Hypothetically speaking, Trump supporters, what would need to happen for you to believe the...

[jc456]

In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well.

An actual specific answer would be great, but not expected.

so son, where is the hypothetical question in this here post of yours? please, show the question mark in yours? this is your ground zero.

Post 90. Maybe you can help Ray From Cleveland find that.

It's also in the OP. I just restated it differently.

Not that it matters though. We already know that neither of you will actually answer it.

I think Ray nailed it.

What, specifically, would you need to see/hear in order for you to believe that Trump's actions were wrong and worthy of impeachment?

evidence of a crime.

Name the crime and the statute violated.

Article II Section 4 is obviously what is being referred to. But obviously we won't agree on what would be considered a "high crime", which is kind of the point of what I'm asking you.

Let me try one more time.

We know there was a phone call. We know that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate a political rival. What specifically would you hypothetically need to see/hear in order for you to conclude that something wrong took place? "Evidence" isn't specific at all. That's about as vague as you can possibly get.

What, in your opinion, would be considered a sufficient level of evidence that a high crime took place and that this whole thing is worthy of impeachment? A hypothetical example would be great.

This is just a way of gauging where your threshold is for this impeachment process. I'm of the opinion that there is absolutely nothing that could be presented that would change your mind about this president. You know, the 5th avenue thing.

I don't think I'll get an actual answer to this, but I tried to clarify it for you.

We know there was a phone call. The president has phone calls with most all countries. Are you going to investigate every phone call now? hahahahahahahaha how ludicrous dude.


We know that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate a political rival. No he didn’t. He asked him to look into the Crowdstrike info on the DNC Server. You should really read the transcript and stop listening to Schitt’s. But feel free to quote the transcript for that ask.


What specifically would you hypothetically need to see/hear in order for you to conclude that something wrong took place? I don’t need anything. If there is no crime, I don’t need to go look for one, that’s KGB shit dude. Are you a commie?.

What, in your opinion, would be considered a sufficient level of evidence that a high crime took place and that this whole thing is worthy of impeachment? A hypothetical example would be great. I don’t do hypothetical’s, I wait for actual crimes to be before me and then I ask for an investigation of what an individual did during the execution of the crime.

This is just a way of gauging where your threshold is for this impeachment process. I'm of the opinion that there is absolutely nothing that could be presented that would change your mind about this president. You know, the 5th avenue thing. I don’t believe in impeachment, what a farce, what a way for a political opponent to nullify the peoples vote. I didn’t agree with any of them. Not one of them. Tell the people what happened and let the people decide. Why is that not the best concept out there? There isn’t anyone not voted in by the country making a choice for the populace.

 

[MisterBeale]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

It seems as though you dismiss the investigation into Trump for two reasons and two reasons only and nothing will change your mind about it. Those reasons are:

1) Trump is a republican and you voted for him.

2) The democrats are behind the impeachment.

Is that it? What I find incredibly lame is that you don’t even think the investigation itself is necessary. You think the democrats or any investigative body should drop the whole thing. Based on all of the facts presented, you can’t even say “well, okay. Let’s look at a few things. There are a few red flags about this whole thing if I’m trying to be objective about it. Just let an independent body investigate it instead of those demo-rats!”

The evidence that would have to come to light, would have to be, that Assange would have to be freed, and a clear accounting of what happened with Hillary's lost emails would have to be accounted for.

Once the truth about what happened to the leaked emails had been accounted for, and once the true nature of Ukraine's meddling in the 2016 election and the quid pro quo of the coup had been thoroughly exposed to the American public, then I guess we could get down to whether Trump was trying to reveal these things for personal gain, or just to clean up corruption.


While Assange is in prison? This whole thing is bogus.

What would need to happen for you to admit this is all a partisan ruse?

 

[XponentialChaos]

I'll chime in here: high crimes and misdemeanors.

Asking a foreign leader to "look into" something is not a crime. Biden is not a rival of Trump until he wins the nomination. Until that time, he's just another person like any of the other 2 dozen candidates.

