self inflicted

more like this.

lol

:)

Lol, I was going to use that image for the same purpose! I tend to stay away from posting on this stream, though. Bravo! 👍

smart, lol

ty

Do people here actually think the Dems didn't know that this could and probably would hurt them politically??
It musta been that Trump derangement syndrome huh.. them Dem politicians were blinded by Trump hatred so bad that they didn't know they don't have senate majority! Inconceivable!! lulz :P

"Do people here actually think the Dems didn't know that this could and probably would hurt them politically??"

I think the Dems were grasping at straws and will do anything

heheeee

No but if you are correct and the dems will do anything and are entirely partisan...... why so fast???? It seems to me their best course of action would've been to push the inquiry, investigation, etc well into 2020.. right before the election if possible. (Despite how awfully partisan THAT would've looked... ) Doing it now means it'll probably be a distant memory (if people even remember at all) come November. Who knows though....... someone else I was talking to on here seems to think Pelosi wont give the articles of impeachment to the senate until election time.

Yes, we do think that. Democrats were hoping they could damage his reputation enough to sway the 2020 election outcomes. Numerous pieces of evidence point to this. Democrats openly admitted that they needed to move quickly with the house impeachment because of the upcoming 2020 election. Once the impeachment was finished in the house - they reversed the rush to impeach by delaying in sending the articles of impeachment to the house. Again, to delay until the election. This has partisan politics written all over it.

1. As far as I know, you can't open an impeachment inquiry into an ex-president.. (which seems entirely plausible considering the last election was more or less 50/50.. ) So the impeachment inquiry would definitely need to be before Nov 2020.. ... Imo the best time to politically hurt Trump (if that had been their motivation) would be maybe September-November 2020 but that would obviously smack of partisan politics and would be quite a while to wait... And considering the Dems will also be trying to nominate their own candidate and help em campaign against Trump (which might be quite an uphill battle), they might have their hands full in 2020 without conducting an impeachment inquiry... so ya..not moving quickly to get it done before the 2020 election would've been a horrible idea.

2. Damage his reputation?? We're still talking about the guy who has lawyer "fixers" pay off porn stars and Playboy Bunnies, right? The guy who's had his university and charity shut down for fraud? That guy? The p*ssy grabber? His reputation will be damaged? Lol I can't.....

3. There's no f*cking way they're "delaying this until the election"... They're simply trying to fight tooth and nail to get a fair trial. And it probably won't make any shred of difference considering McConnell has publicly stated that their position on the impeachment is the same as the president's. They've also been stonewalling and I think Graham said he didn't care to see any witnesses and that he's not even going to pretend not to be biased or something like thst. Idk...

But if the Dems delay sending the articles of impeachment to the house until Nov 2020 feel free to call me out for being wrong on that.

1. This is entire diatribe is built on the assumption and your mere opinion that the only way to hurt Trump would be if they were to do it according to your arbitrary time table. So, thanks for your opinion. I think.

2. You're conflating separate topics here chief. One is his reputation, the other are things which Democrats think will hurt his reputation. Do you not see the distinction? Or do you need me to further mush it up like baby food for you and get out a dictionary?

3. This is built on the same assumption as the first thing you typed. They don't have to wait until the election to hurt him. That is your assumption, but they're not going to hurt him anyways, so the topic is pointless to discuss anyways.

In regards to McConnell and Gram being biased. It has nothing to with that. It has to do with them having watched the clown show in the house since the beginning and already being familiar with the case. And what they're most familiar with is the fact that there is zero evidence the president committed an impeachable offense.

Democrats have known since Trump was elected that they would impeach him. Even liberals have openly admitted this. They just had to decide what for. The petty phone call was the best they could come up with. So now, because their case is weak they need to do all kinds of political gymnastics to give it weight.

You took a whole lot of space typing a whole lot of nothing based on mere opinions, arbitrary preferences, and assumptions.

You're going to need to do better. I don't need to call you out, because your entire nonsense response is based on the assumption that they need to wait till November. They don't.

1. My comments about the "arbitrary time table" was in regards to your comment: "they 'openly admitted' that they needed to move quickly with the house impeachment because of the upcoming 2020 election". I'm pretty sure election day isn't arbitrary and tbh I haven't researched the inability to impeach people no longer in office but I'm pretty sure that's also not an opinion.. feel free to prove me wrong.

