FriscoKid said:

---

You guys have fun.

I've sent multiple e-mails trying to figure out why I received a ban. Until I figure that out, I'm frankly afraid to talk politics.

---

Yeah, I got two weeks recently for a lack of staff reading comprehension. I said it was unfair that some others were being labeled as bigots with twisted words and logic, but staff was so busy banning others and adding snarky responses that I guess they misinterpreted my post.

FriscoKid,

Are you talking about a ban in the past? This doesn't seem the kind of thread where it would result (they tend to have a certain context).

titan said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Interesting. So Schiff is a mega-liar among a pack of liars. It seems the whistleblower's attorney doesn't care for him using his client.

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a recording of this, right? Or Sondland will confirm what the aide said, right?

You morons do see how this falls apart because it's both hearsay and he said/he said...

---

Two direct witnesses, not hearsay. I bet Sondland gets his memory "jogged" again on Wednesday. The only morons here are the ones sticking their head in the sand.

---

What about the one's *****ing, crying, and calling for impeachment because Trump tried investigating the extreme corruption and election interference committed by Democrats?

The lack of self awareness and hypocrisy from the left is simply mind blowing

The left is trying to impeach a sitting president because he's investigating their corruption and half of the country and the media are in cahoots with them, let that sink in.

We are so screwed as a country if this happens, it's not even funny. Your libertarian ideals are slipping further and further away each day as the Democrats gain more power, but go ahead and keep cheering them on.

---

That's just the thing. Running interference for all that doesn't sound `Libertarian' at all -- its been indistinguishable from DNC flyer talking points mostly.

MetoliusAg said:

---

titan said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Interesting. So Schiff is a mega-liar among a pack of liars. It seems the whistleblower's attorney doesn't care for him using his client.

---

---

So that would be a textbook case of twitter just being a morass of contradictions. Okay.

Now are you going to answer this broad theme query?

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3062870/replies/55400634

Yeah a lot of times it just the babies crying to mods and flagging. Depends on who it is.

MetoliusAg said:

---

titan said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Interesting. So Schiff is a mega-liar among a pack of liars. It seems the whistleblower's attorney doesn't care for him using his client.

---

---

I'm not believing a word coming out of the mouths of pajama boy's lawyers. Even if they could show actual threats, there's a good chance they're coming from the typical deranged liberals trying to paint the right in a bad light.

aggieforester05 said:

---

The lack of self awareness and hypocrisy from the left is simply mind blowing

---

Zealots have no self awareness; only "the cause". Because everything they do is for "the cause" there can be no hypocrisy. That's why they're so damn dangerous.

That's exactly what I was about to post.

99% of Met's shtick is linking "anonymous sources" that fit his agenda and ignoring when the direct sources publicly contradict them.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a recording of this, right? Or Sondland will confirm what the aide said, right?

You morons do see how this falls apart because it's both hearsay and he said/he said...

---

Two direct witnesses, not hearsay. I bet Sondland gets his memory "jogged" again on Wednesday. The only morons here are the ones sticking their head in the sand.

---

How long did you and metolius stay on the "quid pro quo" message? How long did I tell you two "quid pro quo" was a meaningless battle?

I'm telling you right now. Your argument has to be that investing Burisma and Hunter Biden was not in the national interest. Not only is this a weak argument, it's already been refuted by several witnesses called by schiff.

The president used his legal powers, just in a way that hurt the feelings of the establishment. Good luck lying your way to removing the president.

Bo: Iirc, I never stated that I believed her or disbelieved her. Neither Blasey Ford nor Bret Kavanaugh struck me as believable, accurate, mentally stable, or truthful in their testimony.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Bo: Iirc, I never stated that I believed her or disbelieved her. Neither Blasey Ford nor Bret Kavanaugh struck me as believable, accurate, mentally stable, or truthful in their testimony.

---

It's pretty sad that you can't see through the Democrat lies during this event. This was one of the most shameful displays of political assassination this country has ever seen. The Democrats that perpetrated this are truly terrible human beings.

