House approves Impeachment Inquiry

[dbroncos78087]

Because it’s all about that communication to dem regular folks...,am I rite?

It all comes down to communication. The use of it and focus grouping is absolutely nothing new to politics. Remember the estate tax? No you don't...you remember the death tax. Because Republicans found a focus group tested phrasing that allowed them to essentially get it repealed.

[joeyc77]

It all comes down to communication. The use of it and focus grouping is absolutely nothing new to politics. Remember the estate tax? No you don't...you remember the death tax. Because Republicans found a focus group tested phrasing that allowed them to essentially get it repealed.

So with your example, do you find that acceptable in attempting to impeach a sitting president of the US?

It’s only thing to use language to communicate legislation or even attempt to get elected but this is a process to impeach a president, public opinion shouldn’t matter.

[dbroncos78087]

So with your example, do you find that acceptable in attempting to impeach a sitting president of the US?

It’s only thing to use language to communicate legislation or even attempt to get elected but this is a process to impeach a president, public opinion shouldn’t matter.

Yes I think impeaching a president is acceptable. As did the founding fathers BTW.

Changing the language they communicate their message in is smart by the Democrats. Quid pro quo is correct but literally and figuratively foreign to Americans. Bribery and extortion is clear and concise. The presidents actions were a clear abuse of power and from what I’ve seen so far appear to be impeachable.

[joeyc77]

Yes I think impeaching a president is acceptable. As did the founding fathers BTW.

Changing the language they communicate their message in is smart by the Democrats. Quid pro quo is correct but literally and figuratively foreign to Americans. Bribery and extortion is clear and concise. The presidents actions were a clear abuse of power and from what I’ve seen so far appear to be impeachable.

The founding fathers did not attempt to impeach a president in the court of public opinion. The way Americans feel about words shouldn’t matter at all unless this is about an election. It’s politically smart by the Dems. But it also shows what a sham this has all been.

[ewing]

The founding fathers did not attempt to impeach a president in the court of public opinion. The way Americans feel about words shouldn’t matter at all unless this is about an election. It’s politically smart by the Dems. But it also shows what a sham this has all been.

How dare they try and use public opinion when trying to hold a corrupt President accountable for his actions. The lack of integrity on their side makes me sick!

[joeyc77]

How dare they try and use public opinion when trying to hold a corrupt President accountable for his actions. The lack of integrity on their side makes me sick!

It shouldn’t matter. They don’t need America’s opinion. In other words, they are using this process to attempt to garner favor for the next election. Therefore they are using our government to serve their own purposes.... sound familiar?

[Sluggo1]

It shouldn’t matter. They don’t need America’s opinion. In other words, they are using this process to attempt to garner favor for the next election. Therefore they are using our government to serve their own purposes.... sound familiar?

Good point.

[ewing]

It shouldn’t matter. They don’t need America’s opinion. In other words, they are using this process to attempt to garner favor for the next election. Therefore they are using our government to serve their own purposes.... sound familiar?

what happened to im angry b/c its behind closed doors stuff? He is being investigated b/c he broke the law. Disagreeing with every possible action other then complete inaction doesn't change what is in the interest of the law

[valade16]

I’m not defending trump by stating how I view their testimony. And you are wrong. These accounts did not go directly from trump to them, yet trump is the one up for impeachment. There has not been one person as of yet that can provide direct linkage with a quid pro quo to Trump. Again, using phrases like “that was my understanding” is not good enough. This is a political process meant to harm trumps re-election chances, nothing more,

So you're saying that everyone in the process believed the arrangement must be a Quid Pro Quo but that doesn't mean it came from Trump? Where do you think they all got this idea that it must be a Quid Pro Quo?

[dbroncos78087]

The founding fathers did not attempt to impeach a president in the court of public opinion. The way Americans feel about words shouldn’t matter at all unless this is about an election. It’s politically smart by the Dems. But it also shows what a sham this has all been.

What evidence do you have to make this claim? Of the individuals here impeached, you believe that none of the founding fathers or anyone else made an attempt to convince the public it was a good idea?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...ns_and_results

Joey: this is a bad argument man. Of course you need the public opinion in favor of impeachment. It is a wholly political process and therefore, you need the people on board. This is common sense.

[SpecialFNK]

Lol all the complaints in here are just whining about dems.

Anyone here with a problem with this care about the context and actually think what trump did was good/acceptable or is it all just whining about the other side?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the context is actual Biden corruption and something that should not have happened. Hunter Biden even admitted this himself.

---

---

Is that the argument you're taking? That now it's completely OK to do this? That is great news, considering how much Liberals hate Trump. We can expect zero complaining from conservatives when Trump leaves office and a Democrat comes in that he demand Britain, China, Russia, Ukraine, etc. investigate him or else they will cease all trade deals and aid until it's done.

This is actually a huge win for Democrats then, because I'm assuming there will be no complaints from conservatives about how it's illegal/immoral/unethical.

do you really think this isn't going to happen with the next Democrat President? Democrats are already investigated anything they can against Trump. they could do it even more when Trump is no longer President because he wont have any power to protect himself.

[joeyc77]

So you're saying that everyone in the process believed the arrangement must be a Quid Pro Quo but that doesn't mean it came from Trump? Where do you think they all got this idea that it must be a Quid Pro Quo?

Why do you continue to ask subjective questions as if that’s some type of proof? It’s not....thus far no witness that has testified has had direct contact with the president about Ukraine can testify to a quid pro quo. That’s all that matters.

[DeW-Star]

It shouldn’t matter. They don’t need America’s opinion. In other words, they are using this process to attempt to garner favor for the next election. Therefore they are using our government to serve their own purposes.... sound familiar?

I’d be less concerned with Dems changing from using the phrase quid pro quo to the word bribery, as the republicans bending over backwards and changing their entire defense of this action nearly a dozen different times now.

This SHOULD be about what’s right and holding a corrupt president responsible for his actions. But just goes to show how they are treating this as nothing more than a sham.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DeW-Star]

Why do you continue to ask subjective questions as if that’s some type of proof? It’s not....thus far no witness that has testified has had direct contact with the president about Ukraine can testify to a quid pro quo. That’s all that matters.

In a sports replay have you never seen multiple non definitive replay views stitched together to get to a definitive ruling on a play?

Just because one shot doesn’t do it all, doesn’t mean that multiple angles put together putting it together has to be any less reliable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joeyc77]

What evidence do you have to make this claim? Of the individuals here impeached, you believe that none of the founding fathers or anyone else made an attempt to convince the public it was a good idea?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...ns_and_results

Joey: this is a bad argument man. Of course you need the public opinion in favor of impeachment. It is a wholly political process and therefore, you need the people on board. This is common sense.

It’s a political process, not an election enhancer. Are you saying that if a president is popular he can commit any act he wants and not be held accountable? You’re asking me to supply evidence that it’s a sham? It would be nice if the Dems provided evidence for impeachment instead of a few rumors and a mystery whistleblower. Furthermore if it’s similar about public opinion perhaps we should allow the Biden’s to testify to see if the American public agrees with the presidents actions or not? You lost this argument now... go watch msnbc and get more talking points...