Impeachment Thread: * locks eyes with Nunes* "...Chalupa."

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Impeachment Thread: * locks eyes with Nunes* "...Chalupa."

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

1glitch0 posted:

These impeachment hearings are incredibly important, but talking as someone working in the tv industry these wall to wall hearings are killing us. I see my yearly bonus slipping away more every 15 minutes. Small price to pay, but gently caress Donald Trump.

Sounds like a problem with capitalism.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2019 19:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 12:59

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Retro42 posted:

Castor is so bad at this it makes me angry.

Same, but ecstatic instead

# ¿ Nov 20, 2019 17:47

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Blind Rasputin posted:

Yeah, Castor is trying his hardest to bring reasonable doubt into Sondland�s opening statement because it was so profoundly fanning. Unfortunately, while it is working a bit (for Fox News to play very sniped sound bites) it won�t work enough. Trying to compartmentalize little portions of his opening statement totally ignores the actual overall facts of the matter.

Also, the American public will definitely respond more to the easy-to-grasp and understand opening statements and other sound bites about �everyone knew, there was quid pro quo.� It just falls on deaf ears when they try to piecemeal and get super specific about nitty gritty statements as defense. This day is going to swing the impeachment polls above 60% I guarantee it.

As a counterpoint to this well thought out post, I'd just like to say: "CHALUPA"

# ¿ Nov 20, 2019 19:19

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Party Plane Jones posted:

Quote this post if you want the �I want nothing� Gang Tag whenever it gets uploaded.

For myself so I can just blindly search through pages and find people quoting these lines: Mohican

Please

# ¿ Nov 20, 2019 20:31

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Angry_Ed posted:

It is amazing how fast and how hard the demand for formal, public hearings hosed the GOP on this

The public hearings were scheduled from almost the start of the investigation. Republicans just pretended there would only be SEKRET STAR CHAMBER PROCEEDINGS because it lets them play the victim and distracts from the facts.

Edit: :lol:

Thanks for the tag Party Plane Jones!

Spun Dog fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Nov 21, 2019

# ¿ Nov 21, 2019 00:35

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Party Plane Jones posted:

opportunity ends at the stroke of midnight and our president turns back into a pumpkin

I think you're too late

# ¿ Nov 21, 2019 00:47

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Slowpoke! posted:

There is an important court ruling on Monday as to whether Dan McGahn, the head White House lawyer, has to comply with his subpoena. They want his testimony and John Bolton�s too (Bolton may be waiting on a court decision too)

Do you happen to know if this ruling can be appealed? They have been stalling on everything and I figure they'd want to take this to the supreme court if possible.

# ¿ Nov 21, 2019 17:52

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Angry_Ed posted:

He did ask "do you want to be a laughingstock?"

That was directed at the dems

# ¿ Nov 21, 2019 20:29

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Elijah Cummings quote

Nice

# ¿ Nov 21, 2019 22:21

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Unoriginal Name posted:

I hope everyone here who is weeping tears of victory is ready for Mitch McConnell to bury the impeachment in a shallow grave.

Nobody expects poo poo from the republicans idiot. Myself, I'm just glad the dems are doing their duty.

# ¿ Nov 21, 2019 23:28

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Acebuckeye13 posted:

The Democrats can't defund the State Department because a) budgets are passed by the Senate as well b) Trump would veto it and c) it's a hilariously bad idea that would accomplish nothing.

Yeah, the fight would move to "Why do the dems want to shut down the government?" and the media would not be able to prevent themselves from going down the bothsidesdoit detour.

oxsnard posted:

lol just blatant lying, I seriously have know idea how the GOP spins this

HE IS THE CHOSEN ONE

# ¿ Nov 27, 2019 01:05

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Dapper_Swindler posted:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/02/politics/house-republican-response-impeachment-inquiry/index.html

what the hell is this dumb bullshit.

I haven't read it, but I would guess fiction.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2019 23:53

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

sexpig by night posted:

I honestly hate this A) because it almost always implies 'lol he's queer', and B) because it pretends Graham hasn't been an absolute bootlick coward for his party for ages, he just was the first to jump from decorum bow tie wearing losers to team "WHOOOO YEA MAGA BITCHES *fart*"

Ehhh, he looks haunted lately.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2019 00:53

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

nine-gear crow posted:

Probably for the same reason he co-wrote this book

Three guys in their 50s: Young Guns

# ¿ Dec 6, 2019 22:22

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

oxsnard posted:

He's actually listening to Rage Against the Machine. seriously

Nah, he was raging against the social safety net.

# ¿ Dec 7, 2019 01:22

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

GutBomb posted:

I don�t read comic books or watch kids movies. What the gently caress is a Thanos and a tony snap?

Sort of like a Cleveland Steamer

# ¿ Dec 11, 2019 22:14

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

PIZZA.BAT posted:

lol yes he is. He's falling for the oldest trick in the book

Yeah, Gohmert is really good at just pretending to be a total moron. Jokes on Papadaps

# ¿ Dec 12, 2019 00:12

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Dapper_Swindler posted:

where is this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osv20DN0aTw

# ¿ Dec 12, 2019 01:20

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

vincentpricesboner posted:

I've got a bad feeling its going to end up the opposite. Its going to be a rallying point for the right to be even more entrenched in giving him a second term. A bunch of cons will just look at this whole display as proof that he did nothing wrong because he wasn't "really impeached" since he wont actually be removed from office.

You mean those geniuses who though Obama was responsible for 911, was from Kenya, etc?

Those guys?