OPAG said:

---

Quote:

---

Historically since WW2 about 30% of US ambassadors usually are political appointees in each administration. The other 70% are chosen from career professional State Dept. employees, people like Taylor and Yovanovitch.

---

He also had just stated the President couldn't hire and fire who every he wants constitutionally. This was part of his answer. Again, no law, statuate or constitutional implication that the president does not have absolute authority to pick or remover any Executive branch dept head as they so see fit.

---

Go back and re-read the two hypothetical examples I posted. The limitation imposed on Presidential powers by the Constitution and the oath of office isn't a difficult concept, OpagAg.

(edited to correct a typo in my typing of the word 'hypothetical')

Random diplomat Met had never heard of "honorable, patriotic, distinguished, super amazeballs".

Supreme court justice "mentally unstable liar."

Riiiiiiiiiiight. Surely your agenda isnt clowding your judgement, chief?

titan said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Titan: btw, here's a twitter thread you **might** find [alarming / educational / revealing] in regard to the mentality and deductive capabilities of the pro-Trump "Deep State Coup" conspiracy-believing rightwing.

---

I saw that. It was an eyeroll. But there is plenty of mis-information being passed around by tweets on both sides. I am aware there is an off-the rails element on the right too. Looking currently more at the macro picture.

---

Unfortunately, that twitter thread is a macro picture of the RWM and the Trump supporting faction of the GOP. The twitter thread beautifully and succinctly illustrates the utter stupidity, dishonesty, and willful discarding of facts fueling the ongoing 3-year conspiracy binge of the RWM and the Trump supporters who drink the koolaid.

Quote:

---

Would you answer the theme of this post-- just the basic idea? Its been asked by more than a few and in different ways?

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3062870/replies/55398854

---

Gladly. Will need a clarification first, though. Here is what AginAlaska posted:

Quote:

---

Here is what I don't get. Let's say it's all true. And he did everything they said he did.

Why would I support the Democrats?

---

The clarification I need: Is AginAlaska asking:

1. "Even if Trump committed bribery and extortion, why would I support the Democrats in the next election?"

or is he asking:

2. "Even if Trump committed bribery and extortion, why would I support the impeachment and removal of the Potus?"

Gary Johnson said:

---

WTF

---

No new information here. This was established in the transcript

aggieforester05 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Bo: Iirc, I never stated that I believed her or disbelieved her. Neither Blasey Ford nor Bret Kavanaugh struck me as believable, accurate, mentally stable, or truthful in their testimony.

---

It's pretty sad that you can't see through the Democrat lies during this event. This was one of the most shameful displays of political assassination this country has ever seen. The Democrats that perpetrated this are truly terrible human beings.

---

That dude has never been objective. He thinks carter was a great president and then turned on his hero McCain as soon as he needed to vote for Obama

I asked this question last night and did't get an answer so I will ask again.




This is what I don't get. Let's say it's all true. And he did everything they said he did.

Why would I support the Democrats?

Quote:

---

Go back and re-read the two hylothetical examples I posted. The limitation imposed on Presidential powers by the Constitution and the oath of office isn't a difficult concept, OpagAg.

---

No you need to quote those limitations from the constitution. Secondly you created a straw man as is your way. Trump did not do any of that to this lady. He was not abusing his executive authority in any way.

If he did, the Obama really abused his authority firing every ambassador left over from Bush first day of office.

It is for you to state the law and statute or constitutional provision that Trump has abused, not this straw man BS you're throwing up there as is your custom.

agsalaska said:

---

I asked this question last night and did't get an answer so I will ask again.




This is what I don't get. Let's say it's all true. And he did everything they said he did.

Why would I support the Democrats?

---

This is where I'm at.




And it's a point that Etcetera and other liberals avoid like the plague.

MetoliusAg said:

---

titan said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Titan: btw, here's a twitter thread you **might** find [alarming / educational / revealing] in regard to the mentality and deductive capabilities of the pro-Trump "Deep State Coup" conspiracy-believing rightwing.

