@Metal-Brain saidI already told you; 1 Republican Senator voted for conviction in Trump's first impeachment and 7 for his second. Only Murkowski is still in office.
Why should Rand Paul have wasted his time on something that could not possibly succeed? And voting for impeachment may have very well been political suicide for him. Again I ask you, how many of those 10 republicans that voted for impeachment are still in office?
I cannot tell you if Rand Paul would vote to impeach Trump now. You would have to ask him, but he might. He voted to end the Iran war. Remember?
Where'd the 10 number come from?
EDIT: If you're referring to the 10 Republican House members who voted for the second impeachment, not a single one will be in the next Congress. https://abcnews.com/Politics/house-republicans-voted-impeach-donald-trump/story?id=75235094
@no1marauder
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-who-voted-trumps-impeachment
So it would have likely been political suicide for a republican to vote to impeach Trump. Perhaps Rand Paul is smarter than you. For you to support impeachment for Trump in his first term and not now is perplexing from a logical standpoint. I believe you are defending Jeffries and the democrats that voted for him to defend the illogical defense of the democrat house of representatives. They do not represent us.
@kmax87 saidBecause Trump is not the only one implicated in the Epstein scandal, that's why. It goes deep and wide.
The GOP might see dumping Trump as a necessary step to start rehabilitating their image. Why they wouldn't want to distance themselves from the stench of the Trump/Epstein connection is anyone's guess.
@Metal-Brain saidIf a DA is reasonably sure a jury will not convict a defendant, he doesn't waste time and resources on a trial. It would be illogical to do so.
@no1marauder
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-who-voted-trumps-impeachment
So it would have likely been political suicide for a republican to vote to impeach Trump. Perhaps Rand Paul is smarter than you. For you to support impeachment for Trump in his first term and not now is perplexing from a logical standpoint. I believe you are defending Jeffries and ...[text shortened]... to defend the illogical defense of the democrat house of representatives. They do not represent us.
The Democratic House was elect to deal with the economic situation not pursue hopeless novelty items.
@no1marauder saidThen explain Hegseth.
If a DA is reasonably sure a jury will not convict a defendant, he doesn't waste time and resources on a trial. It would be illogical to do so.
The Democratic House was elect to deal with the economic situation not pursue hopeless novelty items.
They do not even have the votes yet that I am aware of until January. If they do can you explain to me why they didn't do that months ago if they have the votes now? And Massie will not be in office after January making it more weird.
And didn't you support impeaching Trump both times in his first term?
@Metal-Brain saidNo, I didn't support the 2nd impeachment which was after he left office.
Then explain Hegseth.
They do not even have the votes yet that I am aware of until January. If they do can you explain to me why they didn't do that months ago if they have the votes now? And Massie will not be in office after January making it more weird.
And didn't you support impeaching Trump both times in his first term?
It was not clear before the first impeachment that there would be little or no Republican support given the seriousness of the charge. We've learned a lot since then and it would be foolish to ignore these lessons.
@no1marauder saidSo you supported the first impeachment?
No, I didn't support the 2nd impeachment which was after he left office.
It was not clear before the first impeachment that there would be little or no Republican support given the seriousness of the charge. We've learned a lot since then and it would be foolish to ignore these lessons.
@no1marauder saidYou were convinced Trump incited an insurrection. That is what the 2nd impeachment was about. You thought he was guilty of insurrection and now you are claiming you did not support his impeachment despite attempting an insurrection?
No, I didn't support the 2nd impeachment which was after he left office.
It was not clear before the first impeachment that there would be little or no Republican support given the seriousness of the charge. We've learned a lot since then and it would be foolish to ignore these lessons.
I think you are lying. You just want to defend your party for not pursuing impeachment of Trump by making excuses for your party. Just like you made excuses for your party adopting Romney care and calling it Obamacare. Your party had the votes to reject the individual mandate and defended the republican health care plan anyway.
