Trump finally admits he lost - Politics Discussion

[–] Rorikon (18047) 3 years ago

Well, at least you know it's written by him and not a handler. If he graciously accepted the loss he would've had more support (imo) in the upcoming 2024 comeback. That aside, I am curious to know if Biden even tweets his own tweets.

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

He didn't lose, it's just that new people became eligible voters that weren't in the previous elections.

reply

[–] christomacin (4683) 3 years ago

How rude of them to show up and vote.

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

More like how stupid of American to give them citizenship.

reply

[–] christomacin (4683) 3 years ago

I guess nobody turns 18 anymore.

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

If you're not given citizenship, you wont' vote even after you're 18

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

looks like someone has some fine photoshop skills to me.

but thanks again for talking about Trump and not that other guy who has dementia, you know the guy that you dont support...

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

There's not a lot to talk about with the current president. He stutters, but he never pretended the election was stolen, and never tried to overthrow democracy. It's good to see Trump take his first baby steps into reality.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

of course, dementia Joe is on top of his game at 79 and is completely lucid.

Biden: The 'only way' I'll lose is through 'chicanery' at polling places
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/520532-biden-the-only-way-ill-lose-is-through-chicanery-at-polling-places

The former vice president has frequently expressed concerns about the possibility of President Trump “stealing” the election, referencing his repeated attacks on the legitimacy of mail-in voting and his refusal to commit to acknowledging the election results.

Hillary Clinton to Biden: Don't concede if the election is close
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/25/hillary-clinton-joe-biden-election-advice-401641

"Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is," Clinton said in an excerpt posted Tuesday.

did you already forget about the Mueller Report and Nancy tried to subvert democracy by trying to impeach Trump twice.

but again, I am happy that you still talk about Trump and not the rampant inflation and the ever spreading Omicron virus.

408,000 have died from Covid since Jan 21.

dems 2016 election: this election was a sham and was stolen from us, Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.
dems 2020 election: this election was 100% fair and honest.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7722) 3 years ago

Trump was impeached twice, banned from social media and lost the election, and is incapable of writing a sentence let alone a book.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

Trump wasnt impeached (an impeached president can not remain in office)
Trump was banned from free speech (free speech for me but not for thee)
Trump didnt lose the election (still no investigation into the supposed chicanery)

Trump can still write and talk for hours unlike the dementia patient who can hardly read a teleprompter

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7722) 3 years ago

You need Trump pajamas for Xmas.
How you can still support that lying con man is reprehensible

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

that would be awesome actually and a great idea!

I would rather have a Pres who says what he means than a dementia patient who has been in politics for over 50 years.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

I would rather have a president who wasn't friends with Jeffrey Epstein and didn't fly on his Lolita Express.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

that story has not been proven yet, there are lots of pictures of Epstein hanging out with dem and rep politicians, that doesnt mean they are guilty by association. the super wealthy often hang out together anyways. and why is there a picture of Bill in a dress at the Epstein island?

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

Doesn't matter. I would rather a president not hang out with Epstein while oggling young women, fly on his Lolita Express, and wish JizzLane well. All of those are factual events.

When anyone is that close to resembling a pedophile, you don't go near his PJs.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

"you don't go near his PJs"

lolz

well to be fair, biden oogles and sniffs young girls hair, and I wouldnt go near the back side of his PJ's either, you are likely to get crop dusted.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

Biden is so old he comes from the era of politicians who were asked to kiss people's babies. His bending down to whisper into little girls' ears to have a quick chat only looks creepy to our modern standards. Back in his day, it was the norm. The guy is just out of his time.

Though I do believe he did sexually harass Tara Reade in 1992 or 1993 by putting his hands on her hips and/or shoulders. But she went too far with it by falsely claiming he fingered her, something she never brought up until recently, and she did it because she wanted Bernie to get the nom.

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 3 years ago

A President can be officially impeached and stay in office if they aren't convicted in the Senate. Impeachment is comparable to an Indictment in a court of law.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment.htm

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 3 years ago

The House of Representatives vote on Impeachment and a subsequent conviction requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate, which would mean removal from office if they succeed. Basically, Impeachment doesn't automatically mean removal from office, which is why I compared Impeachment to an Indictment in a court of law.

Three Presidents have been impeached in our countries history. Andrew Jackson, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, none of which who were convicted in the Senate.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

True, they were not convicted which means they were acquitted of impeachment charges.

the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by simple majority vote, articles of impeachment.
and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official.

the House impeaches and the Senate votes to impeach or acquit, they all were acquitted which means they were not impeached.

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 3 years ago

You are mistaken. This is all common knowledge and I'm a little surprised you don't know this, so I'm going to copy and paste the three step procedure to make it more clear. Pay close attention to the end of step #2.

First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere. For example, the Nixon impeachment inquiry began in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The facts that led to impeachment of Bill Clinton were first discovered in the course of an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. During the second impeachment of Donald Trump this step was skipped.

Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".

Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the chief justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the president of the Senate, who is also the vice president of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires the concurrence of a two-thirds supermajority of those present. The result of conviction is removal from office and (optionally, in a separate vote) disqualification from holding any federal office in the future, which requires a concurrence of only a majority of senators present.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

Yes, I know, I have had this same discussion in length already.

If Trump was impeached, then why was he not removed from office?

The result of conviction is removal from office and (optionally, in a separate vote) disqualification from holding any federal office in the future, which requires a concurrence of only a majority of senators present.

and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office.

Like I said before, The House of Representatives votes to impeach, and the Senate acquits or impeaches, we are both saying the same thing. but an impeached individual is removed from office.

I guess it would be similar to a pardon. If a person is pardoned they are no longer guilty of the crime.

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 3 years ago

Last try lol. Impeachment doesn't mean removal from office. That's not what it is....The power of impeachment translates into the power to indict. That's it.....That's what Impeachment is....If someone is indicted for a crime and found not-guilty, it doesn't mean they were never indicted for said crime, right? This is the same exact thing.

reply

[–] Bloodshot77 (13923) 3 years ago

Another idiot who doesn't know what impeached means. Jowili will never understand.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

impeachment does mean removal from office, you are not arguing with me but you are arguing with the rules listed by the government.

the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office.

you cant be impeached and remain in office, thats the rules set forth by the government...

yes, that would be past tense, he WAS impeached in the House and cleared in the Senate.

in present tense, he is not impeached. thats what I keep saying and you keep saying that I am wrong.

again, we are both saying the same thing! lol

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 3 years ago

Alright, so you still don't understand. Good luck with that. I'm honestly not sure I can be any more clear.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

I understand, you just think I dont understand.

just remember this...

the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office.

Trump is not impeached...

Donald J. Trump President Feb 5, 2020 Not guilty
Donald J. Trump President Feb 13, 2021 Not guilty

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 3 years ago

Haha if you say so.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

just going by the law and rules set forth by the government. you might send an email to them and ask.

