It's not a semantic argument.

Your whole case rested on the notion that impeaching Clinton over something as mundane as a BJ was an unjustified and disloyal act by the Republican opposition, and the pivotal moment that ushered in a new era of toxic hyperpolarization.
This whole case of yours falls apart when one replaces your misleading "impeached over a BJ" with the truthful "impeached for lying under oath".

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 21 2019 03:53pm

Lying under oath about what line of questioning and why were they asking those questions?

Compare that to how the opposition treated John F Kennedy when he was president.

Yes it was unjustified and disloyal to use Congress to sex shame someone. And that's why the impeachment failed.

What was the line of questioning and why were they asking those questions?

Don't dodge.

This post was edited by Skinned on Sep 21 2019 04:27pm

Why would the line of questioning matter? If anything, lying, under oath, in a situation with a high likelihood of being caught, over something that was minor and "no big deal" would make Clinton an even bigger idiot.

And the impeachment didnt fail. Clinton was impeached. What failed was the removal from office by the Senate, but no one ever expected that to happen to begin with.




the tldr: the Democrats do not try or want to win back the votes of white working class men. their entire coalition and platform is a bet on winning elections without them. but for PR reasons, they cannot go out there and say "we dont give a fuck about white working class men anymore, we dont need them anymore, most of them are deplorables with horrible views anyway". they have to at least pay lip service to the idea that they have not written these people off and still want to win them back. even though everyone knows it's a lie.

damn fake news was at it back then too!




the conviction in the senate failed. learn your history and stop apologizing for Pres Clinton the known liar under oath and his wife who uses political power to lock up minorities (that she calls superpredators) while President Trump does bipartisan criminal justice reform *LAUGH OUT LOUD*

dodge.jpg



It was embarrassing when he was removed from office and President Gore assumed control of the government. I hate that guy; I voted Nader.

This post was edited by Skinned on Sep 21 2019 06:21pm

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/21/report-white-house-whistleblower-didnt-have-direct-knowledge-of-trump-communications/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/20/politics/donald-trump-whistleblower/index.html


lul
look at how fast this story fell apart

it went from
"intel whistleblower who listened to Trump's phone call reported him for threatening to withhold aid to ukraine unless they fabricate evidence against biden, and administration illegally suppressed the report"
to
"bureaucrat who was not looped into the phone call heard someone else talking it, then tried to report it without knowing what Trump actually said, and it turns out Trump never threatened to withhold aid unlike Biden who actually did, and the administration quashed a frivolous report that doesn't meet the basic whistleblower standards"

This post was edited by Goomshill on Sep 21 2019 08:50pm

Standard operating procedure for the Dems.


/e Take something they did, and try to turn it around and blame Trump for it.

This post was edited by Ghot on Sep 21 2019 09:00pm

Honestly at this rate I expect to find out that the "whistleblower" wasn't an administration official at all, and actually turns out to be Ilhan Omar's fake brother

her "brother" brother, or her brother "brother"?