The Impeachment Thread

[Z Buck McFate]

Dudette, you gotta go super embarrassing. Like, have his body found auto-erotically asphyxiated, and holding a pinup of Rosie O'Donnell, since that would really piss off Trump. Surround him with assloads of gay porn magazines. Etc. Have the TV in his room set up so it looks like he was watching CNN the whole time, since he makes a point of trashing that network. And a picture of Ann Coulter's dick taped to the wall. And a gold plated dildo sticking out of his ass

I'm thinking the pin-up should be of Michael Moore and also he (Trump) should be dressed like a woman.

 

[Maou]

The circus comes to clown world, and wonders why it isn't that funny.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The circus comes to clown world, and wonders why it isn't that funny.

I'm sorry if the Trump jokes offended you.

 

[Yuurei]

I'm sorry if the Trump jokes offended you.

In my experience, this is an issue common with a conservative mindset
“Free speech!” “ Facts don’t care about your feelings!” until it’s their people being mocked and their feelings hurt, then it’s just cruel and mean.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

In my experience, this is an issue common with a conservative mindset
“Free speech!” “ Facts don’t care about your feelings!” until it’s their people being mocked and their feelings hurt, then it’s just cruel and mean.

It's kind of irritating.

 

[Yuurei]

It's kind of irritating.

Oh, just a bit. Bit I find indignation fuels them, so I choose to laugh at their miserably thin skin instead. Sends em into a rage-spiral, which induces a hilarity spiral in myself. It’s a win-win.
“HA.Hahaha!”

 

[Maou]

In my experience, this is an issue common with a conservative mindset
“Free speech!” “ Facts don’t care about your feelings!” until it’s their people being mocked and their feelings hurt, then it’s just cruel and mean.

More like the feelings don't match what we see and we argue, and other people tell us we are insane and hallucinating. Then when we say we don't want to live in a clown world anymore, we are told we are the feeling based ones. What a farce.

 

[ceecee]

More like the feelings don't match what we see and we argue, and other people tell us we are insane and hallucinating. Then when we say we don't want to live in a clown world anymore, we are told we are the feeling based ones. What a farce.

You are. So is everyone else. You have no more right to tell me what I feel than I have to tell you. But I've never doubted you actually believe Trump and right or wrong will follow him to the end. No one is stopping you from doing it. No one is silencing you, even when what you say is dead wrong and no one has stomped on any of your rights.

But if you really don't want to live in a clown world anymore, start acting like it and stop applauding the biggest clown of them all.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You are. So is everyone else. You have no more right to tell me what I feel than I have to tell you. But I've never doubted you actually believe Trump and right or wrong will follow him to the end. No one is stopping you from doing it. No one is silencing you, even when what you say is dead wrong and no one has stomped on any of your rights.

But if you really don't want to live in a clown world anymore, start acting like it and stop applauding the biggest clown of them all.

I think the phrase "clown world" is likely meant in this sense:

Clown Pepe / Honk Honk / Clown World | Know Your Meme

 

[Maou]

You are. So is everyone else. You have no more right to tell me what I feel than I have to tell you. But I've never doubted you actually believe Trump and right or wrong will follow him to the end. No one is stopping you from doing it. No one is silencing you, even when what you say is dead wrong and no one has stomped on any of your rights.

But if you really don't want to live in a clown world anymore, start acting like it and stop applauding the biggest clown of them all.

Thst is the thing, I don't see Trump as a clown. I do not deny it is silly to others either. I also do not care what you feel, so it is mutual. My big point is we are all the same, trying to bring order to chaos. Whether you feel threatened by my words, or vice versa. It does not matter. As Yuu's signature quite boldly exclaims. "Do something, even if it is wrong" I do not consider myself an intellectual, or even smart. But I do consider myself aware.

 

[anticlimatic]

but I mean, I just also want to point out that Dems held back on impeachment as long as they reasonably could.

Do you actually believe your own words here?

 

[Jaguar]

Do you actually believe your own words here?

If Z Buck changed "Dems" to "Pelosi," the post would be correct. Several Dems were calling for impeachment much too early while Pelosi was not. She kept holding off and holding off for more evidence - to the point of annoying some Dems. But then you said you don't watch the news, so what would you know, right? Right. On a side note: That's how Pelosi earned my respect.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Do you actually believe your own words here?

What is your purpose in asking this? Have I given you reason to believe I post opinions I don't actually believe?