What I would need: To hear (or read) Trump tell Zelensky that he better investigate his political rival (yes those words exactly) or else he will never get the aid.

I'm proud of you. You actually answered the question.

"You better investigate....or else" is what you need to hear. Exactly in those words. Got it. Seems like a really specific and unrealistic requirement, but it's at least clear. Thank you.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[Cellblock2429]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

It seems as though you dismiss the investigation into Trump for two reasons and two reasons only and nothing will change your mind about it. Those reasons are:

1) Trump is a republican and you voted for him.

2) The democrats are behind the impeachment.

Is that it? What I find incredibly lame is that you don’t even think the investigation itself is necessary. You think the democrats or any investigative body should drop the whole thing. Based on all of the facts presented, you can’t even say “well, okay. Let’s look at a few things. There are a few red flags about this whole thing if I’m trying to be objective about it. Just let an independent body investigate it instead of those demo-rats!”

/----/ Seeing some verified hardcore, irrefutable evidence would be a nice start.
Monica's blue dress is a perfect example.

 

[jc456]

I'll chime in here: high crimes and misdemeanors.

Asking a foreign leader to "look into" something is not a crime. Biden is not a rival of Trump until he wins the nomination. Until that time, he's just another person like any of the other 2 dozen candidates.

What I would need: To hear (or read) Trump tell Zelensky that he better investigate his political rival (yes those words exactly) or else he will never get the aid.

I'm proud of you. You actually answered the question.

"You better investigate....or else" is what you need to hear. Exactly in those words. Got it. Seems like a really specific and unrealistic requirement, but it's at least clear. Thank you.

BTW, asking a foreign government to look into a political rival isn't a crime. you could post the statute that says it is. I'll wait.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I don’t do hypothetical’s, .

I didn't think you would.

"In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well." - X

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'll chime in here: high crimes and misdemeanors.

Asking a foreign leader to "look into" something is not a crime. Biden is not a rival of Trump until he wins the nomination. Until that time, he's just another person like any of the other 2 dozen candidates.

What I would need: To hear (or read) Trump tell Zelensky that he better investigate his political rival (yes those words exactly) or else he will never get the aid.

I'm proud of you. You actually answered the question.

"You better investigate....or else" is what you need to hear. Exactly in those words. Got it. Seems like a really specific and unrealistic requirement, but it's at least clear. Thank you.

Of course that's what anybody should want to hear. Otherwise, what they are basing impeachment on is their ability to read Trump's mind, and their ability to see into the future to know Biden is a political rival. That's why I call this a Through Police impeachment.

 

[jc456]

I don’t do hypothetical’s, .

I didn't think you would.

"In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well." - X

well they don't exist. I don't do KGB things, I live in america. you should visit. You'd like it.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Simple. Real evidence of a real crime. No hearsay, no bullshit. No unfair crap run by Adam Shithead, etc.

Your answer is cowardly and nonsensical.

Answer the real question:

What evidence, Specifically, would convince you that trump abused his power by withholding foreign security aid for personal gain?

/----/ So real evidence of a real crime. No hearsay, no bullshit. No unfair crap run by Adam Shithead, etc. is cowardly and nonsensical? So why do you libtards demand real evidence of a real crime. No hearsay, no bullshit. No unfair crap when it comes to Joe and Hunter Biden?

 

[XponentialChaos]

I'll chime in here: high crimes and misdemeanors.

Asking a foreign leader to "look into" something is not a crime. Biden is not a rival of Trump until he wins the nomination. Until that time, he's just another person like any of the other 2 dozen candidates.

What I would need: To hear (or read) Trump tell Zelensky that he better investigate his political rival (yes those words exactly) or else he will never get the aid.

I'm proud of you. You actually answered the question.

"You better investigate....or else" is what you need to hear. Exactly in those words. Got it. Seems like a really specific and unrealistic requirement, but it's at least clear. Thank you.

