This is the “tolerant left”, the rational left, the intellectual left...

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
103
Points
63
Constitutional scholar and Impeachment hearing witness, Geo Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley, that argued against impeachment, had his office “inundated” with threatening calls and demands for the university to fire him.


The other three witnesses who testified against Trump and in favor of impeachment, nothing.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,117
Reaction score
158
Points
63
It really doesn't get much more simple than this;

Who is more likely to get spit on in the street, or verbally/physically assaulted; someone wearing a MAGA hat, or someone wearing a hat supporting Joe Biden/Warren, Bernie (take your pick)?
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,124
Reaction score
241
Points
63
It really doesn't get much more simple than this;

Who is more likely to get spit on in the street, or verbally/physically assaulted; someone wearing a MAGA hat, or someone wearing a hat supporting Joe Biden/Warren, Bernie (take your pick)?
Why would you ever compare Joe Biden to someone like DJT? Weird.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,124
Reaction score
241
Points
63
Constitutional scholar and Impeachment hearing witness, Geo Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley, that argued against impeachment, had his office “inundated” with threatening calls and demands for the university to fire him.


The other three witnesses who testified against Trump and in favor of impeachment, nothing.
Surprise? No one argues that there are not looney toons on the Left.

Not that you asked, but the question you should have been asking is what people on here actually thought of the three witnesses. I thought all three made very good points, and frankly, Dr. Turley made some excellent points, particularly the part about using the power of the subpoena and the third branch (the courts) to enforce the Executive Branch to comply with the law. I agreed with much of what Turley argued (and I also agreed with much of what the three others argued).
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
103
Points
63
Surprise? No one argues that there are not looney toons on the Left.

Not that you asked, but the question you should have been asking is what people on here actually thought of the three witnesses. I thought all three made very good points, and frankly, Dr. Turley made some excellent points, particularly the part about using the power of the subpoena and the third branch (the courts) to enforce the Executive Branch to comply with the law. I agreed with much of what Turley argued (and I also agreed with much of what the three others argued).
I already pointed out in another thread that no lefties were bragging about the three lefty professors testifying. Why? B/c they sucked. They got their asses kicked by a better liberal, constitutional expert, historian, law professor, etc.
 

denguegopher

Active member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
1,495
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Constitutional scholar and Impeachment hearing witness, Geo Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley, that argued against impeachment, had his office “inundated” with threatening calls and demands for the university to fire him.


The other three witnesses who testified against Trump and in favor of impeachment, nothing.
Not sure if I read the same article, this is the one I read. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/impeachment-witness-turley-claims-home-professorship-threatened-during-testimony/
Did not see anything about the 3 other witnesses not getting any response, did I miss it? I can promise you that some clowns demanding that an academic be fired will go nowhere. That's not how that system works. If other threats were made they should be investigated and the guilty prosecuted if possible.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
103
Points
63
Surprise? No one argues that there are not looney toons on the Left.

Not that you asked, but the question you should have been asking is what people on here actually thought of the three witnesses. I thought all three made very good points, and frankly, Dr. Turley made some excellent points, particularly the part about using the power of the subpoena and the third branch (the courts) to enforce the Executive Branch to comply with the law. I agreed with much of what Turley argued (and I also agreed with much of what the three others argued).
Interesting that you point out that the left has some loony tunes, but try to mainstream Alex Jones for the Right on a new thread that you started.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
39,026
Reaction score
739
Points
113
Constitutional scholar and Impeachment hearing witness, Geo Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley, that argued against impeachment, had his office “inundated” with threatening calls and demands for the university to fire him.


The other three witnesses who testified against Trump and in favor of impeachment, nothing.
And many of the civil servants who have testified against Dear Leader have received death threats from your fellow MAGA-ers. This isn't a game you want to play.
 

Tredwell

Active member
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Messages
322
Reaction score
48
Points
28
And many of the civil servants who have testified against Dear Leader have received death threats from your fellow MAGA-ers. This isn't a game you want to play.
A former top Russia analyst for the White House told House lawmakers that she received death threats ahead of her testimony as part of the ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

Fiona Hill, who served on Trump’s National Security Council before leaving the post voluntarily over the summer, testified in a closed-door hearing that she and other officials were the target of threats and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, according to a transcript of her Oct. 14 testimony that was released Friday.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
103
Points
63
Just a reminder about who also supports Dear Leader.
The article didn’t say a thing about Trump. You do know that these idiots were just goofing around and aren’t real Nazis?

But, the article did say that the corrections officers were giving a “hail Byrd” salute. Senator Robert Byrd, before his death, was the Democrat Senator from West Virginia that was a former KKK member and racist.

Good job!
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
103
Points
63
And many of the civil servants who have testified against Dear Leader have received death threats from your fellow MAGA-ers. This isn't a game you want to play.
Oh, your team is much better at threats than the Right. And far better at making threats up too.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,124
Reaction score
241
Points
63
Interesting that you point out that the left has some loony tunes, but try to mainstream Alex Jones for the Right on a new thread that you started.
You're so very dense. That's not at all what that thread is about.
 
Last edited:

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,117
Reaction score
158
Points
63
Soooo, still no answer to the proposed hypothetical. About what I expected.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
6,821
Reaction score
577
Points
113
It really doesn't get much more simple than this;

Who is more likely to get spit on in the street, or verbally/physically assaulted; someone wearing a MAGA hat, or someone wearing a hat supporting Joe Biden/Warren, Bernie (take your pick)?
Who is more likely to get assaulted by a group of black men: a white guy wearing a shirt that says "I hate N*****S", or a white guy wearing a Gophers shirt?