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 3 years ago

I might suggest the same to you, as you still fail to understand impeachment is permanent, although I guess if you believe in something hard enough, it might come true!

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

brobeans, you cant be impeached and remain in office, then that means anyone found not guilty of a crime is still guilty. I am just going by the law.

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 3 years ago

God damn. I feel like I'm conversing with a talking block of cheese. Just stop. Either you're trolling at this point or just stupid.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

neither, if you want to have your own version of the law then thats fine. I am just citing whats on the website.

In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by simple majority vote, articles of impeachment. After the House of Representatives sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment to consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. A committee of representatives, called “managers,” act as prosecutors before the Senate. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

"I guess it would be similar to a pardon. If a person is pardoned they are no longer guilty of the crime."

This is ALSO wrong, in fact it's VERY wrong. A person that accepts a pardon by definition ADMITS guilt (that's in the constitution in regards to the presidential pardon) A pardon frees a guilty person who (theoretically) deserves freedom. It should happen if a law is unjust or the sentence is unjust although there may be cases where the person was unjustly convicted and the pardon was the only recourse. An innocent could refuse a pardon if they don't want to admit guilt
The word you're looking for is exoneration , . That actually reverses a conviction. Even so, an exonerated person would be have been indicted (which is analagous to impeachment)

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

pardon, exoneration, acquittal, not guilty, its all basically the same. a person was accused of a crime and then cleared of said crime. they are not still guilty of the crime. it doesnt work like that... if what you are saying is true, then that means OJ is still guilty of killing 2 people. its a good thing you are not a judge because everyone would still be guilty! lol

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

clueless on so many levels

A pardon is NOT at all the same. As I explained the ,pardoned criminal IS STILL considered GUILTY. In fact accepting a pardon is an ADMISSION of GUILT. Some have refused or considered refusing because they didn't want to admit guilt.

"if what you are saying is true, then that means OJ is still guilty of killing 2 people"
Poor reading comprehension on your part
I mean, OJ DID kill 2 people regardless of the outcome.
But nothing I said would imply that the law would still consider him "guilty" after his acquittal. OJ was INDICTED for murder then acquitted (wrongly) but that doesn't mean he wasn't indicted. Learn what words mean

"its a good thing you are not a judge because everyone would still be guilty"
WRONG just awful reading comprehension here .. embarrassing on your part

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

yes, I have said this many times before, OJ was indicted, Trump WAS impeached. both were found not guilty.

OJ is no longer guilty
Trump is no longer guilty

but every time I say this, everyone keeps saying I am wrong, and then tell me why I am wrong, and then I agree and explain, and then they say I am still wrong. we are all saying the same thing. lol

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

You are conflating impeachment with guilt.
Trump was impeached twice. FULL FUCKING STOP.

He was "acquitted" as was OJ despite both actually having committed the offenses

The acquittal doesn't reverse the impeachment as you have said. He was STILL impeached. By your logic president has ever been impeached.

Also, on the second one the senate voted 57-43 in favor of conviction but the constitution requires 2/3 (67 senators)
This means due to partisanship every impeach will ALWAYS result in acquittal.
However Trump was the first ever to get conviction votes (5) from his own party. That fact is the best indication that the charges were legit

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

Again, Trump WAS impeached in the House, he WAS found not guilty in the Senate.

If acquittal doesnt reverse the impeachment then that means Trump is still impeached and OJ is still guilty.

If Trump is still impeached then why was he not removed from office?

The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office.

it doesnt matter what the votes are, he was found not guilty.

If a jury is split 6/5 for a not guilty vote, it doesnt mean that a person was in fact guilty.

You guys are not understanding past and present. You should ask someone else and see what they think.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

"Again, Trump WAS impeached in the House, he WAS found not guilty in the Senate."
The senate doesn't find you "not guilty" but I'm not going to delve into the semantics on that. He was not convicted. I know that.
"If acquittal doesnt reverse the impeachment then that means Trump is still impeached and OJ is still guilty."
Yes it means the impeachment was not reversed. NO , it doesn't mean OJ is still guilty. They are two different things Again you are not grasping that and conflating impeachment with verdict.
Also why would you say "still" guilty regarding OJ? In the eyes of the law he was presumed innocent even after indictment.

'If Trump is still impeached then why was he not removed from office?"
You must have rocks in your head . How do you not grasp this.????
You dont get removed from office when you are impeached just like you dont get sentenced when you are indicted.

Bill Clinton was impeached too and still remained in office. He was and still is referred to as an "impeached" president

"The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office."
Correct.. and an impeached official who is not convicted stays in office.

"If a jury is split 6/5 for a not guilty vote, it doesnt mean that a person was in fact guilty."
Then it would be a hung jury and state could either try him again or drop the charges. There is certainly a difference here between that and an actual acquittal

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

Again, how can a president be impeached and remain in office?

The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office.
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment.htm

It says an impeached official is removed from office.

If you dont get removed for being impeached, then why impeach people in the first place?
These Judges were impeached and found guilty and removed. Your logic is not sound.

Halstead Ritter Judge Apr 17, 1936 Guilty, removed from office
Harry E. Claiborne Judge Oct 9, 1986 Guilty, removed from office
Walter Nixon Judge Nov 3, 1989 Guilty, removed from office
Alcee Hastings Judge Oct 20, 1989 Guilty, removed from office

both Clinton and Trump were impeached and then found not guilty by the Senate

William J. Clinton President Feb 12, 1999 Not guilty

Donald J. Trump President Feb 5, 2020 Not guilty
Donald J. Trump President Feb 13, 2021 Not guilty

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-list.htm

I think I understand what you saying, you are saying a person is impeached, but can be not guilty and still impeached.

If we follow that same logic, a person convicted of crime is found not guilty, but is still convicted of that same crime.

Brobeans, that makes no sense.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

You're lost

"Again, how can a president be impeached and remain in office?"

I've already answered the ever loving shit out of this question. That's not what impeachment does. Impeachment is a step Conviction is ANOTHER STEP that end in removal.

"If you dont get removed for being impeached, then why impeach people in the first place?"
As I said because its the first hurdle.
That's like saying why do we indict people in the first place if indicted people don't go to prison

then you posted this again as if it supports your argument
"the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office."
it doesn't . You are not parsing that correctly.
Impeached + convicted = removed
Impeached but not convicted = stays in office... still was impeached though

"If we follow that same logic, a person convicted of crime is found not guilty, but is still convicted of that same crime."
Nope you used the wrong word there should be ..
a person indicted of crime is found not guilty, but was still indicted

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 3 years ago

My mind is blown here. Seriously. I patiently tried to explain this to her to no avail lol.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

Hopefully he gets it by now.

