GWAA, Clay is a former poster here, if I recall he posted under “Clay”. Obviously his conservative beliefs are the opposite of Mentz’s liberal beliefs.

Mentz took to name calling and assumptions because Clay attended a rally that took a turn for the absolute very worst. Mentz’s accusation is tantamount to stating all BLM protesters are complicit in the summer-current riots, violent demonstrations, burning and looting, and “all cops are bad” -ACAB.

Part of the problem with today’s society is painting groups with a broad brush. Mentz did this with Clay, and even cited a CNN (photoshopped?) screenshot/meme.

Wow, GWRising.  Just wow.

You seem to really have your finger on the pulse of the Democratic party.  When last week's disgraceful display unfolded, my first thought must have been whether any of my Republican friends or colleagues were storming the Capitol?  After all, isn't this how "us liberals" think, that if one Republican would pull off this despicable act then they all would?

Seriously, do you know anyone who believes you were responsible or complicit for what took place last week?  Of course you don't.  

Why even write words that you yourself could not possibly believe?

Mike K, did I miss Mentzinger's broad brush with Clay?  Seems to me he simply posted the tweet which someone else had made about him.  Calling him a POS could have had as much to do with the arrogance which Clay conducts himself as anything else.  He is a polarizing media celebrity.  He could share Mentzinger's political beliefs and yet Mentz might still refer to him as a POS.  And, if he really helped organize these bus trips to the Capitol, wouldn't this qualify as at least someone who enabled these acts?  Sure, I suppose he could have thought that he was helping to organize a peaceful protest but what is it about Clay's personality, past events like Charlottesville, or Trump's egging all of this on that would realistically lead one to believe that this would be the case?

And, I thought Clay went by Kleos on the old board.  I could be wrong about that.

Last edited by Gwmayhem (1/14/2021 10:27 am)

Even if I were fine with your using examples of statements being made with the express intent of either persuading or "guilting" House Republicans into voting to impeach, are you really willing to take a few statements, or a few hundred tweets, or some relatively small number of divisive comments, and ascribe this divisiveness to tens of millions of Democratic Americans?  When you begin a sentence with "I guess in the minds of liberals", you are erroneously concluding that all liberals think and act the same exact way.  You are guilty of doing the very thing you're accusing "all liberals" of doing.

Oh, are you talking about elected officials only?  Why not reread what you wrote and explain to me how anyone wouldn't think you were talking about ALL democrats.

What's a POS?  How many republicans voted to impeach Trump the fist time around.  How many the second?   Finally 10 brave house republicans, 10 out of 210 approx.  How many republicans voted to turn over the election to Trump?  Over 140.  The odds are that most of the fraud was for republicans - all minor - except that of Trump, his family and his lawyers.  Sixty frivolous cases, all but one minor one dismissed.   Five or six people dead - could have been many more.  And you're not chastened? come on Rising.

BC wrote:

What's a POS?  How many republicans voted to impeach Trump the fist time around.  How many the second?   Finally 10 brave house republicans, 10 out of 210 approx.  How many republicans voted to turn over the election to Trump?  Over 140.  The odds are that most of the fraud was for republicans - all minor - except that of Trump, his family and his lawyers.  Sixty frivolous cases, all but one minor one dismissed.   Five or six people dead - could have been many more.  And you're not chastened? come on Rising.

Seriously BC? I just told you above that I do not condone the violence and those who participated should be prosecuted. But why are you conflating two separate issues? Riots vs. Impeachment. My point was nothing about impeachment but rather Mike K's point about being tarred with the same brush.

That said, Republican House members could be against impeachment but still believe the riots were wrong and those who were responsible should be brought to justice. They could believe:

1. This impeachment was rushed with no investigation or witnesses to lay the predicate. As GW Professor Jonathan Turley says it would create a dangerous precedent for "Snap Impeachments."
2. With only 7 days left in the term, impeachment would not accomplish anything and would cause more division within the country.
3. The Senate is likely to acquit so this is a futile effort not worth expending political capital.
4. There is a legal issue as to whether you can impeach an ex-President which by the time the Senate would have the trial, Trump would be an ex-President..

None of those issues have anything to do with the merits of Trump's conduct or those who committed crimes at the Capitol.. Didn't hear one floor speech condoning Trump's conduct or that of the rioters.

But the same question could be addressed to House Democrats. Not one House Democrat thought anything of the four reasons above. Not one House Democrat gave pause to address the issue that if the Senate is engaged in impeachment, how will they address the first 100 days of the Biden administration in a time of national crisis.



 

I will go back to one of the questions I asked following Mentz´ post of the twatter links:
What does Mr. Travis, the storming of the Capitol or who the FBI is looking for have to do with Prof. Krug bamboozleing GW and the world-at-large?
I ask because that is what this thread is about. Take the talking points political bickering to a different thread, please..