Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[zenkai]

0 days since work place accident means that there was an accident that day. 0 days since Schiff followed the rules means that Schiff followed the rules that day.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the reason you can't explain basic "logic" is because you lack basic logic.

day 1 there is an accident sign now reads "0 Days since lost time accident"
day 2 there is an accident sign now reads "0 Days since lost time accident"
day 3 there is an accident sign now reads "0 Days since lost time accident"
day 4 there is an accident sign now reads "0 Days since lost time accident"

According to your logic there wasn't an accident on day 1, 2, or 3. Nice logic

[nonameelf]

day 1 there is an accident sign now reads "0 Days since lost time accident"
day 2 there is an accident sign now reads "0 Days since lost time accident"
day 3 there is an accident sign now reads "0 Days since lost time accident"
day 4 there is an accident sign now reads "0 Days since lost time accident"

According to your logic there wasn't an accident on day 1, 2, or 3. Nice logic

The sign doesn't tell you more than that though. It only tells you when the last accident was, not what accidents came before the last one.

You should stop talking about logic now.

[StarDog]

Can we all... Stop with this "0 days since thing?"

Does this count as thread derailment?

[We are covfefe]

Yes it is. Just report it and move on.

[Paranoid Android]

Wrapping up on set today-- a takeaway: Congressman Will Hurd (R-TX), a moderate, said while the president acted inappropriate on the call he does not see anything impeachable-- if you can't get Will Hurd it will be tough to get 20 GOP senators #FoxNews https://t.co/InndPoGQUa

https://twitter.com/BretBaier/status...573167617?s=19

So much from the strong, outgoing Representative, Will Huard. Again using the defense 'Trump is too much of a moron to commit this crime'.

Also he didn't believe any of the testimony as damning evidence.

[Edge-]

Oh look that means I wasn't sarcastic yesterday

Not gonna get bogged down in this nitpicking that's remarkably similar to what Republicans are doing during the inquiry, but it'd help if you linked to the actual for-sale product you grabbed the image of.

https://joyhip.com/collections/sarca...c-gifts-idea-1

0 Days Without Sarcasm Funny Unique Sarcastic Made-To-Order Bamboo Coasters For Drinks Is A Great Gift For Snarky Friends & Family. These Cute Coaster Set Of 4 Is A Meaningful & Memorable Gifts.

Because they're always sarcastic, not because they're never sarcastic.

It's ok to be wrong and admit you were wrong/made a mistake. It happens to all of us. All you're doing now is proving that you're not capable of admitting when you're wrong, which kinda doesn't help gain you any credibility.

But that's all I have to say on this since it's largely unrelated to the thread.

Republicans can't even heckle right.

[Casterbridge]

no it doesn't, the number will just mean indefinite 0s until he follows the rules

If you have a sign that say s 0 Days before lost time accidents and you have 5 accidents in 5 days in a row, does that mean you didn't have an accident yesterday? How the fuck does that make sense?

Here is an example of 0 days since humor since you people are having a hard time grasping it.



Oh look that means I wasn't sarcastic yesterday

If you have a sign that says 0 days since your last accident, it literally means you just had an accident, how is this not clear? If you have an accident 5 days in a row, each day the counter resets back to (or in this case stays at) 0, because there was, again, just an accident. IF you make it through 7 days without an accident the sign should say "It has been 7 days with no lost time accidents" In this case you want the number to be bigger, if on the 8th day you have another accident the sign again resets back to 0.

I'm not sure how you posting a random image is helping your case, but the sign is literally saying there have been no days since the last sarcasm incident, sarcasm has just occurred, it's not a rolling history, it's just reporting the latest recorded event.

As to the republican sign, it literally is saying the last recorded event of Schiff following the rules was 0 days ago, it's not a statement of what he did 2 days ago or a week or a 100 years ago, only that is has been 0 days since he followed House Rules, it's not what they intended obviously they want to imply he has not followed the rules at all, instead they imply he has been.

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

[Breccia]

Also he didn't believe any of the testimony as damning evidence.

So it's time to force the issue. Make the GOP say
1) Trump intentionally directed his staff and Giuliani to collect dirt on a political opponent
2) He withheld aid until Ukraine agreed
3) and they just don't care.

Make them say that. In public. Sign their name. Force the issue.

[Stormspellz]

How many votes do they need for the senate to impeach him? And do they have to be Republican votes?

2/3, so 67(exact number could vary with open seats), about 22 republican senators to vote for the country over party; so its highly unlikely he gets removed.

[Flarelaine]

While discussion of a sign displayed at the hearing is techinically within the remit of the thread, I believe that wasting several pages on grammar is not productive.

[Grapemask]

2/3, so 67(exact number could vary with open seats), about 22 republican senators to vote for the country over party; so its highly unlikely he gets removed.

Poor Nixon, he should have waited 45 years to be president. Could have broken into Watergate himself on live video and kept his presidency.

[cubby]

Poor Nixon, he should have waited 45 years to be president. Could have broken into Watergate himself on live video and kept his presidency.

Holy shit. Trump is being impeached 45 years after the last GOP criminal president went through impeachment. And for those in the bleacher seats, Cheeto is our 45th.