That took way more explaining than it should have.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

ok I think I got it.

impeached + not guilty = impeached
impeached + guilty = impeached

indicted + not guilty = indicted
indicted + guilty = indicted

is this what you are trying to say?

"still was impeached though"

"but was still indicted"

Was is past tense though. currently today in present tense is someone that was indicted, are they still currently present tense, indicted?

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

impeached = indicted
removed = convicted

That should've been enough for you.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

Trump was found not guilty of impeachment. Is he still currently preset tense impeached?

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

There is no such thing as being guilty of impeachment. That sentence really does make you look stupid.

Trump was impeached for obstruction of congress, abuse of power, and incitement of insurrection. He was not convicted of obstruction of congress, abuse of power, or incitement of insurrection. But he was impeached for them.

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury, but he was not convicted of perjury. But he was still impeached for it.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

But he was impeached, is he currently impeached, present tense? yes or no?

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

My guess is both. It doesn't sound right connecting the past tense "impeached" directly with the present tense "is" but you can say he was impeached, and you can also say he is an impeached president.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

Like I was saying.

He WAS impeached, and IS not currently impeached.

Do we agree on this at least?

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

Disagree. "Is impeached" may sound weird because you're connecting a past tense word with a present tense word, but is technically accurate because he IS an impeached president.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

Depends on the verbiage you want to use.

But if Trump IS impeached, then he would have been removed from office. A currently present tense impeached president cant remain in office.

If we use the same logic you provided, then OJ IS still an indicted criminal.

JoWilli logic says, he was indicted but was found not guilty by a jury so he is no longer indicted.

The indictment charge was cleared when he was found not guilty, but he WAS indicted, past tense. he is not currently indicted, present tense.

You are basically saying, OJ is an indicted criminal.

There is a clear difference between is and was in English grammar as they talk about different periods. Is and was are used as different tense forms of the root verb ‘to be.’ We use is in the present tense whereas we use was in the past tense. More specifically, we use is in present continuous tense as in the sentence ‘He is eating food.’ On the other hand,the verb was is used in past continuous tense.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

If Trump was convicted in the Senate and removed from office, would that change your mind to say he is currently impeached? And would that apply ten years down the road?

If so, then he is currently impeached, because impeachment is a vote in the House, not a conviction in the Senate.

Using the term "impeached" to mean "convicted in the Senate" is a colloquial usage, but not a proper usage. That seems to be your biggest hangup here.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

Yeah, if he was found guilty, then yeah he would be impeached. Then you can say Trump is and was impeached. He would be impeached forever.

But the hangup we are having is that people keep saying Trump is impeached, yes he was impeached in the House but found not guilty in the Senate.

As of now we are basically arguing over verbiage and semantics. Is the glass half full or half empty? Its however you see it.

The only way to settle this is to find a Constitutional Law Professor and ask them.

If you want to say Trump is impeached, thats fine.
I will say he was impeached.

Maybe we can just agree on that and call it a day, brobeans...

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

Then Trump is impeached, because the House voted to impeach him.

Again, your hangup is the colloquial usage of "impeached" differs from the formal usage of "impeached."

Not my problem.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15966) 3 years ago

its a week later , have neither of you googled the answer yet?

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

no, what does it say?

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15966) 3 years ago

well , a cursory google leans towards jowilli's definition

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

oh nice, really?

So I am not crazy? lol

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

I've been at it for 4 days. Looking through the posts, he's been at it for 10. But really I'm just here for the bumps.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

If Trump is impeached then OJ is indicted. You are implying they are both still accused of something.

If Trump is still impeached, then he would have been removed from office.

The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office.

The Senate voted to not impeach.

Donald J. Trump President Feb 5, 2020 Not guilty
Donald J. Trump President Feb 13, 2021 Not guilty

So Trump was impeached but is not currently impeached.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

"You are implying they are both still accused of something."

Well, they are. Lol.

If you are a president who was impeached, you are an impeached president whether you were convicted or not.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

"If you are a president who was impeached"

agree, he was impeached but is not currently impeached.

the not guilty vote nullifies impeachment.

at least we finally agree he was impeached.

lol

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

You say he isn't an impeached president.
You say he was an impeached president.
I say he's both.
Agree to disagree.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

brobeans, I said that at least 3 times, you can say whatever you want.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

You say he isn't an impeached president.
You say he was an impeached president.
I say he's both.
Agree to disagree.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

Trump was impeached twice. Those impeachments were then handed over to the Senate Managers (prosecutors) for him to be tried. He was found not guilty both times, but the verdicts did nullify the impeachments. Of course he’s no longer impeached for the 2 trials as they have ended.pwned...

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 3 years ago

JoWilli, sorry, but you are in error. Impeachment means to indict. If indicted (impeached) the case goes to the Senate for trial. The Senate has managers (prosecutors) who will try the case. If found guilty then the President or whomever can be removed from office. Only the Senate has the power to remove the person from office.

To equate it to a civilian criminal trial:

Charges are brought to indict a person for a crime. If the charges aren’t strong enough the person isn’t indicted. But, if the charges are strong enough the person is indicted & bound over for trial.

”Frequently Asked Questions About impeach”

”Are presidents removed from office when they are impeached?

Not necessarily. In the United States a president is impeached by the members of the House of Representatives. Once this body has drawn up charges and had them approved by a majority of House members, the Senate holds a trial. If a two-thirds majority of the Senate votes to convict then the president may be removed from office.”

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

to be fair to JoWilli, the language used at the trial was that he was impeached.

so here is the million dollar question:

Charges are brought to indict a person for a crime. If the charges aren’t strong enough the person isn’t indicted. But, if the charges are strong enough the person is indicted & bound over for trial.

During the trial the person indicted is found not guilty by the jury. Are they still indicted after that?

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 3 years ago

No longer for the crimes presented at trial. The trials ended the final step in the proceedings.

Trump was impeached (indicted) twice. Those impeachments were then handed over to the Senate Managers (prosecutors) for him to be tried. He was found not guilty both times, but the verdicts did not nullify the impeachments. He was impeached twice. To be impeached is a very serious matter for a POTUS. He will go down in history as the only POTUS to be impeached twice. Of course he’s no longer impeached for the 2 trials as they have ended.

There is something you aren’t quite grasping here. I’m not an attorney so maybe I’m not explaining it well enough.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

I literally just said the same thing.

Trump was impeached by the House, found not guilty in the Senate. He was impeached but is no longer impeached.

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 3 years ago

Strike “but is no longer impeached.” Instead the correct terminology would be, “He was impeached (indicted), but was found not guilty.” After the articles of impeachment (indictment) were handed over to the Senate (prosecutors) the term impeach wasn’t used.
Trump was and shall remain the only POTUS to be impeached twice which is a stain on his tenure as POTUS.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

Yes, Trump was impeached but is not currently impeached.

