The Impeachment of Donald trump

Posted by: logtroll

The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/02/19 12:43 PM

Wouldn't a rational person assume that chronic and exaggerated lying should be grounds for impeaching a president?
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/02/19 01:13 PM

No. All leaders must lie from time to time. However, President Donald (...) Trump does spew his every time he opens his mouth or moves his thumbs. Nonetheless, lying is not grounds for impeachment, to my way of thinking.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/02/19 02:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
No. All leaders must lie from time to time. However, President Donald (...) Trump does spew his every time he opens his mouth or moves his thumbs. Nonetheless, lying is not grounds for impeachment, to my way of thinking.

Scale and relativity should be factors, I think. Trump's lying crosses over into fraud, defamation, incompetence, and malfeasance in my estimation. Conduct unbecoming of the President of the United States. Impeachable offenses don't have to be crimes.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/02/19 03:00 PM

Unfortunately no.

I think the Convention argument against (or maybe it was the Federalist Papers) was the people can vote da bum outta office.

Here we don't have sex in the WH (unless you count frakking the public), but abuse of power. The conversation was a clear solicitation for authoritative oppo research implicating or implying VP Biden is or was corrupt in a quid pro quo arrangement vis a vis you get money for arms <--> I, Mr Trump, gets dirt on a political opponent.

This is one of the situations the Founders envisioned.

Once verified the final nail goes in that coffin, but I would like to see the clown show ... Trump supporters ingratiating themselves in the most servile and obsequious ways to throw away what little integrity any would have and certainly lose all self respect for any number of reasons.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/02/19 08:22 PM

In the America I grew up in a person was innocent until proven guilty. That respect for the individual and the rule of law has, if not disappeared, been severely eroded.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Once verified the final nail goes in that coffin, but I would like to see the clown show ... Trump supporters ingratiating themselves in the most servile and obsequious ways to throw away what little integrity any would have and certainly lose all self respect for any number of reasons.

In this comment not only is Trump guilty of everything that he has been alleged to have done but all of his supporters and accessories to his "crimes." That no one here even has any doubts about what rporter314 said shows that this is not a place for a civil discussion of the issues but a liberal echo chamber. I've told some of my conservative friends about the Rant and we agree that it is the BEST argument for the supporting the reelection of Pres. Trump.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/02/19 10:19 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Unfortunately no.

I think the Convention argument against (or maybe it was the Federalist Papers) was the people can vote da bum outta office.

Here we don't have sex in the WH (unless you count frakking the public), but abuse of power. The conversation was a clear solicitation for authoritative oppo research implicating or implying VP Biden is or was corrupt in a quid pro quo arrangement vis a vis you get money for arms <--> I, Mr Trump, gets dirt on a political opponent.

This is one of the situations the Founders envisioned.

Once verified the final nail goes in that coffin, but I would like to see the clown show ... Trump supporters ingratiating themselves in the most servile and obsequious ways to throw away what little integrity any would have and certainly lose all self respect for any number of reasons.


The real abuse of power is being foisted upon America by the Dems right now. Stealing an election didn't work for them with Russia, so they invented another sham, and it is eerily similar to the last attempt, make up a story, protect a corrupt Presidential candidate, and make believe they actually believe what they are saying.

Tim
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/02/19 10:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican

The real abuse of power is being foisted upon America by the Dems right now. Stealing an election didn't work for them with Russia, so they invented another sham, and it is eerily similar to the last attempt, make up a story, protect a corrupt Presidential candidate, and make believe they actually believe what they are saying.

Tim


Ahhh Tim, have you met Senator Hatrack?
You guys probably remember each other.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/02/19 10:31 PM

Quote:
Trump guilty of everything that he has been alleged to have done

Gee I guess you have not read the complaint nor the notes on the Ukrainian call.

Mr Trump has essentially boasted about his own wrongdoing. That you are willing to accept unethical and potentially illegal behavior of an occupant of the WH is your problem.

Mr Trump has tarnished the office of the president and relegated America to 3rd rate status ...

Like I said ... it looks bad ... just waiting to see if the facts corroborate what is public and obviously a problem.

BTW recent poll reports 24% of Trump supporters would continue to support Mr Trump if he [fill in with most heinous criminal activities of personal behaviors in your imagination] .... are you one of those people? My guess is you are, so your conclusion on best argument for reelection is bogus.

You keep typing about bad government and corruption and here you have it slapping your face and you love it ... so pleeeeease .... take your phony indignation as your best argument for continuation of corruption

as Hannity says Geeeeeeeez
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/02/19 10:38 PM

Quote:
Stealing an election didn't work for them with Russia
Wait a sec .... Mr Trump stole the election with Russian help (and Dir Comey's last minute efforts). So it did work.

Quote:
protect a corrupt Presidential candidate

You mean Republicans protecting the corruption of Mr Trump. Got it. And yes Republicans actually believe? the lies they really support Mr Trump.

Mr Trump's corruption is in plain view. If you have some factual evidence of more corruption I have the number of the FBI or USAG Barr's office if you distrust the FBI. And of special interest I have the numbers of many of the nuts on Fox News. But please report the corruption.

Are you the whistleblower????
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/02/19 11:42 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Stealing an election didn't work for them with Russia
Wait a sec .... Mr Trump stole the election with Russian help (and Dir Comey's last minute efforts). So it did work.

Quote:
protect a corrupt Presidential candidate

You mean Republicans protecting the corruption of Mr Trump. Got it. And yes Republicans actually believe? the lies they really support Mr Trump.

Mr Trump's corruption is in plain view. If you have some factual evidence of more corruption I have the number of the FBI or USAG Barr's office if you distrust the FBI. And of special interest I have the numbers of many of the nuts on Fox News. But please report the corruption.

Are you the whistleblower????


rporter314's own comments show the weakness of the allegations against Pres. Trump. If you will notice that in his reply he took Ma_Republican's comments out of context and in doing so rporter314 only used part of them. If rporter314 does that to support his arguments it calls into question the proof that he is basing his claim that Trump is guilty of the allegations against him. The elections that Ma_Republican was referring to were the primary elections not the general election. But rporter314's taking Ma_Republican's comment out of context changed what Ma_Republican was talking about. Talking them out of context also changed Ma_Republican's comment from being about Mrs. Clinton to imply that the corrupt Presidential candidate was Trump. That is what is known as a lie of omission. When rporter314 omitted most of what Ma_Republican said he omitted all of the information in order to prove what he believes. By greatly reducing his own credibility, as was done with these comments, the credibility of the allegations against Trump are also greatly reduced.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/03/19 12:42 AM

What definition of “allegation” are you using?

1:a positive assertion especially of misconduct
Some former colleagues have made serious allegations against him.
specifically : a statement by a party to a legal action of what the party undertakes to prove
2: an assertion unsupported and by implication regarded as unsupportable
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/03/19 01:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
The real abuse of power is being foisted upon America by the Dems right now. Stealing an election didn't work for them with Russia, so they invented another sham, and it is eerily similar to the last attempt, make up a story, protect a corrupt Presidential candidate, and make believe they actually believe what they are saying.

Trump requested Russian assistance, Trump received Russian assistance, Trump benefitted from Russian assistance, Trump awarded Russian assistance. Trump’s campaign team met with Russians to get dirt on Hillary and Trump’s campaign Manager gave raw polling data to Russians.

Who stole the election? mad
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/03/19 04:27 AM

OMG!!!!!

Senator, this is precisely why it is so difficult to converse with a conservative.

My comments were not meant to refute, confute or provide argumentative rebuttal. They were meant to point out how ridiculous the comments were with the use of sarcasm and facetiousness.

Now if you want a fact based argument please provide me with the evidence of criminal activity of the Democrat Party in the 2016 vis a vis stealing an election and what crimes a presidential candidate has committed which would evoke an allegation of corruption. When you provide that information I would be more than happy to provide a fact based rebuttal.

The only evidence anyone has seen of actual criminal and unethical activities has been from your cult leader, Mr Trump.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/03/19 05:21 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
OMG!!!!!

Senator, this is precisely why it is so difficult to converse with a conservative.

My comments were not meant to refute, confute or provide argumentative rebuttal. They were meant to point out how ridiculous the comments were with the use of sarcasm and facetiousness.

Now if you want a fact based argument please provide me with the evidence of criminal activity of the Democrat Party in the 2016 vis a vis stealing an election and what crimes a presidential candidate has committed which would evoke an allegation of corruption. When you provide that information I would be more than happy to provide a fact based rebuttal.

The only evidence anyone has seen of actual criminal and unethical activities has been from your cult leader, Mr Trump.
You find it difficult to converse with conservatives is because they don't kowtow to your BS arguments. Twice in this topic you have taken comments out of context. That you have to do that shows the weakness of your arguments. The claim that you were using sarcasm to point how ridiculous the comments, in your opinion, are IS an attempt to refute them.

