Poll of the Day > Trump acquitted

(+) Yeah! (+)

Blightzkrieg posted...

Reminder that Donald Trump literally said in 2016 he would refuse to accept an election he lost.

Everybody knew what he was the whole time and supported him anyway.

Romney is like the one Republican who I can say with confidence would not have Democrats killed given the chance.

The only time the GOP whines about elections is when they lose then they start the same old crap about voter fraud which isn't as big of a factor as they pretend it is but the only reason they cry foul in regards to voter fraud is because Black people vote.

When Obama won his 2nd term, that's when the GOP and red states began their rant about voter ids, Prior to that time, no one had ever mentioned anything about needing a voter id and since Obama left office, we haven't heard anymore talk about voter id's.

---

Trump said he could kill someone in public and not lose a vote. Well he caused the death of a few cops and didn't lose any votes from Republican senators. So he was right on that one.

helIy posted...

clinton was literally impeached because he lied about getting his dick sucked.

trump was acquitted of trying to overthrow the entire government.

think about that for more than 1 second.

Yet another prime example of the exceptional American educational institutions producing individuals of outstanding intellectual prowess and reading comprehension that can make Hamlet read as simply as the Teletubbies.

Isn't that what both parties do. If you are in my party you can't have done wrong.

---

The_Pup posted...

Cool. Can you explain how that was derived from the message of my original post?

I'm asking because the first response was written by a PhD in math and the second response was from a bleating edge political commentator.

What the fuck does having a phd have anything to do with this discussion?

---

Clench281 posted...

What the fuck does having a phd have anything to do with this discussion?

I'm not a doctor, you tell me.

Also, why is the political commentator talking about mountain goats in their natural habitat?

---

Clench281 posted...

What the fuck does having a phd have anything to do with this discussion?

He can't properly respond to a comment without insulting the commenter's intelligence first. It's pretty cool.

---

Sarcasthma posted...

He can't properly respond to a comment without insulting the commenter's intelligence first. It's pretty cool.

I haven't insulted the intelligence of any of the people that replied to my posts. That would require some to be insulted.

What a zinger.

---

Its a simple enough question. If the things that Trump did in office arent impeachable offenses, then what is?

---

Mead posted...

Its a simple enough question. If the things that Trump did in office arent impeachable offenses, then what is?

Lying about a blowjob obviously

---

Mead posted...

Its a simple enough question. If the things that Trump did in office arent impeachable offenses, then what is?

I believe this last impeachment attempt was about the insurrection and his role in it but even though he was let off he could still face a trial about his involvement with the capitol riots.

---

I've seen two separate people post "Trump 2-0 vs the swamp!" on facebook but they don't realize...

He LOST the superbowl to wet paper bag Joe Biden, there was no widespread election fraud enough to overturn the election like he claims, and every legal challenge or other type of challenge(such as the "Kill Pence" crowd storming the Capital) has been a complete embarassment.

They also don't seem to notice or care he only got "exonerated" not because of the evidence, but the fact each time there were enough R votes to acquit. You can say "well, duh, he isn't guilty" but when half or more of the jury consists of your friends....you didn't get off because you were innocent, you just had enough people already on your side.

Overall, the GOP realizes the loony trump side of their party is sizeable enough that they can't discount them. This *should* be damaging to the GOP overall in a serious way, and it'll be kinda comical to see.

The jury in a trial by jury is supposed to be impartial, and that was never going to be the case here. Disappointing, but not unexpected, though the willingness of the Republicans to be openly partial in the public eye says a lot about how that party has deteriorated.

Not letting the Democrats off the hook, mind you. They should have called those witnesses.

---

I_Abibde posted...

Not letting the Democrats off the hook, mind you. They should have called those witnesses.

Anyone know why they didnt?

---

Mead posted...

Anyone know why they didnt?

They threatened to do everything they could to block every Biden appointment.

BlackScythe0 posted...

They threatened to do everything they could to block every Biden appointment.

Theyre gonna do that no matter what. Those morons.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

They threatened to do everything they could to block every Biden appointment.

How the fuck can they?
Dems have 51 votes w/ Harris.
There's no fucking way the filibuster works for presidential appointments, not anymore.

Not after this vile fuck wit got in on a VP tie-breaking vote:
https://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2017/02/betsy-devos-confirmation-vote-count-234744

Sounds like Dems just being spineless worthless doormats, as usual. Both in not calling witnesses and in allowing Republicans to filibuster presidential nominees after they got away w/ not allowing it during the last administration.
I'm equally pissed off as I am not the least bit shocked. This shit is why our country is fucked. It's not enough that one party is evil, we also get to watch the only opposition to them roll over like an obedient dog.

BUMPED2002 posted...

