”

.@SpeakerPelosi, apparently forgetting about her prohibitions on “gendered" language: "I stand before you as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter. A daughter whose father proudly served in this Congress." pic.twitter.com/s2KzkxTNAw

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 13, 2021

Pelosi and Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern (D-MA) unveiled the rules for the 117th Congress earlier this month, which contained “future-focused” proposals, including the elimination of terms referring to sex, such as “father, mother, son, and daughter.”

The proposal included the creation of the “Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth,” which requires Congress to “honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender neutral.”

In clause 8(c)(3) of rule XXIII, terms such as “father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half sister, grandson, or granddaughter” are removed.

In their place, terms such as “parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild” are to be used.

Days later, Democrats officially passed the sexless speech codes for the House of Representatives.

Pelosi, however, violated her own rules as she stood before Congress on Wednesday during a House hearing on the impeachment of President Trump

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/...other-daughter/

Interesting take.

The Capital Building was stormed and occupied by a bunch of wanna-be militia types - incited to do so because they are so emotionally distraught over Trump losing the election ... Hmmmmmmmmm.

You cant blame the President for what a bunch of wack job extremists do.

They will do what they want.

I want to see some evidence that Trump instigated this. Whining about election results doesnt really cut it.

Boohoo Trump Boohoo.

Doesnt really cut it as evidence.

That is correct, and I don't condone it, contrary to some whack jobs on here that insist I liked it since I voted for Trump.

However, I HAVE seen a couple on here state they didn't support the riots and looting, and the most recent attack on Trump supporters with this: This WAS Antifa. I don't support violence BUT, this violence was okay.
No. I don't. There is literally only 1 reason for impeachment at this point in time. Well, 2 really. 1. To guarantee Trump can't hold fed. office again, and 2. Some representatives are hoping to extend their stay in the house.

Why would some even worry about him running for office again?

It says quite a bit if that's all Breitbart can conjure against this impeachment.

Honestly, I would think many Repubs fear Trump more than the Dems do. That tweet from Lindsey Graham from waaaay back about what a Trump presidency would do to the country and the Repub party (it was not flattering, and coming from someone who went on to hold Trump's bucket of poo quite a bit), I think, is pretty indicative of what the establishment Repubs think about Trump's ongoing effect on the party will be.

I think, their strategy will be to walk a tight rope to get Trump out but somehow hang onto as much of 'his' voters as possible.

Graham said enough is enough then got on air force one to go to Texas with trump...... such bs can’t believe anything they say

Yes, I agree, Republicans made fools of themselves by not following the law..

It's rather simple. Trump incited the actions of those that tried to over throw the government and change the results of an election.

He's guilty.. Plain as day. So what do republicans do?

they talk about Trumps economic accomplishments.. but they forget to look at how he totally botched the Covid pandemic.. They ignore that he broke the law.


BY the way, when they said that he cut taxes for everyday people, that is a flat out lie... He postponed taxes for everyday people... What he did was cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations.

How does that help me and you.

As for the wall, did we get the check from Mexico yet?

You can’t handle the truth. The proof was on live TV. Oh but that’s right it’s the media’s fault, they put it on TV live. Pfft you trump supporters.

I think that's a good assessment. We all know how Cruz, Rubio, and Graham felt about Trump when they were running against him vs how they acted after he got elected. It's all about poll numbers and staying in office to them.

To further your logic, before Trump, the Republicans I think had a more firm grasp on the entire conservative base, and it wasn't that difficult to ensure the majority of that demographic's vote. After Trump's election, you have his very fervent base (freedom caucus for example), more traditional Republicans (Lincoln project), and then the moderates and the swing voters.

There has been a ton of polarization on the right. If Trump's supporters carry momentum over the next four years, it will be a crazy primary in 2024 because you will have candidates that will have to find some way to appease all of these demographics, and then be palatable enough to win the general election. I have no idea how that will play out.

--------

As far as the impeachment goes, I think it requires 67 votes, correct? Will it take place when the new Senate seats? If that's the case, they will need 17 Republican votes. That seems like a lot. If it has any chance of succeeding, I think it will have to be McConnell being very public about his support of it.

My view might not be totally correct (please correct me if I'm wrong), but I think the same thing is going on within the Dems already. You have a party that's pretty fractured and sometimes has issues when it's time to come together. I don't think what the Repub party is about to go through is all that unique... it's just how they got there and maybe the degree of fractured-ness. I think the R-party would be better served in the long run by cutting a certain portion free (not sure I would even say this about the Dems).

As for impeachment, I almost feel the same way about this one as I did round 1. You're asking a group of people that have benefited greatly from a lack of accountability to suddenly start enforcing it. Congress is literally the last group I would expect to take up the call. Maybe the vote to remove will be a little closer, but the end result will be the same. This is a group that has a LOT to lose if accountability began to be enforced.

And I know what some will say, but screeching for accountability at a time when it doesn't hurt you or yours at all (and actually benefits) is not actual accountability.

I believe the reason they are doing this is so a non-politician will never run for president again. They was someone they can control. It's a warning saying if you run we will destroy you and your family.