The Independent While the rigging of the primaries is not illegal it is unethical and contrary to what the DNC claims to be, an unbiased supporter of those seeking to be the Democratic Party's endorsed candidates.
Originally Posted By: The Independent
DNC spokesperson Xochitl Hinojosa, who works under current DNC chair Tom Perez, told Fox News that the party’s official policy is to not take sides during the primaries.
You have not seen the unethical behavior of the DNC either because you didn't look for it or you are a strong supporter of Clinton.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/03/19 07:47 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
This is one of the situations the Founders envisioned.

Once verified the final nail goes in that coffin, but I would like to see the clown show ... Trump supporters ingratiating themselves in the most servile and obsequious ways to throw away what little integrity any would have and certainly lose all self respect for any number of reasons.
As if on cue...

Here is one of the best deconstructions of Trump-Defender Syndrome sufferer's excuses I've read: John Harwood.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/03/19 08:16 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: rporter314
This is one of the situations the Founders envisioned.

Once verified the final nail goes in that coffin, but I would like to see the clown show ... Trump supporters ingratiating themselves in the most servile and obsequious ways to throw away what little integrity any would have and certainly lose all self respect for any number of reasons.
As if on cue...

Here is one of the best deconstructions of Trump-Defender Syndrome sufferer's excuses I've read: John Harwood.
I see that you are quoting the liberal talking heads again, NW. Apparently you don't believe that Pres. Trump has the right to be defended. If you did you would not condemn someone from defending Trump you would encourage it. To say that someone suffers from "Trump-Defender Syndrome" is to criticize anyone who defends Trump.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/03/19 08:33 PM

Quote:
Twice in this topic you have taken comments out of context. That you have to do that shows the weakness of your arguments.

OMG!!! The reason I "take words out of context" is to save bandwidth. Is it really necessary to include an entire comment in quotes???? And ... I select the most salient part of the comment as a focal point.

I do not do what conservatives do and select only the parts which reflect your narrative and ignore the facts which actually refute the conservative argument.


Quote:
You find it difficult to converse with conservatives is because they don't kowtow to your BS arguments.

No. Actually conservatives reject the arguments because they reject the facts or the interpretation, neither of which is predicated on BS.

Many sets of facts may be interpreted in different ways. A prime example is the Constitution. So lets examine a set of facts for the BSiness of my argument.

In 2016 the FBI was more than aware the Russians were meddling in the US election. Some of it was brute force and some very nuanced which only came to light after several years of forensic work. Early in 2016 the FBI received reports regarding two people associated with the Trump campaign who had connections to Russia and claimed Russia had "dirt" on Sec Clinton/DNC.

So I don;t have a question at this point but I do have a responsibility to investigate. Only after an investigation begins does the FBI become aware Russians are stumbling into each other and into Trump campaign workers.

Now at this point I have a question. If you don't have a question, then I may conclude you are a Russian asset, hoping no one notices. My question is, is the Trump campaign in bed with the Russians? If Sec Clinton had Russians, Iranians, Chinese, or Canadians all over her campaign I would have had the same question.

So why are you not concerned??? Do you believe Putin over the IC???? or maybe whatever Mr trump says is the only "truth" you believe?

But let's continue.

Mueller issues a report which says he could not find enough evidence to determine if there was a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians ... and ... he concludes Mr Trump entered into a campaign of obstruction to limit or end the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

I would cite the definition of obstruction but I suspect you would reject every definition as irrelevant or I suspect you would say what Mr Trump did was not obstruction. If we allow what I suspect you believe, then if I were anyone convicted of obstruction I would file an appeal based on an argument you got from Mr Trump.

But let's look at the current Ukraine call. Do I need to cite the whole call? After all I would hate to take anything out of context.

The crux of the call and the only part which is of concern is the discussion of aid to Ukraine and the immediate pivot to a favor regarding a political rival.

So, do you believe when gangsters enter into a quid pro quo they use the words quid pro quo? or do you think they implicitly understand the capo when he says he has an offer you can't refuse? So give me an example of what a quid pro quo would look like. Strange but when they interviewed Rep McCarthy the other day and he didn't know what was in the call memo the interviewer had an opportunity to ask if the word Rep McCarthy said was not in the memo was used would it be evidence of quid pro quo, and when he would say yes, then show him the actual memo with the word.


You see I would agree it would be a difficult to a nonexistent case to make if Mr Trump suggested Ukraine stop all corruption .... full stop. But that is not what happened.

I know for you ... well I don't know what kind of pretzel you have to contort yourself into to defend the call, but I think I have seen all the surrogates on the circuit making fools of themselves already. Space aliens

Now let's go back to Mueller. As can be seen Mr Trump has no problem enlisting the aid of foreign governments to find dirt on his political rival in the 2020 election, so I have to wonder, is this something new or just a continuing pattern from 2016??? Now if that question did not come to your mind, then I have to wonder about your objectivity.

Quote:
using sarcasm ... IS an attempt to refute them.
OMG ... out of context but certainly the most salient feature.

Sarcasm has never refuted anything. It is used to make a point. The point being ... go back and rethink your argument!!!!
Quote:
You have not seen the unethical behavior of the DNC either because you didn't look for it or you are a strong supporter of Clinton.
As usual you are wrong.

First I was never a Sec Clinton supporter. I didn't like any Democrat candidate. My fav was a Republican who didn't run. However I did vote for Sec Clinton as I recognized Mr Trump for what he was and is, a danger to America. My hope at the time was Republicans would hold the reins and keep him from destroying America.

About the DNC activities in 2016 :: Brazzile should not have communicated with the Clinton campaign. The question leak was so obvious I have to wonder if Brazzile thought the campaign was too stupid to know what questions would be asked. Not like it was a secret gotcha question, but still.

Regarding what you see as unethical the super delegate thing ... sorry but that is the way the party machine operates. Everyone entering the campaign knows it and if they don't (like me in 1972) then shame on them for being naive.

So how about all the states not allowing primary challengers against Mr Trump? Rigged election .... anyone ... rigged

Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/03/19 08:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: rporter314
This is one of the situations the Founders envisioned.

Once verified the final nail goes in that coffin, but I would like to see the clown show ... Trump supporters ingratiating themselves in the most servile and obsequious ways to throw away what little integrity any would have and certainly lose all self respect for any number of reasons.
As if on cue...

Here is one of the best deconstructions of Trump-Defender Syndrome sufferer's excuses I've read: John Harwood.
I see that you are quoting the liberal talking heads again, NW. Apparently you don't believe that Pres. Trump has the right to be defended. If you did you would not condemn someone from defending Trump you would encourage it. To say that someone suffers from "Trump-Defender Syndrome" is to criticize anyone who defends Trump.


You mean like when Trump uses the phrase "fake news"?
To run around calling everything "fake news" is an attempt to shut down all discussion and investigation into the truth.

Running around calling the entire Fourth Estate, save for maybe one network which is in your pocket, the "enemy of the people" is another lame attempt to shut down dissent and debate as well.

Inciting civil war is another, only that is, in and of itself another impeachable offense.
Making threats against whistleblowers is another, only that is, in and of itself another impeachable offense.

Trump thinks he's doing a bangup job defending himself already.
Have you looked at this newfangled thing called "Twitter", Senator?

Maybe he can hire another lawyer, only this time I think he's going to have to actually PAY them for a change.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/03/19 08:58 PM

Quote:
Apparently you don't believe that Pres. Trump has the right to be defended

I believe you got it wrong again.

If Mr Trump (or anyone) shot someone on 5th Ave on live TV in front of God and everyone and he announced he shot someone, yes he would still have the opportunity for a legal defense.

Note the words ... legal defense.

There is no defense of him shooting someone. He did it ... and in front of God and everyone. He is guilty (barring mitigation and whatever the law allows for that).

His legal defense is to protect the legal process and keep him from being illegally charged tried and convicted. I have no problem with a defense attorney for Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin. Always protect their legal rights.

BUT .... that is not what people are defending. They are defending the very act of the crime as if it were not a crime.

Now if you don't get it ... well vote for corruption
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/04/19 02:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator
HatrackTrump has the right to be defended.

I'm not sure how Trump is going to defend himself when he's admitted to what he's done on TV. To add to Mr. Trump's current woes, Mr. Trump asked China to do the same thing as he asked of the Ukraine - provide intel on a potential Democrat rival for the 2021 presidency.

Either Donald J Trump the dumbest mother fcker to ever be president, or he's just rubbing his corruption in our collective American populace faces. Hmm

Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/04/19 02:42 AM


Harvard Law’s Laurence Tribe reveals the ‘theme’ for impeachment — that he’s going to help write

Tell us more Professor Tribe.

Quote:
“That theme is that when someone uses the power and majesty of the presidency, its financial power, its military power — not to benefit the United States — but to benefit him or herself and his or her own re-election,” he explained. “That is a betrayal of a fiduciary duty to the nation.”

“And that is what is involved in the pattern — the continuing pattern — of abuses that is typified Ukraine and China, but extends beyond them,” he continued.


smile
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/04/19 11:23 AM

I'm going to throw some numbers out. I received my new YouGov poll yesterday. Since 85% of Democrats support impeachment, 85% of Republicans do not, I'm going to ignore them and concentrate on independents, the less to non-partisan, the non-affiliated. I'd like to know folks make of these numbers.