2. Those were specific examples supporting his reputation for basically being a dirt bag. Maybe you're the one needing to read a dictionary? "reputation" - a widely held belief or opinion.

3. You said they're delaying it until the election. (An opinion)
I said delaying it until the election would have hurt him the most but I seriously doubt they will do that (also an opinion)....
but speaking of conflating, "the best way" ≠ "the only way". Idk why you thought I said that but I didn't say that.

Nobody forced the repubs or Trump to block the aid, ask Ukraine to investigate his rival, or stonewall after the fact. Trump's own mouth ended up impeaching him. Gee who coulda seen that one coming?

I need to do better?? Lol bruh you took one part of my response, misinterpreted it, and then falsely claimed my entire response was based on it.. So tell me more about opinions. Mash it up like baby food or whatever the f*ck you were talking about. Lol
:)

" I'm pretty sure election day isn't arbitrary and tbh I haven't researched the inability to impeach people no longer in office but I'm pretty sure that's also not an opinion.. feel free to prove me wrong. "

No, election day is not arbitrary, but your assumption that Trump will lose the election and that they need to carry out the impeachments before that time in fact is.

What's also not clear is why you think they would have to impeach a president who loses an election. Which again, is a mere opinion. Their claim is not to move quickly before election day or before he is no longer president, but so that he does not "Abuse his power " to sway the election.

This was the original charge. Have you forgotten? That he was engaging in a " Quid pro quo " with a Ukrainian official to get dirt on Biden - a political opponent. This is what the Democrats are claiming as their motive. Your claims are mere opinions.

" 2. Those were specific examples supporting his reputation for basically being a dirt bag. Maybe you're the one needing to read a dictionary? "reputation" - a widely held belief or opinion. "

On the contrary. These are examples you're alluding to that you believe should be a reason for him to have a damaged reputation - not examples of a damaged reputation Again, You don't seem to understand the distinction between the two.

Let me expound. I as a public figure can commit what many would interpret as all sorts of immoral or shady acts. However, as to whether or not that actually damages my reputation in the eyes of my constituents is a separate issue. Understand now?

"3. You said they're delaying it until the election."

Meaning, that they're delaying to drag out the process as long as possible. If they send the impeachment articles to the senate immediately - The senate will shoot them down and it will it will start to be forgotten.

""the best way" ≠ "the only way". Idk why you thought I said that but I didn't say that."

This is an argument from silence fallacy. Your words directly implied it by repeatedly mentioning the election date. They do not have to wait till election day to damage him politically. This is what your repeated allusions imply.

And even if we use your claim with it being about Democrats not being able to impeach a former president. Why would they want to? Impeachment is to get him out of office so he can't do any more damage. You seem to think it's about some kind of political retribution.

1. I'm not assuming he'll lose.. I am assuming him losing the election is more likely than his buddies in the senate removing him from office. "they need to carry out the impeachment before that time in fact is [a fallacy]". Bro seriously? You think they'd hold off impeachment until after his re-election (or possible loss), nearly a year and a half after the incidents in question?? I'm not questioning "why they would have to impeach a president who loses an election", I'm questioning if it's even possible to do. Because if it's not, there is a chance they'll not be able to. And that chance is probably greater than the chance of the senate giving him the boot.

2. If you already have a reputation of being a dirtbag, committing more acts of dirtbag-ism does not change your reputation. I understand repubs probably don't think he has that reputation but moving on..

3. I'm still trying to follow your logic here.. You're saying dems rushed the first part- impeachment inquiry/investigation, etc, ending their part about a year before election day, but now are delaying the last part as long as possible, to influence the election... If they wanted the impeachment concluded and as fresh as possible in people's minds, rushing the first part doesn't make sense to me.. maybe I'm missing something?

I am looking at it in terms of them being what I perceive your perception of them to be.. Purely partisan and openly admitting it.. Out to get Trump.. So I'm saying ok let's say you're right. If that was true, what would they do? Maybe I'm wrong about your opinion of the situation though.

1 of 2“1. “

“I'm not assuming he'll lose.. I am assuming him losing the election is more likely than his buddies in the senate removing him from office.”

Neither is likely. McConnell already said the impeachment will be dead on arrival once opening statements are made in the senate. And do you really think Biden and Bernie Sanders, both having one foot in the grave and the other on a Banana peel, will beat Trump?

