I see a hell of a lot about Ukraine & the withheld aid etc in article 1 here my guy.https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/10/us/politics/articles-impeachment-document-pdf.html …
-
-
About Russia. That’s nonsensical. Any politician—Tulsi included—can vote yes on article 1 while voicing there position that Russia has nothing to do with impeachment and Russiagate is propaganda. You seem to, I think unintentionally, be fine to ignore
-
The president dangling foreign aid over another country unless that country announces an investigation on his political opponents. I don’t like Joe Biden, but the fact that it’s him is irrelevant. You shouldn’t be giving Trump a pass on gross misconduct based on semantics
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
"Semantics" are pretty important when you are voting to approve a specific text in the form of impeachment articles. Trump deserves to be penalized but not through a mechanism that relies on Cold War / Russiagate hysterics and valorizes the permanent security state bureaucracy.
-
I get so extremely tired of blowhards hectoring others about their supposed lack of nuance.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But that's not the only thing in this article, you don't get to ignore the inconvenient for your narrative stuff.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hey Jordan, totally agree with you but I feel it’s useless arguing with the Tulsi cult because they’ll defend anything she’ll do. Michael comes across as being a contrarian just for argument sake.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.