What is wrong with Marco Rubio?

[Horsefly]

I was floored by his comments about the impeachment.  For the self initiated, please read and tell me what you think

https://medium.com/@SenatorMarcoRubio/my-statement-on-the-presidents-impeachment-trial-9669e82ccb43

[RedZone]

10 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

I was floored by his comments about the impeachment.  For the self initiated, please read and tell me what you think

https://medium.com/@SenatorMarcoRubio/my-statement-on-the-presidents-impeachment-trial-9669e82ccb43

All these gop guys are political flakes/hacks.

... rubio, cruz and etc.

They all called dictator trump a POS hundreds of times. 

Look at them now!

 

[RedZone]

All these weak SOB's had their shot at sticking it to dictator trump.

There is no longer a gop and everyone here knows it.

[I AM IRONMAN]

2 minutes ago, RedZone said:

All these gop guys are political flakes/hacks.

... rubio, cruz and etc.

They all called dictator trump a POS hundreds of times. 

Look at them now!

 

Ease up on your temper tantrum or you'll wet yourself Again Cooter!

[World Citizen]

5 hours ago, Horsefly said:

I was floored by his comments about the impeachment.  For the self initiated, please read and tell me what you think

https://medium.com/@SenatorMarcoRubio/my-statement-on-the-presidents-impeachment-trial-9669e82ccb43

I thought there was a lot wrong with his comments but I also found a little bit of honesty as well.  The honest part is that he admits there was wrong doing and that the allegations were true.  However, to not think that Trump is a threat to this country as it pertains to elections and strong arming our ally for a domestic political hit job is not enough to convict is dumbfounding.  

His argument that the Senate should not seek witnesses because the House did not is unconvincing to say the least.  The reasons the House didn't is one of the reasons for impeachment itself.  So there is that.  This whole thing stinks and the only ones I see that don't want the truth to come out or simply are not going convict no matter what the facts are are the Republicans.  The only ones who say he is innocent either refuse to testify or are refuse to allow testimony and evidence.

As long as Republicans control the Senate, Trump IS ABOVE THE LAW and will continue to lie, cheat, call fellow Americans human scum-even if those same people are the ones Trump hired himself.  If you disagree you are human scum and you have TDS and are a liar and unethical POS who hate this country.  That sentiment doesn't leave any room to come together to find any middle ground or compromise (if that should ever be a thing we do in this country again).  

All politicians are politicians and play the game but what we have now (imo, since the Tea Party) is a zero sum game being played by the right and it is to the detriment of all of us citizens of every political leaning.  There is no good faith to do the countries business anymore and when one side is so publicly (and the voting record proves this) against what the country wants it makes it impossible to support anything they do.  

Only one side supports putting kids in cages, one side supports giving tax breaks to the richest among us, one side thinks Africa is nothing but shithole countries, only one side defends the Nazi/KKK as they march and scream 'Jews will not replace us", only one side is defending and supporting a President that has 25 sexual assault allegations, and only one side defends a President who held a fake charity event for veterans and kept the money.  He stole from a veterans charity event he set up.  How do people not feel that is is fucked up thing to do.  

There is 1000 reasons for not supporting this guy and every one of them gets turned into being the Democrats fault.  

I know I strayed far from the Rubio comments but there is so much that Trump does that he doesn't get any credit for and only one side does that.  

The weird thing for me is that I don't hate Trump.  Not at all.  I see him as barely smarter than a dirt worm and he has no moral compass or compassion or ability for any self reflection but that is baked into the cake and it would make as much sense if I were to hate a kid for having down syndrome.  Not his fault in a way.  Those who enable him and defend the indefensible I do not give a pass to.  Not to say I hate them either but I do have zero respect for them and consider them responsible for what Trump does only because they allow it to go on and they never speak out against any wrong.  

[Blueliner]

2 hours ago, World Citizen said:

I thought there was a lot wrong with his comments but I also found a little bit of honesty as well.  The honest part is that he admits there was wrong doing and that the allegations were true.  However, to not think that Trump is a threat to this country as it pertains to elections and strong arming our ally for a domestic political hit job is not enough to convict is dumbfounding.  