SEE! That proves that black men are intolerant!! It really doesn't get much more simple than that.

I'll wait here for you to reply with "Stupid post." because you're not able to come up with a retort to the fact that I just destroyed your (purposefully) ill-defined hypothetical.
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
123
Points
63
Who is more likely to get assaulted by a group of black men: a white guy wearing a shirt that says "I hate N*****S", or a white guy wearing a Gophers shirt?

SEE! That proves that black men are intolerant!! It really doesn't get much more simple than that.

I'll wait here for you to reply with "Stupid post." because you're not able to come up with a retort to the fact that I just destroyed your (purposefully) ill-defined hypothetical.
One of the worst arguments ever: equating a racial slur to wearing a hat. Tell me you're not a UofM grad, that would sadden me and diminish my own degree.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,008
Reaction score
128
Points
63
I already pointed out in another thread that no lefties were bragging about the three lefty professors testifying. Why? B/c they sucked. They got their asses kicked by a better liberal, constitutional expert, historian, law professor, etc.




As for the threats, no one should ever be threatened, but let's not pretend it's limited to one side. Vindman needed a security detail for heaven's sake.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
6,821
Reaction score
577
Points
113
equating a racial slur to wearing a hat.
It is exactly the same: a symbol of hatred towards another group. You're daring them to assault you. So you shouldn't be surprised if they do.

Just because you want to pretend it isn't, doesn't make it so.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
103
Points
63



As for the threats, no one should ever be threatened, but let's not pretend it's limited to one side. Vindman needed a security detail for heaven's sake.
I didn’t “pretend” it is one sided? I pointed out that the leftist profs haven’t reported personal threats or firing demands while Turley has. Are you saying that lefties here haven’t pointed out the same when lefties were threatened? Like Vindman? Hypocrite.

And, though I can’t read the article, I assume it is claiming that Turley is saying that the “high crimes and misdemeanors” means that a president can only be impeached if he violates that. That’s not true. Turley said that a president CAN be impeached without a criminal violation, but he said the abuse of power has to rise to the level of that significance. I believe he is suggesting that without evidence from fact witnesses that Trump planned and ordered aid withheld and it was without question due to personal gain, not coinciding with US interests, then he may be impeached. We don’t have that here and why he felt the compressed timeline made it impossible to determine the aforementioned.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
103
Points
63



As for the threats, no one should ever be threatened, but let's not pretend it's limited to one side. Vindman needed a security detail for heaven's sake.
In fact, Turley has responded in The Hill today:

...In my testimony Wednesday, I stated repeatedly, as I did 21 years ago, that a president can be impeached for noncriminal acts, including abuse of power. I made that point no fewer that a dozen times in analyzing the case against Trump and, from the first day of the Ukraine scandal, I have made that argument both on air and in print. Yet various news publications still excitedly reported that, in an opinion piece I wrote for The Washington Post five years ago, I said, “While there is a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable,” and it could include “serious misconduct or a violation of public trust.”

That is precisely what I have said regarding Trump. You just need to prove abuse of power. My objection is not that you cannot impeach Trump for abuse of power but that this record is comparably thin compared to past impeachments and contains conflicts, contradictions and gaps including various witnesses not subpoenaed. I suggested that Democrats drop the arbitrary schedule of a vote by the end of December and complete their case and this record before voting on any articles of impeachment. In my view, they have not proven abuse of power in this incomplete record...

 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
39,026
Reaction score
739
Points
113
The article didn’t say a thing about Trump. You do know that these idiots were just goofing around and aren’t real Nazis?

But, the article did say that the corrections officers were giving a “hail Byrd” salute. Senator Robert Byrd, before his death, was the Democrat Senator from West Virginia that was a former KKK member and racist.

Good job!
Keep clinging to that narrative. It's all you have. Yes. 50 years ago most racists were Dems. Now they love them some Trump just as much as you do. I wonder why? Must be his traditional conservative values and policies.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
39,026
Reaction score
739
Points
113
I didn’t “pretend” it is one sided? I pointed out that the leftist profs haven’t reported personal threats or firing demands while Turley has. Are you saying that lefties here haven’t pointed out the same when lefties were threatened? Like Vindman? Hypocrite.

And, though I can’t read the article, I assume it is claiming that Turley is saying that the “high crimes and misdemeanors” means that a president can only be impeached if he violates that. That’s not true. Turley said that a president CAN be impeached without a criminal violation, but he said the abuse of power has to rise to the level of that significance. I believe he is suggesting that without evidence from fact witnesses that Trump planned and ordered aid withheld and it was without question due to personal gain, not coinciding with US interests, then he may be impeached. We don’t have that here and why he felt the compressed timeline made it impossible to determine the aforementioned.
Demanding someone be fired is not the same as sending them a death threat.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
39,026
Reaction score
739
Points
113
None of our Trump lovers here will admit to owning much less wearing a MAGA hat. I wonder why?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,723
Reaction score
519
Points
113
Keep clinging to that narrative. It's all you have. Yes. 50 years ago most racists were Dems. Now they love them some Trump just as much as you do. I wonder why? Must be his traditional conservative values and policies.
The Democrat party remains the racist party. Blacks are now discovering that they got used and abused by the Dems for 50 years. Trump will get 20% plus of the black vote. The era of the blacks being used as a group puppet of the Dem party are going away. It turns out that jobs are better than entitlements.
 
Top Bottom