I believe this last impeachment attempt was about the insurrection and his role in it but even though he was let off he could still face a trial about his involvement with the capitol riots.

He has a higher chance of facing no consequences in a criminal court than he did in the impeachment trial.
---

The_Pup posted...

Cool. Can you explain how that was derived from the message of my original post?

Original post: "If we impeach Trump, then that sets a precedent for impeaching any future president over rhetoric that vaguely relates to a violent protest"
Implication: "Trump's rhetoric only vaguely relates to the violent protest in question"
Counterpoint: "Trump's rhetoric was the primary motivator for this violence"

If Trump's rhetoric relates more than vaguely to the violence, then impeaching him for it will not set a precedent for impeaching future presidents over vaguely relevant rhetoric. That's logic.

---

Trump winning impeachments like Brady wins Super Bowls

The_Pup posted...

Imagine if he was impeached. That would set precedent for all other politicians of all parties getting impeached for rhetoric that is used vaguely in relation to forms of violent protest. The impeachment as a whole is merely theatre designed to make it look like the politicians care while skirting any moral obligations they might have to disincentivize rhetoric the impeachment was supposedly about.

Be careful you don't fall down on that slippery slope.

---

NinjaGhosts posted...

Trump winning impeachments like Brady wins Super Bowls

---

McConnell voting to acquit because he doesn't believe you can impeach a President after he's out of office.
Says the fucking goblin who kept moving the impeachment trial.

---

NinjaGhosts posted...

Trump winning impeachments like Brady wins Super Bowls

Wouldnt the presidential election be more analogous to the Super Bowl?

---

Sarcasthma posted...

He can't properly respond to a comment without insulting the commenter's intelligence first. It's pretty cool.

Far-Queue? We know. Thats typical of them.

Lokarin posted...

that's bad and wrong... or... badong

https://www.tagaloglang.com/badong/

adjl posted...

The "issue" that motivated the violent protest in question was entirely fabricated by Trump. That's a little bit more than vague relation.

You mean those two benign Tweets he made? Or do you have citations and just refuse to supply them?

---

Trump acquitted trying to be a decent president and spent four years golfing and tweeting.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

They threatened to do everything they could to block every Biden appointment.

More has to do with the fact that there was no point, because the Republicans were going to acquit anyways, despite being presented with an ironclad case of Trump's guilt, and the longer the trial dragged on, the longer Biden's agenda would be held up.

The US is facing a myriad of problems left behind by Trump and needs to get to work on fixing them pronto. The Democrats laid out a devastating case and got Republicans on the record as voting for insurrection - since they weren't going to get a conviction, that's about the best case scenario anyone could hope for.

---

zebatov posted...

Shouldn't that be 2 and 0?

---

keyblader1985 posted...

Shouldn't that be 2 and 0?

while it's widely theorized most maga members are functionally illiterate and are prone to reposts. in this case, it's a reminder some have never followed a single sport, ok?

---

adjl posted...

Original post: "If we impeach Trump, then that sets a precedent for impeaching any future president over rhetoric that vaguely relates to a violent protest"
Implication: "Trump's rhetoric only vaguely relates to the violent protest in question"
Counterpoint: "Trump's rhetoric was the primary motivator for this violence"

If Trump's rhetoric relates more than vaguely to the violence, then impeaching him for it will not set a precedent for impeaching future presidents over vaguely relevant rhetoric. That's logic.

I didn't say just the president. A bunch of politicians across the spectrum using statements and wording similar or even less vague than Trump's that can be considered stoking the flames because they were situated closely to riots and acts of political violence. This happens every election cycle for every party.

Original for context:

Imagine if he was impeached. That would set precedent for all other politicians of all parties getting impeached for rhetoric that is used vaguely in relation to forms of violent protest. The impeachment as a whole is merely theatre designed to make it look like the politicians care while skirting any moral obligations they might have to disincentivize rhetoric the impeachment was supposedly about.

Last sentence: The impeachment was going nowhere, everyone knew it and were just posturing. Doing nothing while appearing as if something happened. Everyone saves face, nobody looks bad to their respective constituents. Nobody needs to abide by the law they aren't going to enforce.

For me, the acquittal outcome of the impeachment as it was is neutral. If he was impeached, it would be +1 since the standard could have been applied all across the government and would have enjoyed the legal clusterfuck that would have ensued.

darkknight109 posted...

More has to do with the fact that there was no point, because the Republicans were going to acquit anyways, despite being presented with an ironclad case of Trump's guilt, and the longer the trial dragged on, the longer Biden's agenda would be held up.

The US is facing a myriad of problems left behind by Trump and needs to get to work on fixing them pronto. The Democrats laid out a devastating case and got Republicans on the record as voting for insurrection - since they weren't going to get a conviction, that's about the best case scenario anyone could hope for.