"they need to carry out the impeachment before that time, in fact, is [a fallacy]".

Which is a claim you made – not me.

“Bro seriously? You think they'd hold off impeachment until after his re-election (or possible loss), nearly a year and a half after the incidents in question??”

No, but you apparently do. Hence you bringing up that they can't impeach a former president. You don't appear able to even follow your own prior statements.

“I'm not questioning "why they would have to impeach a president who loses an election", I'm questioning if it's even possible to do.”

Yes, the direct implications of your comments demonstrate that's exactly what you're questioning. It's a dumb question to ponder and irrelevant from the topic.

“Because if it's not, there is a chance they'll not be able to.”

Who cares if they're able to impeach a president after he's out of office. The question is stupid. The man will be out of the office. So what if they can't impeach him. What is the point of even asking such a silly question & how is it relevant to the current discussion?

“And that chance is probably greater than the chance of the Senate giving him the boot.”

Neither is likely. McConnell already said they will kill the impeachment on arrival after opening statements - as they should - and do you really think Bernie or Biden – the Democrat front runners - will beat Trump?

“2. If you already have a reputation of being a dirtbag, committing more acts of dirtbag-ism does not change your reputation.”

Which is nothing but an empty, question-begging, claim, only applicable to those like yourself who already see him as having a bad reputation and those acts you listed as having lead to it. You have had this explained repeatedly and you still don't get it.

What is claimed an individual may do to ruin their reputation and whether or not those acts actually ruin his reputation are an entirely separate issue you don't appear to hold the intellectual capacity to grasp. People didn't vote for Trump to be a preacher, but a president.

So Dems reallllly hate Trump and have wanted to impeach him since day one... but I could see them waiting until December 2020 to try and impeach him. Totally logical. Them "admitting" it needed to be done before that time was a red herring.

"People didn't vote for Trump to be a preacher, but a president".. I actually agree. Some acknowledge that Trump has a reputation for being a low key dirt bag and voted for him anyway.

Skip to 7. Pelosi asking for a fair trial after McConnell and Graham publicly stated they have no interest in a fair trial was a genius move on her part.. It gives her the perfect cover!!

"So Dems really hate Trump and have wanted to impeach him since day one... but I could see them waiting until December 2020 to try and impeach him. Totally logical. "

It sure is, but they may not wait that long. They have to do political gymnastics because of their weak case. If they just sent the articles of impeachment over to the senate, they would be killed and that would be the end of it and it would soon begin to be forgotten. That's not what they want. They need to keep their clown show going.

"Them "admitting" it needed to be done before that time was a red herring. "

This is what they themselves said. Once they rushed the hearings, they began to pack pedal and put the brakes on.

" I actually agree. Some acknowledge that Trump has a reputation for being a low key dirt bag and voted for him anyway. "

You completely missed the point and it's on purpose that you did. They didn't vote for him to be a preacher is not necessarily an indictment on his reputation or character, but to communicate that you can't be a nice guy in the times in which we're living. Trump is precisely the kind of person we need in the White House.

Democrats have come to realize that arguing with Trump is like wrestling in the mud with a pig. They have realized that the pig actually likes it.

"Skip to 7. Pelosi asking for a fair trial after McConnell and Graham publicly stated they have no interest in a fair trial was a genius move on her part.. :"

Pelosi has never made " genius move " in her political career, nor is it going to move the senate in bowing to her terms because the articles she and the house drew uphold no merit.

"It gives her the perfect cover!! "

It gives her none and exposes the weakness of her case. If the case was strong, the articles would be sent over.

2 of 2. “I understand repubs probably don't think he has that reputation but moving on..”

He only holds such a reputation with Democrats. That's my point. Their claims of what he has done to be this awful person is a moot point.

“3. I'm still trying to follow your logic here.. You're saying dems rushed the first part- impeachment inquiry/investigation, etc, ending their part about a year before election day, but now are delaying the last part as long as possible, to influence the election... “

In Part. Yes.

“If they wanted the impeachment concluded and as fresh as possible in people's minds, rushing the first part doesn't make sense to me.. maybe I'm missing something? “

Delaying a hearing is not the same as delaying articles of impeachment being sent over to the senate. The delaying of bills being sent over to the senate is common practice in Congress. Dragging out a hearing is not.

