Trump Impeachment 2: Insurrection Boogaloo

[Guest Lobo]

I have no idea what's she's on in real life, if anything.  She might just be like that normally.  I dunno, I try not to judge in my old age.  I didn't start the rumors about Don, Jr.  They've been on the internet for years, probably longer.  You can tell from my mention of carpet stain remover huffing, I was being hyperbolic about Kimberly.  When it comes to Don, Jr.  I've never seen him actually inhale the drug directly into his body.  But I saw him in person, in Austin, 30 seconds before he did it, and 30 seconds after he did it, about 30 times.  At one point he had enough residual powder in his beard to knock most people on their ass. 

Again, not judging.  But the people knocking on Hunter Biden and demanding all drug offenders be locked up forever and screw the homeless with substance addictions...I felt it was okay to bring up.  I've hung with enough bands back in the day to know that you couldn't do the amounts Don, Jr. was doing unless you already had a massive tolerance built up, meaning weekly (or at least monthly) use.  You don't just go on vacation and decide to do 2-3 grams in a day, solo.  You have to build up to that for years, if not longer. 

All that said, yeah there was probably a time in my life where I would have followed Don, Jr. into the bathroom for a few lines and just gone along with everything he said, "Yeah dude, I totally get where your dad is coming from...fucking elections...why do we even have them when we know he's the best?  I mean, yeah---my mom is from Mexico but I say lock the rest of 'em up.  Hey, you gonna do that last halfsies on the vanity?"  

[TXSG8R 3,362]

He definitely looks like he is on something in a lot of videos, but I don't know that its coke.  At his age, if he was as frequent user as he appears to be he would be showing some signs of coke nose at this point, wouldn't he?  

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

8 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

He definitely looks like he is on something in a lot of videos, but I don't know that its coke.  At his age, if he was as frequent user as he appears to be he would be showing some signs of coke nose at this point, wouldn't he?  

Maybe they blow it up each other's asses like in Wolf of Wall Street

[Doc Reeves 6,434]

7 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

He definitely looks like he is on something in a lot of videos, but I don't know that its coke.  At his age, if he was as frequent user as he appears to be he would be showing some signs of coke nose at this point, wouldn't he?  

Yep. He would surly have a Dr. he could contact that would give him proper prescriptions. 

[Biff Tannen 45,695]

32 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Seems like heart attack or stroke country

[Doc Reeves 6,434]

22 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Hey, you gonna do that last halfsies on the vanity?"  

 

[Guest Lobo]

4 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Maybe they blow it up each other's asses like in Wolf of Wall Street

I would do that with her.  She shouldn't be doing that north of 50, but she's got that tall, (5'7") athletic build with DSL's that i like in a lady.  I'd be down to clown.  

[Js1 85,449]

9 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

Yep. He would surly have a Dr. he could contact that would give him proper prescriptions. 

Think that guy has a new job representing the Panhandle in Congress. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

it'll be interesting to see the actual argument over the last point.  when everyone was digging through the losers social media showing pre-Jan 6 statements that they were going to storm the castle, i was saying that is good evidence for trump.  the prosecution(?, whatever we call it) should detail how trump knew he was talking to tuned up people, knew that they were close to the edge, and his statements were intended to push them over the edge. you have to work their pre-existing anger into the narrative.  otherwise, trump can make the argument too easy that these were just nutballs.  if he said those same words in front of all of us, we'd just laugh at him.  trump needs to be seen as incorporating their unreasonableness into his decision to say all those things.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

Thanks for the info @Lobo. As mentioned, not something with which I am familiar.

