The Schism Begins

[mat]

I think very little of most politicians. While Trump is supporting many of my issues I think very little of him as a person. As said, lessor of two evils.

There is a part of me that would like to see the dems get their way and he get removed from office. How do you think they would feel with Pence in charge setup to get elected for the next four years. Or maybe followup with Don Jr getting elected. Talk about biting them in the butt.

[UT alum]

20 hours ago, AggiesAreWe said:

My right to not vote also comes with consequences. I forfeit my right to complain.

Not in my book. Does that mean you forfeit the right to compliment? Consciously not voting is mild form of civil disobedience, which I respect.  I’ll honor your complaints without repudiation based on your electoral choice.

[Reagan]

On 12/20/2019 at 7:14 AM, UT alum said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I just wanted to watch you guys eat your own.

UT, you little sneak, why didn't you inform us that soros now funds this magazine?  Shame on you!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[UT alum]

43 minutes ago, Reagan said:

UT, you little sneak, why didn't you inform us that soros now funds this magazine?  Shame on you!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Pulpit and Pen was the only source I could  could find citing a Soros connection. They offered zero proof, only the claim. The other “sources” I could find were merely regurgitating what Pulpit and Pen “reported”. The only way Trump and his “base” can defend him is by attacking his critics. When that is the only defense, that means real exculpatory evidence does not exist. He can’t prove his innocence, so he systematically denigrates his accusers. Real tough guy. One thing he has taken over from the Democratic Party is the effective use of victim hood. Republicans have become the party of the victim, with its leader being Victim in Chief. Soros my ass. Soros claim = no evidence.

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Pulpit and Pen was the only source I could  could find citing a Soros connection. They offered zero proof, only the claim. The other “sources” I could find were merely regurgitating what Pulpit and Pen “reported”. The only way Trump and his “base” can defend him is by attacking his critics. When that is the only defense, that means real exculpatory evidence does not exist. He can’t prove his innocence, so he systematically denigrates his accusers. Real tough guy. One thing he has taken over from the Democratic Party is the effective use of victim hood. Republicans have become the party of the victim, with its leader being Victim in Chief. Soros my ass. Soros claim = no evidence.

You keep thinking Trump is the victim as he’s stomping your party into the ground.

Trump is a victim...lol, good one.

[UT alum]

On 12/22/2019 at 10:25 AM, LumRaiderFan said:

You keep thinking Trump is the victim as he’s stomping your party into the ground.

Trump is a victim...lol, good one.

HE CALLS HIMSELF ONE!

[Reagan]

On 12/20/2019 at 7:14 AM, UT alum said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I just wanted to watch you guys eat your own.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[UT alum]

10 minutes ago, Reagan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Whatever. Same scheisse, second verse, same as the first.

[LumRaiderFan]

18 minutes ago, Reagan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Lost cause, Reagan, no amount of evidence is enough...except for the ridiculous little snippet of news he found.

[baddog]

On 12/22/2019 at 9:07 AM, UT alum said:

Pulpit and Pen was the only source I could  could find citing a Soros connection. They offered zero proof, only the claim. The other “sources” I could find were merely regurgitating what Pulpit and Pen “reported”. The only way Trump and his “base” can defend him is by attacking his critics. When that is the only defense, that means real exculpatory evidence does not exist. He can’t prove his innocence, so he systematically denigrates his accusers. Real tough guy. One thing he has taken over from the Democratic Party is the effective use of victim hood. Republicans have become the party of the victim, with its leader being Victim in Chief. Soros my ass. Soros claim = no evidence.

Here is the whole problem with your side’s thinking. You talk jurisprudence but are not willing to afford Trump due process. He also has the right to see his accusers. (Secret whistleblower, give me a break)

[NetCat]

On 12/22/2019 at 9:07 AM, UT alum said:

Pulpit and Pen was the only source I could  could find citing a Soros connection. They offered zero proof, only the claim. The other “sources” I could find were merely regurgitating what Pulpit and Pen “reported”. The only way Trump and his “base” can defend him is by attacking his critics. When that is the only defense, that means real exculpatory evidence does not exist. He can’t prove his innocence, so he systematically denigrates his accusers. Real tough guy. One thing he has taken over from the Democratic Party is the effective use of victim hood. Republicans have become the party of the victim, with its leader being Victim in Chief. Soros my ass. Soros claim = no evidence.

I may be off base here...but isn't every American innocent until proven guilty? 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

[UT alum]

23 minutes ago, baddog said:

Here is the whole problem with your side’s thinking. You talk jurisprudence but are not willing to afford Trump due process. He also has the right to see his accusers. (Secret whistleblower, give me a break)

Secret whistleblower is a redundancy. Trump will have due process at trial. If he has witnesses who can exonerate him, he can call them. He will have the right of cross-examination. 

[UT alum]

5 minutes ago, NetCat said:

I may be off base here...but isn't every American innocent until proven guilty? 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

Sure. But the circumstantial I’ve seen is overwhelming. I should have said answer his accusers.

[baddog]

4 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Sure. But the circumstantial I’ve seen is overwhelming. I should have said answer his accusers.

Circumstantial sucks and you know it. Can’t believe you said that. Trump needs no witnesses to exonerate him. Your side needs evidence to convict. That is the rule of law and Trump is as entitled to it as you or me.

[baddog]

9 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Secret whistleblower is a redundancy. Trump will have due process at trial. If he has witnesses who can exonerate him, he can call them. He will have the right of cross-examination. 

How is it redundant? The whistleblower has not been identified so they are a secret. Trump has the right to face his accusers.

[UT alum]

43 minutes ago, baddog said:

How is it redundant? The whistleblower has not been identified so they are a secret. Trump has the right to face his accusers.

Do you not understand whistleblower laws?

[UT alum]

48 minutes ago, baddog said:

Circumstantial sucks and you know it. Can’t believe you said that. Trump needs no witnesses to exonerate him. Your side needs evidence to convict. That is the rule of law and Trump is as entitled to it as you or me.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict.

[NetCat]

16 minutes ago, UT alum said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict.

And reasonable doubt is all that's needed for acquittal

[baddog]

16 minutes ago, UT alum said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict.

Then O.J. should have hung.

[NetCat]

20 minutes ago, UT alum said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict.

You guys better hope there's more than circumstantial, that should never be sufficient for any POTUS to be convicted

[LumRaiderFan]

25 minutes ago, UT alum said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict.

Turn the entire focus of Congress three years based on circumstantial evidence just because your crooked candidate lost.

Great idea.

 

[UT alum]

10 minutes ago, NetCat said:

And reasonable doubt is all that's needed for acquittal

That’s it. Not, beyond the shadow of a doubt. 

[UT alum]

13 minutes ago, baddog said:

Then O.J. should have hung.

Murder is beyond shadow of doubt.

[UT alum]

2 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Turn the entire focus of Congress three years based on circumstantial evidence just because your crooked candidate lost.

Great idea.

 

Mueller said if he could have reasonably declared the president broke no law, he would have said it. He didn’t.

[UT alum]

11 minutes ago, NetCat said:

You guys better hope there's more than circumstantial, that should never be sufficient for any POTUS to be convicted

Let us hear from Mulvaney, Bolton, Giuliani, hell, young Biden for that matter. Why clam up if you’re innocent? I believe I’ve heard trump speak quite disparagingly about those who take the fifth.