You are defending the do nothing party. Your party is no better than the republican party and you were duped into defending doing nothing....except try to impeach Hegseth. Your party is trying to give the appearance that will work. Are you going to defend that because that is what your party is doing (or making it look like they are doing) or are you going to criticize your party for wasting time with something that will never happen?
@Metal-Brain saidConversations with you always end up with you getting obnoxious as you can't adequately defend your positions. No, I'm not "lying" Mott Jr.; impeachment is to remove officials for acts during their tenure. So there's nothing inconsistent with opposing Trump's second impeachment but saying he should have been criminally prosecuted for his acts on January 6, 2021.
You were convinced Trump incited an insurrection. That is what the 2nd impeachment was about. You thought he was guilty of insurrection and now you are claiming you did not support his impeachment despite attempting an insurrection?
I think you are lying. You just want to defend your party for not pursuing impeachment of Trump by making excuses for your party. Just li ...[text shortened]... ng) or are you going to criticize your party for wasting time with something that will never happen?
The rest of your post is childish ranting.
@no1marauder saidI defend my positions well and you know it. And it is not my fault you get sore when proven wrong about rather trivial things. You do not get sore because others are obnoxious, you get sore because you can't handle being even slightly wrong about anything.
Conversations with you always end up with you getting obnoxious as you can't adequately defend your positions. No, I'm not "lying" Mott Jr.; impeachment is to remove officials for acts during their tenure. So there's nothing inconsistent with opposing Trump's second impeachment but saying he should have been criminally prosecuted for his acts on January 6, 2021.
The rest of your post is childish ranting.
Trump was not a war criminal in 2021. Most Americans want Trump impeached. That probably means a vast majority of democrats want him impeached. Jeffries lied when he said democrats do not want Trump impeached. 1 out of 7 republicans want him impeached.
You are like an elephant on a thin rope. 2 past impeachments that failed broke your will. And now democrats and Massie are trying to impeach Hegseth despite doing everything Trump wanted. As if Hegseth can be held accountable for following the president's orders without Trump being held accountable himself.
Explain why your illogical party is going after Hegseth and not Trump.
What is Hegseth guilty of that Trump is not guillty of? Nothing. By your own logic impeaching Hegseth is a waste of time. So why do you think they are doing it while letting Trump off the hook?
@Metal-Brain saidYou do realize a Republican filed the articles of impeachment against Hegseth?
I defend my positions well and you know it. And it is not my fault you get sore when proven wrong about rather trivial things. You do not get sore because others are obnoxious, you get sore because you can't handle being even slightly wrong about anything.
Trump was not a war criminal in 2021. Most Americans want Trump impeached. That probably means a vast majority of ...[text shortened]... Hegseth is a waste of time. So why do you think they are doing it while letting Trump off the hook?
My "will" is fine; I just see no political advantage in pursuing a hopeless impeachment when there are more useful things to do. If you're too stupid to understand that, then that's your problem, not mine.
- Joined
- 20 Oct 06
- Moves
- 11137
@no1marauder saidIt seems like there's momentum for this even among Republicans. Possibly, they are just sending a strong message that Hegseth should be fired. I think Hegseth's departure will be a great thing for gas prices, inflation, war efforts, the stock market etc, in the near term, and this is something that voters indicated that they cared about.
You do realize a Republican filed the articles of impeachment against Hegseth?
My "will" is fine; I just see no political advantage in pursuing a hopeless impeachment when there are more useful things to do. If you're too stupid to understand that, then that's your problem, not mine.
@wildgrass saidI'm not sure it won't have the opposite effect i.e. cause Trump to dig in his heels to keep Hegseth. After all most of the articles of impeachment concern policies which Trump constantly touts as great successes.
It seems like there's momentum for this even among Republicans. Possibly, they are just sending a strong message that Hegseth should be fired. I think Hegseth's departure will be a great thing for gas prices, inflation, war efforts, the stock market etc, in the near term, and this is something that voters indicated that they cared about.
I guess we'll know more when we see what the vote is in the House.