Moderator: Community Team
The U.S. Senate on Saturday acquitted former President Donald Trump on an impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection.
The acquittal comes more than a month after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers were counting the electoral results that certified Trump's loss. Five people died in the riot, including a police officer. Two other officers later killed themselves.
In a narrowly divided Senate, the outcome of the trial, which lasted a little less than a week, was largely expected
A majority of senators voted to convict Trump — 57 to 43, including seven Republicans. But two-thirds, or 67 votes, was needed to convict. It was the second time Trump was acquitted in an impeachment trial.
The seven GOP senators who voted to convict Trump on Saturday were: Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Trump is the first president in U.S. history to be impeached by the House twice, and the first to be tried for impeachment after leaving office.
In a narrowly divided Senate, the outcome of the trial, which lasted a little less than a week, was largely expected,.....
jusplay4fun wrote:
There were never 17 Republican votes in the Senate to convict and the Democrats failed to make a case worthy of conviction.
Zieborn wrote:Hopefully it's Duterte.
saxitoxin wrote:Zieborn wrote:Hopefully it's Duterte.
I'm down with that.
Zieborn wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Zieborn wrote:Hopefully it's Duterte.
I'm down with that.
His campaign slogan could be "Duterte: I'm warming up the helicopters."
https://www.msn.com/en-in/lifestyle/lif ... vi-BBxFx3k
jimboston wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:
There were never 17 Republican votes in the Senate to convict and the Democrats failed to make a case worthy of conviction.
Which is it?
Were there NEVER 17 Republican votes?
-or-
Did the Democrats fail to make a case?
I mean people like to claim “it’s both” in cases like this... but it really is only one.
If they were never going to get the 17 votes... which they weren’t, and which they knew... then the case made (or lack thereof) is moot.
The case presented was not intended to change the minds of Senators... because that wasn’t going to happen.
The case presented was a show for political purposes designed almost solely to pander to the Democratic base.
If there was a chance they actually could get the votes, the case would’ve been presented with that goal in mind.
jusplay4fun wrote:It is BOTH.
1) It was predicted by news outlets I monitor. The likelihood of 17 GOP votes was slim to none.
2) The case the Democrats made to the Senate jurors was not good enough to convince 17 GOP Senators to convict Trump. They got 7 of 17 needed.
BOTH.jimboston wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:
There were never 17 Republican votes in the Senate to convict and the Democrats failed to make a case worthy of conviction.
Which is it?
Were there NEVER 17 Republican votes?
-or-
Did the Democrats fail to make a case?
I mean people like to claim “it’s both” in cases like this... but it really is only one.
If they were never going to get the 17 votes... which they weren’t, and which they knew... then the case made (or lack thereof) is moot.
The case presented was not intended to change the minds of Senators... because that wasn’t going to happen.
The case presented was a show for political purposes designed almost solely to pander to the Democratic base.
If there was a chance they actually could get the votes, the case would’ve been presented with that goal in mind.
jimboston wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:It is BOTH.
1) It was predicted by news outlets I monitor. The likelihood of 17 GOP votes was slim to none.
2) The case the Democrats made to the Senate jurors was not good enough to convince 17 GOP Senators to convict Trump. They got 7 of 17 needed.
BOTH.jimboston wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:
There were never 17 Republican votes in the Senate to convict and the Democrats failed to make a case worthy of conviction.
Which is it?
Were there NEVER 17 Republican votes?
-or-
Did the Democrats fail to make a case?
I mean people like to claim “it’s both” in cases like this... but it really is only one.
If they were never going to get the 17 votes... which they weren’t, and which they knew... then the case made (or lack thereof) is moot.
The case presented was not intended to change the minds of Senators... because that wasn’t going to happen.
The case presented was a show for political purposes designed almost solely to pander to the Democratic base.
If there was a chance they actually could get the votes, the case would’ve been presented with that goal in mind.
So the case wouldn’t have been made differently if there was actually a real chance of getting the Republicans to flip?
You fall down on the right side of the argument 80% of the time... but your points are always so generically obvious or just dumb.
This point you made is just bland mimicry of mainstream news.
jusplay4fun wrote:More than 80% of my posts reflect thoughtful views. Most of yours are merely reactionary and lack significant thought. Your failure to realize or admit that the two positions are not mutually exclusive is one such indication.jimboston wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:It is BOTH.
1) It was predicted by news outlets I monitor. The likelihood of 17 GOP votes was slim to none.