Oh you actually believe that.
---

keyblader1985 posted...

Shouldn't that be 2 and 0?

Trump's talking about his popular vote record in elections, I guess?

zebatov posted...

You mean those two benign Tweets he made (which subsequently got him banned from Twitter [because Twitter doesnt like him])? Or do you have citations and just refuse to supply them?

No, I mean the entire "stolen election" myth he's been peddling since he started campaigning. I trust you've been paying enough attention over the past five years to not need specific citations for him claiming that his loss was fraudulent?

The_Pup posted...

I didn't say just the president. A bunch of politicians across the spectrum using statements and wording similar or even less vague than Trump's that can be considered stoking the flames because they were situated closely to riots and acts of political violence.

Okay? They weren't up for impeachment here. Trump being impeached would not set a precedent for impeachment over vaguely relevant rhetoric, because he wasn't being impeached for vaguely relevant rhetoric. He was being impeached for obviously causal rhetoric. I'm fine with setting a precedent for impeaching politicians for rhetoric that obviously causes violence.

---

adjl posted...

No, I mean the entire "stolen election" myth he's been peddling since he started campaigning. I trust you've been paying enough attention over the past five years to not need specific citations for him claiming that his loss was fraudulent?

Has the same weight as "russian collusion" myth the dems pulled on him when he was elected.

The_Pup posted...

Has the same weight as "russian collusion" myth the dems pulled on him when he was elected.

Not even comparable

---

The_Pup posted...

Has the same weight as "russian collusion" myth the dems pulled on him when he was elected.

The "myth" that was confirmed by an independent investigation conducted by special prosecutor Mueller, resulting in charges against roughly three dozen individuals and companies in Russia and the US?

Revelation34 posted...

Oh you actually believe that.

I do. Even the Republicans admitted it, which is why so many of them clung to the "Oh, we can't impeach him because he isn't president anymore" technicality, which is bullshit and they know it, but it let them avoid having to defend Trump's actual conduct, so they went for it.

---

The_Pup posted...

Has the same weight as "russian collusion" myth the dems pulled on him when he was elected.

Still lying I see

darkknight109 posted...

The "myth" that was confirmed by an independent investigation conducted by special prosecutor Mueller, resulting in charges against roughly three dozen individuals and companies in Russia and the US?

I do. Even the Republicans admitted it, which is why so many of them clung to the "Oh, we can't impeach him because he isn't president anymore" technicality, which is bullshit and they know it, but it let them avoid having to defend Trump's actual conduct, so they went for it.

They chose to do that just because they wanted to. What Trump said was protected speech since he never directly said to attack the capitol.
---

zebatov posted...

Far-Queue? We know. Thats typical of them.

No, that Pup poster.

---

Revelation34 posted...

They chose to do that just because they wanted to. What Trump said was protected speech since he never directly said to attack the capitol.

If a mob boss says, "You need to take that guy out," he doesn't escape conspiracy charges by saying, "I meant take him out to dinner. I never directly said to kill him. It's not my fault those goons misunderstood."

---

darkknight109 posted...

If a mob boss says, "You need to take that guy out," he doesn't escape conspiracy charges by saying, "I meant take him out to dinner. I never directly said to kill him. It's not my fault those goons misunderstood."

Tell that to the constitution.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Tell that to the constitution.

Incitement isn't constitutionally-protected speech.

---

darkknight109 posted...

Incitement isn't constitutionally-protected speech.

No shit. The constitution means only DIRECT speech would be incitement.
---

It honestly makes me giddy to see you all mad at this lol

---

Jornavyr posted...

It honestly makes me giddy to see you all mad at this lol

Its actually a huge breathe of fresh air now that he is off twitter

They might still bring him up on the news from time to time but for the most part its just like Thank god, now life can get back to normal

---

Mead posted...

Its actually a huge breathe of fresh air now that he is off twitter

They might still bring him up on the news from time to time but for the most part its just like Thank god, now life can get back to normal

Can it though? Surely the Twitter mob will just be angry at something else tomorrow. You don't actually think that all this ends just because Trump is off twitter, do you?

---

Revelation34 posted...

No shit. The constitution means only DIRECT speech would be incitement.

If that was true, nobody with an iota of intelligence would ever be convicted of conspiracy or incitement charges, because simply by implying what they mean instead of directly saying it, they could fall back on the defence of "I never actually said anything about a crime."

However, here in the real world, jurisprudence has shown that what you're saying isn't how the law works.

---

Jornavyr posted...

Can it though? Surely the Twitter mob will just be angry at something else tomorrow. You don't actually think that all this ends just because Trump is off twitter, do you?

I dont use Twitter and I dont really care all that much about what happens there

Its just nice to not have so many reminders about that moron. Theres no more Did you hear what he said now? conversations.

---