BTW, asking a foreign government to look into a political rival isn't a crime. you could post the statute that says it is. I'll wait.

Nah I'm good.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="MisterBeale, post: 23647936, member: 39702"]

[/QUOTE]

^^^^^^^^^^^^EXACTLY^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I didn't know it was a crime.

 

[jc456]

I'll chime in here: high crimes and misdemeanors.

Asking a foreign leader to "look into" something is not a crime. Biden is not a rival of Trump until he wins the nomination. Until that time, he's just another person like any of the other 2 dozen candidates.

What I would need: To hear (or read) Trump tell Zelensky that he better investigate his political rival (yes those words exactly) or else he will never get the aid.

I'm proud of you. You actually answered the question.

"You better investigate....or else" is what you need to hear. Exactly in those words. Got it. Seems like a really specific and unrealistic requirement, but it's at least clear. Thank you.

BTW, asking a foreign government to look into a political rival isn't a crime. you could post the statute that says it is. I'll wait.

Nah I'm good.

Me too.

While we're here, the two articles, aren't high crimes or misdemeanors. hmmmmmmm you think they will actually take a vote on them? I say no.

 

[Cellblock2429]

you might have a point if this impeachment thing didnt start on day one....

Nonsensical answer. The impeachment started about 10 weeks ago.

/-----/ Post a link proving an official impeachment started. The vote won't be until next week, you big dope.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I'll chime in here: high crimes and misdemeanors.

Asking a foreign leader to "look into" something is not a crime. Biden is not a rival of Trump until he wins the nomination. Until that time, he's just another person like any of the other 2 dozen candidates.

What I would need: To hear (or read) Trump tell Zelensky that he better investigate his political rival (yes those words exactly) or else he will never get the aid.

I'm proud of you. You actually answered the question.

"You better investigate....or else" is what you need to hear. Exactly in those words. Got it. Seems like a really specific and unrealistic requirement, but it's at least clear. Thank you.

Of course that's what anybody should want to hear. Otherwise, what they are basing impeachment on is their ability to read Trump's mind, and their ability to see into the future to know Biden is a political rival. That's why I call this a Through Police impeachment.

Let's try something simple then.

Suppose he said "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

Those aren't the exact words that you specified earlier. Would that no longer satisfy your requirement for impeachment? Or do you think the same meaning is still there and still meets your requirement?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'll chime in here: high crimes and misdemeanors.

Asking a foreign leader to "look into" something is not a crime. Biden is not a rival of Trump until he wins the nomination. Until that time, he's just another person like any of the other 2 dozen candidates.

What I would need: To hear (or read) Trump tell Zelensky that he better investigate his political rival (yes those words exactly) or else he will never get the aid.

I'm proud of you. You actually answered the question.

"You better investigate....or else" is what you need to hear. Exactly in those words. Got it. Seems like a really specific and unrealistic requirement, but it's at least clear. Thank you.

Of course that's what anybody should want to hear. Otherwise, what they are basing impeachment on is their ability to read Trump's mind, and their ability to see into the future to know Biden is a political rival. That's why I call this a Through Police impeachment.

Let's try something simple then.

Suppose he said "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

Those aren't the exact words that you specified earlier. Would that no longer satisfy your requirement for impeachment? Or do you think the same meaning is still there and still meets your requirement?

If he said it that way, then they might be onto something. But the fact is, if a past administration has acted in an extremely suspicious way, I think the President is asking for information on behalf of the country--not himself. If he is asking on behalf of himself, then I need to be shown that's what he was doing, by stating his interest was because he suspected that Biden will be his contender.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I'll chime in here: high crimes and misdemeanors.

Asking a foreign leader to "look into" something is not a crime. Biden is not a rival of Trump until he wins the nomination. Until that time, he's just another person like any of the other 2 dozen candidates.

What I would need: To hear (or read) Trump tell Zelensky that he better investigate his political rival (yes those words exactly) or else he will never get the aid.

