...And another Reasoned Case Against Impeachment

[civilwarbuff]

Democrats' Star Impeachment "Witness" Mocks 13-year-old Barron Trump in Hearings UPDATE/S: FLOTUS Responds
Jason Howerton on Twitter

Great witness democrats....really supports your impeachment case.

 

[Halbhh]

Ralph does something seriously wrong, something of big consequence (like work to break and block and end Constitutional checks and balances, the rightful power of Congress to oversee the executive...by blocking the rightful power of Congress to call any and all witnesses to events it is examining.).

But later Jane (who was saying Ralph did wrong), herself does some other thing wrong. An unrelated thing, from her own shortcomings.

Therefore we should ignore the serious wrong Ralph did?

 

[essentialsaltes]

That is not a reasoned case. That is an irrational reaction to a slightly ill-considered joke.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Democrats' Star Impeachment "Witness" Mocks 13-year-old Barron Trump in Hearings UPDATE/S: FLOTUS Responds
Jason Howerton on Twitter

Great witness democrats....really supports your impeachment case.

1. She didn’t mock him.

She mentioned his name while trying to make a deeper point about Trump not being nobility, even if he thinks he is. It was dumb for her to bring him up at all, but it wasn’t done to insult or mock a child in any way. Besides, I seriously doubt a 13 year old kid would even really care what some old lady says about him in a boring congressional hearing.

2. This doesn’t discredit her entire testimony.

You can be upset that she brought him up. I don’t think it helped her point at all but to say this one slip up discredits her entire testimony and her knowledge of constitutional law and history that she brought to these hearings, is just reaching for the easiest way out of dealing with any substance.

 

[cow451]

Trump named him Barron because it sounds like royalty. Or, he envies Baron Hilton. Whatever. It was a bad joke for the setting. But it was to illustrate the point. I, of course, would have made the point more eloquently. But I was too busy to testify.

 

[whatbogsends]

That is not a reasoned case. That is an irrational reaction to a slightly ill-considered joke.

Moreover, the title of this thread says "another reasoned case" which implies there was a previous reasoned case to begin with, which there wasn't.

 

[Sparagmos]

Democrats' Star Impeachment "Witness" Mocks 13-year-old Barron Trump in Hearings UPDATE/S: FLOTUS Responds
Jason Howerton on Twitter

Great witness democrats....really supports your impeachment case.

This is completely irrelevant to the question of impeachment.

 

[Halbhh]

1. She didn’t mock him.

She mentioned his name while trying to make a deeper point about Trump not being nobility, even if he thinks he is. It was dumb for her to bring him up at all, but it wasn’t done to insult or mock a child in any way. Besides, I seriously doubt a 13 year old kid would even really care what some old lady says about him in a boring congressional hearing.

2. This doesn’t discredit her entire testimony.

You can be upset that she brought him up. I don’t think it helped her point at all but to say this one slip up discredits her entire testimony and her knowledge of constitutional law and history that she brought to these hearings, is just reaching for the easiest way out of dealing with any substance.

That's true...but, appearances and impressions matter, because if you accidentally make your neighbor think you are insulting them (even though you didn't mean to insult them), then...you should correct that.

And she did apologize.

So, she did correct it.

 

[Halbhh]

Democrats' Star Impeachment "Witness" Mocks 13-year-old Barron Trump in Hearings UPDATE/S: FLOTUS Responds
Jason Howerton on Twitter

Great witness democrats....really supports your impeachment case.

She apologized for the seeming slight in using the same-sound word for the name.

So...that's a good high standard, isn't it, to apologize for wrongs.

It's a standard we'd like to see in all of our officials and elected representatives, and our president. Yes?

That whenever they insult anyone, even without really intending to, that they then publicly apologize.

Do you agree?

If you do agree a person should make things right like that, then you cannot of course maintain a double standard for one person vs another person, so it applies to our President also then.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Moreover, the title of this thread says "another reasoned case" which implies there was a previous reasoned case to begin with, which there wasn't.

The other one is the witness who says impeachment is bad for the country (but I guess a criminal president isn’t?) but doesn’t actually argue against any of the evidence against the president.