Man, if only we could find the right argument to convince them.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2019 19:57

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Ogmius815 posted:

I will say that the �Dems wanted to impeach since day one� argument has certainly been bolstered by foolish statements which took a cavalier attitude toward impeachment. Like �we�re going to impeach the motherfucker.� Impeachment is serious business.

Thanks for the decorum.

jesus

# ¿ Dec 19, 2019 23:38

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Ogmius815 posted:

This is wrong. Impeachment isn�t an appropriate remedy whenever a president is using his power in ways that the opposition wishes he wouldn�t. If it were, every president would be impeached whenever the opposing party controlled the House.

For example, Trump�s border policies are atrocious. Family separation is atrocious. But such policies are, arguably, within the legitimate scope of the president�s authority. When the Courts have told Trump something he was doing on the border was not actually within the scope of his authority, he�s obeyed the court�s orders.

Impeachment needs to be about something more than that. Something that is categorically outside the scope of what a president is permitted to do in our constitutional system. For example, because the President is not above the law, it�s impeachable for the president to commit crimes. Here, we have a president who courted outside intervention in his own election and clearly subordinated US security interests to his own personal political interests. When Congress tried to investigate, Trump flat out told Congress they had no business overseeing him. I argue those things are beyond the bounds of any President�s discretion. They represent serious offenses against the constitutional order itself. Therefore, I think the President�s conduct was impeachable.

But when Tlaib said what she said, she didn�t know any of that. She just wanted to fire up a crowd at an event. She didn�t like the president, so she said he should be impeached. That was irresponsible. It was a foolish thing to say. That doesn�t mean Tlaib is a fool, or even that she�s a bad rep. But she said something foolish. The obvious consequence is that now that impeachment has happened, it looks like it was planned all along.

loving lol. Thanks for the republican framing.

Spoiler alert - They are always going to find a reason for it to be "illegitimate"

# ¿ Dec 20, 2019 01:08

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Slowpoke! posted:

Reagan and GWB have caused more lasting damage than Trump will.

To America, not so sure about Qatar and the Kurds

# ¿ Dec 20, 2019 17:39

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

President George W Bush, famously not bad for inhabitants of the middle east

gently caress off, it's not a contest

# ¿ Dec 20, 2019 18:05

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

vincentpricesboner posted:

Holy poo poo man, I think you might need to absorb less politics because it is seriously bringing you down. Thinking that a literal hundred million people are all demon braindead zealots is quite the take.

There are plenty of good people who voted for Trump, not the same rate as vice versa, but most people do not spend all their minutes analyzing politics like you might.

Just saying, I've had guys rush to my car as it crashed into a ditch and started smoking, that were wearing camo jackets and certainly didn't vote liberal, but quite obviously were moral people. Hell, look at the wave after wave of people that are donating their time,money or food to church food banks, they aren't all liberals.

"And some, I assume, are good people"

# ¿ Dec 20, 2019 23:16

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

vincentpricesboner posted:

Have you ever shared your views with other people in person? Your family, friends? Maybe your counselor? It is not normal or healthy to think that a group of 100 million people are all evil. You can say (and probably be right) that they are more often less caring than group X, but saying they are all horrible is ridiculous. This is the same meme that people were using in the 60s of "trust no one over 40" which is ridiculous as well.

So is this a #notallchuds bit or more of a calmhitler thing?

# ¿ Dec 21, 2019 01:24

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

actuallysanta posted:

Uhh. You might be missing some information there bucko.

Care to share?

# ¿ Jan 16, 2020 20:45

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

HootTheOwl posted:

Sekulow is "womp womp" guy right?

Think that was Lewandowski, but all of these assholes are interchangeable

# ¿ Jan 21, 2020 20:56

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

1glitch0 posted:

If I had a choice, I'd let Hunter Biden testify because I think the republicans are bluffing. Call their bluff and let them call Hunter Biden. What the hell are they going to get out of it? I think the republicans want Biden to not testify because then they can use it politically. If you call him, what can he possibly say? There is no evidence that Hunter was guilty for anything but nepotism. Then he can just point to all the Trump kids. Worst case scenario is they prove Hunter got his job because his daddy was VP. Well, big loving deal. If they can even manage to do that. What does it matter? Neither Joe or Hunter Biden are on trial. It doesn't really help Trump's case. At best it gets negative attention on Biden which, in my view, is a win/win.

Seems like a huge waste of time and an insult to our intelligence to bring him in.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2020 19:01

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Tibalt posted:

Just to make sure I understand the process, we've got 3 days of defense by the White House, and then votes on additional witnesses and any amendments to the trial rules, then the vote to remove office?

You got it.

Makes perfect sense, eh?

# ¿ Jan 24, 2020 23:19

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Almost Smart posted:

If censure was on the table, when would that be brought up? Does it involve a separate hearing, or could a vote be tacked on following acquittal? I know it's a toothless gesture, but I feel at the bare minimum the Senate has got to do something to make it known that soliciting foreign influence in our elections should be beneath the office of the president, even if it doesn't rise to the level of removing him (which it would at any other point in our country's history).

They could bring it up anytime or attach it to the impeachment vote. They will not do either one of those things.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2020 20:19

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

haveblue posted:

Well, we knew getting acquitted would embolden him and lead to more crimes, but did anyone expect it would happen in less than 24 hours?

It happened once already after the Muller report was scotched? No surprises here. I mean it was one of the articles of impeachment.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2020 19:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 12:59

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Dapper_Swindler posted:

yeah, cnn has been pretty decent with calling the insanity out of late.

Good input, let's get Rick Santorum's take on that...

I hate CNN

# ¿ Feb 6, 2020 19:37

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Impeachment Thread: * locks eyes with Nunes* "...Chalupa."