[Guest Lobo]

I'd be worried if you had spent a lot of time watching rock bands and children of the Trump family do drugs.  I'm just a sucker for people watching.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

1 minute ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

it'll be interesting to see the actual argument over the last point.  when everyone was digging through the losers social media showing pre-Jan 6 statements that they were going to storm the castle, i was saying that is good evidence for trump.  the prosecution(?, whatever we call it) should detail how trump knew he was talking to tuned up people, knew that they were close to the edge, and his statements were intended to push them over the edge. you have to work their pre-existing anger into the narrative.  otherwise, trump can make the argument too easy that these were just nutballs.  if he said those same words in front of all of us, we'd just laugh at him.  trump needs to be seen as incorporating their unreasonableness into his decision to say all those things.

In addition, the Women for Trump was initially planning their "March to the Capitol" AFTER the inauguration and then resubmitted the permit for the 6th. Useful to know how that came about, that change....

[High Plains Drifter 11,050]

 

Sorry if this has already been addressed, but why is Roberts not presiding?

I didn't even know that was a thing.

And if not Roberts, why not another Justice?

[burntorangebongos 10,750]

16 hours ago, Lobo said:

"When we say people?  Why do we say that?  What makes a people, a person?  And who gets to decide whose people the person the people could be?  And that's really what Mr. Castor was trying to achieve in the hearing."  

That happened.  Today.  On CSPAN.  In the country my grandfather and father went overseas to protect.  Well done.  

The next part of their argument that will give the republicans senators a huge blanket of coverage due to its infallible logic is that the constitution is unconstitutional and therefore they must acquit. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

Just now, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Sorry if this has already been addressed, but why is Roberts not presiding?

I didn't even know that was a thing.

And if not Roberts, why not another Justice?

i think because the clause says "when the president is impeached" and not "former president."

[High Plains Drifter 11,050]

 

Was that the actual reason Roberts gave?

What a little bitch.

[Chad Fuck 17,698]

7 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

i think because the clause says "when the president is impeached" and not "former president."

Yes.  There is a also a conflict when the VP might be in a position to preside over a removal trial in the Senate but would succeed should removal be approved.  I didn't catch the reasoning on why the VP isn't presiding here and they went with the President Pro Tempore. 

I did hear that precedent is the President Pro Tempore of the Senate has presided over the impeachment of former Federal officers in the past.

 

[Chad Fuck 17,698]

1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Was that the actual reason Roberts gave?

What a little bitch.

It's not about what Roberts did.  It's about the Senate rules for its' own procedure.  The Constitution says the Chief Justice will preside in cases of impeachment of the President.  There can be only one President, and that is currently Biden.  So there is no reason to have the CJ preside as the removal of a President is not being considered. 

[Saint Tacky 1,614]

12 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Sorry if this has already been addressed, but why is Roberts not presiding?

It wasn't Roberts' choice. There's no obligation to use him since DJT is no longer President. Besides, he wasn't asked or didn't make a single, significant ruling during "Impeachment Boogaloo One", so I expect he'd have been even more useless this time.

[High Plains Drifter 11,050]

 

Thanks y'all.

 

Btw, what happened to the "thanks" emoticon? @immamac

 

 

[B00M 6,431]

7 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Was that the actual reason Roberts gave?

What a little bitch.

If I recall, the Dems actually went over this text from the constitution (presented on screen and everything because they prepared) because Roberts not being there was a Pub talking point for dismissal/bullshit. 

Edited February 10, 2021 by B00M

[Js1 85,449]

 

[conVINCEd 21,469]

Just now, Js1 said:

 

They should have used Kraken here.  “We have the Kraken and we intend to release it.”

[immamac 42,877]

 

8 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Thanks y'all.

 

Btw, what happened to the "thanks" emoticon? @immamac

 

 

it went largely unused so I replaced it with drool which is more used. 

[High Plains Drifter 11,050]

6 minutes ago, B00M said:

If I recall, the Dems actually went over this text from the constitution (presented on screen and everything because they prepared) because Roberts not being there was a Pub talking point for dismissal/bullshit. 

 

That's what I was kind of wondering-- if Roberts was trying to cast a veneer of illegitimacy on the trial by not presiding. Based on the responses above, I guess that is not the case, so maybe calling him a "little bitch" was a bit harsh.