His argument that the Senate should not seek witnesses because the House did not is unconvincing to say the least.  The reasons the House didn't is one of the reasons for impeachment itself.  So there is that.  This whole thing stinks and the only ones I see that don't want the truth to come out or simply are not going convict no matter what the facts are are the Republicans.  The only ones who say he is innocent either refuse to testify or are refuse to allow testimony and evidence.

As long as Republicans control the Senate, Trump IS ABOVE THE LAW and will continue to lie, cheat, call fellow Americans human scum-even if those same people are the ones Trump hired himself.  If you disagree you are human scum and you have TDS and are a liar and unethical POS who hate this country.  That sentiment doesn't leave any room to come together to find any middle ground or compromise (if that should ever be a thing we do in this country again).  

All politicians are politicians and play the game but what we have now (imo, since the Tea Party) is a zero sum game being played by the right and it is to the detriment of all of us citizens of every political leaning.  There is no good faith to do the countries business anymore and when one side is so publicly (and the voting record proves this) against what the country wants it makes it impossible to support anything they do.  

Only one side supports putting kids in cages, one side supports giving tax breaks to the richest among us, one side thinks Africa is nothing but shithole countries, only one side defends the Nazi/KKK as they march and scream 'Jews will not replace us", only one side is defending and supporting a President that has 25 sexual assault allegations, and only one side defends a President who held a fake charity event for veterans and kept the money.  He stole from a veterans charity event he set up.  How do people not feel that is is fucked up thing to do.  

There is 1000 reasons for not supporting this guy and every one of them gets turned into being the Democrats fault.  

I know I strayed far from the Rubio comments but there is so much that Trump does that he doesn't get any credit for and only one side does that.  

The weird thing for me is that I don't hate Trump.  Not at all.  I see him as barely smarter than a dirt worm and he has no moral compass or compassion or ability for any self reflection but that is baked into the cake and it would make as much sense if I were to hate a kid for having down syndrome.  Not his fault in a way.  Those who enable him and defend the indefensible I do not give a pass to.  Not to say I hate them either but I do have zero respect for them and consider them responsible for what Trump does only because they allow it to go on and they never speak out against any wrong.  

I could refute everything that you just blabbered on about. I'm sorry. You guys have serious fucking issues. You don't hate Trump? Now that's funny. I guess you must hate his electorate then. 

...and please identify the quotes where Rubio 'admits that there was wrongdoing and that the allegations are true". Thanks. 

[badrouter]

2 hours ago, Blueliner said:

I could refute everything that you just blabbered on about. I'm sorry. You guys have serious fucking issues. You don't hate Trump? Now that's funny. I guess you must hate his electorate then. 

...and please identify the quotes where Rubio 'admits that there was wrongdoing and that the allegations are true". Thanks. 

Nah, no reason to get it twisted: We do hate a crooked fucking liar. Absolutely. I personally favor the abolition of all political parties, as unrealistic as that seems. So, sorry, my hatred of Chief Crooked Fucking Liar is not a product of me hoping my tribe wins. I don't have a tribe. I have morals. So, it's a totally different world from tribal little bitches such as yourself.

[badrouter]

In response to your forthcoming comment about how I must be a sheep of the MSM (never to actually be defined objectively, of course), the answer is No. My feelings about Trump can be supported entirely through using quotes and actions straight from the (Crooked Fucking Liar) horse's mouth.

[thc6795]

26 minutes ago, badrouter said:

In response to your forthcoming comment about how I must be a sheep of the MSM (never to actually be defined objectively, of course), the answer is No. My feelings about Trump can be supported entirely through using quotes and actions straight from the (Crooked Fucking Liar) horse's mouth.

Know one is stopping you from leaving you little cunt...or you can stay here and bleed like a bitch all night long. Either way know one gives a fuck

[Blueliner]

34 minutes ago, badrouter said:

Nah, no reason to get it twisted: We do hate a crooked fucking liar. Absolutely. I personally favor the abolition of all political parties, as unrealistic as that seems. So, sorry, my hatred of Chief Crooked Fucking Liar is not a product of me hoping my tribe wins. I don't have a tribe. I have morals. So, it's a totally different world from tribal little bitches such as yourself.

