How many Democrats will NOT vote for impeachment?

How many Democrats will NOT vote to impeach


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And keep in mind Allandavid he stated he merely assumed something.

very true from his own words.

And he was the ONLY fact witness presented everyone else was hearsay witnesses.
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The accusation is that Donald withheld foreign aid that was approved by Congress on the condition that a foreign government act against his political rival.

Did he actually say you're not getting the money unless you do A,B OR C? No. So it remains a speculative notion that the central comments of his statements had to do with Biden. He has talked in the transcript of all the COUNTRY had gone through the last couple of years. Plus it is well documented now that Trump has always been talking about behind the scenes of his concern that Europe wasn't paying their fair share when it comes to aid.

Assume for the moment that Donald did this (and let's admit, it's well within his character to have done so), then yes, it most definitely rises to the level of impeachable.

And that's just it. You're talking about impeaching a President on assuming something INSTEAD of KNOWING something.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Did he actually say you're not getting the money unless you do A,B OR C? No. So it remains a speculative notion that the central comments of his statements had to do with Biden.

You attempted this excuse before. Allow me to repeat the refutation I used the last time:

"When a Mob boss is caught talking to one of his button men on the phone, how do you think the conversation sounds?

"Listen, George -- I want you to go to 377 Hamilton Street, home of Vincent Lupo, aka "Vinnie the Pin," and shoot him twice in the back of the head. You head me correctly, George... I am hereby ordering you to murder Vincent Lupo."

Anything less would be speculation, and we certainly shouldn't waste our time investigating the unfortunate death of Mr. Lupo, now should we?"

He has talked in the transcript of all the COUNTRY had gone through the last couple of years. Plus it is well documented now that Trump has always been talking about behind the scenes of his concern that Europe wasn't paying their fair share when it comes to aid.

And digging up dirt on Hunter Biden is the Ukraine's "Fair Share"?

And that's just it. You're talking about impeaching a President on assuming something INSTEAD of KNOWING something.

Well, that's what a trial is for, isn't it? Laying out the facts and letting the jury judge them.

Of course, in this case, the jury has already made up its mind and will acquit based on devotion and loyalty, but we must at least go through the motions of justice...


... don't you think?
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
You attempted this excuse before. Allow me to repeat the refutation I used the last time:

"When a Mob boss is caught talking to one of his button men on the phone, how do you think the conversation sounds?

"Listen, George -- I want you to go to 377 Hamilton Street, home of Vincent Lupo, aka "Vinnie the Pin," and shoot him twice in the back of the head. You head me correctly, George... I am hereby ordering you to murder Vincent Lupo."

Anything less would be speculation, and we certainly shouldn't waste our time investigating the unfortunate death of Mr. Lupo, now should we?"

You're comparing Trump's words to someone who orders another to take a gun and shoot someone? And you wonder why many question your side's way of reasoning as beyond extreme?

And digging up dirt on Hunter Biden is the Ukraine's "Fair Share"?

Even with this you're assuming the worst of another. Why not the possibility that he'd sure not hope the gentlemen and his son truly weren't engaged in questionable dealings? Not everyone has motives that when they investigate that they want to find something wrong.....But the question is that a great many have is how can it possibly be considered not questionable to have a son of a Vice President be sitting on a board with no experience in the field and have the Vice President the point man to be talking policy to that country.


Well, that's what a trial is for, isn't it? Laying out the facts and letting the jury judge them.

That's quite funny actually. Will the facts even be allowed to come out? Will CNN even cover the Senate hearings? They wouldn't even telecast the LIVE opening statement of the Horowizt report with Senator Graham. Or will they have it on their screen but have their commentators have the screens muted while they dish out their own assertions of what they want people to believe.

Of course, in this case, the jury has already made up its mind and will acquit based on devotion and loyalty, but we must at least go through the motions of justice...

And of course that's merely your own biased opinion that their rejection is based ONLY on loyalty to the President.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
You're comparing Trump's words to someone who orders another to take a gun and shoot someone?

Yes, I am. If you need the analogy explained to you in more detail, I would be happy to oblige if you ask.

And you wonder why many question your side's way of reasoning as beyond extreme?
Actually, I don't wonder it at all. "Many" will think whatever their leader wants them to think.

Case in point:

Yes, a GOP Rep. just said Trump has the right to solicit foreign interference in our elections!


Even with this you're assuming the worst of another. Why not the possibility that he'd sure not hope the gentlemen and his son truly weren't engaged in questionable dealings?

Because a man who lashes out at sixteen year old girls via Twitter for no other reason than pettiness and envy (only to be soundly clapped back),

A man who threatens to release what he refers to as "threats to National Security" in the cities of his political enemies purely out of spite,

A man who encourages his followers to engage in violent thuggish behavior against his critics, and publicly mocks them when they do not,

A man who makes a habit of insulting and derogatory nicknames for his perceived enemies (an ever-growing list), only to be sent scurrying away from a NATO conference when the world sees he can't take a little criticism...