Of course, there are plenty of other little bitches to fill the void.

[Js1 85,449]

Eh he’s still a little bitch 

[Chad Fuck 17,698]

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

 

I've heard this before.  Show me the money.

[Chad Fuck 17,698]

Just now, immamac said:

 

it went largely unused so I replaced it with drool which is more used. 

So is drool a positive or negative?  

[immamac 42,877]

Just now, Chad Fuck said:

So is drool a positive or negative?  

everything is pos rep except for fuck you, open to other neg options

[High Plains Drifter 11,050]

Just now, immamac said:

 

it went largely unused so I replaced it with drool which is more used. 

 

OK.

I would "thanks" your response, but I'll be damned if I "drool" over it.

 

 

[RomaVicta 29,949]

 

Hayden Horn: My contention is this: the republicans are in the big fight for their identity a decade from now. my point is that it's my belief that if they cut trump loose now, and they should, he might start his new party or whatever. but i think that machine is fading, and those voters, the patriots, the q people, are going to become disaffected and lost their steam for their movement. you can only string people along for a finite time period. they already did in georgia, which resulted in two democratic senators.

if they don't cut him loose, and matt gaetz and jim jordan and other fuckfaces are going to continue to stoke the crazy. had they chosen to cut him loose, i think it takes some of the air out of gaetz's sales, because those people on the capitol steps in wyoming aren't showing up unless their orange god is. 

 

I know, and my point is that they're past the point of no return now, for all intense and porpoises. Their golden opportunity to cut him loose as a party was right after 1/6. Obviously that's not happened, thus the cancer that is Trumpism will continue to grow within the Rs. 

I'm just not sure how you envision this turning around at this point. This is MTG's party now, not Turtle's. 

I couldn't read this thread last night after watching some of the impeachment and a few hours of post-game.

Two good posts above. I think Hayden Horn doesn't allow for the decades-in-the-creating hate engine that had become the basis for a religious (cult, what's the dif?) movement before Trump stepped up to the pulpit. That machine is still cranking out cranks, malign idiots, and malign folks whom you'd think would know better. Tiresomely: The electorate is the problem.

Hookah, I believe, sums up the likely future. "Trumpism will continue to grow with the Rs." 

Again, Trump just managed to slap his name on the hate engine (someone else's creation, of course) and re-brand what was already there.

We built this here grinder to grind imaginary liberals and the Democrat Party (tee-hee, that's just like calling UT tu! It really gets 'em!). We'll hide out in this big 'friderader where we'll be safe in case the grinder gets out of hand. Damn, we're smart.

Oh noes! Donald got a forklift and took control of the grinder!

Edited February 10, 2021 by RomaVicta

[formermav43 4,606]

1 minute ago, immamac said:

everything is pos rep except for fuck you, open to other neg options

I’d like another one. This is very unsurly of me, but I haven’t used it since it changed because it just seems too personally mean to the poster for my tastes rather than directed at the content of the post.

(Ducks for incoming negs.)

[formermav43 4,606]

1 minute ago, immamac said:

everything is pos rep except for fuck you, open to other neg options

I’d like another one. This is very unsurly of me, but I haven’t used it since it changed because it just seems too personally mean to the poster for my tastes rather than directed at the content of the post.

(Ducks for incoming negs.)

[B00M 6,431]

9 minutes ago, immamac said:

everything is pos rep except for fuck you, open to other neg options

Maybe a tiny fit lump

[sidis 9,832]

9 minutes ago, immamac said:

everything is pos rep except for fuck you, open to other neg options

"You Found Out"

"I'd Rather Fuck Fitlump"

"Derka, workswithseed, and Vic Think You're a Dipshit"

"I'd Rather Watch the 2011 RRS"

"You make Phlegm and closetojumping Seem Relatively Well-Adjusted"

[Pato del Muerto 52,535]

12 minutes ago, immamac said:

everything is pos rep except for fuck you, open to other neg options

You could really fire some people up with a trump related neg, like a “wrong” or a “you’re  fired” with a caricature of his face or something. 

