Extra Extra Read All About It - It's Official: Trump has been IMPEACHED II

[Phase2]

 

[Kutnupe14]

You guys better hope he gets re-elected. I've stayed silent because he could get re-elected. I simply don't know how the wind will blow. But If he's not re-elected, the only silver lining I can give you, is the solace in the fact that will probably be banned.

 

[printcraft]

You guys better hope he gets re-elected. I've stayed silent because he could get re-elected. I simply don't know how the wind will blow. But If he's not re-elected, the only silver lining I can give you, is the solace in the fact that will probably be banned.

 

[Ingomike]

In what alternative universe do the dems live that insulting the decision makers is a sound strategy.

Witnessed this in real time. A number of Republican senators looked visibly angry and whispered to each other right after Rep Schiff cited a CBS report that Republicans’ heads would be on a “pike” if they voted to remove President Trump. https://t.co/5mE9KgIYaG
— Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) January 25, 2020


​

“That’s not true,” Susan Collins said several times on the floor, shaking her head when Schiff cited a news report saying WH warned senators that a vote against Trump means “your head will be on a pike.” Risch also said aloud: “That’s not true.” Cotton laughed when Schiff said it
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 25, 2020



​

What this really indicates is that dems are just blinded by Trump hatred so bad they cannot help themselves...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/brons...ote-that-gop-heads-will-be-on-a-pike-n2560097

 

[2A_Tom]

You guys better hope he gets re-elected. I've stayed silent because he could get re-elected. I simply don't know how the wind will blow. But If he's not re-elected, the only silver lining I can give you, is the solace in the fact that will probably be banned.

 

[BugI02]

You guys better hope he gets re-elected. I've stayed silent because he could get re-elected. I simply don't know how the wind will blow. But If he's not re-elected, the only silver lining I can give you, is the solace in the fact that will probably be banned.

What's his INGO name?

 

[2A_Tom]

Originally Posted by Kutnupe14
You guys better hope he gets re-elected. I've stayed silent because he could get re-elected. I simply don't know how the wind will blow. But If he's not re-elected, the only silver lining I can give you, is the solace in the fact that will probably be banned.

What's his INGO name?

This guy.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

You guys better hope he gets re-elected. I've stayed silent because he could get re-elected. I simply don't know how the wind will blow. But If he's not re-elected, the only silver lining I can give you, is the solace in the fact that will probably be banned.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Scared? Moi? Lol

 

[Ingomike]

In a fine example of how media bias works to create fake news:

They love to amp the pressure on the republican Senators that they perceive as weak or on a tough spot politically, but never do so for the other side.

...the media rush to pin down Republican senators that Democrats have targeted. That’s why McSally was being run down in the hallways. Other “Republican senators to watch,” we keep being told, include Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and Cory Gardner of Colorado.



The media and Democrats have different reasons for targeting each. Murkowski is an independent who is easily swayed by Democrats. Collins is a moderate who didn’t even vote to convict President Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial, even though he’d clearly perjured himself and obstructed justice. Still, Democrats hope that her notorious concern for propriety might be exploited along the way as they seek to save an impeachment for which an acquittal is a foregone conclusion. Plus, Collins is running for re-election.



Romney is out of step with his party related to Trump, and Alexander is a lame duck who also never cottoned to Trump. Gardner, like Collins in Maine, is in a tough re-election campaign in Colorado. These are the senators the media and Democrats hope will change their votes. They like to hope for things.


But the MSM never brings this up...


Yet reporters rarely if ever talk about Democrats’ mirror image problems here. Joe Manchin of West Virginia is, like Romney, out of step with his party on Trump. Yet both are likely to vote against impeachment. Gardner and Collins are in tough re-elects, yes, in states that Hillary Clinton won in 2016.



Gary Peters of Michigan is in a state that Trump won and is competitive heading into this election. The media focus on Collins and Gardner — and not Peters — because they want Collins and Gardner to lose.



Yet impeachment isn’t popular in Michigan, and voters who had planned to split their vote may find it more difficult if Peters sides with partisans such as impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff, the man who perpetrated the Russia collusion hoax. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Tina Smith of Minnesota face a similar problem, in states Hillary Clinton eked out narrow victories in and which are expected to be competitive.

Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama is extremely unlikely to win his reelection bid, but as his previous election showed, it all depends on who his opponent is. He may not want to seal his fate by siding with impeachers in a state Trump won by nearly 30 points.



Another Democratic senator to watch is McSally’s colleague in Arizona, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. Sinema has surprised observers with her efforts to reach out to Republican constituents. Votes in support of Trump’s impeachment conviction aren’t her brand.