Remember these are independents, independents only.
Impeach Trump 36% for, 38% against question 27
Remove Trump from Office 40% for, 34% against question 28
Trump favorable/unfavorable 39% favorable/48% unfavorable question 56A
Generic presidential vote 26% of independents will vote for the Democrat, 29% for Trump, 19% state it depends, 26% state they will not vote. question 43
Run for reelection 33% want Trump to run again, 45% do not question 74

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/eb2rrb9ofh/econTabReport.pdf

All of this makes sense except the generic presidential vote. I do like the fact YouGov has will not vote as an answer since we all know approximately 45% of all eligible voters won't vote, only an average of 55% do. Having this as an answer I think makes YouGov a more reliable read than all others who don't have this option forcing people to pick one or the other candidate even knowing they won't be voting.

Isn't it interesting that although a plurality of independents want Trump impeached and removed, a small plurality say they will vote for him over a Democratic candidate yet un-named. Then there are it depends independents. My take on that is their vote hinges on who the Democrats nominate.

Could these independents who state they would vote for Trump over any Democratic candidate be republican leaning independents who quite a lot want Trump gone, but would never vote for a Democrat? Or do those percentages show how many independents are in either the pro or anti Trump camps? Who knows?
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/04/19 01:27 PM

I'm always surprised at how conservative independents are in the polls. But then, I don't trust polls anyway. Polling is generally just a snapshot of how people who take polls feel.

I was concerned when the supposed impeachment inquiry began, but it seems to be more political drama than anything else. Just the House doing its part to get a Democrat elected.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/04/19 02:48 PM

I use polls to more or less spot trends. Trump's two to four point lead among independents over the generic Democratic Presidential Candidate has been constant since the first of the year.

It's like I look at the RCP averages and see the trend for the Democratic Nomination, nationwide is for Warren. Biden and Sanders has been pretty much a flat line since August with Warren rising 8 points.

If one is a Warren fan, that's good news, not so good for Biden and Sanders. It's isn't the numbers as much as it is the trend. A trend over a couple to three months means more than just the numbers of a single poll. At least to me. This is why in the Generic Presidential the steadiness of Trump's lead among independents mean much more than the poll showing him ahead by 2 or 3 points. These folks seem to have made their mind up about Trump and the Democrats. But we have a huge 40% or so yet to make up their minds. This latter number is an important one in my opinion.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/04/19 03:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: rporter314
This is one of the situations the Founders envisioned.

Once verified the final nail goes in that coffin, but I would like to see the clown show ... Trump supporters ingratiating themselves in the most servile and obsequious ways to throw away what little integrity any would have and certainly lose all self respect for any number of reasons.
As if on cue...

Here is one of the best deconstructions of Trump-Defender Syndrome sufferer's excuses I've read: John Harwood.
I see that you are quoting the liberal talking heads again, NW. Apparently you don't believe that Pres. Trump has the right to be defended. If you did you would not condemn someone from defending Trump you would encourage it. To say that someone suffers from "Trump-Defender Syndrome" is to criticize anyone who defends Trump.
My friend, I wish for a moment you would get out of your ultra-partisan cocoon and actually consider what you say. So far your only response has been a predictable partisan outburst devoid of serious thought. Let me try to focus your attention:

First, the White House released a summary of the phone call Trump made to Ukraine, so the content is not disputable. Other evidence, including Trump's public admission is readily available.

Second, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty" have no applicability here. That only applies at the end of a criminal proceeding. So, that assertion is proverbial smoke, wherever it is blown. It will be at least 18 months before Trump can go to trial and the likelihood of a Ford-Nixon pardon deal is extremely high.

Third, the behavior that Trump admitted engaging in is at the heart of the concerns expressed throughout the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist essays. I presume you know this, which is why you won't address it.

Now, I challenge you to refute any of this with facts and I will respond accordingly. Continue with your partisan tirades and I will ridicule accordingly. Deal?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 02:22 AM

I see Pence has 10 days to decide if he wants to go down with the ship or cooperate with a subpoena and maybe get to be President when Trump is convicted. The House subpoena came with an explicit warning that failure to respond would lead to his own impeachment for Obstruction. He has to decide if he's going to jump under the bus with Trump, or claim to be an uninformed patsy: A victim of Trump's manipulations.

Get the popcorn ready, this should be good...
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 03:19 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I see Pence has 10 days to decide if he wants to go down with the ship or cooperate with a subpoena and maybe get to be President when Trump is convicted. The House subpoena came with an explicit warning that failure to respond would lead to his own impeachment for Obstruction. He has to decide if he's going to jump under the bus with Trump, or claim to be an uninformed patsy: A victim of Trump's manipulations.

Get the popcorn ready, this should be good...

Mother is already measuring the Oval Office for new drapes. But what Mother doesn't know is that Mike needs to be forgiven.

Mother, please forgive Mike, for he has sinned...too.

smile
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 04:55 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: rporter314
This is one of the situations the Founders envisioned.

Once verified the final nail goes in that coffin, but I would like to see the clown show ... Trump supporters ingratiating themselves in the most servile and obsequious ways to throw away what little integrity any would have and certainly lose all self respect for any number of reasons.
As if on cue...

Here is one of the best deconstructions of Trump-Defender Syndrome sufferer's excuses I've read: John Harwood.
I see that you are quoting the liberal talking heads again, NW. Apparently you don't believe that Pres. Trump has the right to be defended. If you did you would not condemn someone from defending Trump you would encourage it. To say that someone suffers from "Trump-Defender Syndrome" is to criticize anyone who defends Trump.
My friend, I wish for a moment you would get out of your ultra-partisan cocoon and actually consider what you say. So far your only response has been a predictable partisan outburst devoid of serious thought. Let me try to focus your attention:

First, the White House released a summary of the phone call Trump made to Ukraine, so the content is not disputable. Other evidence, including Trump's public admission is readily available.
Here is the transcript of Pres. Trump's phone call to the Ukrainian President. Phone Call The Department of Justice found that Pres. Trump did not break the law. DOJ
Quote:
The DOJ’s office of legal counsel “concluded that the complaint didn’t meet the narrow technical standard for passing on a complaint from the intel community to Congress”, according to Williams, because it wasn’t an intelligence activity and didn’t include any intel employees.


Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Second, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty" have no applicability here. That only applies at the end of a criminal proceeding. So, that assertion is proverbial smoke, wherever it is blown. It will be at least 18 months before Trump can go to trial and the likelihood of a Ford-Nixon pardon deal is extremely high.

WTF?
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not applicable here? That is applicable in every trial in this country! It is what the prosecution MUST do to obtain a conviction of whoever is being tried for any and all crimes. Innocent until proven guilty only applies at the end of a criminal proceeding? No, everyone whether it is the President of the United States or you, NW Ponderer, are innocent of any crime you might be accused of until you have been tried. It doesn't matter if the trial is in a local courthouse of the US Senate! Everyone is innocent until the the jury, or Senators, returns with a guilty verdict.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Third, the behavior that Trump admitted engaging in is at the heart of the concerns expressed throughout the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist essays. I presume you know this, which is why you won't address it.
Please provide proof of Trump's "confession."

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Now, I challenge you to refute any of this with facts and I will respond accordingly. Continue with your partisan tirades and I will ridicule accordingly. Deal?
I have. But you will doubt the legitimacy of my link about what the DOJ said because the source is a conservative one. For you to accept a conservative source would require you to break out of your ultra partisan cocoon. No, there is no "deal." All you can do is ridicule people in your biased attempts to prove what you believe. Your primary method of replying to the comments of those who disagree with is to ridicule them and it is extremely obnoxious.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 12:08 PM

Señor Hatrack,

I want to help you out of your confusion. There is an impeachment investigation going on, not a trial.

The things you are in a fret about are the facts of the matter that are being investigated, not judgments.

I suggest you not jump to conclusions - relax a little and enjoy the Trump Reality Show. And don’t forget to buy something from the sponsors.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 01:30 PM

Here is an excellent in-depth analysis...

Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 05:53 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Here is an excellent in-depth analysis...

This has the depth of a puddle on the sidewalk.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 06:21 PM

Yet it reflects infinitely more reality that Trump and his Zombie Brigade, don't you think?
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 06:35 PM

Quote:
This has the depth of a puddle on the sidewalk.

Yeah, it's not something I'd ever click on. It's sad that President Trump has drawn such ire. But he has and now the rest of us have got to deal with the consequences.

I hear that gold can be hammered to the thickness of a single molecule.

Even that is as deep as the ocean compared to the shallow greedy antics of our current president.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 06:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
...It's sad that President Trump has drawn such ire...

Who would have guessed that a reality TV star with no government experience or knowledge, 6 business bankruptcies, five kids from 3 different women, 16 charges of sexual assault, numerous adulterous affairs, over 4,000 lawsuits against him, could be so bad at being President?

