Posted by dahsdebater on 3/11/2019 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/11/2019 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 2:14:00 PM (view original):
Put it this way, regardless of whether or not the standard is preponderance of the evidence or above, it seems likely that Trump, in front of an impartial jury, could reasonably be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt for campaign finance violations and fraud related to his charity.

It’s a moot point though, because it wouldn’t be an impartial jury, it would be the Senate. And, absent a tremendous smoking gun, the 2/3 of the Senate will never convict him no matter what.

Bingo! Light dawns on Marblehead

The original question wasn’t “will he be impeached and convicted,” it was “should he be impeached?”

That answer is yes.

Why? If you can't get a conviction it's just political grandstanding, a waste of time, and potentially a waste of political capital. What is the point of that?

If the question is could he be impeached, then maybe the answer is yes. But if the answer to could he be convicted is still no - which I think it is - then the answer to should he be impeached is still 'no.'

I see it differently. To me, should he be impeached is a question of what’s right. Will he be impeached is a question of what’s practical.

They dont always line up.

"Right" is subjective. Being a Leftist you are not unbiased.

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/11/2019 3:39:00 PM (view original):
"Right" is subjective. Being a Leftist you are not unbiased.

No ****, Sherlock. No one is unbiased.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/11/2019 3:39:00 PM (view original):
"Right" is subjective. Being a Leftist you are not unbiased.

No ****, Sherlock. No one is unbiased.

??? I am unbiased ???

I am logical. You are not.

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/11/2019 4:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/11/2019 3:39:00 PM (view original):
"Right" is subjective. Being a Leftist you are not unbiased.

No ****, Sherlock. No one is unbiased.

??? I am unbiased ???

I am logical. You are not.

Newsflash: you aren’t unbiased.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/11/2019 4:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/11/2019 3:39:00 PM (view original):
"Right" is subjective. Being a Leftist you are not unbiased.

No ****, Sherlock. No one is unbiased.

??? I am unbiased ???

I am logical. You are not.

Newsflash: you aren’t unbiased.

I 100% am. I am an Independent. Don't belong to any party.

No one is unbiased.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 5:37:00 PM (view original):
No one is unbiased.

Wrong.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/11/2019 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 5:37:00 PM (view original):
No one is unbiased.

Wrong.

Explain.

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/11/2019 5:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/11/2019 4:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/11/2019 3:39:00 PM (view original):
"Right" is subjective. Being a Leftist you are not unbiased.

No ****, Sherlock. No one is unbiased.

??? I am unbiased ???

I am logical. You are not.

Newsflash: you aren’t unbiased.

I 100% am. I am an Independent. Don't belong to any party.

this has nothing to do with party affiliation. You are biased . Whether you have valid reasons for those biases is besides the point. You are biaed. We all have some biases.

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/11/2019 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/11/2019 9:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/11/2019 9:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/10/2019 11:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/10/2019 8:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/10/2019 6:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/10/2019 6:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/10/2019 12:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/10/2019 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/10/2019 11:20:00 AM (view original):
I think America is at its best when ******** aren't allowed to discriminate against someone because of their prefrences.

******** like you, who accused Bob Kraft of something even the prosecutor did not?

He lured Chinese immigrants to America with the promise of jobs, and instead put them in human trafficking. Disgusting.

LMAO.

tang has flipped into insanity.

When New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft was charged with soliciting prostitution at Orchids of Asia Day Spa in Jupiter, Florida, it was billionaire names like his that made headlines. But the more significant story is that of the women whose names we may never know, Chinese immigrants who police believe were lured to America with the promise of jobs, but instead found themselves in "sexual servitude."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/03/01/robert-kraft-sex-trafficking-sexual-stereotypes-asian-women-fetish-chinese-korean-prostitution/3016047002/

Nowhere does it say he knew or supported trafficking and he was not charged for that. You’re butthurt over the KC humiliation. Choke is on you. LMAO.

It's in the first line. Can you read?

Doesn't say that all. Can you? Captain Journalism. LMAO.

Failed Journalist. Failed Fan. Failed Human.

It clearly insinuates that Kraft was a part of the reason that line two happened.

This does too.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26055197/patriots-owner-robert-kraft-facing-charges-solicitation-prostitution%3fplatform=amp

No it does not. So now you went from clearly state to insinuates? Make up your mind, failed journalist.

so the answer is no, you can not go even one post without insulting tang or calling him names.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 6:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/11/2019 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 5:37:00 PM (view original):
No one is unbiased.

Wrong.

Explain.

Do you speak for everybody?

Impeachment does not mean removal. Unless something heinous is unearthed, Republicans in the Senate will not vote to remove Trump. Pelosi knows this, so she is downplaying the notion. Problem for her is within her party, they are vehemently screaming for his removal.

Obama spent how much on what?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/07/obama-immigration-enforcement/1815667/

Story Highlights

• $18B was spent in '12 by ICE, US-Visit program and Customs and Border Protection
• Border arrests dropped, with 2011 having the fewest in nearly 40 years
• Immigration is the 'highest law enforcement priority' based on budget, case volumes

Trump's $5.7B request for southern border enforcement was less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the budget. Far less than Obama spent on the northern border, which saw some residents and farmers displaced. We didn't hear much about that...huh.