Interesting take there, tough guy🤣 Your position of hate is duly noted. As I said, enjoy being miserable for the next 5 years. 👍

[Blueliner]

6 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

Know one is stopping you from leaving you little cunt...or you can stay here and bleed like a bitch all night long. Either way know one gives a fuck

Tough guy is entertaining. Every so often he gets TDS cramps, he can’t take the pain, and then does his little hormonal drive-by Tampax commercial rant. 🤣

[thc6795]

3 minutes ago, Blueliner said:

Interesting take there, tough guy🤣 Your position of hate is duly noted. As I said, enjoy being miserable for the next 5 years. 👍

Fuck them all man. Seriously fuck them. They can all fucking leave tonight. I'm enjoying their meltdown. 

Come November I hope instead of us talking about 22 military suicides a day we are talking about 50 of these cunts offing themselves a day. Because Trump is reelected.

[Horsefly]

3 hours ago, Blueliner said:

I could refute everything that you just blabbered on about. I'm sorry. You guys have serious fucking issues. You don't hate Trump? Now that's funny. I guess you must hate his electorate then. 

...and please identify the quotes where Rubio 'admits that there was wrongdoing and that the allegations are true". Thanks. 

Did you read the article? 

[Blueliner]

22 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

Did you read the article? 

Are you referring to this?

Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.

Because if you are, then you're wrong. He is talking about hypothetical actions. Not Trumps actions meeting a standard. He goes one step further and adds this:

To answer this question, the first step was to ask whether it would serve the public good to remove the President, even if I assumed the President did everything the House alleges.

These statements clearly don't claim that Trump actually did something wrong. If I missed something, let me know.

[Horsefly]

7 minutes ago, Blueliner said:

Are you referring to this?

Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.

Because if you are, then you're wrong. He is talking about hypothetical actions. Not Trumps actions meeting a standard. He goes one step further and adds this:

To answer this question, the first step was to ask whether it would serve the public good to remove the President, even if I assumed the President did everything the House alleges.

These statements clearly don't claim that Trump actually did something wrong. If I missed something, let me know.

On the first Article of Impeachment, I reject the argument that “Abuse of Power” can never constitute grounds for removal unless a crime or a crime-like action is alleged.  However, for purposes of answering my threshold question I assumed what is alleged is true. 
 

Nevertheless, new witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed for my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true.

(all of these statements were about the abuse of power charge.  And he later explained why removal of the President wasn’t on the table for him even though he felt the allegations were true)

 

[Blueliner]

4 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

 However, for purposes of answering my threshold question I assumed what is alleged is true. 
 

Nevertheless, new witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed for my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true.

(all of these statements were about the abuse of power charge.  And he later explained why removal of the President wasn’t on the table for him even though he felt the allegations were true)

 

These were both assumptions in testing to see if the allegations met the threshold. Please offer a link for this addition statement where he felt that the allegations were true. Thanks. 

[Horsefly]

Just now, Blueliner said:

These were both assumptions in testing to see if the allegations met the threshold. Please offer a link for this addition statement where he felt that the allegations were true. Thanks. 

I just highlighted the statements. The memo is all his.  This is what he wrote to his constituents.
 

 The threshold is about addressing the allegations from 2 parts did he think the president did it and then are the charges worthy of impeachment.  So in his anysis he was already working under the assumption that the her was guilty of abuse of power.  He felt no witnesses were needed because he was already working under the premise of the abuse of power allegation was true.  (Based on what had already been presented) 

he didn’t think the obstruction of charges were valid.  He dismissed them in one sentence.  

[Blueliner]

I looked and found only what you posted. This is just the left, yet again, spinning an enemies (repub) words into something they are not. 

[Horsefly]

4 minutes ago, Blueliner said:

I looked and found only what you posted. This is just the left, yet again, spinning an enemies (repub) words into something they are not. 

This is his letter, the entire article.  😂 .  This isn’t an opinion piece.  

[Blueliner]

1 minute ago, Horsefly said:

I just highlighted the statements. The memo is all his.  This is what he wrote to his constituents.
 

 The threshold is about addressing the allegations from 2 parts did he think the president did it and then are the charges worthy of impeachment.  So in his anysis he was already working under the assumption that the her was guilty of abuse of power.  He felt no witnesses were needed because he was already working under the premise of the abuse of power allegation was true.  (Based on what had already been presented) 

he didn’t think the obstruction of charges were valid.  He dismissed them in one sentence.  