... Is not a man for whom altruistic and/or magnanimous behavior should be assumed.

you can assume so, or course -- as the "gentleman" is so fond of saying to his would-be followers, "you have no choice."
Not everyone has motives that when they investigate that they want to find something wrong....

We're not talking about "everyone." We're talking about a man who showed his true colors a long time ago and continues to do so... While his followers cheer.

But the question is that a great many have is how can it possibly be considered not questionable to have a son of a Vice President be sitting on a board with no experience in the field and have the Vice President the point man to be talking policy to that country.

Two sons, a daughter, and a son-in-law, actually. But you're supposed to cheer for that. There will be consequences if you don't.


That's quite funny actually. Will the facts even be allowed to come out? Will CNN even cover the Senate hearings?

If they don't, and I can't imagine why not, no loss. Someone else will.

CNN is not Fox News -- I am allowed to have other options.

They wouldn't even telecast the LIVE opening statement of the Horowizt report with Senator Graham. Or will they have it on their screen but have their commentators have the screens muted while they dish out their own assertions of what they want people to believe.

Even with this you're assuming the worst of another.

... But I guess only I need to be wary of that, eh?

And of course that's merely your own biased opinion that their rejection is based ONLY on loyalty to the President.

Not my bias; theirs.

'Going to take my cues from the president’s lawyers’: McConnell to coordinate with White House on impeachment
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Allandavid
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
...and reject the evidence of 17 witnesses, many of whom have no connection with either political party. Take Sondland, for example...someone who donated $1million to Trump, yet offered damning testimony about his actions...

Are you suggesting that Donald can't even accept a payoff without bungling it?

Makes sense, considering this impeachment is based on his bungled attempt to offer one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allandavid
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
very true from his own words.

False, as shown by the quote in post 25.

And he was the ONLY fact witness presented everyone else was hearsay witnesses.

That's also false.

That's not a particularly good result for such a short post.
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
False, as shown by the quote in post 25.

True by his own admission during cross examination. All he had was his presumption.

I’ve posted the video nine times, Will ten help?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I'm confident the greater numbers will consider these present Dems have been less-than-noble in their motives for putting this forth.

Let's not pretend that "nobility" means anything in Washington, mmmkay?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Most likely, people are making too much of this possibility. Pelosi will not allow enough non-conformity in her delegation to prevent the impeachment resolution from being approved.

If three or five or even a dozen Democrats who fear defeat in 2020 want to vote "no," she will probably allow it and then claim that it shows how everyone in her delegation so carefully studied all the facts before voting, as though it were not a foregone conclusion even a year ago.

But there is actually no need for that many to bolt. Some can get by with just remaining uncommitted until the last minute and then representing that as showing how difficult the decision was to make, even though they then voted "yes."
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Most likely, people are making too much of this possibility. Pelosi will not allow enough non-conformity in her delegation to prevent the impeachment resolution from being approved.

If three or five or even a dozen Democrats who fear defeat in 2020 want to vote "no," she will probably allow it and then claim that it shows how everyone in her delegation so carefully studied all the facts before voting, as though it were not a foregone conclusion even a year ago.

But there is actually no need for that many to bolt. Some can get by with just remaining uncommitted until the last minute and then representing that as showing how difficult the decision was to make, even though they then voted "yes."

And then we'll see the flip side in the Senate for the actual trial.

Everyone gets what they want: The Dems show that they support the Constitution, and the GOP gets to protect Donald. Everyone wins!
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Aryeh Jay
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Most likely, people are making too much of this possibility. Pelosi will not allow enough non-conformity in her delegation to prevent the impeachment resolution from being approved.

"

sounds about right, just not allowed to differ with the supreme leader.
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
But there is actually no need for that many to bolt. Some can get by with just remaining uncommitted until the last minute and then representing that as showing how difficult the decision was to make, even though they then voted "yes."

Of course they sure can't show how eager were to give their yeahs. Make it look like what great sorrow it was to say yes but in the end they just had to. Will almost make Trump supporters feel sorry for them in those places where Trump won....I said though....ALMOST.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Albion
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
True by his own admission during cross examination. All he had was his presumption.
I appreciate how the claims about what he said keep changing. Kinda makes it hard to take them seriously.

And seems like a common tactic, I wonder if there's a common source of this sort of rhetoric?
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I appreciate how the claims about what he said keep changing. Kinda makes it hard to take them seriously.

And seems like a common tactic, I wonder if there's a common source of this sort of rhetoric?

yup, Sondland on national tv.

seriously , if I post the video of him saying it again. Will you look at it? I’ve only posted it nine times

here, I’ll make it easy. Go to 3;30

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums