Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL! You are like on this 24/7! You are arguing as if you have nothing else going.
With a boomer take like that I hope you are legitimately a boomer.
It takes mere seconds to crush fallacious arguements and turns out they invented these new computers that you can carry around with you and access the world wide web anywhere you go! You can even call people and take pictures with them!
Seems you agree that the house impeached without enough evidence....
The truth is out there...because you disagree with it, is nobody's fault but your own. That's the reason you still want more testimony...your still digging to find the "something."
Nope! You are not accepting the truth! We have testimony under oath. trump blocked testimony under oath.
If it's good enough for the house, it's good enough for the senate....unless you're saying that the house impeached without proper evidence....
What a childish response. Other than "the House did it so we should do it too," can you think of any reason why the Senators should not evaluate the most and best evidence and make the most-informed decision that they can?
If you truly believe that the House made a mistake by impeaching Trump based on incomplete evidence, why would you want to compound that mistake in the Senate?
With a boomer take like that I hope you are legitimately a boomer.
It takes mere seconds to crush fallacious arguements and turns out they invented these new computers that you can carry around with you and access the world wide web anywhere you go! You can even call people and take pictures with them!
Why don't you take a break. Perhaps get some pancakes for breakfast or something.
It never was, you know. What was released was labeled by the WH as a "summary", and only covered about 20% of the call.
If you have different information, let's see it.
Every witness called that heard the phone call said that the transcript was accurate, I'm not sure where you got that conspiracy theory take, but I can't imagine believing it given the evidence to the contrary.
What a childish response. Other than "the House did it so we should do it too," can you think of any reason why the Senators should not evaluate the most and best evidence and make the most-informed decision that they can?
Nothing childish about it. The house had to have sufficient evidence to impeach, yes?
If they had impeachable evidence, the senate also has impeachable evidence, yes?
Again, either house did or did not....seems they did not, or there would be no other reason to call more witnesses...
Why don't you take a break. Perhaps get some pancakes for breakfast or something.
Again, boomer, I can do all manner of things while occasionally glancing at my phone to crush fallacious arguements.
I don't eat pancakes and breakfast was hours ago, but I could in theory be doing that right now due to the marvels of technology and you'd be none the wiser.... so that makes your boomer take, well, "special"
Nothing childish about it. The house had to have sufficient evidence to impeach, yes?
If they had impeachable evidence, the senate also has impeachable evidence, yes?
Again, either house did or did not....seems they did not, or there would be no other reason to call more witnesses...
The House had enough circumstantial evidence to impeach. However, there is more evidence available to the Senate than there was to the House. Given the stakes of the trial, the Senate should take advantage of the opportunity to consider that additional evidence so that they can make a fully-informed decision rather than play a childish game of tit-for-tat.
The House had enough circumstantial evidence to impeach. However, there is more evidence available to the Senate than there was to the House. Given the stakes of the trial, the Senate should take advantage of the opportunity to consider that additional evidence so that they can make a fully-informed decision rather than play a childish game of tit-for-tat.
Again, if it's good enough for the house to impeach....why should the senate keep looking?
Or, do you want to keep looking because the house really did not find enough to impeach.....as we know, there are at least 2 that cared less about any evidence.
Again, if it's good enough for the house to impeach....why should the senate keep looking?
Or, do you want to keep looking because the house really did not find enough to impeach.....as we know, there are at least 2 that cared less about any evidence.
Not even just that, what is there to prove? These subjective opinion of "Abuse of Power" or the factually inaccurate Obstruction of Congress?
There's not an actual crime to prove was committed, just vague an ever changing "orange man bad" nonsense
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