This is a simple law tactic to plan a strategy. It's law 101. Assume the worst, take a snapshot, and work backwards. Lawyers do it all of the time to get summary judgment. That's all he was doing. He never once said nor even suggested that Trump's actual actions were impeachable. It doesn't matter. It's a moot point now. The left will be on to some other outrage tomorrow. 

[Horsefly]

Just now, Blueliner said:

This is a simple law tactic to plan a strategy. It's law 101. Assume the worst, take a snapshot, and work backwards. Lawyers do it all of the time to get summary judgment. That's all he was doing. He never once said nor even suggested that Trump's actual actions were impeachable. It doesn't matter. It's a moot point now. The left will be on to some other outrage tomorrow. 

No it’s not, he could have easily dismissed the abuse of power charge like he did the obstruction of Congress charge.  

He wasn’t addressing if this should be impeached  he was addressing if a conviction was warranted.  

His letter has nothing to do with Democrats or liberals.  It’s his independent thought 

[Blueliner]

25 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

This is his letter.  This isn’t an opinion piece.  

I actually searched for additional information to see if he maybe said something else in a interview or something. If he said that what Trump did is, in fact, impeachable and then said it was ok that he wasn't impeached, I'd probably look at that with a raised eyebrow. But he didn't say that. Jeez, bro. Clinton was indicted on 13 felony counts, and the dems defended him aggressively. And he subsequently walked. As he should've in my opinion. Time to move on from this don't ya think? We are all exhausted from this.....well, except for Trump. Trump and his team are ready for whatever comes. The dems can not  beat him at this game because at the end of the day, the FACTS are on his side. Allegations, innuendos, assumptions, made up stories, hear say, maybes, probablys, and wishing upon a star, is not going to get rid of him. Oh and he's got the Constitution and precedent on his side as well. All of this has completely galvanized his based, and adding more by the day. The left, with rage in their hearts, are ensuring division will continue. I assure you that it's NOT the Trump supporters out there creating havoc. 

[Horsefly]

11 minutes ago, Blueliner said:

I actually searched for additional information to see if he maybe said something else in a interview or something. If he said that what Trump did is, in fact, impeachable and then said it was ok that he wasn't impeached, I'd probably look at that with a raised eyebrow. But he didn't say that. Jeez, bro. Clinton was indicted on 13 felony counts, and the dems defended him aggressively. And he subsequently walked. As he should've in my opinion. Time to move on from this don't ya think? We are all exhausted from this.....well, except for Trump. Trump and his team are ready for whatever comes. The dems can not  beat him at this game because at the end of the day, the FACTS are on his side. Allegations, innuendos, assumptions, made up stories, hear say, maybes, probablys, and wishing upon a star, is not going to get rid of him. All of this has completely galvanized his based, and adding more by the day. The left, with rage in their hearts, are ensuring division will continue. I assure you that it's NOT the Trump supporters out there creating havoc. 

You are confusing terms.  Trump was already impeached, that wasn’t the Senates job to review if the charges were impeachable, but to determine if they were going to acquit or convict  

What reason did Rubio give for why he felt witnesses were not required?  (It’s in the article) 

you have to read the whole thing he tells you why he didn’t convict and it wasn’t because he felt the allegations weren’t true.  An article is not needed to just say that 

[Blueliner]

Just now, Horsefly said:

No it’s not, he could have easily dismissed the abuse of power charge like he did the obstruction of Congress charge.  

He wasn’t addressing if this should be impeached  he was addressing if a conviction was warranted.  

His letter has nothing to do with Democrats or liberals.  It’s his independent thought 

If that's his thought that a President may have done something impeachable and maybe shouldn't be for the sake of the country (validly so unless it's extremely egregious), that's his opinion. But this whole discussion is about WC's statement that Rubio felt that Trump ACTUALLY did something impeachable. 

The abuse of power charge, being such a vague charge, needs a little more explaining than the obstruction charge. That said, I'da said the same thing about this charge as the obstruction. It doesn't rise to the level of removal from office.  But when the trial was a public as it was, all charges had to be addressed.

[thc6795]

14 hours ago, Horsefly said:

I was floored by his comments about the impeachment.  For the self initiated, please read and tell me what you think

https://medium.com/@SenatorMarcoRubio/my-statement-on-the-presidents-impeachment-trial-9669e82ccb43

What's up Independent?