Politics & Religion

World events, politics and whatever (especially whatever)
WARNING: Posts may contain offensive content and red wine
09/11/2001 WE REMEMBER
The current impeachment hearings
Posted: Posted November 19th, 2019 by Arch
View Source Report Thread Views

Are people following this so far? What are people's views, and the mood music?

Curious as an international observer what those across the pond think.

There are 49 Replies
Load all posts On page: 1 2 ... 4 5

Haven’t been following too much tbh. The political theatre is actually kinda boring compared to real events going on in the world atm. Still, impeachment is necessarily a big deal so I am aware of the basics. My personal take is that what Trump did was ethically wrong, but I am not sure that it was illegal or impeachable. Even if it was, other presidents have done far worse without being impeached, and Trump himself has done far worse than trying to get dirt on a political opponent (dirt that actually existed, no less). To me it just looks like the establishment is mad that the abuse of power was directed at one of their own in Joe Biden. Kind of like how many Democrats were pro-Wikileaks until the DNC leaks. If we are going to hold Trump accountable for this, we need to hold all politicians accountable in the same way. No double standard for Clintons, Bushes or other big time insiders who happen to be criminals.

Also, unless Trump is successfully removed from office (which is unlikely even with a secret vote in the Senate), this drama will only help him in the 2020 election in a myriad of ways. The Dem primary will be effectively sidetracked for several months during a critical period right before elections begin, and an unsuccessful impeachment will make him look like the victim of a fruitless witch-hunt.

Edited November 19th, 2019 by pacman
View Source Quote Report

Tbh it would not surprise me if impeachment helped him win the 2020 election.

Posted November 19th, 2019 by S.o.h.
View Source Quote Report

My personal take is that what Trump did was ethically wrong, but I am not sure that it was illegal or impeachable.

It should be noted that what Trump is accused of (and what even Republican-called witnesses have testified to) is seeking a foreign player to investigate a conspiracy theory about a candidate in the upcoming election to oppose him. This is *quite literally* one of the reasons the Founders included impeachment as a form of check on the executive in the first place. I'm not really sure how anyone can possibly make an argument that what Trump did was "ethically wrong," but that it was somehow not illegal (that was also Congressional-approved funding; Trump exceeded his authority to hold it up regardless of how you slice it). I certainly can't see how one can make the leap from "What Trump did was wrong" and "it's not really impeachable though." This type of thing is exactly one of the things the Founders were worried might happen. It's the thing Ben Franklin cited as a possibility that convinced Gouverneur Morris that impeachment was necessary to include in the Constitution.

To me it just looks like the establishment is mad that the abuse of power was directed at one of their own in Joe Biden.

I think your logic is completely backwards. Somehow, you seem to have forgotten that it was largely the Sanders-inspired wing of the Democratic party that was the most vocal about impeachment. They practically had to drag the more moderate wing kicking and screaming into it. I'm not even sure Nancy Pelosi would have been ok with an impeachment inquiry if not for the White House weirdly releasing a transcript summary that effectively corroborates the whistleblower complaint about Trump trying to bribe a foreign government into interfering with an election (something that *should* be concerning, especially after 2016, regardless of what your position is on whatever your perception of "the establishment" is.)

trying to get dirt on a political opponent (dirt that actually existed, no less)

What "dirt"? He was literally asking to investigate the Bidens based off a conspiracy theory that not only lacked any actual evidence from the get-go, but ignored the reality that Biden's actions as Vice President actually made Ukraine *less* corrupt, and was the collective policy of the United States State Department, the European Union, the intelligence agencies, and had a consensus among Democrats AND Republicans. Biden removed a corrupt official and by doing so, made investigations into Burismo *more* likely, because Biden did nothing wrong.

The only "dirt" is that Hunter Biden got a job he might have been unqualified for, which is annoying (although certainly rich that Trump or any Trump allies or children are calling this out as "government corruption" somehow). But it's still not government corruption, nor is indicative of wrong-doing by Joe Biden. It's only "dirt" if you trust Fox News. Maybe it's not a great look for the Biden family, I guess? But it's not exactly like we don't know that people get jobs via connections.

