• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pelosi Admits There's Nothing Compelling, Overwhelming, Or Bipartisan Enough To Impeach Trump For

Translation: There's no collusion, so I better start back-peddling now so we don't look even more dishonest and idiotic.

.

That is not what Pelosi said. It’s not even what she meant. She flat didn’t say there is no collusion. She didn’t say there were no high crimes or misdemeanors. She said none of that. Your words, your interpretation but not her words.

I’m no big Pelosi fan but Pelosi is articulate. If she wanted to say what you think she meant she would have said it.
 
That is not what Pelosi said. It’s not even what she meant. She flat didn’t say there is no collusion. She didn’t say there were no high crimes or misdemeanors. She said none of that. Your words, your interpretation but not her words.

I’m no big Pelosi fan but Pelosi is articulate. If she wanted to say what you think she meant she would have said it.

Geez... That was my Translation (aka opinion) of the motivation behind her words.

I can't believe I have to yet again, explain this to someone.
 
That is not what Pelosi said. It’s not even what she meant. She flat didn’t say there is no collusion. She didn’t say there were no high crimes or misdemeanors. She said none of that. Your words, your interpretation but not her words.

I’m no big Pelosi fan but Pelosi is articulate. If she wanted to say what you think she meant she would have said it.

Not only is Pelosi articulate, she also avoids that maddening trait that politicians have of simply saying BOOGA....BOOGA....BOOGA....BOOGA when they get to positions of leadership. If she wanted to say what some in these pages want to fantasize that she said, she just would have said it. She would have been as forceful and direct as she had been when she told DonDon to frigg off in the Oval Office meeting and in every instance when she has been public speaking and confronted since then. She DOES NOT continence fools graciously. Paul Ryan looks like a limp noodle in comparison, actually an overcooked limp noodle at that.
 
Pelosi is right. The Dems must focus on beating Trump in 2020, by presenting actual proposals, and a good, viable candidate that will also appeal to moderates and independents. Impeaching Trump is a pipe dream; even if it happened, there would be no conviction in the Senate so it's a huge waste of time and political capital.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

By the way, after Clintons impeachment...what happened to his polling numbers?
 
Translation: There's no collusion, so I better start back-peddling now so we don't look even more dishonest and idiotic.

.
Can you show me what words caused you to have this translate in this way?

Weird translation.
 
Translation: There's no collusion, so I better start back-peddling now so we don't look even more dishonest and idiotic.

.

It's backpedal, not backpeddle. Peddle means something entirely different.

Just curious how you translated her words in that way. She never said there was no collusion (nobody knows that) and she never called for Trump's impeachment, unless you can find a quote from her saying "We need to impeach Trump because of collusion". That would make her words a backpedal.
 
Really bad move on the part of Pelosi. If not Trump and now - then who and when? Just because the GOP ran out the clock for the first two years and now we face and election next year is no excuse NOT to exercise your constitutional duties.

Your thread title is just plain fraudulent as that is NOT what she said.

MR does this constantly. He posts fake headlines and when pressed, he runs away.
 
I could have voted for a guy like Kasich in 2016 but unfortunately we know what happened in the GOP primaries. Regarding the current crop, I'm very discouraged. I don't think a moderate candidate has any chance in the Dem primaries. The Democratic Party is now being taken over by an extremist fringe, like the GOP got taken over by the Freedom Caucus, ultimately resulting in the Trump phenomenon. Now it seems like the Dems will make the mistake of going with that moron Bernie Sanders again.

The Dems do have moderates, like John Bel Edwards (governor or Lousiana), the senators Doug Jones, Joe Manchin whom you quoted, Kyrsten Sinema, and Jon Tester, and a handful of House Representatives like Dan Lipinski, Vicente González, Jim Costa, Ron Kind, Henry Cuellar, Josh Gottheimer, Colin Peterson, and Kurt Schrader, among others. The problem is, if you read this list to anybody less informed, people will say, "who???" - which means, they don't have a lot of national visibility. Being a moderate is not sexy. Blue Dogs and the New Democrat Coalition, when do you see them grabbing the headlines? It's all AOC, these days...

Moderate Think Tanks like The Third Way are barely talked about.

Let's just think of recent Democrats, and women. What do we get?

That dumb, naive, and arrogant woman AOC who won in a blue district (big deal), is in the news all the time.
But a much more interesting person, Mikie Sherrill, who is much better educated than AOC (London School of Economics, Georgetown Law), won in a red district, and is a veteran to boot (Navy pilot)... nobody talks about her.

So, it doesn't look good.

Who would I like to see as the nominee? Hard to know. Somebody not named Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, for starters... Somebody with national appeal, but a moderate, willing to run, and able to mount a strong campaign with sufficient support (who? hard to find).

