#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Democrats slammed for doctoring evidence for impeachment trial
So bad they gotta make it up
Side Score: 8
|
 |
Evil disturbed people
Side Score: 10
|
|
2
points
1
point
2
points
It's more likely that they were just doing this to make a political show of it. I'd hazard to guess that a majority of the team running the impeachment trial, knew full well that they couldn't pin this kind of thing on Trump. Yet they knew that if they were able to sell it to the populace, that they'd be able to pull out a win in another fashion. Side: So bad they gotta make it up
1
point
I'd hazard to guess that a majority of the team running the impeachment trial, knew full well that they couldn't pin this kind of thing on Trump. It isn't their fault that the Republican Party is so institutionally corrupt it is prepared to ignore the evidence for what it perceives as its own gain. The senate was/is controlled by the Republicans and the vote still went 57 to 43 in favour of impeachment, so frankly to pretend that the result was some kind of exoneration for Trump is simply dishonest. Side: Evil disturbed people
1
point
Calling the republican party "institutionally corrupt" is another one of those opinions, that has very little traction. Especially when compared to the democrats, who decided that they had to threaten their own people into voting along party lines for these sort of things. Given the fact that no proof could be supplied that he actually did anything wrong, was what made this an exoneration. Side: So bad they gotta make it up
1
point
1
point
And yet I'm willing to listen. I disagree. You quite clearly have no intention of ever changing your mind and the language you are using is inaccurate and loaded. When you describe a vote which went 57-43 in favour of impeachment as "an acquittal" then clearly all the parts are not in the correct working order. Side: Evil disturbed people
1
point
Shouldn't my first hand account of my thoughts be above your second hand projection of my thoughts? I'm willing to have my mind changed. Does reality become whatever the majority dictates? You can't convict people on fabricated evidence and selectively edited footage. As soon as Trumps defence retorted, there was no case to be made. Some of their defence is literally the same videos, just without the edits. Legally what Trump did cannot be called incitement. Whether you believe that they believed something else and there was some subtextual conversation going on where Trump told his supporters to ruin his own hearing for election objections at the capitol is not evidence. Side: So bad they gotta make it up
1
point
Does reality become whatever the majority dictates? I would hope so because that's called democracy, and it's the same thing the American military have been claiming they are exporting to foreign countries. fabricated evidence I don't think you understand how this works. Calling something fabricated when you have no evidence that it is fabricated is not an argument. It's simply a rejection of reality. Side: Evil disturbed people
1
point
Argumentum ad populum, a fallacy. Democracy is where you guage opinion. Democracy is not where you create reality. If 51% of people believe corona virus is a hoax, that doesn't mean corona virus is a hoax, yes? Calling something fabricated when you have no evidence that it is There were forged dates and verification badges of tweets, as well as selectively presented video where, as I said, the defence used the same video but unedited in response. Side: So bad they gotta make it up
1
point
Argumentum ad populum, a fallacy. Democracy is a fallacy? It's what your entire country is based on. Democracy is where you guage opinion. Democracy is not where you create reality. Wrong. The people elected Joe Biden democratically and that's why Joe Biden is the president in reality. Side: Evil disturbed people
1
point
1
point
If 51% of people believe corona virus is a hoax, that doesn't mean corona virus is a hoax, yes? The entire criminal justice system is based on giving evidence and a jury making a vote. Your batshit hypothetical about coronavirus detracts nothing from the fact that 57 senators heard the evidence and decided Trump was guilty. Side: Evil disturbed people
1
point
1
point
Yes, but it takes more than 51% to impeach. I know what the rules are thank you. A two thirds majority in a senate actually controlled by Trump's own party. Fifty seven percent voted him guilty, which was a mere nine percent short of the figure required to impeach. Your idea that this is any type of acquittal or that the result indicates the evidence was "fabricated" is simply ridiculous. It's absurd. Side: So bad they gotta make it up
0
points
Yes, and they are elected. Very democratic. So whats the problem? Too much consensus is required? You want there to be less? Again, it's the same rules both ways. Fair. or that the result indicates the evidence was "fabricated" I didn't say that the result meant that the evidence was fabricated. I said that the evidence was fabricated. My source is an impeachment manager, they literally admitted it. Side: So bad they gotta make it up
1
point
0
points
Why can't you just look this up? The impeachment manager even withdrew the evidence "on that grounds that it is not true". Side: So bad they gotta make it up
0
points
Why can't you just look this up? The impeachment manager even withdrew the evidence "on that grounds that it is not true". Ahahahahaha! Oh, you stupid little idiot. Wow. Yes, it's all settled now. If SARAH PALIN says it isn't true then who are we to challenge her intellectual might? 😂😂😂 Idiots like you are simply ridiculous. You have absolutely no interest in truth, and that can be evidenced just by the links you provide. “A Serial Liar”: How Sarah Palin Ushered in the “Post-Truth” Political Era in Which Trump Has Thrived Side: So bad they gotta make it up
0
points
I don't know her, I don't care what she said, it's literally the first link I found with footage of the case regarding what I'm talking about, she's unimportant. What I want is for you to watch the original source. Is that so hard? Side: So bad they gotta make it up
0
points
I don't know her, I don't care what she said, it's literally the first link I found with footage of the case You obviously care what she said because you have linked to her version of events and nobody else's. You seem to be admitting that you do not bother to check the credibility of your sources, but instead simply look for the "first link" which supports your own predetermined, politically partisan opinion. Indeed, the very fact that you are linking the website of a demonstrable pathological liar, who has an extreme political bias against the very people she is making accusations against, is enough to discredit you as the complete clown you are. Side: So bad they gotta make it up
1
point
I told you it was the first link I found. I don't even know who she is, so why the genetic fallacy? And I even said you don't have to read a word of what she said, just watch the original source. Whatever. I give up. Your inability to look at a source has convinced me you must already know everything you need to. Side: So bad they gotta make it up
|
Further evidence that the lefties will stoop to any depths to vilify the amateur politician, but professional oaf, Donald Trump who beat the war machine of Clinton's elitist political mafia in the 2016 election. The dirt will be really hitting the fan soon as the anti-American agitators use this latest impeachment attempt to stir it up, and stir it up they will. Side: Evil disturbed people
|