Also, unless Trump is successfully removed from office (which is unlikely even with a secret vote in the Senate), this drama will only help him in the 2020 election in a myriad of ways

There's no quest that Mitch McConnell's random openness to committing to a Senate trial if articles of impeachment pass is designed to disrupt the Democratic primary. Two of the four frontrunners (Warren and Sanders) would have to take time away from the campaign trail to serve as jurors. I highly doubt McConnell would fulfill his Constitutional obligation to run a trial in the Senate if he didn't see some potential gain. In this case, disruption. I'm not sure this *really* helps much because at least Sanders has been pretty steady regardless of what happens. And Joe Biden can still campaign. And even if this ultimately winds up helping Buttigieg...I mean...I've mentioned it time and time again, but every one of the Democratic frontrunners polls better than Trump in head-to-head polls. Even Buttigieg, and especially Biden.

and an unsuccessful impeachment will make him look like the victim of a fruitless witch-hunt.

See, I don't buy this argument. There's enough evidence (including the White House's own admissions) to clearly show wrong-doing. We all know that Trump is not going to be convicted and removed from office. (For all their crying about "due process," hearing statements from Kevin McCarthy and Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell saying that they're not going to bother reading the transcripts or listening to the testimony indicates they've pre-emptively made their verdict, which really highlights their commitment to "due process.") But the thing about an impeachment trial is that there is *plenty* of evidence of wrongdoing. With a trial, more will inevitably come to light. Trump has his loyalist cult that won't change no matter what, but even those who just casually follow the news here and there will keep hearing about his abuse of powers. Mix all of that on top of the fact that he hasn't really done anything to help anyone other than himself and his cronies? I really don't see anyone other than the Trump Cult seeing him as a "victim," and while people might consider it all just political theater, it's not really a "witch hunt."

I think the optics will really *help* the Democratic nominees further paint an already clear portrait of Trump as a corrupt President who isn't doing anything to help the average American. That he's only after himself. And not only that, but he has tried to bribe a foreign government to influence an election and thus undermine Americans' voices. That he's been constantly intimidating witnesses, engaging in cover-ups, and abusing his power. Add that to the already compelling argument that Democrats are trying to make sure people have access to health care or a liveable wage... I really don't see how an impeachment "helps" Donald Trump.

It's also worth noting that we've never really seen the election following an impeachment work out in favor of that party. Clinton's impeachment was followed by a Republican victory. Nixon's impending impeachment was followed by a Democratic victory. Andrew Johnson is sort of a weird one because he was technically on the Republican ticket with Lincoln, but was a Democrat for most of his life and pretty much reverted to Democratic (of the time) tendencies. But also, he was so deranged that he wound up not really having a party. He was definitely more Democrat (of the time) than Republican (of the time), and that was followed by a Republican victory. And the impeachment inquiry into John Tyler was sort of similar. Tyler was really a Democrat who only joined the Whigs to oppose Andrew Jackson. When Harrison died and he took over, he mostly reverted to Democratic tendencies, but because he had been a Whig more recently, he had the support of no party (like Johnson). That was ultimately followed by a Democratic win, too. (Of course, early American history is very different. Partisan politics was nothing like what it was today, with sub-divisions within both major factions, more smaller, third parties, and also there was a distinct desire by those in Congress to assert their authority over the Presidency, so there was innately more of a check and balance among the branches. That's less so today when the partisan politics of today are such that the parties generally follow the President's agenda. More true with Republicans than Democrats, but still.)

Granted, neither Nixon nor Clinton were up for re-election, so we are a little in unprecedented territory. Johnson and Tyler had been so thoroughly cast out of any discernible party that running for re-election was never viable regardless. Still, especially when you look at polling of impeachment so far, I find it really hard to imagine that this will *help* Trump. Worst case scenario, it distracts for Trump just as much as it does for Democratic Senators running. I mean, Trump made the elections in Kentucky and Louisiana about the impeachment, and that didn't exactly go well for the Republicans...

My take so far:

I've obviously been on the record for supporting impeachment. I really truly feel that if this isn't a president we're willing to impeach, then we might as well just scrap the thing entirely because what's the fucking point? With all his overt abuse of powers, the brazen corruption, the dismantling of norms and attempts to destroy institutions, and now with seeking foreign interference (again), it's confounding to me how any of what this president does is acceptable. Are Republicans really so desperate for tax cuts that they can't even put forth some person of actual worthwhile character? They have to resort to and defend the snake oil salesman who continues to force them to completely abandon their alleged principles?

We all know that the Senate won't convict the president, regardless of the evidence. Zelinsky could even come right out and say, "Yeah, I felt like we were being strong-armed into investigating his political rival for that aid," (which the White House has admitted to doing on several occasions themselves), and Republicans would be like, "NO QUID PRO QUO! THIS IS FINE!" But every single one of these assholes should be forced to record a vote that shows for all history that they had no real problem with this behavior from a sitting president.