If I were to read a cogent argument that could honestly list the ways in which he obstructed FBI Russia investigation, I'd be amenable to changing my mind. But the only defense I've heard is a bunch of aggressive echo-chamber chanting about a "witch hunt" (it was proven that investigation was not a witch hunt, so these aggressive chanters just look kinda stupid) and accusations about motivations to see guilt (bloodthirsty hate for Trump). As much as that might "feel" like a cogent defense to people who issue it, it just looks like sheeple fodder to anyone outside that bubble. Unless a person can list the details of the Mueller Report that prove Trump repeatedly attempted to use his power to obstruct that investigation (and still somehow present an argument that makes sense about how it wasn't actually obstruction or an abuse of power), the only thing that will make sense to me is that conviction about his innocence comes from that "witch hunt" echo chamber.

It's the same thing I said about his impeachment. If a person can present a cogent argument listing all the reasons why the "haters" think Trump is guilty and still effectively explain how it doesn't merit impeachment, there's one hell of a lot of us who'd actually be open to hear it. But *all* Republicans have put forth in defense of the charges are various attacks on motivations for charging him (e.g. "partisan", "bloodthirsty hate for Trump", etc).

 

[anticlimatic]

If Z Buck changed "Dems" to "Pelosi," the post would be correct. Several Dems were calling for impeachment much too early while Pelosi was not. She kept holding off and holding off for more evidence - to the point of annoying some Dems. But then you said you don't watch the news, so what would you know, right? Right. On a side note: That's how Pelosi earned my respect.

First of all, I think you're right here. Second point- Pelosi earned your respect by caving to the lunatic TDS addled wing of her party and launching a legally meaningless and objectively pointless impeachment effort just to hurt Trump for 2020? You think it's going to? You think that was a smart play?

 

[anticlimatic]

What is your purpose in asking this? Have I given you reason to believe I post opinions I don't actually believe? If I were to read a cogent argument that could honestly list the ways in which he obstructed FBI Russia investigation, I'd be amenable to changing my mind. But the only defense I've heard is a bunch of aggressive echo-chamber chanting about a "witch hunt" (it was proven that investigation was not a witch hunt, so these aggressive chanters just look kinda stupid) and accusations about motivations to see guilt (bloodthirsty hate for Trump). As much as that might "feel" like a cogent defense to people who issue it, it just looks like sheeple fodder to anyone outside that bubble. Unless a person can list the details of the Mueller Report that prove Trump repeatedly attempted to use his power to obstruct that investigation (and still somehow present an argument that makes sense about how it wasn't actually obstruction or an abuse of power), the only thing that will make sense to me is that conviction about his innocence comes from that "witch hunt" echo chamber. It's the same thing I said about his impeachment. If a person can present a cogent argument listing all the reasons why the "haters" think Trump is guilty and still effectively explain how it doesn't merit impeachment, there's one hell of a lot of us who'd actually be open to hear it. But *all* Republicans have put forth in defense of the charges are various attacks on motivations for charging him (e.g. "partisan", "bloodthirsty hate for Trump", etc).

Is it really republicans fault for looking straight past all of the "substance" of the houses impeachment and opting instead to target the garbage grounds on which it's built instead? As I've been saying all along, they could have easily made a more sturdy case if they thought they had anything substantial to ground it in. Their turn is over. They forfeited it, probably intentionally, and I'm looking forward to hearing from the other side (finally). Hope you will be paying as close attention to it as you expected people to for the house side.

 

[Jaguar]

First of all, I think you're right here. Second point- Pelosi earned your respect by caving to the lunatic TDS addled wing of her party and launching a legally meaningless and objectively pointless impeachment effort just to hurt Trump for 2020? You think it's going to? You think that was a smart play?

Clearly you have no understanding of the facts, much less an interest in obtaining them. A smart play. Play? That implies tactic, which is merely short-term thinking. I think I'll paraphrase Senator Angus King from late, last night after the session ended: "This is more serious than I thought." Yeah, well. I came to the same conclusion quite some time ago. Any person who is open to listening to all of the evidence would.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Shoulda waited to impeach in 2021. Win-win, either he'd already be out of office, thus negating need to impeach, or it would be harder to paint it as an election year stunt. And maybe there'd have been more evidence against him by then. I think they really fucked this one up.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Regardless of how this one goes, does anyone think he'll be tried for something else AFTER he leaves office?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Shoulda waited to impeach in 2021. Win-win, either he'd already be out of office, thus negating need to impeach, or it would be harder to paint it as an election year stunt. And maybe there'd have been more evidence against him by then. I think they really fucked this one up.

Depending on the outcome of the election, they might not have had the House.

 

[anticlimatic]

Clearly you have no understanding of the facts, much less an interest in obtaining them. A smart play. Play? That implies tactic, which is merely short-term thinking. I think I'll paraphrase Senator Angus King from late, last night after the session ended: "This is more serious than I thought." Yeah, well. I came to the same conclusion quite some time ago. Any person who is open to listening to all of the evidence would.

Someone said something that confirmed a thought you already had? I guess there's no competing with that...