The GOP Senators are the Cowards of the Country IMO!

I asked for an example. The only thing I can think of is Trump reimbursing farmers for the cost of the Tariffs on China which is actually covered under The takings clause if the Constitution.

 

You sure showed me

 

You did not ask for an example - I was asking you to come up with one - and you failed.

Military Spending = "Wealth Redistribution"
Building the Wall = "Wealth Redistribution"

And every thing else the Gov't spends money on. Trump is spending like a princess with a credit card= "Wealth Redistribution" = Socialism.

Trump is a Raging Socialist.

 

I don't think there is much doubt that the media has dispensed with journalistic ethics and become highly political- and highly biased in the way they "report", if one could call it that.
I do think this is a great dis-service to the American people, because almost everywhere they turn to is peddling a position rather than reporting fact. I have no idea how the ethics could be restored; I do know that it would take at least a powerful network head to lay down strict rules of conduct. I don't know if the market would reward that or not these days. I would hope so.

 

Sorry wrong neither is technically socialism.

 

That may be YOUR argument but that has nothing to do with your false claim about any argument I made. And I agree that every impeachment should not only follow the same guidelines but should also follow the Constitution.

Again zero citation, just your uninformed opinion. Sorry but that makes no sense. How can the Senate make an informed judgment without conducting their own investigation?

Just like a grand jury investigates and based on the evidence and eyewitnesses presented to the grand jury, they vote to indict or not to indict. That would analogous to the House impeachment process. If the grand jury indicts, charges are filed against the accused and the case goes to court (skipping the intermediate procedures). That's analogous to the House impeaches and it then goes to the Senate. In court, the same evidence and eyewitnesses are reviewed by the jury and any additional evidence and eyewitnesses are also introduced which could lend support the charges (and even add additional charges) or it could be exculpatory evidence that clears the defendant of some or all the charges. And that's analogous to the Senate trial. The Senate can also be presented with additional evidence and witnesses. They can request their own at any time or they can just review what is presented to them by the House and the President's attorneys. Both sides argue their case to the Senate. All of this IS an investigation being conducted by the Senate to determine how each will vote.

In Trump's case the Senate FAILED to conduct a legitimate investigation by refusing additional evidence and eyewitness testimony in violation of their Oath. They (the majority) also corrupted the entire process by publicly declaring that they will not be impartial and will work with the President (the impeached party) to acquit PRIOR to the Senate trial.

 

Silliest response yet. May as well argue that the jury has to due it's it' investigation rather than judge the one presented to it or that the judge has the right to judge the defendant guilty once the jury has found him innocent.

 

It looks like I'm dealing with squidward Jr.

There is not one thing above that makes any sense or even addresses what I posted with any reasonable clarity. It's not even a legible English sentence. I'm guessing you didn't even understand anything I posted. Sorry, I can't make it much simpler than what I posted so even a person with your challenged intellect can understand it. I think I'm done here, thanks anyway. I might as well be discussing nuclear physics with a simian.

 

Judge Nap is so good, and Trump is so lost.

 

You have no clue what you are talking about - you have arbitrarily made up your own definition of socialism - not that you have even given a coherent definition - like I did.

Do explain how you figure that wealth redistribution is not Socialism ??

 

You're doing a pretty poor job discussing this topic

 

What part of their oath states that they will clean up the shitty job of the House which has sole power of impeachment and failed to bring so called vital evidence, which was their job.
The incompetent **** ups need the Senate to do their job?

 

Gotta quit typing on my damn phone. But we are indeed done you want three sets of rules. One for Trump one for Clinton and one for everyone else. Sorry life doesn't work. Either all impeachments are conducted in the same fashion or we are stuck with purely arbitrary bs and justice is a meaningless term.

 

You appear to be trying to define socialism as anything and everything government does. That is, of course, horse ****.

 

Agreed!

Romney is less likely to face a primary challenge from the extreme right than Amash for no other reason than that he has the money to defend himself.

And yes, the GOP does punish dissent in their ranks while the Dem's allow their members more leeway. In that regard it gives the Dems an edge in that they can win elections in areas that more conservative by appealing to moderates and keeping them happy.

 

I gave you my definition - It is you who has yet to come up with one - or any coherent response to my definition.

If you don't like mine - for reasons you can not explain - then come up with your own.

The only clue you have given so far - to this mysterious definition of yours - is the Wealth Tax. aka - wealth redistribution via taxation.

I get that you don't like paying tax - few do - but what ever is required to pay for Gov't spending - is what the tax will be ..

How is it that you do not understand that we have to pay the bill ? - and all that has to be paid for via some form of wealth redistribution - mostly Taxes.

It is not Fantasy - to suggest that the Military (Total Spend) is paid for by tax dollars - collected via wealth redistribution - to the tune of 1 Trillion per year +

What is Fantasy - is you suggesting that this is not the case. You don't get to pick and choose how socialism is dispersed - saying "this is paid for by wealth redistribution and this isn't"

It is pooling of collective resources that makes a strong military possible ... brought to you via wealth redistribution - someone has to pay the piper at the end of the day.

 

Not one Democrat voted with the bi partisan acquittal in the House. All cowards. Mitt Romney is the real coward here. Now your side praises him. It is empty praise because in 2016 you painted him as the devil incarnate! Whatever suits your purpose is game for you! Mitt will be on the trash heap of history shortly like Benedict Arnold. The British did not have much use for him after he betrayed out Nation. Mitt is a lost soul.

 

Socialism is government control of the economy. Which has nothing to do with the roads which help the economy, a military that defends the country, or a border wall that acts as a force multiplier, for organizations and equipment that exist to control entry into the country.

 

He handles it but complains more loudly than other presidents. No other president in my lifetime has faced the sheer amount of resistance, hatred and harassment as Trump.

 

Obama faced the same harassment but because he never WHINED about it like your criminal IMPOTUS does he just gives the erroneous impression that it is more.

 

Oh BS Obama spied on the AP, tried to have James Rosen jailed on trumped up charges. And didn't face 10 10% of the scrutiny Trump did and stone walked to perfection what he did get.

 

My post stands as written, the majority of the Senate violated their Oath by failing to conduct a legitimate trial by first corrupting the trial BEFORE it even started then deliberately failing to incorporate and review ALL the evidence available and/or ignoring it.

Nothing to discuss here, you're implying I posted that impeachments have different rules depending on who is being impeached. Perhaps because either you have reading comprehension issues, you don't understand what I post or you just want to try to divert the discussion because you have no legitimate argument(s). I posted no such thing and I'm not going to discuss YOUR phony implication. Either way I can't discuss anything with someone who can't or won't participate genuinely and reasonably.

 

You are no other Senate hearing on an impeachment went outside what the house brought to them yet you insist this one should.

 

I'm sure you think so

The House prosecutors violated their Oath by "failing to incorporate and review ALL the evidence available and/or ignoring it."

The Senate tried the case the House prosecutors prepared and submitted

 

Not even close.