Key word is Was. Everyone keeps arguing that Trump IS still impeached.

"Of course he’s no longer impeached for the 2 trials as they have ended."

I have been saying this for like 3 weeks straight, lol.

Even moviechatterer agreed with me, which is impressive.

reply

[–] christomacin (4683) 3 years ago

Correction: That was Andrew JOHNSON not Andrew JACKSON that got impeached.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

This is what grasping at straws looks like

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

if anything I said is wrong or false please let me know.

all 4 statements are true...

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

Grasping at straws doesn't mean something is technically false, it usually means false equivocation and your post was full of that.

The items that are factually wrong are
"Nancy tried to subvert democracy by trying to impeach Trump twice."

An impeachment does NOT "subvert democracy". It is a constitutional process carried out for representatives who are elected by the people. Contrast that with storming the capitol and threatening the VP to not certify the results which NOT a constitutional process

"rampant inflation"
inflation has not yet outpaced wage increase so by definition its not rampant.

"this election was a sham and was stolen from us"
They said the election was interfered with not "stolen" nor was it referred to as a "sham"

The rest of your statement were false equivalencies and/or misleading

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

Pelosi Threatens the President: ‘One Way or Another’ We Will Remove Trump
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/pelosi-threatens-the-president-one-way-or-another-we-will-remove-trump/

Speaker Pelosi says Senate Republicans must let witnesses Testify or they will “Pay a Price”.
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/nancy-pelosi-says-even-if-president-trump-is-acquitted-he-will-not-be-acquitted/

"I feel very confident that Joe Biden will be elected president on Tuesday," Pelosi (D-California) said through her mask at a press conference on Thursday afternoon. "Whatever the end count is on the election that occurs on Tuesday, he will be elected. On January 20 he will be inaugurated president of the United States."
https://www.rt.com/usa/504976-pelosi-vows-biden-win/

If the president is acquitted today, Pelosi will be shown up for what she actually is: a 3-time loser in partisan attempts to remove President Donald Trump from office.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/nancy-pelosi-he-will-not-be-elected-he-will-not-be-acquitted

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on Thursday called for Vice President Mike Pence to use the 25th Amendment to remove President Donald Trump from office.https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2021/1/7/22219206/speaker-nancy-pelosi-trump-impeachment-25th-amendment

Nancy Pelosi Says If Donald Trump Isn’t Removed Via 25th Amendment, “Congress May Be Prepared To Move Forward With Impeachment”
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/nancy-pelosi-says-donald-trump-192532749.html

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says “nothing is off the table,” including potential impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-pelosi-to-address-mueller-statement-on-russia-probe

As you can see Nancy had a personal vendetta to remove Trump one way or another. She spent 4 years trying to get rid of him. All 3 attempts failed. Trump is the only President in history to be under siege for 4 years.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

Because Pelosi is a member of congress, you know she's talking about removing Trump from a congressional standpoint, which is 100% legal.

The same goes for the price they will pay. It's all from a congressional standpoint, all 100% legal.

Pelosi was confident Biden would win, and he did. She was also confident dems would win the Senate in 2018. They didn't. She didn't pull some magical maneuver to grant them a 2018 victory.

Pence had every right to use teh 25th Amendment to remove Trump. Some repubs were even mirroring the idea, not just the democrats, because Trump's post-election antics caused his people to riot at the capitol.

Now compare that with the Trump universe...

When Giuliani says there will be a trial by combat, he's not talking from a congressional standpoint.

When Madison Cawthorne says there will be boodshet, he's not talking from a congressional standpoint.

When Alex Jones says they will remove Joe Biden one way or the other, he's not talking from a congressional standpoint.

When Marjorie Taylor Greene asked "now do we get to hang them," she wasn't talking from a congressional standpoint.

When Bannon said Fauci would've been beheaded and his head put on a pike outside the White House if he had his way, he's not talking about from a congressional standpoint.

When Bannon said on January 5th that all hell was going to break loose tomorrow and that it was going to be quick, he wasn't talking from a congressional standpoint.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7722) 3 years ago

And there you have it Trumpers!
Nice post!

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

we both know that Trump wasnt supposed to win, even Fox news had Trump losing. It ruined Hillary's dream and crushed the dreams of all the liberals. some say the Ocean is filled with the tears of liberals. But anyways, even before Jan 20, they were scheming of way to get rid of Trump under the guise of a congressional standpoint. there are lots of quotes from Nancy, they are just getting harder to find now. But basically she said she would get rid of Trump one way or another. She finally succeeded with a fraudulent election that still hasnt been investigated yet. dementia Joe said he would lose chicanery, now there is no chicanery.

dems say bad things and rep say bad things, dems call not fair when rep do it, but when dems do it, they cite free speech.

we both know that dems were ready to protest too if Trump won, why did every dem city board up their doors and window? there was even a fence built around the White House. Hillary said not to accept the results of the election. the protests would have 100 times worse than 2016, and yes, you may have forgotten but there were protests and riots back then.

the easy rider guy wanted to go pedo on Barron, no one cares, Griffin held up a head of a severed head of Trump, not much outrage, Madonna wanted to blow up the white house, no big deal. Depp makes joke about assassination Trump, no one said anything, had a great career after that. Scalise was shot, some sympathy but ultimately, no one cared. Sarah sanders was kicked out of restaurant, no one cared, people continually mocked sarah sanders for her looks, no one cared.
Pam Bondi was harassed outside a theater, no one cared. Ted Cruz and family was harassed, no one cares. Maxine Waters tells people to attack Trump supports in stores and gas stations, no one cares, still in office.

and the coup de grâce, Trump was banned from free speech.

please stop pretending that dems are holy and mighty and are above reproach.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18138) 3 years ago

Great Post!

The triple B's get pwned once again.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

Lol, bubba, that's not going to trigger me. Especially when it just bumps my thread.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18138) 3 years ago

Well it did, the Brandons are taking over! lol

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

Lol, the who?

reply

[–] JoWilli (20736) 3 years ago

thanks, no response from the resident Trump trolls, they have nothing to do now since they cant mock Trump anymore.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"but he never pretended the election was stolen, and never tried to overthrow democracy."

No, that would be the Democrats after the 2016 election. They claimed Trump stole the election by colluding with the Russians, and threatened to impeach him the day after the election. And they carried through on that promise, attempting to overthrow democracy by impeaching and trying to remove a duly elected president on bogus charges.

They came MUCH closer to overthrowing democracy than Trump and his supporters ever did.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

Even IF the constitutional process of impeachment had resulted in a conviction (it requires 2/3 majority which means its basically impossible) the result would be that Pence would become president and Pence would nominate a new VP. It wouldn't overthrow democracy in any way shape or form

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

Overthrowing a duly-elected president on bogus charges is pretty much the definition of overthrowing democracy. You're removing the person elected by the people. Especially since they vowed to impeach him the day after he was elected. They made their intentions clear.