Hmm
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 07:10 PM

He chose this course though. These could have been the very best years of his life. A little compassion, a little kindness and generosity could have made him popular with everyone. A little keeping his fu****g tiny hands off the goddam levers of world domination wouldn't have hurt either...but that's neither here not there. he chose to become the ultimate enemy of liberals of all stripes from the neoliberal center to the leftiest of the left wing fringes.

We didn't ask for this, it was delivered to our doorstep. An exploding box of SH**t. All neatly packaged in a Amazon box, with a long red tie as a ribbon. Revenge is coming and it will be sweeter than honey.

Do I hope to make republican heads explode? No. I hope to educate their children, make sure they have medicine if they need it, and see to it that whatever field they choose to work in pays at least a living wage.

For some reason though they are outraged at the very thought of this.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 08:50 PM

And now a second whistleblower has come forward.

2nd whistleblower comes forward after speaking with IG: Attorney

Quote:
Mark Zaid, the attorney representing the whistleblower who sounded the alarm on President Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine and triggered an impeachment inquiry, tells ABC News that he is now representing a second whistleblower who has spoken with the inspector general.

Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 09:23 PM

If Trump is impeached by the House the chances that there will be 67 Senators who will vote to convict him is highly unlikely. When the Senate does not convict Trump he will remain in office.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 09:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If Trump is impeached by the House the chances that there will be 67 Senators who will vote to convict him is highly unlikely. When the Senate does not convict Trump he will remain in office.

I guess that will mean that most of the Republican senators are corrupt. Since there is nothing to be done about it, we should just learn to live with the U.S. going down the toilet. I understand now.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 09:55 PM

At this juncture I think it's safe to say we will be seeing a third, fourth, fifth and sixth whistleblower some time in the next two weeks, and the fifth or sixth one will be an absolute jaw to the floor like an oven door mindblower.
I say this because WB #2 has just decided to talk, which paves the way for #3, 4, 5 and possibly 6.
Again, I am predicting that either WB #5 or #6 will make everyone's head explode.

Quote:
"Hallo-o-o, I vant to blow zee whistle!"


Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 10:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
"Hallo-o-o, I vant to blow zee whistle!"



If Mel isn't careful, she might just give illegal immigrants a good name...
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 10:18 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If Trump is impeached by the House the chances that there will be 67 Senators who will vote to convict him is highly unlikely. When the Senate does not convict Trump he will remain in office.

I guess that will mean that most of the Republican senators are corrupt. Since there is nothing to be done about it, we should just learn to live with the U.S. going down the toilet. I understand now.


LOL yeah. What is it about this administration that's working so well for Republicans?

Conviction in the Senate is no longer important. In fact it is preferable that they do not for the very reason you mentions, Loggy.
Senators are going to lose seats over this.

The glittering blue path to Global Utopian Social Democracy has never been brighter. 2020 is a done deal at this point.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 10:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
At this juncture I think it's safe to say we will be seeing a third, fourth, fifth and sixth whistleblower some time in the next two weeks, and the fifth or sixth one will be an absolute jaw to the floor like an oven door mindblower.
I say this because WB #2 has just decided to talk, which paves the way for #3, 4, 5 and possibly 6.
Again, I am predicting that either WB #5 or #6 will make everyone's head explode.

Quote:
"Hallo-o-o, I vant to blow zee whistle!"


Of course there is absolutely no possibility that the whistle blowers might be lying? That they are partisan? That anytime anyone anywhere someone says Pres. Trump did something wrong the are 100% credible? The DOJ said that a crime was not committed in Trump's call to the Ukrainian President. NPR DOJ
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 10:42 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If Trump is impeached by the House the chances that there will be 67 Senators who will vote to convict him is highly unlikely. When the Senate does not convict Trump he will remain in office.

I guess that will mean that most of the Republican senators are corrupt. Since there is nothing to be done about it, we should just learn to live with the U.S. going down the toilet. I understand now.
Because the Republican Senators won't vote to convict Trump, because logtroll wants them to, they are corrupt.
LOL
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 10:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Because the Republican Senators won't vote to convict Trump, because logtroll wants them to, they are corrupt.
LOL

You missed the logic, Senator. Probably because you refuse to see the perfectly visible corruption of King Kon.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 11:12 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Because the Republican Senators won't vote to convict Trump, because logtroll wants them to, they are corrupt.
LOL

You missed the logic, Senator. Probably because you refuse to see the perfectly visible corruption of King Kon.
One can't miss what isn't there. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them corrupt!
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 11:27 PM

What you are missing is that the motive you ascribe to me is of temious provenance.
coffee

Are you taking the position that Trump is not obviously a paragon of corruption?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/06/19 11:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If Trump is impeached by the House the chances that there will be 67 Senators who will vote to convict him is highly unlikely. When the Senate does not convict Trump he will remain in office.

"Do us a favor though..." is English for quid pro quo.

Let the Republican Senate not convict Trump - that is their peril in November 2020.

smile
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/07/19 01:05 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If Trump is impeached by the House the chances that there will be 67 Senators who will vote to convict him is highly unlikely. When the Senate does not convict Trump he will remain in office.

"Do us a favor though..." is English for quid pro quo.

Let the Republican Senate not convict Trump - that is their peril in November 2020.

smile

I think we have to look at which GOP senators are up for reelection, possible look at one Democrat also. Jones, Alabama where Trump has an approval rating of 61% voting for impeachment would doom him. Another Democrat to keep an eye on is Manchin, West Virginia, he's not up for reelection, but Trump has an approval rating of 61% there. That's the two possible Democratic defections which would mean if they vote the wishes and wants of the people of their state which supposedly they represent, instead of what their party wants. That means the Democrats need 22 GOP senators to vote to convict.

On the Republican side those up for reelection in 2020, Collins, Maine is probably a sure convict. Gardner, Colorado along with McSally, Arizona, probably not even though it would cost Gardner his seat, McSally, maybe, maybe not. Trump is down to 41% in Colorado, 47% in Arizona. Ernst, Iowa is another possible vote to convict, Trump is at 42% in Iowa. I don't see any other GOP senator up for reelection that would vote to convict as of today or tonight.

Murkowski, Alaska who isn't up could join the convict side. Her and Trump don't get along. Who else?

We've ended the era of polarization, where most red states have two Republican senators and most blue states two Democrats. The era when quite a lot of states had one of each is long gone. That's sad in a way as senators have become more of a servant to their political party than a servant to the people of their state. Voting the wishes of their political party and ignoring the wishes of the people of their state.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/07/19 01:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Here is an excellent in-depth analysis...

This has the depth of a puddle on the sidewalk.
Yet, infinitely deeper than yours. SHR, you mistake me and disparage me unfairly. I only ridicule those who richly deserve it.

I requested a response based upon fact. I wish I'd received one. Now, I will concede that there was a fact, a nugget, nestled deep in your misbegotten tirade. The DOJ branch of the Trump personal attorney corps did issue make perfunctory, conclusory statement. But the characterization in the article was, shall we say, "lacking" in context and content.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/07/19 01:43 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
What you are missing is that the motive you ascribe to me is of temious provenance.
coffee

Are you taking the position that Trump is not obviously a paragon of corruption?
No, what I ascribe to you is your erroneous belief that because most of the Republican Senators will not vote to convict and remove Trump from office they are corrupt. Whatever ethical difficulties Trump might have the Republican Senators, and some Democratic Senators, will not vote to convict because they want to stay in office. While that might be considered corruption by some it is unfortunately politics as usual.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/07/19 01:53 AM

Quote:
While that might be considered corruption by some it is unfortunately politics as usual.


Under Trump a lot of things that previously weren't politics as usual are common occurrences now. Using the office for his personal gain is at the top of the heap. Trump has opened many doors that were previously closed. Look for Democrats to go darting in and out of them in the future. What's good for the proverbial goose works also for the gander.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/07/19 01:53 AM

You are a stubborn ideologue, but I am not allowing you to put words in my mouth. Do try and debate honestly, alrighty?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/07/19 01:54 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I requested a response based upon fact. I wish I'd received one. Now, I will concede that there was a fact, a nugget, nestled deep in your misbegotten tirade. The DOJ branch of the Trump personal attorney corps did issue make perfunctory, conclusory statement. But the characterization in the article was, shall we say, "lacking" in context and content.
In other words since the DOJ didn't think Trump had broken the law you arrogantly dismiss them as lackey's of Trump. If they had said Trump did brake the law, in essence agreed with you, they would be the best attorneys in the world! Because they didn't my comment was a misbegotten tirade.