“I am looking at it in terms of them being what I perceive your perception of them to be.. Purely partisan and openly admitting it.. Out to get Trump.. So I'm saying ok let's say you're right. If that was true, what would they do? Maybe I'm wrong about your opinion of the situation though.”

1. There is zero evidence of an impeachable offense.
2. Congress charged Trump with obstruction of justice for going to the courts. That act itself is an abuse of power by Congress, says Jonathan Turley, a law scholar who testified at the hearing and voted against Trump.
3. After Trump went to the courts they rushed the hearings and demanded Trump come up with all this information in a short period of time.
4. The Ukrainian official Trump talked with himself said there was no Quid Pro Quo. None ! .
5. Not a single Republican in the house voted for the impeachment and two Democrats became Republicans as a result of what they said is a clear abuse of power by Democrats ( So far )
6. Once the articles of impeachment were drawn up - Now Pelosi is engaging in political gymnastics by delaying sending them to the Senate because she knows it has no chance of being approved in the Senate.
7. The fact that Pelosi even asked for a “ Fair trial “ Which means she wants them to pass the articles – demonstrates her failure to understand the judicial process. It's the accused who is to have a fair trial – not the prosecution – which in Pelosi's mind – means for them to pass the articles in spite of the clown show to draw them up in the house in the first place.

"They reversed the rush to impeach by delaying in sending the articles of impeachment to the house.
..Again, to delay until the election."

So Pelosi has now sent the articles of impeachment to the house and the election is still 10 months out... Seems like it'll be pretty difficult for them to stall the Senate trial for that long but I guess we'll see...

Nancy in February "Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.”

and Yet Here we are...

and just a week ago

“It’s been going on for 22 months. Two and a half years actually,” Pelosi said at Politico’s “Women Rule”

How can it have been going on for 2.5 Years if his 'crimes' only happened in the Summer of 2019?
Her own words betray their agenda, no matter how much she talks out of both sides of her mouth

Not wanting a president to call on foreign leaders to influence our elections should be bipartisan. I've said this many times but if President Obama had asked the president of Kenya to dig up dirt on Trump while cutting off their aid, and then claimed everything was perfect nothing to see here while stonewalling, the repubs would be screaming bloody murder.

Trump's own mouth ended up getting himself impeached.. if you didn't see that coming, you haven't been paying attention.

Unless you assume Biden is the DNC's Chosen one,

asking them to investigate Him attempting to help Hunter 9 months before the first DNC Primary and Over a year ahead of the general Election is not "Influencing our Election"

and so far as I know Trump has never set foot in Kenya, so asking Them to look at Trump would reek of shenanigans and be quite dubious

I don't care if Joe Biden was the absolute least likely candidate, Trump and his lawyer shouldn't be getting foreign governments involved. I don't agree with your assessment but at least you admit this was specifically about Biden... (Some won't even do that..) but ya this was only one of 3 times that I'm aware of that he's personally called upon other countries for help in this area and we can not let that become the norm.

Maybe one of Trump's sons or daughters has set foot there.. idk. It was just a hypothetical. I'm not saying there is a there there. (Not that there needs to be.. lol)

You seem to miss the point that aid was cut off by Republicans (not Trump) long before the phone call and before Bidens video got out.

Not Trump? Lol.. Tell that to Trump.

https://youtu.be/JaIp3cdOxXI

IF it was not specifically Trump's decision to block the aid , his words imply he was heavily involved in the decision... Also for the record his "pressuring European countries to give Ukraine more money" excuse is interesting considering European countries have been giving Ukraine hundreds of millions $$ more than the US has for years.

Also yes.. aid was blocked before the phone call.. it was a dangling carrot, not a punishment.

But it was a question of 'Undo Pressure" on same said 'Foreign Power'...

or are you saying that all 35 Dem candidates should have been 'immune from investigation' regardless of their actions for so long as their Campaigns are by some measure deemed 'Active' ...

Lets say we wake up tomorrow morning and a video is leaked of (IDK) Tom Steyer Kicking Puppies and Punching Kittens... are you saying that because he's a 2nd? tier candidate he should get a pass on any or all questions related to those acts so long as he keeps his campaign offices open?

For the record I only picked Steyer because he seems to have the most ads in my market (yet the least Media attention, by scale)I have no idea about his attitude towards Kittens and Puppies