That's like saying Kennedy being assassinated wasn't an attempt to overthrow democracy because he was succeeded by Johnson.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

The charges were not bogus.

"You're removing the person elected by the people. Especially since they vowed to impeach him the day after he was elected. They made their intentions clear."

OK. The people knew their intentions but still voted all of them into office in 2018.

The impeachment was the will of the people carried out by the very people that we the people voted into office. It was democracy in action

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"The charges were not bogus."

Of course they were. The impeached Trump for carrying out his duty of enforcing the law.

"The impeachment was the will of the people carried out by the very people that we the people voted into office. "

By that logic, Trump was acting on the will of the people who voted him into office. How could he be impeached for that?

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

"By that logic, Trump was acting on the will of the people who voted him into office"

By your logic no one would ever be impeached. The impeachment was based on facts that came out after the 2016 election. Some of these facts were known by the 2018 election and people voted accordingly.
Also the house of representatives are elected directly by the people while the president is elected by electors therefore the house more closely represents the will of the people.
The different ways of electing these 2 entities is part of our system of checks and balances. Trump got checked
.
"How could he be impeached for that?"
The house's desire to impeach wasn't a secret. We voted congress in to do just that.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"By your logic no one would ever be impeached."

No, that's your dumbass logic. According to you, anything a politician does while in office is justified because they were voted into office.

"The impeachment was based on facts that came out after the 2016 election. Some of these facts were known by the 2018 election and people voted accordingly."

Holy shit, are you really this stupid?

The impeachment was based on a phone call Trump made with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25, 2019.

This was known by the 2018 election?

Hahahahaha. What a fucking idiot.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

Yes the Ukraine phone call happened in 2019, Hence the word "some" in my post. It wasn't the only charge but yes it was the event that caused the impeachment to move forward.
I will concede that the most damaging stuff wasnt known until after the 2018 election

But the fact you can't get around is that America wanted him impeached in November 2018 before the Ukraine was even known about and voted in a congress knowing they would do exactly that if the chance. Trump has been corrupt his entire life we all knew it was a matter of time.

"No, that's your dumbass logic. According to you, anything a politician does while in office is justified because they were voted into office."

No its YOUR logic You said he was carrying out the will of people when he solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection and therefore its ok

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"I will concede that the most damaging stuff wasnt known until after the 2018 election"

What a fucking idiot. The entire impeachment was based on the phone call.

Stop wasting my time with your stupidity.

"No its YOUR logic "

Learn to read, moron. This is what I said:

"By that logic, Trump was acting on the will of the people..."

Do you understand what "By that logic" means?

Are you retarded?

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

"Do you understand what "By that logic" means?"

It means you're about to twist someone's words

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

I don't need to twist your words to show what an idiot you are. I just need to quote you.

"The impeachment was based on facts that came out after the 2016 election. Some of these facts were known by the 2018 election and people voted accordingly."

Hahahahahaha!

Moron.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

Both statements are technically true. Facts came out after the 2016 election not before.
The point being the people voted for Trump before we knew all of the things he would do and the people voted the 2018 congress knowing full well they wanted to impeach him (you even admit this and made a point about it)

But you have no real argument so you resort to name calling

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

My 'real argument' is the Articles of Impeachment against Trump:

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755enr.pdf

Please explain how any of the official reasons they impeached Trump were "known by the 2018 election" as you claimed.

So the 2018 election couldn't have been a mandate for impeaching Trump, if Trump hadn't yet committed the 'crimes' he was impeached for.

Now, if you want to admit that some idiots voted for House Democrats because they hoped the Democrats would make up some bullshit charges to impeach Trump over, you wouldn't be lying about that.

Moron.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

"Please explain how any of the official reasons they impeached Trump were "known by the 2018 election" as you claimed."
I never said anything about "official" reasons. Although some of the context behind the official reason was known before 2018.
The impetus for the impeachment is not limited to the official reason the conversation was taking place in 2018 ex: many wanted to impeach for obstruction of justice (termination of Comey)
This was also the case with Clinton. You know damn he wasn't impeached over a bj or lying about a bj ( prejury, the official reason)

"So the 2018 election couldn't have been a mandate for impeaching Trump, if Trump hadn't yet committed the 'crimes' he was impeached for"
It was whether you like it or not. Facts dont care about your feelings. The people wanted him impeached for obstruction of justice which they already knew about.

"Now, if you want to admit that some idiots voted for House Democrats because they hoped the Democrats would make up some bullshit charges to impeach Trump over, you wouldn't be lying about that."
LOL now you're conceding the point OK thanks

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"It was whether you like it or not. Facts dont care about your feelings. The people wanted him impeached for obstruction of justice which they already knew about."

Such bullshit. So they wanted to impeach Trump for one thing he did, but when they impeached him for something else he did, it's justified because that's what they voted for?

Seriously, are you retarded?

"LOL now you're conceding the point OK thanks"

So wait, you're claiming that the Democrats were justified in making up bullshit claims to impeach Trump, because some idiots voted for them to make up bullshit claims to impeach Trump?

Wow. You're fucking Einstein.

But at least you're honest. Glad you can admit it's all bullshit.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

" it's justified because that's what they voted for"

Nope never said that. Your reading comprehension is so bad there is little point in trying to explain. I can explain it to you but I cant understand it for you.
It's justified because the charges were legit and would have been legit if they decided to impeach on the earlier mentioned obstruction charge.
I never said that it's justified because that's what they voted for
What I did say was that this impeachment was the will of the people which refutes the idea that it a subversion of democracy.
Being the will the people doesn't justify an action in and of itself. That is a different debate

"So wait, you're claiming that the Democrats were justified in making up bullshit claims to impeach Trump, because some idiots voted for them to make up bullshit claims to impeach Trump?"
Another straw man argument. Never said that but I've explained why you're wrong

"Wow. You're fucking Einstein."
Actually this is about the most truthful statement you've made yet.
You intended sarcasm but actually got it right. I am clearly your intellectual superior

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"I never said that it's justified because that's what they voted for
What I did say was that this impeachment was the will of the people which refutes the idea that it a subversion of democracy."

The "will of the people" is represented by the vote.

Did you fall asleep that day in Civics class?

So what you're saying is, anytime anyone is voted into office, they can do anything they want, because it's the will of the people.

Even make up bullshit charges.

The only reason they impeached Trump was because they could. They had the votes and they did it. Over a bullshit phone call (that happened after the 2018, election, moron) where Trump was doing his job enforcing the law. He is the Executive Branch, after all. According to you morons, the Executive Branch can never investigate their political rivals, no matter how much evidence they have of a crime being committed.
Yeah, Hunter Biden deserved to be on that board, making millions of dollars simply because he was the vice-president's son.