For your ridicule to bother me I would have to respect your opinion. You have NOT shown me a reason to do so. Therefore if you want to ridicule me go ahead. I could use a few laughs.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/07/19 02:15 AM

Uhhh, by the way...I'll just leave this here:

Rudy Giuliani caught trying to score cash from Ukraine gas company while accusing Hunter Biden of the same

Uhh-ohhhhh....
LOL ROTFMOL hitsfan

Originally Posted By: -tacomancer on DP
"every time I think we have hit the bottom, we find a new basement"


Snork! (@ "basement")

More like another level of Dante's Hell!! eek2
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/07/19 04:55 AM

I can see that the next 20 years are going to be interesting times for politics. The Republicans have ceded any claim to moral authority, so any time an opponent does something unethical or of questionable legality, their excuse will be: "But what about Trump?" For example, Clinton got a BJ from a consenting adult. But now it's okay if Trump grabs random un-consenting women by the crotch, spies on naked teens, has multiple affairs while still married, pays off porn stars, etc. I wonder how many abortions Cohen paid for? Candidates for any office will be able to be downright despicable, because "What about Trump?"

He's just done so much that Republicans of even Bush I's time would have censured. I honestly think the only way they can get back to some semblance of the moral high ground is to convict Trump. Otherwise, they might as well just redefine their Party as The Organized Crime Party. Every change they made to Senate or House rules is going to come back to haunt them when the Democrats do the same thing.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/07/19 07:57 PM

Quote:
The Republicans have ceded any claim to moral authority

They most certainly have not! Trump was Chosen By Gawd and Gawd is the ultimate moral authoritarian. If Trump has sinned(and who has not?) Then he has been forgiven. Just like any other Republican who buggers boys, keeps a tab at the local abortion clinic, or beats his wife, forgiveness is just a prayer away and the absolution is complete.

Unfortunately this is not possible for godless liberals. Thus the slightest error must cleansed by fire, the least mistake punished unmercifully, because there can never be forgiveness nor absolution.

A rapist, a murderer and a wifebeater walk into a bar....

"What'll it be officer?" says the barkeep...
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/07/19 09:02 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I can see that the next 20 years are going to be interesting times for politics. The Republicans have ceded any claim to moral authority, so any time an opponent does something unethical or of questionable legality, their excuse will be: "But what about Trump?" For example, Clinton got a BJ from a consenting adult. But now it's okay if Trump grabs random un-consenting women by the crotch, spies on naked teens, has multiple affairs while still married, pays off porn stars, etc. I wonder how many abortions Cohen paid for? Candidates for any office will be able to be downright despicable, because "What about Trump?"

He's just done so much that Republicans of even Bush I's time would have censured. I honestly think the only way they can get back to some semblance of the moral high ground is to convict Trump. Otherwise, they might as well just redefine their Party as The Organized Crime Party. Every change they made to Senate or House rules is going to come back to haunt them when the Democrats do the same thing.

Moral authority? Having affairs? How about JFK? He had a few affairs. One was with Judith Exner who was also the girlfriend of Sam Giancana, the "Godfather" of Chicago. JFK Judith Exner Sam Giancana Of course JFK never lied about having an affair. He always told his wife all about it.

How about LBJ and his radio stations? LBJ & the FCC LBJ made his and his wife's fortune by power as a member of Congress and its oversight of the FCC.

Then you didn't even quote Trump accurately on his comment about grabbing women. Here is what he said.
Originally Posted By: SLATE
"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
While saying that was crude and tasteless it is also, unfortunately, true. Why do you think that 70 year old Mick Jagger can have an affair with a 20 something woman? Because he is a star.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/08/19 06:57 AM

I think back in JFK's time, it was not that unusual for rich people to "have people for that" so to speak. JFK had some pretty serious back problems, so for years his only sexual outlet was oral sex. He didn't want Jackie to do that, hence the "girlfriends". I bet Jackie was quite happy that somebody else would be taking care of that! She could just concentrate on high fashion and cultural events.

But in general, you are right. Obama was a real outlier. Most other politicians of every Party and Office are a horny bunch. Newt was getting BJs at the same time he was going after Clinton for that, and he cheated on every wife with the next one, before divorcing them. My local Congressman, Duncan Hunter, is about to go on trial for illegal campaign spending including taking random bimbos on ski trips. That's the main reason his wife took the plea deal and turned state's evidence.

I think there is some heady feeling of power and privilege people get when they get elected, that makes them think they don't have to follow the same rules as everybody else.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/08/19 12:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Then you didn't even quote Trump accurately on his comment about grabbing women. Here is what he said.
Originally Posted By: SLATE
"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
While saying that was crude and tasteless it is also, unfortunately, true. Why do you think that 70 year old Mick Jagger can have an affair with a 20 something woman? Because he is a star.


If the above quote is true then so is the "Grab them by the pussy". Thus, making President Donald (>>>) Trump a sexual predator, a serial sexual predator.

As for Mick Jagger dating younger women, Fame and Fortune are powerful attractors to the young and naive. While May and Pleistocene romances are weird, as long as both parties are consenting adults, it is not illegal or sexual predation. There is a difference between Jagger and President Donald (...) Trump. Jagger dates adults, consenting women. In comparison, President Donald (...) Trump, "Grabs them by the pussy" and walks in on teenagers changing cloths. Both are acts of a sexual predator

And people support, protect and defend this guy? Where is their moral compass???
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/08/19 12:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
What you are missing is that the motive you ascribe to me is of temious provenance.
coffee

Are you taking the position that Trump is not obviously a paragon of corruption?
No, what I ascribe to you is your erroneous belief that because most of the Republican Senators will not vote to convict and remove Trump from office they are corrupt. Whatever ethical difficulties Trump might have the Republican Senators, and some Democratic Senators, will not vote to convict because they want to stay in office. While that might be considered corruption by some it is unfortunately politics as usual.


I imagine there are still quite a lot of folks out there trying to decide since the Democrats set out to destroy Trump the day after the election if all of this is nothing more than a partisan political vendetta for losing an election or if Trump has indeed committed serious crimes worthy of impeachment.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/08/19 12:48 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
I imagine there are still quite a lot of folks out there trying to decide since the Democrats set out to destroy Trump the day after the election if all of this is nothing more than a partisan political vendetta for losing an election or if Trump has indeed committed serious crimes worthy of impeachment.

I imagine those be the same people who are trying to decide what strategy the very stable genius is implementing in his foreign policy actions?

The strategy in all of Trump's actions is that of the con.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/08/19 01:00 PM

Quote:
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember: all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more.
-Morpheus
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/08/19 02:14 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
I imagine there are still quite a lot of folks out there trying to decide since the Democrats set out to destroy Trump the day after the election if all of this is nothing more than a partisan political vendetta for losing an election or if Trump has indeed committed serious crimes worthy of impeachment.

...because Trump's already known commodities of being a liar, cheater, welsher and womanizer prior to becoming POTUS needed more evidence that Trump should not be President. coffee
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/08/19 02:35 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
I imagine there are still quite a lot of folks out there trying to decide since the Democrats set out to destroy Trump the day after the election if all of this is nothing more than a partisan political vendetta for losing an election or if Trump has indeed committed serious crimes worthy of impeachment.

...because Trump's already known commodities of being a liar, cheater, welsher and womanizer prior to becoming POTUS needed more evidence that Trump should not be President. coffee


The fact is the democrats choose about the only Democrat, alive or dead, that could possibly lose to Trump. Trump is a direct result of the choices, decisions and actions by both major parties taken back in 2016. The two major parties gave us a choice of one candidate in which 56% of all Americans view her negatively, the other candidate was viewed by 60% of all Americans unfavorably. Both records for the highest unfavorable's ever in our history or as long as Gallup and Pew Research have been keeping track of these things. The previous highest unfavorable of any major party candidate was 47% set by Barry Goldwater back in 1964. Both Clinton and Trump smashed that record.

We even had 25% of all Americans who didn't want neither candidate to become their next president. So most folks went to the polls voting for the candidate they wanted to lose the least. Not for either candidate, but against the candidate disliked the most. I call 2016 the anti election.

Trump could have been easily avoided with a decent opponent. Even back in February of 2016 a poll gave good advance warning when 56% of all Americans said they wanted the Democrats to nominate someone other than Hillary Clinton. The Democrats didn't listen to America as a whole, ignored all of America and went ahead and nominated Hillary. That was their right, no doubt about that. We both know all of America doesn't choose the nominees, the two major parties do. But all of America chooses the president in the general election. I wonder if the Democrats have learned that valuable lesson from 2016, that candidates matter. Especially to independents who gave Trump the White House.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/08/19 03:33 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
The fact is the democrats choose about the only Democrat, alive or dead, that could possibly lose to Trump.

The actual 2016 popular vote numbers disagree with you. Hmm

Additionally, Trump requested Russian assistance, Trump received Russian assistance, Trump benefitted from Russian assistance, Trump awarded Russian assistance. Trump’s campaign team met with Russians to get dirt on Hillary and Trump’s campaign Manager gave raw polling data to Russians.

smile
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/08/19 06:14 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
The fact is the democrats choose about the only Democrat, alive or dead, that could possibly lose to Trump.