I don't think it will happen like I would like. It will be some radical, this time, since the Dems went with a moderate last time, and didn't win. Sure, Hillary was a horrible, horrible candidate... she shouldn't serve as a case-in-point that moderates shouldn't be selected, this time. But the extremists will make this case to death, and will milk the naive masses like all these Millennials who adore Sanders and AOC, who will fall for this idea.

But then, the silent majority, the moderates, the independents, who in this day and age of close elections are the real swing voters, will be turned off by too much socialism... Next thing, Trump might win again.

Basically, we're screwed.

I don't think I suffer from TDS. But no, I don't like him, because of his irresponsible tax cuts for the ultra-rich adding to the deficit, and the composition of the SCOTUS which is becoming unbalanced.

But I don't want to automatically see him fail in matters that affect all Americans and the world, such as North Korea, or the US economy. I'm not the kind who roots against the duly elected US president to see him fail just to score partisan points. But would I prefer a president more fiscally responsible, and more in tune with the nation's needs and wants rather than his own narcissism? You bet.

I'm not used to talking to any lefties on here that aren't infected with TDS. You seem to have a very good grasp on things. The possibility was floated about a year ago that John Kasich could mount an independent run in 2020 with Democrat John Hickenlooper as his VP. If that were to happen I would be all on board.
 
Considering the current crop of clowns that have tossed their hats into the ring, that's going to be very difficult.
Out of all of them, i only see 2 that may have a snowball's chance of being any sort of real threat to Trump in the general.

Please, the possum living under my house could beat trump...

He is the most hated man in the world.
 
NO - that is not what she said.

but it's what she meant.

anything LESS after this crap has been hemmed and hawed to death is BS and the american people will see it as BS. WITCH HUNT!! IT WAS A WITCH HUNT.

get used to it.

EITHER they aren't impeaching because there's no evidence of anything important enough OR they find their politics and re-election to be MORE important than Trumps Collusion with Russia or criminal acts? which is it?
 
Last edited:
No, that's not what she's 'admitting', nor can you demonstrate otherwise. She's framing the issue. "He's not worth it" - now.

When new evidence comes out, like perhaps the Mueller report, she can go back and say she didn't think it was necessary, but in light of recent evidence...

Duh.


Exactly I saw that right away, she is playing chess while the GOP is playing tiddlywinks.

She just convinced the general public that Democrats are not out to get trump, them when the Mueller/house reports come out she will come back and say that with the overwhelming evidence at hand we have no choice but to begin impeachment proceedings...
 
That is not what Pelosi said. It’s not even what she meant. She flat didn’t say there is no collusion. She didn’t say there were no high crimes or misdemeanors. She said none of that. Your words, your interpretation but not her words.

I’m no big Pelosi fan but Pelosi is articulate. If she wanted to say what you think she meant she would have said it.

"unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path". In other words, there is nothing compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan to her knowledge.
 
Exactly I saw that right away, she is playing chess while the GOP is playing tiddlywinks.

She just convinced the general public that Democrats are not out to get trump, them when the Mueller/house reports come out she will come back and say that with the overwhelming evidence at hand we have no choice but to begin impeachment proceedings...

then tell your elected official to stop playing games with her position. charges of collusion with a foreign power is more important than political games.
 
but it's what she meant.

anything LESS after this crap has been hemmed and hawed to death is BS and the american people will see it as BS. WITCH HUNT!! IT WAS A WITCH HUNT.

get used to it.

You don't have to mind read Pelosi and you likely can't. She said what she said and I would take it for granted that she meant what she said. Frankly, IMO, she was simply taking some of the constituent pressure off of her caucus members that have to deal with the "Impeach Now" crowd back home. Some of her caucus will appreciate the help. Others won't. In the meantime the usual media talking heads (meaning all of them on Cable News) are trying to make it another dog pile on the carpet affair. Frankly, that is all they ever do any longer....try to make everything into a dog pile on the carpet as a means to pump their ratings.
 
Can you show me what words caused you to have this translate in this way?

Weird translation.

"unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path". Wouldn't you say that if there was collusion then that would be compelling and overwhelming? Or, are you know saying that collusion is not compelling or overwhelming?
 
MR does this constantly. He posts fake headlines and when pressed, he runs away.

"unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path". Wouldn't you say that if there was collusion then that would be compelling and overwhelming? Or, are you know saying that collusion is not compelling or overwhelming?
 
No high crimes and misdemeanors. Will the left listen to her or not? Or, are they going to continue banging the impeachment drums just because they don't like Trump, even when their own leader admits there are no high crimes and misdemeanors?


Pelosi: ‘Not worth it’ to impeach Trump

she is trying to go into protective mode now.
She knows that the american people hate witch hunts for political points.
they have a tendency to blow back big time.

That whole Cohen trial was a disaster for them. In fact i bet she was cussing schiff out over it because it was such a major disaster.
they 100% lost face on that to the point that the major chair for the committee is probably going to recommend perjury charges for cohen as well.