"Another straw man argument. Never said that"

"Now, if you want to admit that some idiots voted for House Democrats because they hoped the Democrats would make up some bullshit charges to impeach Trump over, you wouldn't be lying about that."
LOL now you're conceding the point OK thanks

That's you, saying I'm agreeing with you.

You really are stupid.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

"The "will of the people" is represented by the vote.

Did you fall asleep that day in Civics class?"
Poor reading comprehension again from you and now just arguing in bad faith.
You know full well that I AM WELL AWARE THAT THE VOTE REPRESENTS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. I explained this clearly several time. The 2018 mid term was the vote. The will of the people are the policy decisions and actions that the people voted them in to execute

Also your justification of his illegal actions is an absolute joke. He cant investigate political rivals for good reason and he sure as hell cant pressure a foreign gov't to do so

"That's you, saying I'm agreeing with you."
You quoted yourself paraphrasing my previous and adding your own spin that completely changed the meaning.. hence straw man

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"He cant investigate political rivals for good reason"

Show me the law that prevents that.

"he sure as hell cant pressure a foreign gov't to do so"

The Ukranian president said he wasn't pressured. You idiots and the Democrats made up that bullshit.

"I never said that it's justified because that's what they voted for"
"You know full well that I AM WELL AWARE THAT THE VOTE REPRESENTS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE."

Are you really this stupid? Or just dishonest?

"You quoted yourself paraphrasing my previous and adding your own spin that completely changed the meaning."

And yet you said I was conceding your point.

Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

More proof of your lies:

You:

I never said that it's justified because that's what they voted for

And you:

The people knew their intentions but still voted all of them into office in 2018.
The impeachment was the will of the people carried out by the very people that we the people voted into office. It was democracy in action

Can't even own up to what you said.

Stop lying.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

again I can explain it to you but I cant understand it for you

you quoted
"I never said that it's justified because that's what they voted for"

I never said the will of the people is what makes it justified
You attempt at proving I said that does not accomplish that
The second statement that you quoted only establishes that it was in fact the will of the people
Your inability to parse English is astonishing.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

You're speaking gibberish.

On one hand your saying:

"The impeachment was the will of the people carried out by the very people that we the people voted into office. "

And then you say:

"I never said that it's justified because that's what they voted for"

What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you not comprehending what you're saying?

It's like arguing with a child.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

It like arguing with a child except you are clearly the child here

You can't parse simple English. It must not be your native language or you dropped out of school before middle school because there's no other rationale for this nonsense

Read slowly .. these are the statements I have made
1. .. that the impeachment was the will of the people .
are we clear on that?
2. ... that impeachment was justified because the charges were legit (you don't agree ,ok ,but that's a different topic)
got it so far??

3 ... that being the "will of of the people" is NOT the REASON that it's justified
(I've probably gone over your head but its worth a shot)
therefore..

so why was the "will of the people" mentioned in the first place

4.. that acting on the "will of the people" means democracy was not being subverted as you claimed

these 4 statements are internally consistent and consistent with what I stated earlier

not sure I can make it any simpler

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

I noticed the same problem with Kinky's lack of understanding with the English language when he thought a "voter fraud organization" could only mean an organization to commit voter fraud, and never to prevent it.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

And here we have the other libtard joining in, who claims that 'voter fraud organization" means "anti-voter fraud organization."

You idiots deserve each other.

No wonder you're liberals. You're too stupid to comprehend simple logic.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

Well that makes sense.. a police homicide unit exists to do homicides right?

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

Once again, your babble is meaningless.

On one hand your saying:

"The impeachment was the will of the people carried out by the very people that we the people voted into office. "

And then you say:

"I never said that it's justified because that's what they voted for"

Your words are clear, no matter how you try to spin them.

Anyone reading can see it.

You're an idiot.

"He cant investigate political rivals for good reason and he sure as hell cant pressure a foreign gov't to do so"

I see you're trying to ignore this bullshit you tried to pass off as fact. No, it's not a separate topic. It's my whole point. The Democrats impeached Trump on bullshit charges, so it doesn't matter what the 'will of the people' said.

Unless you're admitting you morons voted the Dems in so they could create bullshit charges to impeach Trump. Which you've already admitted.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

Okay, I'm done here. Not going to waste any more time arguing with an idiot who can't keep track of what he's saying.

So, to recap, you said this:

"The impeachment was based on facts that came out after the 2016 election. Some of these facts were known by the 2018 election and people voted accordingly."

When the truth is, ALL of the articles of impeachment were based on things Trump had supposedly done AFTER the 2018 election.

Do you admit you're wrong? Of course not. You start babbling and dancing, anything but admit your supidity.

Then you say these two things:

"The impeachment was the will of the people carried out by the very people that we the people voted into office. "
"I never said that it's justified because that's what they voted for"

Anyone with a brain can see those two statements contradict each other. But do you admit that? Of course not. You would never admit that.

Typical libtard, bloviating bullshit and never backing it up.

I'm done. Keep bloviating. I've proven my point. I've got better things to do.

Your sock is ignored.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (289) 3 years ago

"The impeachment was the will of the people carried out by the very people that we the people voted into office. "
"I never said that it's justified because that's what they voted for"

Anyone with a brain can see those two statements contradict each other.

In no way shape or form do they contradict each other
You are just badly and/or intentionally misinterpreting the second statement
My previous post explained it but you are too stubborn to admit it

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14400) 3 years ago

Trump didn't admit he lost.

He's just talking like the illegal aliens he employs at his winery. Double negatives don't operate in Spanish like they do in English.

reply

[–] ItsGood2BeRight (3879) 3 years ago

OOOH I got it now. LOL No wonder I couldn't see it right away. The "wasn't" was wrong.

reply

[–] ItsGood2BeRight (3879) 3 years ago

What am I missing? I don't get it.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

Sounds like a misstatement.

Kinda like this one:

“We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” -- Joe Biden, Oct 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA8a2g6tTp0

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

There's nothing wrong with that statement. It's like the cops putting together a bank robbery team. That's just what you call it.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

Actually, the campaign corrected his statement, saying he was referring to their "election protection program."

They wouldn't have had to correct him if that's what they called it.

Also, various fact-checkers had to point out that Biden didn't mean what he said.

"It was a slip of the tongue - Biden was describing the voter protection"
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-biden-voter-protection-not/fact-check-clip-of-biden-taken-out-of-context-to-portray-him-as-plotting-a-voter-fraud-scheme-idUSKBN27E2VH

"Joe Biden misspoke about his campaign's voter protection efforts"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/29/fact-check-joe-biden-misspoke-campaigns-voter-protections/6061563002/

But nice try at the typical spin in order deflect from how stupid your post was.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

When the cops put together a "bank robbery team," there are multiple options. You could perceive the team is to prevent them, commit them, or investigate them. All of those things apply grammatically. The only rule is that the team must pertain to bank robberies in some way.