Be sorry not to have your rationale take on things political if you do stay away.

As for the impeachment and incitement?

Best and fairest article I have read:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437

It doesn't matter what posters *think* - it matters what the law says. And this is a good breakdown. What is missing (in my opinion) is the contributing and orchestrated message from Trump family and allies, a lot of which was more inflammatory and the inference was of fighting and battling and the violent elements of the what happened.

How about during the riot he did nothing for 2 hours hell he probably stalled anyone tying to do anything for 2 hours. I am sure he was sitting back and enjoying the show. Would love to see don JR video of that.

Yeah, I could be way off too, but I like the conversation. My perception is that the Dems and Repubs both had unity issues prior to 2016 with Tea Party vs Conventional Repubs and Progressives vs Conventional Dems, and whatnot.

The difference to me is that the Dems seem to be struggling to keep things together, but - as a whole - seem like they're at least somewhat showing a semblance of cohesion. I think they were able to unify in this last election period largely because of their common perceptions of Trump. With Biden elected, though, you can already see some friction starting between the progressives and the more conventional Liberals.

On the Repub/Conservative side, I think Trump was the axe that split the wood. I think there is still the common unity against the Democrats as a whole, but now it just feels more like "the enemy of my enemy" instead of "let's bridge our differences and work together."

Disclaimer: this is just how I perceive things, and I could be off, but I won't know that until the conversations keep going. I very much abhor political parties in general, let alone a two party system. I'd much rather prefer the parties break up into multiples.

There's also an additional layer to this, as far as the steps from impeachment to finding him guilty. It's an unfortunate (and completely illogical, imo).

At the final vote of the last impeachment, we had Senators that voted not guilty alongside statements that made it clear that he was guilty. They said, in no uncertain terms, that Trump did the things that he was accused of, but voted not guilty because they didn't want him removed from office. How they said that with a straight face is beyond me, but beyond the bar to clear to impeach a president and then prove he did it with evidence and whatnot, there's also an additional layer of political BS that needs to be cleared in order for anything substantive to happen.

Awe.... Isn't that sweet. You do realize you said the same thing in 2018, right? You do see how the 2020 elections went, right?

When you bring the truth front and center to Americans, it has consequences.
What you call a spectacle resulted in the democrats not only winning the presidency, but also taking over the senate. Not just taking it over, but accomplishing that very goal in your own home state. It must have been agonizing to watch first hand the hate of trump blow up right in your own front yard.

Yet you are still in denial. Enjoy the next four years.

When it comes to Ted Cruz who couldn't see this coming? Cruz couldn't even defend his wife and his dad against trump's attacks on his own family. After Trump said all of that Cruz couldn't wait to suck up to him.

When a man can't stand up for his own family, nobody should expect him to stand up for democracy.

Not sure if you watch Game of Thrones, but he is the Little Finger of the Senate.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/16/us-capitol-rioters-donald-trump-pardons

So I keep reading quotes from these patriots who have been arrested... they all say that Trump told them to go to the capitol building. Pretty sure that constitutes the first part of what we needed to establish regarding who was responsible.

You think they are patriots?

No I don't....

It's what they call themselves.

It's what Trump called them.

It's what Ivanka called them.

https://people.com/politics/less-than-tw...rters-patriots/


https://www.glamour.com/story/ivanka-trump-deletes-message-calling-armed-mob-american-patriots

I just read the words you wrote.

At any rate, looks like GB is pulling away. Might have to pay attention to that.

Maybe go to bed. Just like when we were kids, on Christmas eve I wanted to go to bed early because it seemed like Christmas day came sooner. Go to bed early, game day will come sooner!

Go Browns

My guess is no, it didn't happen. It was stated on the 13th. No proof yet.

But, it's how things go in here, and in the country. You don't need proof, allegations are enough.

This technique is called 'irony'.
It works best with tone of voice.

Sometimes, posters use purple to help.

Thanks for the post and the insight, but I'd really like Ballpeen to answer my question for himself. The way I was raised, a direct question deserves a direct answer. He's had days to respond... crickets.

So I think I'll take this opportunity to ask the question again, because I don't want to assume anything:

Ballpeen: did you actually make a post about having a sitting member of congress perform a sexual act on you? Other posters: did you see this post by Ballpeen?

I hate unsolved mysteries.

Well, you asked rocket, not peen. So there's that.

The way I was raised, we went to the accuser first to see what proof there was. I'm sure you understand that concept. Rocket needs to, in his words, bring receipts. He's famous for saying that.

But, I agree, we need to see receipts from the accuser. Rocket has had days to respond. And he hasn't.

Did it happen? I don't know, but I don't remember seeing it.............but for some, just the accusation is enough?

No... I quoted RocketOptimist, but I directly asked Ballpeen the question. I'm pretty sure he saw my post, because he's contributed to the thread since I posted it.

But you know what? It's all good- I've just come up with a simple, elegant solution: I'm going to PM Ballpeen himself and ask him the question directly. He & I have a PM history that goes back as long as You & I, and I trust him to tell me the truth. A direct question deserves a direct answer.




Not for me.
That's why I'll be asking him.