Impeachment
Comments
-
Again, I'm not going to assume anything. Sorry.
-
I am willing to wait.
"The Senate enters judgment on its decision, whether that be to convict or acquit, and a copy of the judgment is filed with the Secretary of State".
Stop fearing, let the process complete its course. Until then, I have my opinions, like you. CM
-
@reformed posted:
Again, I'm not going to assume anything. Sorry.
Though I didn't ask you whether you "assume anything" or whether you're "sorry," I am NOT going to ask my question a sixth time because it's now clear that you're not going to answer it... and for reasons that are equally clear: A direct, non-evasive, and truthful answer to my question would raise significant challenges to your point of view on the impeachment question, and in the spirit of Trumpsterism - which your posts usually reflect quite well - that's not acceptable to you.
Your approach to questions you don't like - avoid, evade, change the subject, refuse to acknowledge, or assert they're improper or invalid or otherwise illegitimate - is often embraced by others in these forums. Instead of simply answering difficult questions directly and without evasion, then adding to the reply your objections to the questions if you so choose, you guys either don't answer at all, or try to change the subject, or contend that my questions aren't proper. Your efforts to evade the accountability my questions provide to your points of view are impressive, at least as to how consistently and creatively you all make them.
You will look long, hard, and without success for a question you've ever had to ask me three, five, eight, even ten times because I repeatedly refused to answer it. The reason is I stand accountable for my posts and points of view. If you think enough of a question to ask it, I should think enough of it to answer. If you question my assertions of fact or analysis of a situation, I owe it to you to respond directly and without evasion. That's NOT meritorious behavior on my part!!!! That's common courtesy and conduct reasonably expected of posters in Christian forums.
-
Again, which one of those 4 gave the house grounds to start impeachment proceedings?
-
No bill. This is a combination of strawman and ad hominem. You do ask me to make an assumption. But I'm not going to make an assumption. I would rather deal with reality. So why should I answer a hypothetical? You are only trying to use it to twist things. There is no purpose for it. And again, we have the transcript so we know what did or did not happen on that call. All of this is unnecessary.