2) The case the Democrats made to the Senate jurors was not good enough to convince 17 GOP Senators to convict Trump. They got 7 of 17 needed.
BOTH.jimboston wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:
There were never 17 Republican votes in the Senate to convict and the Democrats failed to make a case worthy of conviction.
Which is it?
Were there NEVER 17 Republican votes?
-or-
Did the Democrats fail to make a case?
I mean people like to claim “it’s both” in cases like this... but it really is only one.
If they were never going to get the 17 votes... which they weren’t, and which they knew... then the case made (or lack thereof) is moot.
The case presented was not intended to change the minds of Senators... because that wasn’t going to happen.
The case presented was a show for political purposes designed almost solely to pander to the Democratic base.
If there was a chance they actually could get the votes, the case would’ve been presented with that goal in mind.
So the case wouldn’t have been made differently if there was actually a real chance of getting the Republicans to flip?
You fall down on the right side of the argument 80% of the time... but your points are always so generically obvious or just dumb.
This point you made is just bland mimicry of mainstream news.
jimboston wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:More than 80% of my posts reflect thoughtful views. Most of yours are merely reactionary and lack significant thought. Your failure to realize or admit that the two positions are not mutually exclusive is one such indication.jimboston wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:It is BOTH.
1) It was predicted by news outlets I monitor. The likelihood of 17 GOP votes was slim to none.
2) The case the Democrats made to the Senate jurors was not good enough to convince 17 GOP Senators to convict Trump. They got 7 of 17 needed.
BOTH.jimboston wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:
There were never 17 Republican votes in the Senate to convict and the Democrats failed to make a case worthy of conviction.
Which is it?
Were there NEVER 17 Republican votes?
-or-
Did the Democrats fail to make a case?
I mean people like to claim “it’s both” in cases like this... but it really is only one.
If they were never going to get the 17 votes... which they weren’t, and which they knew... then the case made (or lack thereof) is moot.
The case presented was not intended to change the minds of Senators... because that wasn’t going to happen.
The case presented was a show for political purposes designed almost solely to pander to the Democratic base.
If there was a chance they actually could get the votes, the case would’ve been presented with that goal in mind.
So the case wouldn’t have been made differently if there was actually a real chance of getting the Republicans to flip?
You fall down on the right side of the argument 80% of the time... but your points are always so generically obvious or just dumb.
This point you made is just bland mimicry of mainstream news.
Yawn.
Also... how come you don;t seem to be able to follow the forum convention of putting the quote first?
Jdsizzleslice wrote:Are you just now coming to this conclusion? Lol.
jusplay4fun wrote:I was trying to be FAIR and give Jim-B the benefit of doubt.
I think he is going into the deeper "end" on a more steep inclined path, now.
jusplay4fun wrote:I was trying to be FAIR and give Jim-B the benefit of doubt.
I think he is going into the deeper "end" on a more steep inclined path, now.Jdsizzleslice wrote:Are you just now coming to this conclusion? Lol.
jimboston wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:I was trying to be FAIR and give Jim-B the benefit of doubt.
I think he is going into the deeper "end" on a more steep inclined path, now.Jdsizzleslice wrote:Are you just now coming to this conclusion? Lol.
I don’t need you to be fair.
Thanks
Falkomagno wrote:and with this, we can conclude that the whole trump chapter is going to fade away from the media, as the trainwreck it was...
saxitoxin wrote:Falkomagno wrote:and with this, we can conclude that the whole trump chapter is going to fade away from the media, as the trainwreck it was...The GOP’s choice in 2024: Trump Ultra, Trump Lite or Trump Zero
Trump, the keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference, is the party's undisputed leader at the moment, and for the foreseeable future. At least eight 2024 hopefuls will speak at CPAC, the conservative movement’s premier conference this weekend in Florida, giving Republicans their clearest look yet at who’s competing in the traditional GOP presidential lanes.
But there’s only one lane that really matters: the one currently occupied by former President Donald Trump.
Trump Ultra - There’s a saying by some in Trump’s orbit that “if you’re with him 99 percent of the time, you’re a damn traitor” — a testament to the absolute, unwavering loyalty he demands. Those purity and loyalty tests make the Trump Ultra lane one of the toughest to run in.
Trump Lite - The Trump Lite lane is populated by candidates who have put any daylight — however little — between themselves and the former president.
Trump Zero - “It’s probably not even a lane,” Kochel said. “It’s more like a gravelly shoulder on the side of the mountain that’s about to crumble into the ocean.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/2 ... ump-471565
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users