• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

How many Democrats will NOT vote for impeachment?

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by hislegacy, Dec 12, 2019.

  1. 1-3

    53.3%
  2. 4-6

    40.0%
  3. 7-10

    6.7%
  4. 11 or more

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Bobber

    Bobber Well-Known Member

    +863
    Non-Denom
    Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”
     
  2. hislegacy

    hislegacy This is me.

    +7,577
    United States
    Charismatic
    Married
    US-Others
    very true from his own words.

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

    Bobber Well-Known Member

    +863
    Non-Denom
    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.

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

    TLK Valentine You will be who you will be. We are our choices.

    +18,308
    Agnostic
    Single
    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?"

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

    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?
     
  5. Bobber

    Bobber Well-Known Member

    +863
    Non-Denom
    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?

    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.


    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.

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

    TLK Valentine You will be who you will be. We are our choices.

    +18,308
    Agnostic
    Single
    Yes, I am. If you need the analogy explained to you in more detail, I would be happy to oblige if you ask.

    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!


    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."
    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.

    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.


    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.

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

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

    Not my bias; theirs.

    'Going to take my cues from the president’s lawyers’: McConnell to coordinate with White House on impeachment
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2019
  7. TLK Valentine

    TLK Valentine You will be who you will be. We are our choices.

    +18,308
    Agnostic
    Single
    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.
     
  8. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +7,284
    Atheist
    Private
    That's nice, but your assertion was that he said he merely assumed something. That's not what he said, hence my identifying your claim as a falsehood.
     
  9. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +7,284
    Atheist
    Private
    False, as shown by the quote in post 25.

    That's also false.

    That's not a particularly good result for such a short post.
     
  10. hislegacy

    hislegacy This is me.

    +7,577
    United States
    Charismatic
    Married
    US-Others
    True by his own admission during cross examination. All he had was his presumption.

    I’ve posted the video nine times, Will ten help?
     
  11. TLK Valentine

    TLK Valentine You will be who you will be. We are our choices.

    +18,308
    Agnostic
    Single
    Let's not pretend that "nobility" means anything in Washington, mmmkay?
     
  12. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +22,922
    Anglican
    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."
     
  13. TLK Valentine

    TLK Valentine You will be who you will be. We are our choices.

    +18,308
    Agnostic
    Single
    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!
     
  14. hislegacy

    hislegacy This is me.

    +7,577
    United States
    Charismatic
    Married
    US-Others
    sounds about right, just not allowed to differ with the supreme leader.
     
  15. Bobber

    Bobber Well-Known Member

    +863
    Non-Denom
    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.
     
  16. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +7,284
    Atheist
    Private
    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?
     
  17. hislegacy

    hislegacy This is me.

    +7,577
    United States
    Charismatic
    Married
    US-Others
    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: Dec 13, 2019
  18. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +7,284
    Atheist
    Private
    Yep, this backs up the quote in post 25, which contradicts the false assertion you were agreeing with (and the one I corrected) from post 22.
     
  19. hislegacy

    hislegacy This is me.

    +7,577
    United States
    Charismatic
    Married
    US-Others
    Yup the only evidence he had was his presumption, which is no evidence at all.

    it isn’t even hearsay. It is nothing.
     
  20. jacks

    jacks Er Victus Supporter

    +1,005
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Zero should have been an option.
     
Loading...