Perhaps the wildest thing about the entire process is every intellectually dishonest or brazenly stupid argument the GOP has made in this entire process. Including, but not limited to:

1. You can't impeach the President because that overturns the "will of the people" from the 2016 election!

Easily one of the dumbest arguments I think I've ever heard in mainstream politics in my life, it's hard to know where to begin. First, impeachment is literally in the Constitution as a means to check the President. Apart from how surreal it is to have heard some Republicans argue this while literally being the same exact people who did impeach Clinton 30 years ago, there's also the fundamental question of what even is the "will of the people"? Is 46% of the vote and a 30-40% approval rating and a Democratic swing in the mid-terms really "the will of the people"? Can you really make that argument?

But also by this logic, NO President can be impeached because any President is President because they won an election. I'm not really sure that's a philosophical argument Republicans want to make. This all swings, and they know full well that at some point a Democrat is going to re-take the White House. Are they really willing to completely remove one check on that President they would have in Congress if they might need it? What are they going to say if ever there actually is a Democrat who takes office and tries to institute gun confiscation? You think they wouldn't want to impeach that guy? But how can they have any legs to stand on when that guy won an election?

It also just highlights some key hypocrisies. For all their talk about adhering to a literal view of the Constitution, this certainly requires a broad interpretation (a growing trend for the strict view Republicans, to be honest). So, ok, what do they actually believe on that? They say one thing, but it turns out that those beliefs are contigent on which party occupies the White House. There's also the fact that Republicans literally were the last party to impeach a President. And Clinton did far less to be impeached than Trump's done. So why did Republicans get to utilize that tool, but Democrats don't? Why is it they're allowed to impeach a president and that's their civic duty, but if Democrats impeach a president, it's suddenly trying to destroy everything America stands for or something? There's also the question of what exactly do Republicans believe in terms of small federal government? They generally have wanted a smaller, less powerful central government, but apparently don't seem to mind abusive of executive powers so long as it's a Republican in the most powerful seat of the central government. Seriously, does anyone know what Republicans actually believe in anymore?

2. There's no quid pro quo.

I really don't understand how they can continue to make this argument when by the White House's own transcript summary, there is a very clear quid pro quo. Republicans right now seem to be latching onto these sort of strange, idiotic "grammatical" semantics. Like because the transcript summary doesn't say the words "quid pro quo," that means there wasn't any. But by the White House's own admission (both from the transcript summary and Mulvaney's press conference), they did indeed make the aid contigent on Ukraine investigating the Bidens. That is, by definition, "quid pro quo." "We'll give you this aid, if you do us this favor and investigate Hunter Biden." If they don't understand that this is a quid pro quo, then they're frankly too stupid to be in office. (Of course, they know that's exactly what it is. They're not all that stupid. They're just lying.)

Now, they're trying to make this case that the Democrats have shifted the language from "quid pro quo" to "bribery," as somehow that's evidence that Democrats are moving the goal posts. Except...what exactly do they think bribery is? How exactly is, "We'll give you this aid if you do us a favor" NOT bribery? How exactly is quid pro quo and bribery different, especially in this case?

3. It's about the Bidens and corruption!

This is also a disingenuous argument. For starters, no one *actually* believes that the Trump administration cares about stopping corruption. They've given aid to plenty of countries with issues of corruption. On top of that, the entire "corruption scandal" at the center of this is a conspiracy theory in which the President is claiming that Ukraine is housing the "Democrats' server." Because apparently that's still somehow an idea that exists among Republican leadership. When you look at the reality of the situation, Joe Biden's actions as Vice President to remove the Ukrainian in question was the explicit desire of the EU, the State Department, the intelligence agencies, and had bipartisan support. Republicans weren't complaining about this when it happened. They're crying about it now that Trump has been caught trying to bribe a foreign president into digging up dirt.

It's also worth noting that the Trump administration hasn't actually launched any investigation into the Bidens domestically. If this were truly about corruption, why would they ask a foreign government to do it for them? Further, why would Trump's primary concern be that Zelinsky announce this at a press conference? Well, it's pretty blatant. Trump knows he benefited a lot from the stupid Benghazi conspiracies in 2016. They don't need to find evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden; they just need to plant the seed again. Well, it actually turns out that Biden's actions as VP *removed* a corrupt force in Ukraine, which made investigation into Burismo even *more* likely.

But again, we also know this isn't actually about corruption because literally within this same time period, the Trump White House awarded a Trump property the rights to host the G7. Ya don't get more overtly corrupt than that! They walked it back and pretended to not really get why there was controversy, but this is what has been a staple of the Trump administration. I think you have to go back to Harding to find a White House with anywhere near this amount of corruption (and this speaks nothing of all the conflicts of interests existing both with the President and many of his department appointees).

And please: if anyone tries to argue this is about "despotism" or some shit: gimme a break. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner have been key players in the Trump White House for how long?

Regardless: there's nothing about the "Trump just cares about ending corruption" argument that adds up. On top of that, Congress approved this aid to be released in large part because the conditions were met re: fighting corruption. No matter how you slice it, Trump abused his power by withholding the aid. It's not *his* money to do what he wants with. The money was approved by Congress, with bipartisan support. The conditions were met to release the aid. Yet the President held it up so he could try to get dirt on a political rival. This is a violation of his Constitutional duty as the President. If he had concerns about corruption in Ukraine, he should have brought that to the attention of Republican leaders in Congress when they were voting. That didn't happen. Because it's not, nor was it ever, about corruption.

4. "Attempted bribery is not in the Constitution"

One of the most infuriating arguments of late has been the argument that, well, the aid got released and the investigation didn't happen, so no harm no foul. Folks online have been referring to this as the Sideshow Bob defense, and yep! It really is that insane. First of all, the aid only got released because Trump got caught. The aid was being withheld until several days after the story broke about the whistleblower and then the Democrats were going to launch an impeachment inquiry. He pure and simple only released the aid because he got caught.

But also, "attempted bribery is not in the Constitution" (an argument *literally* made word-for-word by Fox News pundits) is so innately stupid, I really hope I don't have to explain it. As Sideshow Bob says in the Simpsons, "Attempted murder? What even is that? Do they give the Nobel Prize for 'attempted chemistry'?" I can't imagine that is someone attempted to assassinate Trump, the Fox News pundits would claim that attempted murder is not a crime because the crime wasn't successful. But also, this is what happened with Watergate! The burglary wasn't successful. They got caught. It doesn't make it less of a crime. For a President to try to bribe a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political rival is so antithetical to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers' ideas that it really doesn't matter if it were successful or not.

I could go on, but I really feel like this is the most self-evident in its lunacy as a defense.

5. It's all "hearsay."

This has also been a weird argument, but it's not the first time Republicans have employed this defense. We saw them lay the groundwork for this moment with Brett Kavanaugh, where they were intellectually dishonest about the evidence in front of them. There, they conflated "no corroborating evidence" with "no definitive evidence" and sold it to the nation. They also willfully ignored testimony that wasn't favorable, dismissing it as if it were completely invalid. Again, we see them doing this. They've been attempting to discredit witness testimony by arguing it's "hearsay." This is the spin they're putting on it.

But..."hearsay" and second-hand testimony is often admissable in the court of law. (For all their talk about "due process," they don't often have a particularly strong grasp on our legal system or how it actually works.) I get that as the defense, their job is to try to make the witnesses seem suspect, but they're going to have a hard time with this given that so far, they're kinda all telling the same story. Even the Republicans' own witnesses confirm key elements of the pro-impeachment argument. (Shit, their big witness today even *started* by saying Joe Biden did nothing wrong and it's laughable to think this was about corruption.)

It's an especially strange argument to make now when we have people with first-hand accounts about to testify, and whose written testimonies already confirm some of these key elements. So like, how much mileage were they ever really going to get out of the "it's just hearsay" argument anyway?

They've also been attempting to discredit the whistleblower, to a dangerous degree. By all accounts, the whistleblower followed protocol and the rules (ya know, the "rule of law" that Republicans claim to care about?) Yet Republicans are playing a very dangerous game, trying to out that individual even though, really, they're totally irrelevant. See, at this point, other witnesses have confirmed most of what the whistleblower's complaint entailed. On top of that, the White House has itself also confirmed this. We don't *need* the whistleblower's complaint anymore because it's already been confirmed.

6. The President is entitled to "due process."

Another disingenuous and ridiculous argument is the classic "due process" one. Here, Republicans argue that none of this should be valid because the President deserves "due process." But...what exactly do they think the "process" is?