I'm proud of you. You actually answered the question.

"You better investigate....or else" is what you need to hear. Exactly in those words. Got it. Seems like a really specific and unrealistic requirement, but it's at least clear. Thank you.

Of course that's what anybody should want to hear. Otherwise, what they are basing impeachment on is their ability to read Trump's mind, and their ability to see into the future to know Biden is a political rival. That's why I call this a Through Police impeachment.

Let's try something simple then.

Suppose he said "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

Those aren't the exact words that you specified earlier. Would that no longer satisfy your requirement for impeachment? Or do you think the same meaning is still there and still meets your requirement?

If he said it that way, then they might be onto something. But the fact is, if a past administration has acted in an extremely suspicious way, I think the President is asking for information on behalf of the country--not himself. If he is asking on behalf of himself, then I need to be shown that's what he was doing, by stating his interest was because he suspected that Biden will be his contender.

They might be onto something? What's really different between the following two statements?

"You better investigate....or else" and "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'll chime in here: high crimes and misdemeanors.

Asking a foreign leader to "look into" something is not a crime. Biden is not a rival of Trump until he wins the nomination. Until that time, he's just another person like any of the other 2 dozen candidates.

What I would need: To hear (or read) Trump tell Zelensky that he better investigate his political rival (yes those words exactly) or else he will never get the aid.

I'm proud of you. You actually answered the question.

"You better investigate....or else" is what you need to hear. Exactly in those words. Got it. Seems like a really specific and unrealistic requirement, but it's at least clear. Thank you.

Of course that's what anybody should want to hear. Otherwise, what they are basing impeachment on is their ability to read Trump's mind, and their ability to see into the future to know Biden is a political rival. That's why I call this a Through Police impeachment.

Let's try something simple then.

Suppose he said "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

Those aren't the exact words that you specified earlier. Would that no longer satisfy your requirement for impeachment? Or do you think the same meaning is still there and still meets your requirement?

If he said it that way, then they might be onto something. But the fact is, if a past administration has acted in an extremely suspicious way, I think the President is asking for information on behalf of the country--not himself. If he is asking on behalf of himself, then I need to be shown that's what he was doing, by stating his interest was because he suspected that Biden will be his contender.

They might be onto something? What's really different between the following two statements?

"You better investigate....or else" and "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

At least "or else" is a threat of some kind; not specific, but a threat. The only person that said "or else" was Schiff Face when he lied in front of the entire world about what Trump said.

 

[jc456]

I'll chime in here: high crimes and misdemeanors.

Asking a foreign leader to "look into" something is not a crime. Biden is not a rival of Trump until he wins the nomination. Until that time, he's just another person like any of the other 2 dozen candidates.

What I would need: To hear (or read) Trump tell Zelensky that he better investigate his political rival (yes those words exactly) or else he will never get the aid.

I'm proud of you. You actually answered the question.

"You better investigate....or else" is what you need to hear. Exactly in those words. Got it. Seems like a really specific and unrealistic requirement, but it's at least clear. Thank you.

Of course that's what anybody should want to hear. Otherwise, what they are basing impeachment on is their ability to read Trump's mind, and their ability to see into the future to know Biden is a political rival. That's why I call this a Through Police impeachment.

Let's try something simple then.

Suppose he said "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

Those aren't the exact words that you specified earlier. Would that no longer satisfy your requirement for impeachment? Or do you think the same meaning is still there and still meets your requirement?

If he said it that way, then they might be onto something. But the fact is, if a past administration has acted in an extremely suspicious way, I think the President is asking for information on behalf of the country--not himself. If he is asking on behalf of himself, then I need to be shown that's what he was doing, by stating his interest was because he suspected that Biden will be his contender.

They might be onto something? What's really different between the following two statements?

"You better investigate....or else" and "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

why are you doing this exactly? it wasn't said, never was said, never happened. so why are you behaving as if it did? Exactly what is your point?