---

I saw that. It was an eyeroll. But there is plenty of mis-information being passed around by tweets on both sides. I am aware there is an off-the rails element on the right too. Looking currently more at the macro picture.

---

Unfortunately, that twitter thread is a macro picture of the RWM and the Trump supporting faction of the GOP. The twitter thread beautifully and succinctly illustrates the utter stupidity, dishonesty, and willful discarding of facts fueling the ongoing 3-year conspiracy binge of the RWM and the Trump supporters who drink the koolaid.

Quote:

---

Would you answer the theme of this post-- just the basic idea? Its been asked by more than a few and in different ways?

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3062870/replies/55398854

---

Gladly. Will need a clarification first, though. Here is what AginAlaska posted:

Quote:

---

Here is what I don't get. Let's say it's all true. And he did everything they said he did.

Why would I support the Democrats?

---

The clarification I need: Is AginAlaska asking:

1. "Even if Trump committed bribery and extortion, why would I support the Democrats in the next election?"

or is he asking:

2. "Even if Trump committed bribery and extortion, why would I support the impeachment and removal of the Potus?"

---

You don't know what bribery and extortion are. Every $ of foreign aid we send out has strings attached. Every. Single. Dollar.

Bo Darville said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

I asked this question last night and did't get an answer so I will ask again.




This is what I don't get. Let's say it's all true. And he did everything they said he did.

Why would I support the Democrats?

---

This is where I'm at.




And it's a point that Etcetera and other liberals avoid like the plague.

---

Yea they do.

I rarely, if ever, hear the liberals making a case for their own party. It is always orange man bad

So they want me to support the impeachment of a duly elected president for asking a foreign leader to investigate a political rival for corruption(Biden) so I can what, support the political rival who is corrupt? Or maybe I can support the person who faked being an Indian that has a 52 TRILLION dollar health care takeover plan? Or one of the others that wants to confiscate firearms, or open the safety net to illegals?

That just doesn't make any sense.

MetoliusAg said:

---

titan said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Titan: btw, here's a twitter thread you **might** find [alarming / educational / revealing] in regard to the mentality and deductive capabilities of the pro-Trump "Deep State Coup" conspiracy-believing rightwing.

---

I saw that. It was an eyeroll. But there is plenty of mis-information being passed around by tweets on both sides. I am aware there is an off-the rails element on the right too. Looking currently more at the macro picture.

---

Unfortunately, that twitter thread is a macro picture of the RWM and the Trump supporting faction of the GOP. The twitter thread beautifully and succinctly illustrates the utter stupidity, dishonesty, and willful discarding of facts fueling the ongoing 3-year conspiracy binge of the RWM and the Trump supporters who drink the koolaid.

Quote:

---

Would you answer the theme of this post-- just the basic idea? Its been asked by more than a few and in different ways?

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3062870/replies/55398854

---

Gladly. Will need a clarification first, though. Here is what AginAlaska posted:

Quote:

---

Here is what I don't get. Let's say it's all true. And he did everything they said he did.

Why would I support the Democrats?

---

The clarification I need: Is AginAlaska asking:

1. "Even if Trump committed bribery and extortion, why would I support the Democrats in the next election?"

or is he asking:

2. "Even if Trump committed bribery and extortion, why would I support the impeachment and removal of the Potus?"

---

Well just answer the part replied with. I have added elements to emphasize the point:

Quote:

---

Then you look at what Trump has done for the bulk of the country, while the Democrats and MSM have done nothing - just improved their own lives. While wanting to favor anarchy on the streets, open borders, gutting the GDP, and crippling ROEs. Its kind of surprising they are so dumbfounded at the choice being made.