[Js1 85,449]

15 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I've heard this before.  Show me the money.

If it's half as good as yesterday's video, it'll be good.  And new footage

[Degenerate Gardner 4,085]

26 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Thanks y'all.

 

Btw, what happened to the "thanks" emoticon? @immamac

 

 

We resolved to become less grateful in 2021.

You're welcome.

[Disco Strangler 1,879]

25 minutes ago, Js1 said:

 

So, the best is yet to come?  If it's what you say, I love it.

[TheStoicPaisano 9,922]

25 minutes ago, immamac said:

open to other neg options

Wanker/Keaton wankoff.

[TwiceHorn 31,513]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

I would do that with her.  She shouldn't be doing that north of 50, but she's got that tall, (5'7") athletic build with DSL's that i like in a lady.  I'd be down to clown.  

Guilfoyle? She's like 5-2.  Nothing against short women in particular, but she's a little dumpy troll greatly assisted by all that cosmetic companies and technicians have to offer.

I'd wager she's an absolute fright without all her warpaint.

Edited February 10, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Beau Vine 54,321]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

I would do that with her.  She shouldn't be doing that north of 50, but she's got that tall, (5'7") athletic build with DSL's that i like in a lady.  I'd be down to clown.  

[SubliminalHorn 6,809]

Ug why do they have to do the pledge of allegiance. So weird

[TwiceHorn 31,513]

1 hour ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

it'll be interesting to see the actual argument over the last point.  when everyone was digging through the losers social media showing pre-Jan 6 statements that they were going to storm the castle, i was saying that is good evidence for trump.  the prosecution(?, whatever we call it) should detail how trump knew he was talking to tuned up people, knew that they were close to the edge, and his statements were intended to push them over the edge. you have to work their pre-existing anger into the narrative.  otherwise, trump can make the argument too easy that these were just nutballs.  if he said those same words in front of all of us, we'd just laugh at him.  trump needs to be seen as incorporating their unreasonableness into his decision to say all those things.

Upthread, I posted the federal crime of "Riot," which includes incitement to riot.  It's not applicable, but it's a good analogy, I think.

Notably, the statute doesn't require the "inciter" to be the sole or even a proximate cause of the riot, just to perform acts with the intention of promoting a riot.  Many of which Trump clearly did.

[Js1 85,449]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Guilfoyle? She's like 5-2.  Nothing against short women in particular, but she's a little dumpy troll greatly assisted by all that cosmetic companies and technicians have to offer.

I'd wager she's an absolute fright without all her warpaint.

Our current Vice President is 5'2.  Don't you be dissing short women. 

[Biff Tannen 45,695]

So clearly the Rs aren't going to acquit him, regardless of how many videos they put together.  Is this just another "show it to the American people and hope they remember to not vote R next time" ploy?

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So clearly the Rs aren't going to acquit him, regardless of how many videos they put together.  Is this just another "show it to the American people and hope they remember to not vote R next time" ploy?

[conVINCEd 21,469]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

So clearly the Rs aren't going to acquit him, regardless of how many videos they put together.  Is this just another "show it to the American people and hope they remember to not vote R next time" ploy?

I think everyone has picked their team at this point.

[WhatTheBuck 28,794]

I don’t have a link but Norah O’Donnell opened the CBS News coverage of the impeachment with breaking news that Georgia has opened a criminal investigation into Trump’s election meddling. 

[TwiceHorn 31,513]

6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Our current Vice President is 5'2.  Don't you be dissing short women. 

Not all shorties are dumpy little trolls; Kimberly Guilfoyle is.  I would have guessed the Veep was a bit more statuesque, though.

Edited February 10, 2021 by TwiceHorn