so the goalposts shift from "they're not in the general election yet" to "u have to have a seat in congress, at least"

starting to see why it was a poor assertion? because in almost every context its bunk.

so Obama and Trump aren't "political opponents"?

go ahead, triple down if you must.

Sure, that alone doesnt convict Trump, but to suggest people are suffering from TDS because they make that connection is dishonest. Theres plenty of circumstantial evidence that suggests Trump held the funds for personal gain.

The transcript is proof enough.

Trump: america does a lot for ukraine, you guys don't reciprocate
Zelensky: yes we love you trump, looking forward to more missiles
Trump: do me a favor though, look into infowars conspiracy theories and the Bidens

if both parties hold an influential political office, or are running head to head in a race, they are each other's opponent

otherwise the definition is as loose as what happens here on the internet debating and shit talking

when it comes to defining such things in a matter as serious as impeachment, i take the first definition as the most important, high standard definition because otherwise it hurts the point

so by your definition crafted just to back your point in hindsight Obama and Trump aren't political opponents.

you're right, the best definitions are the ones you need to post 4 explanations so the other person understand you rather than using a word by it's Webster's definition..... lol wtf

Its fine to make that connection. I've never said its not reasonable. People saying its basically fact is annoying though.



Case in point.

If anyone was serious about this we would all be wanting to hear from the inner circle and be willing to wait through the legal process.

in the context of a presidential impeachment, the standard for the definition of political opponent should be held very high. it may have been a strong case if biden had already won the primary at the time of that phone call

Do you really think for a second that Trump really cares about corruption? If you do I've got a bridge to sell you. For fucks sake he required that Biden be mentioned in the announcement and Bidens actions were sanctioned by Congress and totally above water, so Trump already has access to all the information on the issue.

so if Trump strongarms a foreign govt to investigate the guy who's polling highest in a contest to face off directly against Trump, it's not a good case because he only has the best chance to win. but if he's already won, then it's an issue?

this might be the worst take on the impeachment i've seen yet, tbh.

basically what you're saying is if Bill Bellicheck sabotaged the better team in the NFC championship so he could face off against a worse team in the Superbowl it wouldnt be a problem. but if he did it after they won it would be.

either you're fucking with the process or you aren't. period.

"The leading candidate in the opposing parties primary" clears all but the most ridiculously exclusive bars.

Just admit you were being unreasonable...