The Biden clarification was for a different reason. As an example, it would be like if the cops said they put together a "bank robbery team" when in fact they put in a "bank protection program" which isn't the same thing as putting a team together to investigate or prevent bank robberies. A clarification would be needed.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

It was a gaffe. One of hundreds from Biden. He said the wrong thing.

All of your spinning doesn't change that.

So I can make a thread claiming Joe Biden admitted to participating in election fraud, and it would be just as stupid as yours.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

I'm sorry you don't know how English works, but it's not my problem.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

You mean the English where you claim "voter fraud organization" means the opposite?

LOL!

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1367) 3 years ago

Ultravioletx is actually right. "Voter fraud organization" does not by default imply "an organization to commit voter fraud", although it includes that interpretation. It equally could mean "an organization to investigate voter fraud", which reasonable people hearing the statement should, and probably actually did, understand. But why let an unclarified statement go to political waste, right? No, bias and political nitpicking spun his statement, forcing them to clarify. Unlike Trump's horrendous fifth grade grammar, Biden just wasn't as clear as he could have been.

Having said that, you are correct that half of the stuff coming out of Biden's mouth isn't very clear, and half the time it sounds like the verbal product of a geriatric mental invalid. But specifically for this one quote, what Biden said wasn't technically incorrectly presented. It just wasn't as explicitly defined as it could have been for someone who's been in politics for many decades, leaving an opening for the opposition to pounce on it and twist what to reasonable minds was an obvious meaning. Both sides should focus on policy, not pointless gaffs.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

By that logic, you could also say that Trump's quote presented by the OP was also clear in its intention. But I don't see you jumping on the OP for twisting "what to reasonable minds was an obvious meaning."

Which, if you were paying attention, was my entire point.

And by you labelling Trump's use of double negatives as "horrendous fifth grade grammar" (something many, many non-fifth graders do all the time) just displays your own bias on this issue.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1367) 3 years ago

By that logic, you could also say that Trump's quote presented by the OP was also clear in its intention.

That's absolutely correct.

I don't see you jumping on the OP for twisting "what to reasonable minds was an obvious meaning."

You don't? Guess you missed this:

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/61ac731ed00bd7266405ff5d/Trump-finally-admits-he-lost?reply=61b044d1a17a0b5812fc3585

just displays your own bias on this issue

It displays no bias at all. Merely an observation at how bad his grammar is, which is an empirically observable fact. I actually support many of his policies and tend to align with right-leaners more frequently than the left. But I call things as I see them, because I don't subscribe to a belief system or ideology, if you've noticed from my past posts (not that I expect you to be aware of my previous posts on this board).

Although to give you a hint, here's a recent one, and some old ones:

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/61a27aa9a5f59a34fe92181d/anti-vaxxers-should-be-denied-health-care-coverage-when-they-get-sick?reply=61b0358aa17a0b5812fc34c9

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/61ad9fc3fdd46b348b1f533c/A-reminder-the-forces-of-former-guy-Fascism-has-not-gone-away?reply=61b0478ba17a0b5812fc359e

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/604a8d65b6eeb763cc82da0d/The-Hard-Truth-About-Climate-Change

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/604a86c0b6eeb763cc82d99d/The-Hard-Truth-About-Police-Shootings?reply=604c4fd360e35279fd2e7b7d

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/604934197a0449181f2cd3f2/KROGER-CO-ANNOUNCES-CLOSURE-OF-THREE-LA-STORES-AFTER-HERO-PAY-ORDINANCE

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/605e406a304720121b4634df/CCP-Plan-to-Control-the-US

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/610c414754ff2748039c7584/Dems-Admit-THEYRE-SCREWED-In-2022-Midterms

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/60fba773826ff501d469ff36/The-Hard-Truth-About-Cable-News-and-YOU

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/60b1ddebd57b963b6f166f65/Tucker-The-left-uses-partisan-politics-posing-as-science?reply=60b5b9fe3ecb602a553afe81
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"I didn't?"

Since you did that, why didn't you understand the point I was trying to make?

Which was, by pointing out that something Biden had said (which obviously wasn't true), could be used to claim he said something completely opposite. Just like the OP was doing.

Why feel the need to point out the point I was making, to me?

And you're splitting extremely thin hairs by claiming that "voter fraud organization" 'could' mean "anti-voter fraud organization". Especially when I was comparing it to using a double negative. You're pretty much proving my point.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1367) 3 years ago

Because like my reply to the OP, I was calling out the political spin (not by you, but by pundits and commentators who had jumped on Biden's quote back when he said it), and I was also pointing out that there was actually a difference between his example and yours (Biden's wasn't a gaff).

Note that I also agreed with you that Biden's made plenty of gaffs in my initial reply (just that this wasn't one of them). Also, I'm making an effort on this board to influence people to think differently, less divisively, and more productively, as fruitless of a task that is. Gaff nitpicking bears no fruit.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"Biden's wasn't a gaff"

Of course it was. Any reasonable person would call it that. His own campaign corrected it, and the fact-checkers claimed he misspoke.

Which is why I presented it as an example of misspeaking like Trump did, and the other side jumping on it claiming he said something opposite to his intent.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1367) 3 years ago

Fair enough, but I don't agree that it was a gaff (at least grammatically speaking) since I immediately understood what Biden actually meant and didn't even consider the opposite, while with Trump's double negative the opposite of his meaning did come to mind (humorously).

For example, does "special victims unit" imply a special unit of victims? Or do people implicitly understand that it's a special unit designated to investigating victims that fall into a classification of "special". I don't view "voter fraud organization" as any different.

Although, "voter fraud investigation organization" certainly would have been better.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

Thank you, warrior-poet. I appreciate that.

Though it's weird that Kinky actually thinks my OP is about Trump honestly admitting he lost.

I assumed all the Trumpers on here would get the humor that he only grammatically admitted he lost, not that he actually conceded.

Trump would never openly admit that he lost, even if he believed it.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1367) 3 years ago

Sure thing. And yeah, it should be clear there was an element of jest there. The notion that Trump would ever admit he was wrong about something, or concede the election, is akin to suggesting Mt. Fuji could be moved 5 inches with a hefty fart (heh-you just pictured that in your mind, didn't you?)

However, Kinkylink does make some fair points, even if he took your post a bit too seriously.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

Nice little groupthink you got going on there.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1367) 3 years ago

Here's some definitions of "groupthink":

"The practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility."

"When a group of individuals reaches a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives"

"Mode of thinking in which individual members of a group tend to accept a viewpoint or conclusion that represents a perceived group consensus, whether or not the group members believe it to be valid, correct, or optimal."

Groupthink? I don't think so.

Neither are the posts I linked above, if you took some time to read through them.