[StarDog]

2/3, so 67(exact number could vary with open seats), about 22 republican senators to vote for the country over party; so its highly unlikely he gets removed.

One of the many many ideas--all equally silly and never going to happen ever--of allowing Republicans to do the right thing but not HAVE to do the right thing is having 29 GOP senators mysteriously not be present during the vote, lowering the threshold of a 2/3 vote to be exactly how many D senators there are.

This will obviously not happen.

Same with "secret ballots" or whatever else gets cooked up as a desperate scheme to let Republicans off the hook.

[cubby]

One of the many many ideas--all equally silly and never going to happen ever--of allowing Republicans to do the right thing but not HAVE to do the right thing is having 29 GOP senators mysteriously not be present during the vote, lowering the threshold of a 2/3 vote to be exactly how many D senators there are.

This will obviously not happen.

Same with "secret ballots" or whatever else gets cooked up as a desperate scheme to let Republicans off the hook.

I've seen that idea pop up a few times. And while the result would be ideal, the methods would be so ridiculed that it might not "work", with Trump claiming the vote was unconstitutional, and suing for relief.

Moreover, and more importantly (but not above getting Trump out of office - there is nothing of more precedent than that), we wouldn't get the GOP Senators on record and voting to keep in office a felon con artist grifter.

[Thekri]

One of the many many ideas--all equally silly and never going to happen ever--of allowing Republicans to do the right thing but not HAVE to do the right thing is having 29 GOP senators mysteriously not be present during the vote, lowering the threshold of a 2/3 vote to be exactly how many D senators there are.

This will obviously not happen.

Same with "secret ballots" or whatever else gets cooked up as a desperate scheme to let Republicans off the hook.

While all of these strategies are possible, all of them would require the GOP to want Trump removed. Which they sort of do, they just don't want to die with him.

If either strategy was considered, McConnell would simply force a resignation instead. Way cleaner and less damaging to them.

[Belize]

Can you imagine having so few arguments to defend Trump that you barge in the thread to debate the meaning of a sign that was conceived by immature children?

How embarrassing would that be.

- - - Updated - - -

I've seen that idea pop up a few times. And while the result would be ideal, the methods would be so ridiculed that it might not "work", with Trump claiming the vote was unconstitutional, and suing for relief.

Moreover, and more importantly (but not above getting Trump out of office - there is nothing of more precedent than that), we wouldn't get the GOP Senators on record and voting to keep in office a felon con artist grifter.

It also wouldn't work because Democrats could just say "We all voted to remove, good luck theorizing about what Republican did too".

It would poison the entire GOP well due to suspicions alone.

[Grapemask]

One of the many many ideas--all equally silly and never going to happen ever--of allowing Republicans to do the right thing but not HAVE to do the right thing is having 29 GOP senators mysteriously not be present during the vote, lowering the threshold of a 2/3 vote to be exactly how many D senators there are.

This will obviously not happen.

Same with "secret ballots" or whatever else gets cooked up as a desperate scheme to let Republicans off the hook.

Yeah, was it this thread where someone posted the link to how secret ballots could actually be a thing? It would only take 3 Republican senators to force the Senate to adopt secret ballots when they vote on the rules of the trial. There are already 3 who have signaled that they're not fully on board with the president's actions. But realistically, even good old Pierre Delecto is probably going to deepthroat the orange when he actually has to put up.

[Skulltaker]

day 1 there is an accident sign now reads "0 Days since lost time accident"
day 2 there is an accident sign now reads "0 Days since lost time accident"
day 3 there is an accident sign now reads "0 Days since lost time accident"
day 4 there is an accident sign now reads "0 Days since lost time accident"

According to your logic there wasn't an accident on day 1, 2, or 3. Nice logic

With your understanding of logic, you could work for Trump.

[Edge-]

https://www.newsweek.com/rudy-giulia...olomon-1473152

Giuliani is the gift that keeps on giving. He's now admitting he was John Solomon's source for a lot of the Ukraine/Biden hit-pieces he manufactured.

On Wednesday, Giuliani said during an interview with Beck that he sidestepped the FBI and Justice Department, and was the one who told Solomon to "put this all in the newspapers."

"I said to John, I think you should take the lead and we should put this all in the newspapers because if I go to the Justice Department now, they're going to say Trump is forcing the Justice Department to do it," said Giuliani.

"Let's put the darn thing out, and let's see if any of these crooked media people will follow up on a proven case of bribery," he continued. "And of course what we prove is, the double standard is so bad that they are faced with absolute proof that Biden paid a bribe."

He's literally admitting that yes, this was all about the Bidens, but that he knew the DoJ would tell him to fuck off if he asked them to investigate on Trump's behalf.

Instead he tried to use Solomon to "launder" the information.

[Zaktar]

While discussion of a sign displayed at the hearing is techinically within the remit of the thread, I believe that wasting several pages on grammar is not productive.

It's honestly emblematic of the whole impeachment process. There is an objective perspective on what their sign meant which has nothing to do with grammatical fussiness. The sarcasm sign was just a cherry on the top since the poster linked actual evidence against their argument in an attempt to support their point of view. It's gloriously on topic, Trumpism in a microcosm.