The actual 2016 popular vote numbers disagree with you. Hmm

Additionally, Trump requested Russian assistance, Trump received Russian assistance, Trump benefitted from Russian assistance, Trump awarded Russian assistance. Trump’s campaign team met with Russians to get dirt on Hillary and Trump’s campaign Manager gave raw polling data to Russians.

smile


I don't think so, voting for the lesser of two evils, the least worst candidate, the candidate you least want to lose isn't a vote for whom you finally vote for.

Blaming the Russians is big among Clinton supporters, but doesn't address her laziness. From 1 Sep 2016 through 8 Nov 2016 she basically ceded the campaign trail to Trump. 116 campaign visits, stops, appearances, rallies for Trump, 71 for Clinton. In the three deciding states it was Wisconsin, 5 for Trump, none, zero, nada for Clinton. Michigan was six for Trump, one for Clinton, Pennsylvania was closer, 8 for Trump, 5 for Clinton. Even in electoral vote rich Florida, she ceded that state also to Trump. 13 visits, stops, rallies for Trump, 8 for Clinton. This had much more effect than any Russian thing.

Then there was Hillary's inept campaign strategy, if calling trying to get more electoral votes than Obama a strategy. She much much time, energy and money trying to win Arizona, Georgia and Utah instead of looking after her own backyard, the so called blue wall states.

Hilly's whole campaign was a ho hum affair. Trump energized and enthused his supporters to where they were willing to go to the four corners of the earth for him. Quite a few Hillary supporters weren't even enthused enough to go to the polls. The Democrats had a six point advantage in party affiliation in 2016, but only 3 points advantage among those who turned out to vote.

Hillary ceded the media to Trump also. He was always calling into every morning talk show almost every day. He didn't care if they were for him or against him. Hillary basically hid from the media, going over 200 days without a press conference and only appearing on shows that were 100% for her like the view. Trump was like that old showman, there isn't any such thing as bad publicity. No publicity was bad. His name was always the headliner, the top story, sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes indifferent, but he hogged the limelight.

There's much more, but I don't want to write a book. These things above Hillary had direct control over. She didn't Russia, maybe Russia made a difference, maybe not. If it did, it was because she did or didn't do all of the above allowing Russia to either make a difference or not.

I think letting Trump both outwork and out campaign her made the significant difference. Her laziness, her lack of fire in the belly. her ho humness. Almost like she knew she had the election in the bag, guaranteed to win, that she didn't have to try.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/08/19 07:37 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Blaming the Russians is big among Clinton supporters...

Everyone here knows I didn't vote for HClinton in 2016. I got my Russia information from Bob Mueller. smile
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/08/19 07:39 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
The fact is the democrats choose about the only Democrat, alive or dead, that could possibly lose to Trump.

The actual 2016 popular vote numbers disagree with you. Hmm

Additionally, Trump requested Russian assistance, Trump received Russian assistance, Trump benefitted from Russian assistance, Trump awarded Russian assistance. Trump’s campaign team met with Russians to get dirt on Hillary and Trump’s campaign Manager gave raw polling data to Russians.

smile


I don't think so, voting for the lesser of two evils, the least worst candidate, the candidate you least want to lose isn't a vote for whom you finally vote for.

Blaming the Russians is big among Clinton supporters, but doesn't address her laziness. From 1 Sep 2016 through 8 Nov 2016 she basically ceded the campaign trail to Trump. 116 campaign visits, stops, appearances, rallies for Trump, 71 for Clinton. In the three deciding states it was Wisconsin, 5 for Trump, none, zero, nada for Clinton. Michigan was six for Trump, one for Clinton, Pennsylvania was closer, 8 for Trump, 5 for Clinton. Even in electoral vote rich Florida, she ceded that state also to Trump. 13 visits, stops, rallies for Trump, 8 for Clinton. This had much more effect than any Russian thing.

Then there was Hillary's inept campaign strategy, if calling trying to get more electoral votes than Obama a strategy. She much much time, energy and money trying to win Arizona, Georgia and Utah instead of looking after her own backyard, the so called blue wall states.

Hilly's whole campaign was a ho hum affair. Trump energized and enthused his supporters to where they were willing to go to the four corners of the earth for him. Quite a few Hillary supporters weren't even enthused enough to go to the polls. The Democrats had a six point advantage in party affiliation in 2016, but only 3 points advantage among those who turned out to vote.

Hillary ceded the media to Trump also. He was always calling into every morning talk show almost every day. He didn't care if they were for him or against him. Hillary basically hid from the media, going over 200 days without a press conference and only appearing on shows that were 100% for her like the view. Trump was like that old showman, there isn't any such thing as bad publicity. No publicity was bad. His name was always the headliner, the top story, sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes indifferent, but he hogged the limelight.

There's much more, but I don't want to write a book. These things above Hillary had direct control over. She didn't Russia, maybe Russia made a difference, maybe not. If it did, it was because she did or didn't do all of the above allowing Russia to either make a difference or not.

I think letting Trump both outwork and out campaign her made the significant difference. Her laziness, her lack of fire in the belly. her ho humness. Almost like she knew she had the election in the bag, guaranteed to win, that she didn't have to try.
:applaud:
Another reason Mrs. Clinton lost was her asking, "Why aren't I 50 points ahead in the polls?" That might not be exactly what she said but the hubris of such a comment offended a lot of people. Her arrogant belief that she would win is big factor in her defeat. Her unfounded optimism led her to ignore a crucial part of our Presidential elections, the Electoral College.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/08/19 10:31 PM

You did not mention Dir Comey's interjection into the campaign. As soon as I saw it I said he just killed her chances to win.

I think I understand her her reluctance to have too many pressers early. She still had to combat Benghazi and emails. If she had been on every show every day those would have been the first questions. That she did a poor job of answering those questions is her fault.

There were lots of reasons she was a poor candidate but certainly you can not be saying Mr Trump was a better candidate???
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/08/19 10:33 PM

Quote:
Her arrogant belief ...

As opposed to Mr Trump's extreme narcissistic arrogance????? really????

I guess always vote for the buffoon and guess what you'll get.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/08/19 11:25 PM

The Looming Storm

The Trump WH has laid down the gauntlet. They will not cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. So the House has no option but to file subpoenas. The WH response will be to ignore the subpoenas. The House then goes to court to enforce the subpoenas. The courts agree and order the WH to comply. The WH then gives the court the middle finger.

There is actually nothing the House can do to force compliance.

But that is not all. Sen McConnell says he will short circuit the impeachment process in the Senate by calling for dismissal as soon as procedurally possible. If he has a whip count of 51, the impeachment trial is over.

Folks, as long as we have been a republic people have voluntarily complied with the law. We are now in a situation in which the whole executive branch of government will not comply and the Senate will be complicit.

If you do not believe that is a real crisis, then you have slept through the Trump occupation of the WH.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 01:27 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
You did not mention Dir Comey's interjection into the campaign. As soon as I saw it I said he just killed her chances to win.

I think I understand her her reluctance to have too many pressers early. She still had to combat Benghazi and emails. If she had been on every show every day those would have been the first questions. That she did a poor job of answering those questions is her fault.

There were lots of reasons she was a poor candidate but certainly you can not be saying Mr Trump was a better candidate???
In 2016 we the people of the United States of America had the two worst candidates for President we have ever had! Trump was a better campaigner he was not a better candidate. Hell, anyone on the Rant who fits the Constitutional requirements to be our President would have been a better candidate than either Clinton or Trump.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 02:51 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
You did not mention Dir Comey's interjection into the campaign. As soon as I saw it I said he just killed her chances to win.

I think I understand her her reluctance to have too many pressers early. She still had to combat Benghazi and emails. If she had been on every show every day those would have been the first questions. That she did a poor job of answering those questions is her fault.

There were lots of reasons she was a poor candidate but certainly you can not be saying Mr Trump was a better candidate???

I thought both of them sucked. That either one, whomever won would leave this country in worst shape once either one left office than when either one first entered. I voted against both.

I viewed the situation as voting for either one was voting for harm to this country. That I couldn't do.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 02:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: rporter314
You did not mention Dir Comey's interjection into the campaign. As soon as I saw it I said he just killed her chances to win.

I think I understand her her reluctance to have too many pressers early. She still had to combat Benghazi and emails. If she had been on every show every day those would have been the first questions. That she did a poor job of answering those questions is her fault.

There were lots of reasons she was a poor candidate but certainly you can not be saying Mr Trump was a better candidate???
In 2016 we the people of the United States of America had the two worst candidates for President we have ever had! Trump was a better campaigner he was not a better candidate. Hell, anyone on the Rant who fits the Constitutional requirements to be our President would have been a better candidate than either Clinton or Trump.


I agree. Trump was full of energy, Clinton lackadaisical at best. Her campaign was ho hum. Trump's enthusiastic.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 02:57 AM

Quote:
the two worst candidates for President

Let's see

unethical businessman, pzzy grabbing white supremacist narcissist as candidate v. a lackluster with more than competent government service candidate

why would I choose candidate #1? o yeah I know ... stick a thumb in liberals eyes (it's the old frak you, even if it destroys America gambit) and he is the voice of the white bigotry of a huge chunk of the Republican Party. It's too bad my long time fav Republican has never run for public office.