But I do try to be cordial and avoid combative approaches if possible. There's no reason to be quarrelsome simply for the sake of it, when clearly there is some shared ground (trust me, I most likely have more of that with you than him). But I'd agree with him that it should have been obvious this wasn't a serious post, and that your example of Biden doesn't equal his example of Trump (the latter of which there is humor to found). I'd also agree with you, as I said to him in my initial reply, that there are some on the Left out there jumping on this in a serious manner, when they also clearly should know better, which is disingenuous. Most matters are not either-or, are not binary, but rather possess more nuanced, complex qualities. So in this case I agree with portions of both of you.

That's definitely not groupthink. There's quite a bit I would disagree with him on, I imagine.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

Yeah, you and your cronies yapping about how terrible Trump is isn't groupthink.

You're deluding yourself.

The liberals' hatred of Trump is a perfect example of a "Mode of thinking in which individual members of a group tend to accept a viewpoint or conclusion that represents a perceived group consensus, whether or not the group members believe it to be valid, correct, or optimal."

The Democrats held on for three years to their claim that Trump stole the 2016 election by colluding with the Russians. They even had a multi-million-dollar investigation into it, where FBI agents were lying to the FISA court in order to spy on Trump, and using perjury traps against Trump's administration.

Trump has every right to be suspicious about what happened in the 2020 election. Yet when he does it, he's 'undermining democracy.' While the Democrats had no problem with doing it for three years, and some of them are STILL claiming he stole 2016 election.

So when I see you whining with a liberal about Trump not conceding the election, yeah, you're part of their group think.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1367) 3 years ago

The liberals' hatred of Trump is a perfect example of a "Mode of thinking in which individual members of a group tend to accept a viewpoint or conclusion that represents a perceived group consensus, whether or not the group members believe it to be valid, correct, or optimal."

The Democrats held on for three years to their claim that Trump stole the 2016 election by colluding with the Russians. They even had a multi-million-dollar investigation into it, where FBI agents were lying to the FISA court in order to spy on Trump, and using perjury traps against Trump's administration.

I absolutely agree. So-called "Trump Derangement Syndrome" spun out of control, and in fact still lingers quite strongly in those who can't move on. It's why I've made posts like this:

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/61ad9fc3fdd46b348b1f533c/A-reminder-the-forces-of-former-guy-Fascism-has-not-gone-away?reply=61b0478ba17a0b5812fc359e

But did I whine "with a liberal about Trump not conceding the election"? Or did I in fact agree with him about an incontrovertible observation about a very specific aspect of Trump's character (i.e. that he'd never concede defeat)? I also have suspicions about the election, by the way (see a couple of examples below). I don't believe wholeheartedly that there was enough to change the outcome, but I see signs that something happened that appears to be fishy.

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/60a6d131c76afb77c5dac939/Arizona-Election-Auditors-Backtrack-On-Deleted-Database-Claim-Or-Did-They

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/6088236ebb830e76e279fc19/Minnesota-GOP-hosted-far-right-conspiracy-theorist-that-called-George-Floyds-death-planned-since-2016?reply=6089d3daba0d0e46065226de

Groupthink, indeed. There's nothing wrong with agreeing with someone over a statement that's empirically observable as true. It's okay to admit Trump had his faults. He also had some good policies that led "unemployment and lower- and middle-class wages to the best levels in 50 years", and for the first time in quite a while allowed the U.S. to truly become energy independent (which was nixed with the stroke of a pen as soon as he was out of office under a deluge of executive orders, some of which were clearly kowtowing to radicals).

I'll post this link again (it's in one of my earlier replies) showing what a balanced, nuanced, unbiased, non-groupthink viewpoint looks like (it's never one-sided, and tows no lines):

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/60b1ddebd57b963b6f166f65/Tucker-The-left-uses-partisan-politics-posing-as-science?reply=60b5b9fe3ecb602a553afe81

And yet, I have no qualms about boldly stating that Trump is a "braggadocious egocentric megalomaniac with the grammar of a fifth grader."

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/61ad9fc3fdd46b348b1f533c/A-reminder-the-forces-of-former-guy-Fascism-has-not-gone-away?reply=61b03c2ba17a0b5812fc353c

And does this sound like the product of someone who engages in groupthink?

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/61a27aa9a5f59a34fe92181d/anti-vaxxers-should-be-denied-health-care-coverage-when-they-get-sick?reply=61b0358aa17a0b5812fc34c9

If someone agrees with a few things that people subscribing to an ideology at one end of the political spectrum think or believe, and yet agrees with other things with people on the other side, it’s a sure sign of independent thinking, not groupthink. I put myself in the firing line, and get it from both sides. I also agree with one side or the other at about an 80:20 ratio.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"Though it's weird that Kinky actually thinks my OP is about Trump honestly admitting he lost."

No, I knew you were just twisting his intent. Which is why I presented a demonstration of twisting Biden's intent.

Are you so dumb you can't see that?

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 3 years ago

It was just a humorous gaffe by Trump due to his misunderstanding of double negatives.

But you got triggered by it and believed it was the same level gaffe as "voter fraud organization" when "voter fraud organization" can grammatically mean an organization to prevent or investigate voter fraud just as it can mean to commit voter fraud.

Since it can mean all of those things, there is no gaffe, as corroborated by warrior-poet who understands how English grammar works.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

""voter fraud organization" can grammatically mean an organization to prevent or investigate voter fraud just as it can mean to commit voter fraud"

Yeah, that's why there were numerous fact checkers checking Biden's words, and his campaign had to clarify his statement.

On the other hand, no one is fact-checking the Trump quote you used, nor is Trump making a statement to clarify.

Sounds like you were the only one triggered by an innocuous statement, enough that you had to create an entire post about it.

LOL.

reply

[–] CraigC (8440) 3 years ago

Voter fraud or not, it wasn't a fair election. Not with five years of the liberal media slandering him at every turn. People believed the propaganda and voted appropriately. If all the impressionable morons had been told nothing but the truth, Biden would've lost in the biggest landslide in history.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7722) 3 years ago

That’s because he lied and said stupid crap every day for four years!
That insanity is kind of hard to ignore

reply

[–] CraigC (8440) 3 years ago

BS. Trump definitely said some stupid shit. There were times I wanted him to shut-up. He was also slandered daily. Words twisted to fit the narrative. His supporters demonized and dehumanized. To even pretend that the media coverage was fair, is proof that you are absolutely blind, deaf and dumb. Your kind will lead us down the road to oblivion if we let you. It's the fall of Rome all over again and you're too dumb to realize it.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7722) 3 years ago

Well, you’re insane if you believe his Tweets were coming from a rational human being.

reply

[–] CraigC (8440) 3 years ago

You're insane if you're even on Twitter.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7722) 3 years ago

You never read Trumps Tweets!?

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (18090) 3 years ago

That's kind of impressive.

reply