It's buck wild to hear folks like Lindsey Graham or Kevin McCarthy argue "due process" while simultaneously declaring that they're not even going to look at any evidence submitted. You don't really get to argue you're providing "due process" if you're not even going to look at the evidence. How exactly is that "due process"?

But also...fuckin....this is how this works! After these hearings, House Democrats will decide whether or not to bring articles of impeachment to the table. They will then vote on whether or not to pass them. And if they pass, the Senate will then hold a trial. (Republican Senators also have a super convenient excuse not to out themselves. They can take the "I can't comment on these hearings because I'm going to be a juror if impeachment articles pass" is a completely valid response for them. Not sure why Graham can't fucking do that. I guess his mouth has to be flapping when it's not kissing Trump's ass.) The Senate trial *is* the "due process." The inquiry and the vote on articles *is* the due process.

7. The inquiry was done in secret!

This was also an infuriating talking point. Based on how Republicans were acting and talking, no one would blame you for not knowing that Republicans were in those closed-door sessions. Matt Goetz infamously performed several political stunts, knowing full well that he was not welcome in those meetings because he was not on those designated committees (which, should be noted, Democrats were not privvy to several Benghazi investigations behind closed doors because, again, they lacked authority not being on those committees). Some of the folks who had their "pizza protest" literally *did* have the right to be in the room, and they chose not to be.

Impeachment is a funny thing in that there hasn't really been a lot of them. Oh, it's been talked about a lot. You can find people talking about wanting to impeach a President going back to John Adams (though Andrew Jackson was really the first in which this was a pretty visible talking point for some). There was an inquiry into impeaching Tyler, which no one seems to know about because, I mean, who knows anything about John Tyler? People don't even really know about how or even why Andrew Johnson was impeached. We just know he was!

So sure, there is a fair amount of uncertainty around how these things are supposed to work. That was the big hill to climb in the 1860s. The Constitution very deliberately gives that power to Congress, but doesn't really go into how it should work. And yeah, it's innately a political thing (that's why the worst they can do is remove someone from their position; they can't imprison anyone - like even if somehow the Senate decided to care about American democracy, Trump isn't going to jail). And there really are valid questions about procedures. This will always be the case with an impeachment because we just don't do them a lot (interestingly, several key founding fathers actually expected impeachment to be more common, and wouldn't be that big a deal - but they also anticipated Congress would maintain a bit of an edge over the executive branch, which didn't last very long in American history).

But to act like how the Democrats have been pursuing this is some dramatic wrong way...that they've been doing this in this super unprecedented fashion...it's just insane.

But yeah. I've already listed a bunch of reasons Trump should be impeached. And based on this testimony, I see more and more evidence piling up against him. I don't expect Republicans to ever break from Trump or stand up for their alleged principles, but we don't have to abandon our beliefs just because they abandoned theirs. It's an important check on the president. And even though the Senate Republicans obviously won't vote against Trump (do they ever?), history books should note that when a President sought to strong-arm a foreign government into digging up dirt on a political rival for the sake of strengthening his re-election bid, the Republicans in Congress said, "We don't see a problem with that."

Posted November 20th, 2019 by Jet Presto
View Source Quote Report

I actually don't care whether the offense is "worthy" of impeachment or not. Plenty of other things he's done have overstepped the authority of the President and have been wildly unethical; moreover, he is a fascist, and any and all viable means should be employed to stop an individual who continues to advance and advocate fascism. Waiting for the 2020 elections A.) might not actually work and B.) allows thousands to suffer in the meantime under his incompetent policies and his malicious ones, while giving him the opportunity to create a lasting legacy of a hostile judiciary. In short: Fuck him up, nameless whistleblower.

Posted November 20th, 2019 by Ursa Aeris
View Source Quote Report

The problems and suffering in this country go way beyond Trump, Ursa. Hell, “Never Trump” Republicans = Trump without the mean tweets. They and even many Dems have few qualms about his actual policies; they’re just mad he doesn’t keep up the veneer of being “presidential”. Keep in mind that even if Trump is removed, we get President Pence, who could arguably deal worse damage to the working poor and the country in general.

Also I agree that he has done plenty that is far more damning than the Ukraine call. However, they are *only* going to focus on Ukraine. Pelosi said from the start that they wouldn’t look into anything else. A stupid move imo. I mean, the guy is a corrupt war criminal who violates the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

Posted November 20th, 2019 by pacman
View Source Quote Report


Come on, it’s obvious as shit foreign actors were basically buying favor and influence through Hunter. I hate Trump too and think he’s one of the most corrupt politicians ever, but let’s not pretend Joe and co. aren’t guilty of corruption and foreign influence. That just comes across as partisan hackery. Hell, this is precisely why people aren’t super worked up about Trump’s corruption and he will probably get away with it - that is simply the precedent that has been set for decades by the Washington establishment. Corruption is the American way. If you want to call it out, you need to call ALL of it out, not just when Trump does it.