I had no choice but to vote for candidate #2
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 03:02 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Her arrogant belief ...

As opposed to Mr Trump's extreme narcissistic arrogance????? really????

I guess always vote for the buffoon and guess what you'll get.


I think it is interesting that 9 million people choose to vote for a candidate they didn't know, no name recognition, didn't know what they stood for if they stood for anything, no money, no media, completely unknown just an unknown name on the ballot instead of choosing between Trump and Clinton. Or put it this way, instead of trying to figure out who was the lesser of two evils or who was the least worst candidate or which candidate would do this country less harm.

The fact that 6% of all Americans choose to register their votes against both major party candidates tells us quite a lot of what most Americans thought about them. The only ones who liked them were their supporters. In 2012 1.5% voted third party, in 2008 1.2% and in 2004, 1.0%. The number of folks who voted against both major party candidate quadrupled since 2012 and was six times higher than in 2004.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 04:39 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
The Trump WH has laid down the gauntlet. They will not cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. So the House has no option but to file subpoenas. The WH response will be to ignore the subpoenas. The House then goes to court to enforce the subpoenas. The courts agree and order the WH to comply. The WH then gives the court the middle finger.

Didn't the Nixon White House do the same thing? How did that work out... coffee

When Donald Trump is Impeached, depending if the Republican Senators are patriotic or not and convict him and he's removed from Office, Trump's base on various Disqus sites keep threatening a Civil War if Trump is removed from Office.

Remember good and decent fellow Americans, the Conservatives are the ones with the AR-15s. Hmm

Trump's base keeps saying the military will support them in their effort, I say the military won't. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 04:43 AM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Her arrogant belief ...

As opposed to Mr Trump's extreme narcissistic arrogance????? really????

I guess always vote for the buffoon and guess what you'll get.


I think it is interesting that 9 million people choose to vote for a candidate they didn't know, no name recognition, didn't know what they stood for if they stood for anything, no money, no media, completely unknown just an unknown name on the ballot instead of choosing between Trump and Clinton.

What evidence do you have to support this claim? I cannot believe that people voted for Johnson or Stein not knowing anything about them simply because they were not a Clinton or Trump. Hmm
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 11:06 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Her arrogant belief ...

As opposed to Mr Trump's extreme narcissistic arrogance????? really????

I guess always vote for the buffoon and guess what you'll get.


I think it is interesting that 9 million people choose to vote for a candidate they didn't know, no name recognition, didn't know what they stood for if they stood for anything, no money, no media, completely unknown just an unknown name on the ballot instead of choosing between Trump and Clinton.

What evidence do you have to support this claim? I cannot believe that people voted for Johnson or Stein not knowing anything about them simply because they were not a Clinton or Trump. Hmm


We can start off with this. "One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates."

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-...candidates.aspx

25% of all Americans disliked, didn't want neither candidate. Of course only 6% voted third party, the remaining 19% went with in their mind the lesser of two evils or the candidate they least wanted to lose. This also included 54% of all independents who disliked or had an unfavorable view of both candidates.

In fact on election day, 57% of all independents viewed Trump unfavorably, held a negative view of him. 70% of independents had a negative view or unfavorable view of Clinton. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Trump wan't liked by independents, but Clinton was much more disliked than Trump enabling him to win the independent vote and thus the white house. Nationwide 56% of all Americans didn't like Hillary or had an unfavorable view of her vs. 60% for Trump. Both major party candidates set the record for the highest unfavorable's ever. They smashed the record which had been previously held by Goldwater back in 1964 at 47%. In fact, Trump and Clinton are the only two major party presidential candidates to ever have been viewed unfavorably by over 50% of all Americans. Here's the list

Highest to lowest favorable/unfavorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.
Favorable/unfavorable
1956 Eisenhower 84/12%
1964 LBJ 81/13%
1976 Carter 81/16%
1960 JFK 80/14%
1960 Nixon 79/16%
1968 Nixon 79/22%
1976 Ford 79/20%
1972 Nixon 76/21%
1968 Humphrey 72/28%
1984 Reagan 71/30%
1980 Carter 68/32%
1984 Mondale 66/34%
1980 Reagan 64/31%
1992 Bill Clinton 64/33%
2008 Obama 62/35%
2012 Obama 62/37%
1956 Stevenson 61/31%
2004 G.W. Bush 61/39%
2008 McCain 60/35%
1992 G.H.W. Bush 59/40%
2000 G.W. Bush 58/38%
2004 Kerry 57/40%
1996 Bill Clinton 56/42%
1988 G.H.W. Bush 56/39%
2000 Gore 55/45%
2012 Romney 55/43%
1972 McGovern 55/41%
1996 Dole 54/45%
1988 Dukakis 50/45%
1964 Goldwater 43/47%
2016 Hillary Clinton 38/56%
2016 Donald Trump 36/60%


Then you had an CNN exit poll who asked third party voters who they would have voted for in only a two candidate race, no third party candidates. 19% answered Trump, 16% answered Clinton, 65% said they would not have voted.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 12:24 PM

What that polling reflects, in my view, is the polarization of the polity. I'm willing to bet if you dig into the numbers that the disapproval rate of the opposing party skews the results. It's the Reagan-Gingrich effect: the opposition party is "the enemy" and can do no right. It's the same reason that the Senate is so dysfunctional.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 01:41 PM

Trump’s strategy is to “normalize” his bad behavior and breaking of ethical norms so that it will seem unfair to take him to task. It is working splendidly with his cultists who defend everything he does (like porking pornstars while wifey is at home with the new baby and paying them $130K to keep quiet, and telling 12,500 egregious lies in a mere 800 days). Trump uses lies to make us believe that other Americans are the enemy - he is the Great Divider.

Everyone should ask themselves if King Kon’s campaign to normalize shittiness is working on you - I admit it is working on me to a degree. This is how one bad man can drag an entire country into the toilet.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 02:00 PM

The campaign against ethics began in earnest (to my observation) with Newt Gingrich and has led us to Trump, an absolute caricature of an indecent human being, as president. It is often said that "we are a nation of laws", but laws are useless without a solid ethical environment where people actually respect the law.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 03:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Of course there is absolutely no possibility that the whistle blowers might be lying?
Um, no. A record of the phone call is in the public domain. Name one thing (there is, exactly, one) in the whistleblower complaint (also public) that is inaccurate.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
That they are partisan?
So what? You say that as if it had significance to the facts. Now, where does bias have have significance?
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The DOJ said that a crime was not committed in Trump's call to the Ukrainian President. NPR DOJ
One modification: the Trump DoJ. Anyone with a modicum of legal training knows that this conclusion is not supported by the law. It is a political conclusion. Have you seen the memorandum? (Trick question)
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 04:25 PM

I'm sure polarization over the last 20 years has a lot to do with it. Each party views the other as out to destroy America. I don't think this started with Reagan. He and Tip O'Neal work great together, compromised and played the game of give and take. Of course Ronnie had to work with him since the Democrats controlled the house for all 8 of Reagan's years.

I think Hastert had more to do with polarization than Gingrich with his Hastert rule. Gingrich actually worked with Bill Clinton behind closed doors, one of the reason the Republicans kicked him out of the Speakership. It's been downhill ever since.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 05:04 PM

Quote:
Trump’s strategy is to “normalize” his bad behavior and breaking of ethical norms so that it will seem unfair to take him to task

I think I will try to refute that claim.

Mr Trump is a narcissist. His sole "strategy" in life is to present himself as the greatest human to have ever graced your TV or newspaper. His delusion is whatever he does is normal. He does not have to rationalize why he does what he does. He does it because he "knows" he is the greatest human to have ever lived.

Because his whole life is a delusion. the media has normalized the delusion they see and present as if he is a rational person. Remember, just because he is irrational does not mean he does not know how to replace lug nuts on a tire. Listen to all the reporters and commentators who offer rational explanations why he does what he does. Now recall the number of times reporters have stories about how he decided something. On a whim ... gut feeling ... and now an irritating phone call. Throw out logic and use Buddhist illogic. He only makes sense if you think with a narcissists cap on.

Your right in one sense. His defenders have accepted his behavior as "normal" and I presume rational (otherwise they would have 25th him). They have done this based on tribalism, and fear of THE BASE. I often wondered how reputedly smart people have not recognized the narcissism, until it dawned on me, most of the people and strong supporters have been long time acquaintances, so they would have been inured to his narcissism and probably never recognized it, just like the frog being boiled slowly.

I suppose one could make the case his actions have "normalized" people just like the frog, but that would Mr Trump has the intellectual wherewithal to formed high level rational political plans to disinform and intentionally lie to achieve the ad hoc recognized goal of normalization of aberrant presidential behavior. I can not accept that conclusion.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 05:39 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
I'm sure polarization over the last 20 years has a lot to do with it. Each party views the other as out to destroy America. I don't think this started with Reagan. He and Tip O'Neal work great together, compromised and played the game of give and take. Of course Ronnie had to work with him since the Democrats controlled the house for all 8 of Reagan's years.

