Not only thank you for making this about me. Also, thank you for being a damned piece of crap loser troll and posting about me. Can't have a discussion around here without your idiot nonsense now, can we.
How to post like Whiskey
Step 1: Call anyone who talks about Trump “clownass obsessed lunatic victims”.
Step 2: Get mad at anyone who doesn’t buy into that BS.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. But don't expect pity when your audience once again demonstrates that they see through your routine.
Panny, thank you for another post about me. Got anything else to talk about? or just me.
Consider sticking to the facts, panny. but do feel free to just post about me. Remember, if it is not going your way, you can always just move the posts around to alter the speech and content.
Gunnar, I often incline to agree with your comments but I think you are a bit carried away here. Perhaps remembering that the House does not have authority to remove a president from office gives perspective. I think your wish is very remote. The next presidential election is more likely to be able to effect change.
By the way, I find Whiskey often a bit unclear but in this case I saw no uncertainty. Whiskey saw Jones as not trustworthy, not reliable, and not a good source. Unlike his follow up insult, I just think you got carried away in a rush missing what he meant.
I fully understand that the house does not have the authority to remove a president, but they can vote for an impeachment trial which then becomes the obligation of the Senate to conduct. The real difficulty is, of course, getting 2/3 of the Senate to vote guilty. The majority of the Senate did in fact vote guilty (57 to 43 including 7 Republicans), in the second impeachment of Trump, which was just 10 short of the required 2/3. It may be improbable that enough Senate seats would flip to Democrat in the '26 midterm elections, but it may not be entirely inconceivable that, given Trump's rapidly declining poll ratings, enough Senate seats could be flipped, combined with enough additional Republicans becoming sufficiently disgusted with Trump to result in the necessary 2/3 of Senators voting for conviction. I don't deny the unlikelihood of that, but I can't help hoping for that outcome, nevertheless. I don't think it is at all unlikely that a majority of the house will be Republican after, or even before the '26 midterms, and will once again vote for impeachment.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Gunnar, I often incline to agree with your comments but I think you are a bit carried away here. Perhaps remembering that the House does not have authority to remove a president from office gives perspective. I think your wish is very remote. The next presidential election is more likely to be able to effect change.
By the way, I find Whiskey often a bit unclear but in this case I saw no uncertainty. Whiskey saw Jones as not trustworthy, not reliable, and not a good source. Unlike his follow up insult, I just think you got carried away in a rush missing what he meant.
I fully understand that the house does not have the authority to remove a president, but they can vote for an impeachment trial which then becomes the obligation of the Senate to conduct. The real difficulty is, of course, getting 2/3 of the Senate to vote guilty. The majority of the Senate did in fact vote guilty (57 to 43 including 7 Republicans), in the second impeachment of Trump, which was just 10 short of the required 2/3. It may be improbable that enough Senate seats would flip to Democrat in the '26 midterm elections, but it may not be entirely inconceivable that, given Trump's rapidly declining poll ratings, enough Senate seats could be flipped, combined with enough additional Republicans becoming sufficiently disgusted with Trump to result in the necessary 2/3 of Senators voting for conviction. I don't deny the unlikelihood of that, but I can't help hoping for that outcome, nevertheless. I don't think it is at all unlikely that a majority of the house will be Republican after, or even before the '26 midterms, and will once again vote for impeachment.
One scary thought is that if Trump, and only Trump, is successfully impeached and convicted, J.D. Vance would become President. I don't think he would be a much better, if any, choice than Trump. Perhaps even worse would be if Trump and Vance are both successfully impeached while Mike Johnson is still Speaker, making him the new President! I think he is a dangerously ignorant religious fanatic who is both anti-democracy and anti-science!
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Gunnar, I often incline to agree with your comments but I think you are a bit carried away here. Perhaps remembering that the House does not have authority to remove a president from office gives perspective. I think your wish is very remote. The next presidential election is more likely to be able to effect change.
By the way, I find Whiskey often a bit unclear but in this case I saw no uncertainty. Whiskey saw Jones as not trustworthy, not reliable, and not a good source. Unlike his follow up insult, I just think you got carried away in a rush missing what he meant.
I fully understand that the house does not have the authority to remove a president, but they can vote for an impeachment trial which then becomes the obligation of the Senate to conduct. The real difficulty is, of course, getting 2/3 of the Senate to vote guilty. The majority of the Senate did in fact vote guilty (57 to 43 including 7 Republicans), in the second impeachment of Trump, which was just 10 short of the required 2/3. It may be improbable that enough Senate seats would flip to Democrat in the '26 midterm elections, but it may not be entirely inconceivable that, given Trump's rapidly declining poll ratings, enough Senate seats could be flipped, combined with enough additional Republicans becoming sufficiently disgusted with Trump to result in the necessary 2/3 of Senators voting for conviction. I don't deny the unlikelihood of that, but I can't help hoping for that outcome, nevertheless. I don't think it is at all unlikely that a majority of the house will be Republican after, or even before the '26 midterms, and will once again vote for impeachment.
Vindictive and emotional use of impeachment would be great - for Trump.
