Impeach Trump for the Good of the Country

[Chewie]

I think you are projecting your feelings onto others. I don't see this love being anywhere near as widespread as you do. I think Obama was more beloved by the left than Trump ever was by the right.

Only because Obama was out before the bill came due, you know, for all the "free" stuff.
Obama was nothing more than an activist elected to the presidency on promises of free stuff. Very similar to the vast majority of politicians from both sides.

 

[BigRed]

Obama was nothing more than an activist elected to the presidency on promises of free stuff. Very similar to the vast majority of politicians from both sides.

You have a much more gentle description of that son of a b*tch than do I.

 

[KittySlayer]

Obama NEVER had coattails.

Or could it be Obama never deemed anyone worthy of his coattails?

He reluctantly came out to support Hillary only at the end to maintain his standing in the party. Same with his VP Biden, letting the dotering old man flail through the primaries.

Seems more like Obama is keeping his powder dry. Michelle/Oprah 2024?

 

[Ingomike]

Or could it be Obama never deemed anyone worthy of his coattails?

He reluctantly came out to support Hillary only at the end to maintain his standing in the party. Same with his VP Biden, letting the dotering old man flail through the primaries.

Seems more like Obama is keeping his powder dry. Michelle/Oprah 2024?

Mostly true but missing the big picture. And coattails is not usually thought of as passing on your position but rather when you win your party wins. Obama lost thousands of seats accross the country leaving much of the country represented by republicans. Trump grew that and moved the needle more conservative accross the country. (Paul Ryan and his ilk quit rather than be America first.) In both Trump elections republicans won big and lost when he was not on the ballot.

This itself is another indicator that the election was stolen. The republicans won EVERY toss up congressional seat, every fu****g one!

 

[foszoe]

You are welcome to be wrong in your analysis.

You sound like the paraphrase of Pauline Kael, stating after a resounding election: I don't know anyone that voted for Nixon... LOL

He's right though. Rally numbers are meaningless if the measure is did you win.

if you believe you are going to lose because of fraud, maybe devoting more time to investigating all the allegations of voter fraud and how to prevent it prior to Nov 3rd would have resulted in a victory.

Rally numbers measure celebrity status more than anything else.

Trump was a popular president with a highly devoted following unlike many presidents.

 

[Ingomike]

He's right though. Rally numbers are meaningless if the measure is did you win.

if you believe you are going to lose because of fraud, maybe devoting more time to investigating all the allegations of voter fraud and how to prevent it prior to Nov 3rd would have resulted in a victory.

Rally numbers measure celebrity status more than anything else.

Trump was a popular president with a highly devoted following unlike many presidents.

You mean like all the court cases that were dismissed because the harm hadn't happened yet?

 

[foszoe]

You mean like all the court cases that were dismissed because the harm hadn't happened yet?

No. The court cases didn't come into play until after the election, unless you are referring to pre election cases of which I am unaware

I am talking about starting the investigations at the same time you start making the allegations that there will be fraud and you still have some control of agencies that can investigate such matters.

 

[yote hunter]

Never heard anything from the wicked witch of the left during impeachment ?

 

[phylodog]

Here we go again with the circular election argument BS again.

 

[phylodog]

Never heard anything from the wicked witch of the left during impeachment ? View attachment 125736

She was cowering in her office trying to push her influence to prevent being called to testify. The "republicans" let her off the hook.

 

[phylodog]

No. The court cases didn't come into play until after the election, unless you are referring to pre election cases of which I am unaware

I am talking about starting the investigations at the same time you start making the allegations that there will be fraud and you still have some control of agencies that can investigate such matters.

It's pretty challenging to investigate a crime before it happens. Particularly when 90% of DC is in favor of removing you from office by any means necessary.

It looked like a duck, walked like a duck, smelled like a duck, slept like a duck, ate like a duck, crapped like a duck, swam like a duck and flew like a duck but we're supposed to believe it was a chicken because the "trustworthy" media and politicians all said "nuh uh".

 

[Ingomike]

She was cowering in her office trying to push her influence to prevent being called to testify. The "republicans" let her off the hook.

That she was. They didn't want to answer questions about what she knew about the capital attack.

John Solomon dropped a bombshell last month and said the DC police rejected his FOIA request for records pertaining to their investigation of the siege of the U.S. Capitol.

The DC police said release of the records would be ‘personally embarrassing’ and privacy invading to release the documents.

“We’re gonna fight for those documents but something tells me what’s in those documents has some very very big relevance to what happened on The Hill and the question I have is what did Nancy Pelosi know, what did Mitch McConnell know about these threats beforehand,” John Solomon told former Missouri Governor Eric Greitens.

John Solomon explained that the Sergeant at Arms is constantly communicating with the Speaker of House so Pelosi must have known about the threats days before the Capitol riot.

