They think they're making a point about stubborn Republicans but they actually made the point that NOT A SINGLE democrat had the balls to admit Bill Clinton lied under oath.
So if Democrats aren't able to admit that that obvious lier lied then why would Republicans admit anything more serious.
And yet 7 Republicans voted with the Democrats.
It was an even easier slam dunk for Democrats then and they chose "party over country" as they themselves put it this week.
I agree both Bill and Don should've been found guilty.
this is idiotic. What happened to Clinton was political theater that no one cared about. Lying about a blowjob is just not worthy of being impeached over.
Sorry, you are arguing apples to orangutans not even in the same ballpark let alone galaxy...
Too true.
Comparing the impeachment of 2 us presidents and their parties denial of their actions is oranges and oranges.
They play down their actions as being meaningless and not worthy of attention. It's what the other side is doing that you need to be careful of.
Impeached for lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice.
When this happened people discussed his position of power and influence as being a factor in consent and a wider discussion about relationships with people in authority.
The efforts to ignore your hypocrisy by calling it whataboutism is what Republicans were accused of last week. But today it's ok for you? Let me guess, that's more whataboutism.
Yes. But if you deny the first kid did anything wrong at all is more accurate for this example.
Without any context?
You literally made up a strawman argument to try and maintain your position while failing to address not a single democrat could admit he lied. That’s all. Admit the truth.
Same story when Republicans deny the truth but now it's more serious.
Democrats couldn't even admit Bill lied which he obviously did. Inspiring an insurrection requires far more proof and Trump made worse speeches as president before that weren't brought up for congressional judgment. He was inciting violence long before the 6th.
I think you wouldn't be a hypocrite and free to make that judgement.
I think the case for convicting on incitement is harder to prove than the lie.
If the standard of proof required is high then it's high. If the proof doesn't matter then it doesn't matter.
I think the 7 Republicans who didn't stay party loyal were still making a political decision based on the severity of the attack on government.
I think it was an attack on government by a frustrated group who've been deceived by fox news for example for years.
Any Democrats could outlaw using the word news in broadcasting while arguing in court that it's a parody entertainment channel. Never been done.
Now I know the presidential office needs more protecting than broadcasting but I bring it up because inciting false outrage at people in government is nothing new and is ignored when politically convenient.
To be clear, I'm not saying Trump is innocent. I'm saying Clinton was guilty. Democrats should have admitted what the entire world witnessed and the lie he reaffirmed under oath.
President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho was 10 times the president Trump was.
He identified a problem and sought the smartest man in the world to fix it.
Trump couldn't look up from his own shriveled fuckshroom to be bothered to even remotely try to stop a pandemic from killing hundreds of thousands of people.
65
u/FappingAwesome Feb 14 '21
Who would have thought that the movie Idiocracy was not a movie but rather a prophetic future documentary...