Get over it - said Mulvaney

[Woodyl57]

Neither can you. Most of the stuff you spout out is insults and unsubstantiated nonsense and you are convinced, absolutely convinced, all you have to say is sooo obvious.

I am just playing your game, but you don’t like that and start calling people unchristian and fact less and ignorant and stupid. You will deny this I am sure because like Economist earlier, you think you are doing us all a favor in our ignorance and can’t see you are doing just what you accuse others of doing. Just like your Democrat heroes.

So yes, I repeat my last post. All I can do is laugh. I am not going to argue with someone more full of the derision they are accusing me and so many others of.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

In case you have forgotten, this thread is about how the president’s Chief of Staff said publicly in a press briefing that Donald Trump engaged in a quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government, and that we need to “get over” this fact. Calling this “unsubstantiated nonsense” (as the president would have you do) is pure intellectual dishonesty and doublethink.

Throughout this thread I have provided clear evidence for my claims where appropriate. For example on Sondland’s testimony that there was a quid pro quo. Or on the fact that Mulvaney’s testimony did in fact constitute an admission of impeachable conduct. Or on the fact that Trump is not actually motivated by concern about election interference. @F_Marturana beat me to the punch when she provided to you a direct link to Trump’s public-on-live-TV solicitation of collusion.
Moreover, to prove that my opinions on these facts about the administration (i.e. that they constitute attack on our democracy by the president) are not liberal smears, I cited the opinion of Pulitzer-prize-winning, conservative columnist George Will who shares my concerns.

In response, all you have posted is… An interview with conservative columnist Karl Rove in which he accuses the democrats of hyper-partisenship.

Given these facts, the only “sooo obvious” theme in this thread is the consistently superior intellectual seriousness of the president’s critics.

 

[Woodyl57]

In response, all you have posted is… An interview with conservative columnist Karl Rove in which he accuses the democrats of hyper-partisenship.

This post was to help explain where the opinions of those you disagree come from and why. Not meant to convince you to change your mind but help you understand where we are coming from. Your hate filled jab at it is insulting and and demonstrates you have no interest in being fair minded and reasonable. Your always right everyone else sucks. I get it.

childish denial-without-justification by his supporters.
[/quote

Again, your an angry person and mean spirited. Flag me if you wish, whine about dumb childish Trump supporters, insult some more I really don’t care. Go find someone else to shove your so called facts at.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

This post was to help explain where the opinions of those you disagree come from and why.

We had already seen where the president’s supporter’s opinions came from:

You enjoy being able to gloat about Trump’s victory. You think that I just hate Trump supporters like yourself which must be what makes gloating compatible with christian charity. In fact, you think we hate Trump Trump’s supporters so much that we have fabricated all the evidence against him in order to remove him from office. You also think that if the democrats fail to remove him legitimately, they will do something nefarious (a coup?) to achieve that end.

And nothing in the Karl Rove piece said anything to the contrary. He, like the posters in this thread, simply insinuates without evidence that something nefarious is going on in the impeachment process and insults democrats, rather than directly address the evidence against Trump.

So let me rephrase my earlier post. When confronted with the evidence against Trump provided in this thread, you have given no evidenced response whatsoever. Instead, you have attempted to deflect and shift the discussion to whether or not the democrats are/are going to conduct the impeachment fairly. I suspect the reason you have done this is that if you can find a way to make the impeachment process seem unfair, then the evidence against him will seem to be less valid by proxy.

This is, of course, an intellectually dishonest move, and absolutely gives you no justification for your conclusion “Most of the stuff you spout out is insults and unsubstantiated nonsense”

 

[JonNC]

As has been pointed out already in this thread, what the current Republican party is doing is attacking the legitimacy of the constitutional checks on executive branch.

Oh, please. Progressives have been attacking the constitution sonde the days of Woodrow Wilson. And in the last three years, they have been attacking the legitimately elected president using methods never seen in America before.
If the legislative branch wished to ”investigate” the president, do do in the open. Have a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry instead of hiding behind closed door tactics, while leaking out of context snippets.

So while the democrats do indeed believe government programs can improve life for Americans,

Democrats believe government programs can increase their power.

Republicans, on the other hand, appear to believe in a more authoritarian government than is laid out in the constitution and are attempting to implement it by a dereliction of their constitutional duties, and obstruction of their peers who attempt to execute them.

lol. Authoritarianism is a politician threatening to use government power to confiscate civilian firearms from law abiding civilians, ostensibly using government firearms to enforce it.
Authoritarianism is a politician threatening to impose government dictated healthcare and eliminating the right of individuals to use their own money to buy private plans.
Authoritarianism is confiscating American’s tax dollars to pay off education debts someone else willingly accepted.
Authoritarianism is ignoring article 1 section 8 as a matter of principle.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Oh, please. Progressives have been attacking the constitution sonde the days of Woodrow Wilson. And in the last three years, they have been attacking the legitimately elected president using methods never seen in America before.

So it will be really easy for you to provide some examples of both those claims, right?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

'You said what you said': Fox News' Chris Wallace rejects Mulvaney's attempt to walk back Ukraine comments

"No, you totally said that," Chris Wallace said after Mick Mulvaney denied admitting there had been a "quid pro quo" in aid to Ukraine.

www.usatoday.com

Tom Bossert, Trump’s former homeland security adviser, has said the notion that Ukraine was behind the DNC hack “has no validity.”
“It’s not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked,” Bossert said last month on ABC News’ “This Week.”

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Oh, please. Progressives have been attacking the constitution sonde the days of Woodrow Wilson. And in the last three years, they have been attacking the legitimately elected president using methods never seen in America before.

So it will be really easy for you to provide some examples of both those claims, right?

Read my previous post.

 

[JonNC]

And what he said is that the government regularly ties foreign aid to behavior. What he didn’t say is that there was a quid pro quo to
find dirt on Biden.