One ridiculous thing about adopting this Democratic framing about Republican senators to watch is that the House just had impeachment proceedings and not a single Republican joined them, no matter how much they dislike Trump, no matter how moderate they are, no matter if they are leaving office. Not a single one.


https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/23/6-democratic-senators-to-watch-in-impeachment-trial/

 

[Kutnupe14]

So another noteworthy shoe dropped the other day concerning Ukraine, Lev Parnas, and former Ambassador Yovanovitch. Again the it appears the president has lied, yet again. The president stated he did not know Lev Parnas. Well someone released what appears to be a recording of him at dinner with the president, where he tells him than Yovanovitch is saying that he was going to be impeached (Parnas later stated that was false). The president then direct someone to get rid of her. The recording is over an hour long. The recording was apparently made by Igor Furman.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/24/21080281/lev-parnas-recording-trump-yovanovitch

 

[Ingomike]

So another noteworthy shoe dropped the other day concerning Ukraine, Lev Parnas, and former Ambassador Yovanovitch. Again the it appears the president has lied, yet again. The president stated he did not know Lev Parnas. Well someone released what appears to be a recording of him at dinner with the president, where he tells him than Yovanovitch is saying that he was going to be impeached (Parnas later stated that was false). The president then direct someone to get rid of her. The recording is over an hour long. The recording was apparently made by Igor Furman.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/24/21080281/lev-parnas-recording-trump-yovanovitch

And she she should have been fired the first day. I guarantee that will be the MO for incoming Presidents of all parties in the future...

 

[Ingomike]

And she she should have been fired the first day. I guarantee that will be the MO for incoming Presidents of all parties in the future...

I will give Trump a little break on this, in the most unusual new administration set up, which is already a madly insane scramble, he didn't know who he could trust, certainly not dems, but even repubs, and even in his own campaign. He has done a remarkable job for all the opposition he faced, dems, republican party leadership, deep state FBI, DOJ, CIA, entrenched DC bureaucracy, and a couple of chiefs of staff.

At least he hasn't had to order a Fredo like kill on a family member. LOL

 

[Ingomike]

Yes, and it's really screwing up my tv watching schedule. Put it on C-SPAN and leave regular channels alone. I'd be interested to see the Nielsen ratings for this dog and pony show when it's over. Show the highlight reels in the evening news if you must, but other than that, put it on C-SPAN.

The networks lost about 3 million viewers from their normal programming on the opening statements day.

The dems opening day was about a million viewers off off the previous rules debate day and day two of dem presentation was down more.

Cable averages 6 million a day in total but we're at 4.8 for the impeachment, meaning more people tune in to see panels and arguing than the real thing...

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...ast-tv-viewers-skipping-democrats-impeachment

 

[Dead Duck]

It will all come out soon...

***Language Warning***
[video=youtube;SaiWCS10C5s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s&list=WL&index=246&t=0s[/video]

 

[IndyBeerman]

Is it me, our did it really seem like the house impeachment managers got their lunch handed to them today?

 

[Dr.Midnight]

Is it me, our did it really seem like the house impeachment managers got their lunch handed to them today?

I didn't think it was possible, but they made Schiff look like an ever bigger ass-wipe today with all the video clips of his ramblings.

 

[jamil]

How effective would I be at annoying people if I told them that was my honest intent. Or better yet how stupid would they be to get annoyed when they knew that was the plan. No, I have been called annoying on more than one occasion because my opinion differed. It was people's way of dismissing arguments they didn't want to hear. So I just kept speaking my mind, and allowed those with that opinion, concerning my purpose, have their safe space.

I don’t know why people are annoyed. You present opinions that are different from theirs, yes. I don’t think saying they’re annoyed by it is dismissive though. People have argued their points. You’ll express one of your opinions, maybe even on a tangental subject, and then we’ll have page after page of back and forth. And yes, eventually some of them are dismissive. People get frustrated not because they can’t stand a different point of view. I present different points of view all the time, and I don’t feel I get the same flack as you. I get pushback. I get counterpoints. Maybe it has something to do with the way you present those different opinions. Like the point you made the other day over a ****ing word. You have to know from the context what was being said, and yet you insisted on arguing as if what they said was intended literally.

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

...gluttons for punishment.

 

[churchmouse]

I don’t know why people are annoyed. You present opinions that are different from theirs, yes. I don’t think saying they’re annoyed by it is dismissive though. People have argued their points. You’ll express one of your opinions, maybe even on a tangental subject, and then we’ll have page after page of back and forth. And yes, eventually some of them are dismissive. People get frustrated not because they can’t stand a different point of view. I present different points of view all the time, and I don’t feel I get the same flack as you. I get pushback. I get counterpoints. Maybe it has something to do with the way you present those different opinions. Like the point you made the other day over a ****ing word. You have to know from the context what was being said, and yet you insisted on arguing as if what they said was intended literally.

Pretty much on point.