Here's Why the Democrats Didn't Want Trump's Legal Team to Call in Pelosi to Testify in Sham Impeachment Trial | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

The House impeachment managers folded Saturday morning and backed off witnesses after Trump’s legal team announced that Speaker Pelosi would be called in to testify.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Ff

 

[Twangbanger]

If we want all evidence for something examined why did 45 vote against? Even if it is a farce, shouldn't we want to hear out any witnesses?

Because once you call witnesses, you can't prevent the other side from doing it, and the circle of people who can get their nose bloodied in the Octagon starts to widen. Pelosi is going be the Quarterback for Stimulus/Immigration/Gun Control, and Democrats don't want people like Josh Hawley getting a chance to take a swing at her glass, plastic-surgery nose and generally make her look like a dumbass in the process.

There's also the fact that not everybody in the world is a prude. Not everyone has a limitless thirst for dirt on the immoral, promiscuous, bible-violating, pu$$y-grabbing, poopy-headed Bad Orange Man. I could be wrong here, but it seems like it's mainly a small slice of people like you.

So the Democrats caved. They knew this was political theater all along. So they elected to shut the flaps on the circus truck and pull the semi around.

Sorry this didn't turn out more to your satisfaction.

 

[foszoe]

It's pretty challenging to investigate a crime before it happens. Particularly when 90% of DC is in favor of removing you from office by any means necessary.

It looked like a duck, walked like a duck, smelled like a duck, slept like a duck, ate like a duck, crapped like a duck, swam like a duck and flew like a duck but we're supposed to believe it was a chicken because the "trustworthy" media and politicians all said "nuh uh".

Unless your claim is that election fraud did not exist prior to 11/3/2020, I don't see how you can make that claim.

Correct me on the specific point I am wrong.

Republicans have made claims of election fraud in the past, that could be investigated and would be a crime already committed.

Trump was making allegations that there would be fraud on November 3rd well before November 3rd. Those allegations could have been investigated.

Finally,
Do Process investigations by Senate committees require a crime to be committed?

If not then there were still multiple agencies at Trumps disposal and if so with the Republican party holding the senate, that was another avenue for investigating.

 

[phylodog]

Trump was making allegations that there would be fraud on November 3rd well before November 3rd. Those allegations could have been investigated.

Finally,
Do Process investigations by Senate committees require a crime to be committed?

If not then there were still multiple agencies at Trumps disposal and if so with the Republican party holding the senate, that was another avenue for investigating.

You'll have to forgive my skepticism that Trump had federal agencies at his disposal to do much of anything. In recent years the FBI, the shining example of federal law enforcement which is supposed to be above reproach has been proven to be politically corrupt. I'm not going to get into another argument with you, you've demonstrated that you refuse to believe fraud regardless of the amount of evidence, just like the judges involved up to and including the SCOTUS. The massive coordination will never be investigated, the truth will never be revealed. We have plenty of evidence and admissions.

I get it, your beliefs do not allow you to accept the amount of evil in this country's politicians. I'm not saying that's a bad thing but it leaves you unable to look at things objectively.

 

[OakRiver]

Never heard anything from the wicked witch of the left during impeachment ? View attachment 125736

That boutique ice cream doesn't eat itself.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

If not then there were still multiple agencies at Trumps disposal and if so with the Republican party holding the senate, that was another avenue for investigating.

Barr and Durham are good examples.

 

[OakRiver]

She was cowering in her office trying to push her influence to prevent being called to testify. The "republicans" let her off the hook.

They should have gone along with the Democrat's request for witnesses, then called:

• Pelosi to explain what she knew about the attack
• Swallwell to explain whether his relationship with a Chinese intelligence operative could have compromised him
• Harris to explain her support for the unrest last summer
• Biden to explain why, if he opposes violence, did he voice his wish to assault Trump
• Sanders to explain why one of his supporters attempted to murder Republican elected officials
• Lehey to explain how he can be judge, juror, and witness in the trial
• Any other Democrat who expressed any sympathies for those causing violence last summer

 

[KLB]

You are welcome to be wrong in your analysis.

You sound like the paraphrase of Pauline Kael, stating after a resounding election: I don't know anyone that voted for Nixon... LOL

I know lots of people that voted for him. I don't know anyone that likes him.

Do you think that a majority on INGO are such staunch fans of Trump? Not people that voted for him, but true fans of the man. I would be very surprised to find there was.

If you can't find a majority on a forum like INGO that are such fans, how in the world do you think there is such a huge following for him in the country at large?

 

[BigRed]

Never heard anything from the wicked witch of the left during impeachment ? View attachment 125736

Bitch does look better with a muzzle.



ETA: It appears the "language filter" is still not working. I "self corrected" an earlier post where some tenderfoots may be offended. I left it here where used correctly according to Webster.