---

Expand to the above tearing down capitalism, promoting socialism, continuing to fan race-division instead of meritocracy, sowing needless confusion about even genders for a fringe, getting ever more tyrannical in tone and thought-control even while wanting to tread on the 2nd A (while still not really killing swiftly murderers or leaning on the media not to hype them) and even running down the Western World in education. Road-blocking assimilation by rushing large numbers, the list goes on.

None of this is based on tweets--its the direct statements of your party leaders and policies and event the front-runner candidates now (Tulsi excepted, a few others unknown) . A good example is immigration - They get in the way of every attempt Trump has made to do anything about fixing it or slowing it. Even in his CinC capacity. And for almost all of the above--you can find a direct example of it going on---its not imagined.

Why on earth would one care about a quid pro quo with a country that we could easily defeat if we needed to--the stakes are too paltry.

It seems all you are trying to say is that the Trump administration are crooks and liars LIKE the Democrats. But at least their policies aren't as toxic. What is your answer? Don't you see compared to what your side is pushing, none of this matters? There isn't a JFK or even a Jimmy Carter Democrat tone to it anymore. Its Euro-socialist.

Quote:

---

I'm telling you right now. Your argument has to be that investing Burisma and Hunter Biden was not in the national interest. Not only is this a weak argument, it's already been refuted by several witnesses called by schiff.

---

The state department continues to urge Ukraine to investigate Zlochevsky. Rudy's "investigation" findings were turned over to Trump's state department and dismissed as non credible(shocker).

Trump wanted a public pronouncement, a publicity stunt, that made it appear the Ukrainians independently found evidence of corruption by the Bidens, and that Trump had not forced it.

This is banana republic ****** and not in the national interest. It only serves Trump's selfish interest.

agsalaska said:

---

Yea they do.

I rarely, if ever, hear the liberals making a case for their own party. It is always orange man bad

So they want me to support the impeachment of a duly elected president for asking a foreign leader to investigate a political rival for corruption(Biden) so I can what, support the political rival who is corrupt? Or maybe I can support the person who faked being an Indian that has a 52 TRILLION dollar health care takeover plan? Or one of the others that wants to confiscate firearms, or open the safety net to illegals?

That just doesn't make any sense.

---

BINGO. Wish saw that before wrote all the above. But the question is the same.

One other thing: It is fact, not a tweet, not a claim or conspiracy theory --that the Democrats declared "resistance" in Inauguration Week itself, talked of "scorched earth" and were talking about impeaching both Trump and Pence as early as 2017. How precisely is that to be seen as anything other than corrupt? Seriously.

Yep.

And I think I ask a very fair question, yet our resident liberals do not want to answer it.

Deats said:

---

EOT

https://www.instagram.com/tv/B45r4UMgcCA/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm telling you right now. Your argument has to be that investing Burisma and Hunter Biden was not in the national interest. Not only is this a weak argument, it's already been refuted by several witnesses called by schiff.

---

The state department continues to urge Ukraine to investigate Zlochevsky. Rudy's "investigation" findings were turned over to Trump's state department and dismissed as non credible(shocker).

Trump wanted a public pronouncement, a publicity stunt, that made it appear the Ukrainians independently found evidence of corruption by the Bidens, and that Trump had not forced it.

This is banana republic ****** and not in the national interest. It only serves Trump's selfish interest.

---

The state department isn't a law enforcement arm. Their opinion on the evidence doesn't matter.

Trump also ask/pressured Ukraine to work with the DOJ and Bill Barr. The public announcement and Ukraine investigation aligns Ukraine with our DOJ and foreign policy. All legal bud. Or do you think we have NEVER pressured other countries to make public statements before?

Not shocking you only want to see things through your lense. But you have been wrong almost this entire time. Maybe if you were discussing relevant things a month ago, like I had, you have some credibility on the subject.

agsalaska said:

---

Yep.

And I think I ask a very fair question, yet our resident liberals do not want to answer it.

---

I've responded to your question (see my post up above, on this page of the thread) by asking you to please clarify. Waiting on you to do so.