Also, most people who voted for Trump realize he is corrupt and not necessarily a nice guy. I don’t think repeating the fact that he is corrupt will do much other than make people ask, “oh yeah, what about YOUR corruption? All politicians are corrupt!” Better optics would be candidates telling the American people what exactly they are going to do to help them and help the country, sans the corporate neoliberalism wrapped in platitudes, sans the status quo veiled behind feel-good cliches.

Also, I certainly get your argument that, “if we don’t impeach a guy like Trump, why bother having impeachment as an option at all?” The thing is, I thought the same about liar and war criminal George W. Bush. The precedent of corruption as the norm has long been set.

Edited November 20th, 2019 by pacman
View Source Quote Report

Pence isn't harmless, but removing Trump means his cult is broken. When the tide turns, there's the possibility of a Saturday Night Massacre that results in Pence's removal as well, but even if that doesn't happen, Pence does not have Trump's sleaze-aura or his brand recognition. He is a monster, but an intensely boring one. Pence will not be able to rally the base as effectively and he won't fare well in the election. Even Biden could beat Pence.

Posted November 20th, 2019 by Ursa Aeris
View Source Quote Report

Impeachment or no, that's not how Trump is going to end up removed from office.

The Democratic field is weak and everyone knows it. Naturally this calculus can change a great deal in a year's time, and four years ago to the day we were still many months out from conceding that Trump's candidacy was indicative of something more than a serious vulnerability in the long decayed Republican consensus. Demographics are destiny for the Republicans, or so they say, though somehow it is always four, eight, or twelve years away from being realized. We may yet face a half century where the electoral math makes it impossible for the GOP to win the presidency, but we're not there just yet. The baby boomers are still alive and still voting. Millennials are still not having children, and when they do it is less likely than ever to be with someone that they're married too. It'll take more than MTV Rocking the Vote (don't worry, I deliberately age myself) to get young people to do anything so arduous as act like adults, let alone appreciate the value of their civic responsibilities. I bring this up because Trump's appeal is generational as much as it's anything else.

As fond as I am of my Mike Pence thread I'm still not actually convinced that he is a worthwhile public servant. Nevertheless I would rather have him over Liz "Economic Patriotism" Warren in exactly the same way that I would also prefer we simply abolish the office of the President entirely. Anyone that builds their platform on depriving American citizens of their property is a demagogue to the bone and ought to be kept out of high office. In this way I would probably prefer the results of Trump being removed through impeachment over an electoral loss (ignoring that Pence would probably then lose to Warren et al.), but I don't see it happening. The president appears to be guilty of what he's been accused of, and yet we live in times so cynical (hey, maybe we really are repeating the 1970s!) that it's difficult to imagine anyone actually caring. The Ukraine scandal is not remotely the least honorable thing ever associated with American foreign policy, or even from this president. The justification for these hearings is therefore a hollow pretense, and the American people will see it as such. If the Democrats cannot successfully use the president's behavior to shame the electorate then there will be no reason for any Republican senators to defect on the final count. Pelosi knows all of this and somehow came to the conclusion that impeachment was the right course anyway. Perhaps we'll learn why in time, but it will probably be during Trump's second term.

Posted November 20th, 2019 by Famov
View Source Quote Report

i’m with zizek on this one

Posted November 21st, 2019 by poptart!
View Source Quote Report

While famovs comment about millenials and marriage has no place in the discussion. (I'm a matrimony death do us part type of guy) I do agree with the majority of his thoughts on the matter.

I do believe that Famov is wrong about the dem runners being weak there are obvious candidates who are not only popular but who have policies that make sense to me.


Is there someone whose running who you actually like? Warren is far better than Gary "Aleppo" Johnson. Surely you can concede that much.

Posted November 21st, 2019 by S.o.h.
View Source Quote Report
Next page Load rest of pages On page: /
Reply to: The current impeachment hearings
Enter your message here

Rules | Report Issue | Request Feature | Roadmap Facebook Page | Discord Group
GTX0 © 2009-2020 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on
You are not forgotten, Kevin, Liane, Norma, Jason, and Garrett