You completely dodged several of my questions. After reading this, along with your other posts, it's quite easy to see that you view things purely along partisan lines. You don't seem willing to even entertain notions that fall outside of party lines. You don't seem willing to debate in good faith. That's unfortunate. Maybe I'm wrong. Dunno.
Just because you think something is a red herring doesn't make it so. What Pelosi's comment demonstrates is that the people voting her and others like her into office is purely the result of mindless partisanship and that she is fully aware of it. I made appeals to the issue being a non-partisan issue, and rather one of career politicians abusing the system for personal gain. Your response was to play "what about" and name Republicans. You did so seemingly thinking that it somehow changes what I said. It didn't. Again, not confronting the issue in good faith, instead trying to justify it. Does your argument change the fact that the woman leading these proceedings is a career politician whose views on the electoral process is that people like her don't need to perform in order to justify being in charge because they are in safe districts? No. And it doesn't change my main point that we should not trust people like this with the immense level of power that she and people like her posses.
It's ridiculous to claim that the video lacking context is a legitimate reason to disregard his straight up admission to doing the same thing that Trump is being accused of while at the same time a vast majority of what Trump says is taken out of context, but the same courtesy is not extended to him (or his supporters, as evidenced by the multitude of attacks on Trump supporters across the country). It also doesn't answer my question as to whether or not you believe they should be investigated. It is an attempt to deflect.
Ukraine is not the only country that Trump is dealing with. By saying this, you are entirely disregarding a good portion of my original comment regarding Trump and China. That's a disingenuous way to treat the argument. Ask yourself why you completely skipped over my comments regarding Trump and China (which is widely known to be immensely corrupt at the government and top business levels, leading to their extraction of US IP and other harms to the US). Had you addressed it, then you wouldn't have been able to make the comment about about Trump only ...
By the way. Pelosi is still delaying tramsitting impeachment articles to the senate. Without that, nothing has taken place. "Get over it". Without transmission of the articles, the whole thing is an exercise in attempted political character assassination. It's also somewhat disingenuous that you completely disregard my appeal to the fact that this impeachment taking place in the way that it has is dangerous for our republic. They have been trying to get rid of him since his first day in office. It's a situation of them deciding on a punishment and then trying to find a crime to justify it. That's not how our legal system works. Even if you hate the man (which you clearly do), you should be against the notion of the presumption of guilt and requiring proof of innocence. Once again, that's just not how our system works.
I can see your argument that "High crimes and misdimeanors" can be interpretted to include character flaws, but once again, your comment does absolutely nothing to address the point that I made and instead attempts to deflect away from it. |