Quote:

---

The clarification I need: Is AginAlaska asking:

1. "Even if Trump committed bribery and extortion, why would I support the Democrats in the next election?"

or is he asking:

2. "Even if Trump committed bribery and extortion, why would I support the impeachment and removal of the Potus?"

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Yep.

And I think I ask a very fair question, yet our resident liberals do not want to answer it.

---

I've responded to your question (see my post up above, on this page of the thread) by asking you to please clarify. Waiting on you to do so.

---

Yea I see it now. Sorry. I missed it because it didn't turn blue on my replies.

First, I am getting up to speed on what you guys are calling it now. It was quid pro quo. It is now Bribery and extortion.


So, to clarify, even if it is all true, why would we support the Democrats?

You ask whether in the impeachment hearing or the next election as if this is all in a vacuum. They are the same thing. They are dependent of one another. You cannot support the impeachment of the President without supporting the opposition party. Any argument that they are independent is just total nonsense. If Republicans supported the impeachment of the President they would guarantee the suicide of the Republican party and mass election losses next year.

And who would be winning that election? Either a Democrat that is the actual corrupt one(Biden), or the 52 Trillion dollar fake Indian, or the gun grabbers, or the open border supporters, etc.

Why would we ever support that? Trump may be an idiot in your eyes, but he is a useful one.

I was just getting ready to paste this, but agsalaska's post sums it up well too.

What was going to say is this:
I just realized where talking past one another -- I think you don't realize that to a great many, it is about competing policies being offered, not procedures-or methods ---- or things like nepotism or same-old-same old behind doors stuff or process crimes. In fact, there is an underlying cynicism that not much happens today that is not tarnished in government. So most people are looking for the one least harmful to their way of life. Pushing all the junk the Left wants above is the most harmful.

What the Left Democrats are pushing these days make it a no brainer---even the Marines taking control to prevent the imposition of socialism and thought-control would be tolerable.

So on one level, its not really about all the he said, she said. Its about the fact of pushing back against the counter-coup launched in January 2017 against putting America back on a more healthy course and unleashing its economy.

RGLAG85 said:

---

Deats said:

---

EOT

https://www.instagram.com/tv/B45r4UMgcCA/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

---

---

It's like our Share Blue friends are ignoring this.

agsalaska said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Yep.

And I think I ask a very fair question, yet our resident liberals do not want to answer it.

---

I've responded to your question (see my post up above, on this page of the thread) by asking you to please clarify. Waiting on you to do so.

---

Yea I see it now. Sorry. I missed it because it didn't turn blue on my replies.

First, I am getting up to speed on what you guys are calling it now. It was quid pro quo. It is now Bribery and extortion.


So, to clarify, even if it is all true, why would we support the Democrats?

You ask whether in the impeachment hearing or the next election as if this is all in a vacuum. They are the same thing. They are dependent of one another. You cannot support the impeachment of the President without supporting the opposition party. Any argument that they are independent is just total nonsense. If Republicans supported the impeachment of the President they would guarantee the suicide of the Republican party and mass election losses next year.

And who would be winning that election? Either a Democrat that is the actual corrupt one(Biden), or the 52 Trillion dollar fake Indian, or the gun grabbers, or the open border supporters, etc.

Why would we ever support that? Trump may be an idiot in your eyes, but he is a useful one.

---

I heart this post so much. Supporting impeachment hurts myself my community and my family.

Deats said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

Deats said:

---

EOT

https://www.instagram.com/tv/B45r4UMgcCA/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

---

---

It's like our Share Blue friends are ignoring this.

---

That's the other part of it. Something that is so hardly a "there" there - there is expectation to care about something maybe a little irregular or little too -- what -- about firing a member of one's own administration?

Like Bo Darville said, the main point is those in the know know that the election and impeachment are the same. Trump is the only one with the resources and energy to fight this kind of thing --- any of the other GOP of 2016 would have folded by now. (Cruz has the will, but the resources part would have got him)

So there is no separating them.

That's will have to do for reply. Off to the campout.