She has a rogue group of leftists that is more left than her that are going to introduce impeachment charges against trump and
she is trying to fight the backlash if that occurs.

why? because in general except for the small leftist outrage people don't want to see a president impeached unless there is something bad.
if the left attempts an impeachment process against Trump before the mueller report and without evidence of crimes it will simply be
seen as an attempt to remove a duly elected president via a coup.
 
Please, the possum living under my house could beat trump...

He is the most hated man in the world.

Ummmmmmmmmmm. That's the very same thing you guys said in 2016. You hav'em short memory.
 
"unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path". Wouldn't you say that if there was collusion then that would be compelling and overwhelming? Or, are you know saying that collusion is not compelling or overwhelming?

Congratulations. You understood her words! You can't impeach over something that you don't have concrete evidence of, and unlike the idiots in the GOP, she's smart enough to know that impeachment, in order to be successful, needs support from both sides.

Nobody knows if there was any collusion or not, MR. Unless you have an in to Mueller, and if you do, please share what you know.

She didn't make any claims about collusion or anything else. She said what any smart politician in her position would say. The GOP would be wise to learn from her.
 
You don't have to mind read Pelosi and you likely can't. She said what she said and I would take it for granted that she meant what she said. Frankly, IMO, she was simply taking some of the constituent pressure off of her caucus members that have to deal with the "Impeach Now" crowd back home. Some of her caucus will appreciate the help. Others won't. In the meantime the usual media talking heads (meaning all of them on Cable News) are trying to make it another dog pile on the carpet affair. Frankly, that is all they ever do any longer....try to make everything into a dog pile on the carpet as a means to pump their ratings.

ehh, well maybe you're right, but it's late enough in the game that I think she knows something and if she knows something and says that, it sure sounds like damage control to me. guess we'll see.
 
Exactly. Senate Republicans have long stepped down from their constitutional tasks and are a bunch of cowardly enablers.

If the Dems had control of two thirds of the Senate, I'd say, yeah, impeach and convict the bastard. But they don't, so, it's a pipe dream, and might result in losing the only way to remove Trump from office, that is, beating him in 2020.

No they haven't. In order to convict someone you need evidence of a crime. SO far there is no evidence of a crime that could result in impeachment.
the only way that dem's are going to win in 2020 is to put up someone who is rational there is no one person in that group of nutjobs that is rational.

the guy from Star bucks looks like a person i could vote for. I just need him to clarify some things about not taking away certain rights and then
that will be done.
 
No high crimes and misdemeanors. Will the left listen to her or not? Or, are they going to continue banging the impeachment drums just because they don't like Trump, even when their own leader admits there are no high crimes and misdemeanors?


Pelosi: ‘Not worth it’ to impeach Trump

Interesting... you posted a headline about how Pelosi said "it's not worth it" to go for impeachment of trump now and then your commentary around that headline makes a bunch of bold statements not in the story.

"it's not worth it" =/= No high crimes and misdemeanors
 
Really bad move on the part of Pelosi. If not Trump and now - then who and when? Just because the GOP ran out the clock for the first two years and now we face and election next year is no excuse NOT to exercise your constitutional duties.

Your thread title is just plain fraudulent as that is NOT what she said.

Your blind rage is keeping you from admitting the political truth. Impeachments don't favor the party carrying them out, and she knows it.
 
Congratulations. You understood her words! You can't impeach over something that you don't have concrete evidence of, and unlike the idiots in the GOP, she's smart enough to know that impeachment, in order to be successful, needs support from both sides.

Nobody knows if there was any collusion or not, MR. Unless you have an in to Mueller, and if you do, please share what you know.

She didn't make any claims about collusion or anything else. She said what any smart politician in her position would say. The GOP would be wise to learn from her.

But wouldn't you say that colluding with the Russians to get yourself elected would be compelling and overwhelming? She's saying that there is nothing compelling and overwhelming. You guys just keep on chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But but but the investigations aren't over yet. It's right around the corner. Be patient. If the Mueller thing doesn't work out, don't worry, we're going to keep on investigating until we find something. We've got six new investigations just starting. Keep the faith. We'll find something.
 
But wouldn't you say that colluding with the Russians to get yourself elected would be compelling and overwhelming? She's saying that there is nothing compelling and overwhelming. You guys just keep on chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But but but the investigations aren't over yet. It's right around the corner. Be patient. If the Mueller thing doesn't work out, don't worry, we're going to keep on investigating until we find something. We've got six new investigations just starting. Keep the faith. We'll find something.

Do you have evidence of collusion? I haven't seen it. Please post it.

Pelosi never called for Trump's impeachment. Her words here mean nothing, except to you Trump devotees.

Keep investigations going? Yes, I remember when you supported the never ending, outrageously expensive investigations into Hillary Clinton that yielded exactly nothing. I'm glad you're consistent, MR.
 
Back
Top Bottom