I guess that’s as close to a reasoned argument as they can make after all this time. No wonder they’re now focusing on a single joke that missed to try and discredit the impeachment.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Ralph does something seriously wrong, something of big consequence (like work to break and block and end Constitutional checks and balances, the rightful power of Congress to oversee the executive...by blocking the rightful power of Congress to call any and all witnesses to events it is examining.).

But later Jane (who was saying Ralph did wrong), herself does some other thing wrong. An unrelated thing, from her own shortcomings.

Therefore we should ignore the serious wrong Ralph did?

The problem is that Jane should not have been asked to speak in the first place. In the 2nd place had she simply given her interpretation of impeachment from a Constitutional perspective her points would carry more weight. As it is she simply comes across as just another person with an axe to grind.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That is not a reasoned case. That is an irrational reaction to a slightly ill-considered joke.

Yeah, sorta like Al Franken's joke that made him resign.....

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Yeah, sorta like Al Franken's joke that made him resign.....

Hmm.

Should bad jokes be the standard for all elected officials to vacate their office?

 

[usexpat97]

Democrats' Star Impeachment "Witness" Mocks 13-year-old Barron Trump in Hearings UPDATE/S: FLOTUS Responds
Jason Howerton on Twitter

Great witness democrats....really supports your impeachment case.

That's the beauty of it, isn't it? If you're looking for an excuse to install King Trump as monarch of the United States, sooner or later you will find one.

I mean, she brought up Baron Trump. Joe Biden mentioned hairy legs. Hillary used email. What more excuse do you need?

 

[civilwarbuff]

1. She didn’t mock him.

She mentioned his name while trying to make a deeper point about Trump not being nobility, even if he thinks he is. It was dumb for her to bring him up at all, but it wasn’t done to insult or mock a child in any way. Besides, I seriously doubt a 13 year old kid would even really care what some old lady says about him in a boring congressional hearing.

2. This doesn’t discredit her entire testimony.

You can be upset that she brought him up. I don’t think it helped her point at all but to say this one slip up discredits her entire testimony and her knowledge of constitutional law and history that she brought to these hearings, is just reaching for the easiest way out of dealing with any substance.

You obviously did not view the other video which clearly exposes her prejudicial viewpoint of Trump. I personally glad she was invited as it shows the dems willingness to use their partisan hatred in something as grave as impeachment attempts.

 

[Halbhh]

The problem is that Jane should not have been asked to speak in the first place. In the 2nd place had she simply given her interpretation of impeachment from a Constitutional perspective her points would carry more weight. As it is she simply comes across as just another person with an axe to grind.

I cannot find any person that is perfect, hardly (except maybe a very few of the older members of church are amazingly good at being perfect when I'm around them to love everyone, to never say anything bad about anyone, and such, always friendly and gracious...).

Since I couldn't find anyone that is perfect and under 80, should I ignore every last thing everyone under 80 says that could be useful for the ordinary interactions of living? Including law enforcement.

No. We still have to do the ordinary interactions of living. Even though all the people are less than 100% perfect. We have to take what is true or correct, and apply it as best we can.

Even though the messenger is flawed, like Paul or Peter.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Hmm.

Should bad jokes be the standard for all elected officials to vacate their office?

You should ask the dems that; they pushed for the resignation.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Trump named him Barron because it sounds like royalty. Or, he envies Baron Hilton. Whatever. It was a bad joke for the setting. But it was to illustrate the point. I, of course, would have made the point more eloquently. But I was too busy to testify.

And Prince called himself that because he thought he was royalty and Master Teague was named that because his parents thought he should be master, etc..... Your thorough reasoning behind names to justify her 'joke'/comment is simply underwhelming....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Moreover, the title of this thread says "another reasoned case" which implies there was a previous reasoned case to begin with, which there wasn't.

yeah there is..... different thread. This was started because it is not a 'reasoned' case....a little satire....maybe should have put this thread in the jokes forum.

 

[civilwarbuff]

And she did apologize.

Only after she was strongly and roundly criticized for it....IOW, she couldn't get away with it.