I think Hastert had more to do with polarization than Gingrich with his Hastert rule. Gingrich actually worked with Bill Clinton behind closed doors, one of the reason the Republicans kicked him out of the Speakership. It's been downhill ever since.
I won't quibble because it would take us too far afield. I'd say Nixon set it on the course and it has been downhill since. Reagan made it palatable, and Gingrich made it tactical. Hastert was just a corrupt pol with a weak grasp on his office.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 08:01 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll

Everyone should ask themselves if King Kon’s campaign to normalize shittiness is working on you - I admit it is working on me to a degree. This is how one bad man can drag an entire country into the toilet.


Give examples of how it is working on you, because I see no evidence OF IT WORKING on YOU so far. So I am confused.
I know for sure it's not working on me. All I have to do is look at how much I've aged in the last two and a half years.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 08:07 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
I'm sure polarization over the last 20 years has a lot to do with it. Each party views the other as out to destroy America. I don't think this started with Reagan. He and Tip O'Neal work great together, compromised and played the game of give and take. Of course Ronnie had to work with him since the Democrats controlled the house for all 8 of Reagan's years.

I think Hastert had more to do with polarization than Gingrich with his Hastert rule. Gingrich actually worked with Bill Clinton behind closed doors, one of the reason the Republicans kicked him out of the Speakership. It's been downhill ever since.


I don't think that the Trump Party is out to destroy America.
In fact, I think that they are out to PRESERVE America, the part that is 100% unswervingly loyal to Trump.

I think that they are out to destroy the part of America that is not loyal to Trump. That's only PART of America.

I think that their dream is of an America that only consists of one party, the Trump Party.
Thus, I am forced to conclude that they want America spared, just so long as democracy and law is destroyed and they are left as the sole survivors in a reality show contest.

Now, if you can't call what's left of us after that contest is won by the Party of Trump America, THEN maybe it could be concluded that they are out to destroy America.
I just view the definition of the statement differently.

I believe that if they could erect a neutron bomb that only killed people that oppose Trump, they'd detonate it in a hot second.

And that would leave "America", their version of "America" fully intact.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 08:09 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Hastert was just a corrupt pol with a weak grasp on his office.


Coach Hastert sure had a strong grip on other things, however.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/09/19 09:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: perotista
I'm sure polarization over the last 20 years has a lot to do with it. Each party views the other as out to destroy America. I don't think this started with Reagan. He and Tip O'Neal work great together, compromised and played the game of give and take. Of course Ronnie had to work with him since the Democrats controlled the house for all 8 of Reagan's years.

I think Hastert had more to do with polarization than Gingrich with his Hastert rule. Gingrich actually worked with Bill Clinton behind closed doors, one of the reason the Republicans kicked him out of the Speakership. It's been downhill ever since.


I don't think that the Trump Party is out to destroy America.
In fact, I think that they are out to PRESERVE America, the part that is 100% unswervingly loyal to Trump.

I think that they are out to destroy the part of America that is not loyal to Trump. That's only PART of America.

I think that their dream is of an America that only consists of one party, the Trump Party.
Thus, I am forced to conclude that they want America spared, just so long as democracy and law is destroyed and they are left as the sole survivors in a reality show contest.

Now, if you can't call what's left of us after that contest is won by the Party of Trump America, THEN maybe it could be concluded that they are out to destroy America.
I just view the definition of the statement differently.

I believe that if they could erect a neutron bomb that only killed people that oppose Trump, they'd detonate it in a hot second.

And that would leave "America", their version of "America" fully intact.


There was a time when both Democrats and Republicans, pretty much all Americans viewed each party's goal as to make America secure, prosperous and ensure the future. Only each party had a different party to get there.

My have times changed.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/10/19 03:46 AM



Conservatives sure did screw the pooch by selecting Trump as POTUS. The US is screwed, the Kurds are screwed, and the World is screwed.

If Conservatives never gain political power again - it will be too soon.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/10/19 01:37 PM

I think your use of the term "Conservatives" is the wrong brush, Republican sure have screwed the pooch and most Conservatives have also taken a taste. After all, there are conservative Democrats to the left of Independents, just as there are liberal Republicans to the right of Independents. Who are these liberal Republicans, possible some were and are Never Trumpers?
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/10/19 03:59 PM

You make a good point, Ujest, a lot of Democrats are conservative. As socialists go I'm pretty conservative myself. We've all got our cautious side.

But conservative Democrats simply don't embrace the mindless radical Conservatism which has taken over the Republican party. It's become a religion to them if they aren't religious, or an extension of their evangelicalism if they are.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/10/19 04:12 PM

Remember Bush's "compassionate conservative" oxymoron? This is why we get along so well, Greger. You recognize the various aspects and aren't afraid to accept some, and call the others out.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/10/19 08:18 PM

I
Originally Posted By: Greger
You make a good point, Ujest, a lot of Democrats are conservative. As socialists go I'm pretty conservative myself. We've all got our cautious side.

But conservative Democrats simply don't embrace the mindless radical Conservatism which has taken over the Republican party. It's become a religion to them if they aren't religious, or an extension of their evangelicalism if they are.

I'm sitting here as a traditional conservative who has no use for these neo-conservatives or social or religious conservatives. I also also little to no use of their brand of what they call fiscal conservatism mainly because it isn't being fiscal responsible.

I don't like Trump and didn't vote for him, although I didn't vote for Hillary either. My disdain for both major party candidates made it important enough for me to go to the polls to officially register a vote against both by voting third party.

9 million folks did the same as I in 2016. Some 6% of the electorate. compare that to 2012 when 1.5% vote third party or 2008 when 1.2% did or even 2004 when 1.0% did.

I don't care what they call it, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, progressiveness, populism, Republican, democrat or what ever, all I want is good, competent government that works at keeping this country secure, prosperous, free with the knowledge this country is getting better each and every day. Weird ain't I.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/10/19 10:24 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


Conservatives sure did screw the pooch by selecting Trump as POTUS. The US is screwed, the Kurds are screwed, and the World is screwed.

If Conservatives never gain political power again - it will be too soon.


We liberals and Democrats NEED good sane Republicans and conservatives, to keep US honest, and to keep US from turning too weird.
But the same goes for vice versa. Conservatives must learn to accept liberals as having valid and honest values even if they don't always agree with them. By the same token, good liberals are what keeps conservatives from turning into what the Republican Party is today.

It's called "a healthy and balanced mix" and it requires both sides to accept the other, and to grant the other side the basic dignity deserved by "the loyal opposition". Arlo Guthrie became a registered Republican after 2004, but by 2012 he had already left the party.
His original reason for joining?

"We already had enough good Democrats. Someone needs to be the loyal opposition."

But if you can chase out an Arlo Guthrie, that's one thing.
A lot of perfectly normal conservatives won't even bat an eye at that but when people like Colin Powell are saying it, perhaps you should listen. When people like Rex Tillerson are saying it, perhaps you should listen.
When Fox News is saying it, perhaps you* should listen.

(*you meaning folks in the Party of Trump)

Someone is going to have to force the Trumpers to face the bad news sooner or later:
Your guy Trump is going down, you picked a very bad person as a candidate, he is very bad for you as well as us. He is bad for the country as a whole, he is bad for the entire world as a whole.
He's just really bad, awful isn't a strong enough word.
Trump is a monster, and he must go.

And it's not because he's a Republican either, and it's not so Dems get to win, it's much worse than that.
When you hear Democrats sounding wistful about the good old days when Bush 43 was President, that should tell you something.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/10/19 10:26 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista

I don't care what they call it, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, progressiveness, populism, Republican, democrat or what ever, all I want is good, competent government that works at keeping this country secure, prosperous, free with the knowledge this country is getting better each and every day. Weird ain't I.


S'funny...that's exactly what I want, too. Bow
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/11/19 04:32 AM

In the first skirmish of Trump's war against impeachment, Trump's forces are suffering multiple friendly fire casualties. Giuliani associates arrested while tryin...prosecutors say (Fox) "Parnas and Fruman were involved in Giuliani's efforts to urge Ukrainian officials to investigate Trump's political rival Joe Biden and his family. That effort was also discussed by Trump in a July call with Ukraine's president and is at the heart of the impeachment probe."; The Mystery of Rudy Giuliani’s Vienna Trip (Atlantic) "Why were Parnas and Fruman bound for Vienna? Why was Giuliani—if what he told me was true—planning to be in the same city a day later?

Giuliani finally sent me a text message at 4:18 p.m. ET: 'I can’t comment on it at this time.'"
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/11/19 12:37 PM

You might consider having some good sane leftists to keep liberals honest. Why do liberals consistently feel the need to break bread with fascists?
Sorry, conservatives.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/11/19 12:44 PM

“War”
“Forces”
“Friendly fire”
“Casualties “

Jeebus, You make it sound so exciting.
Russia Gate redux. Wonder if it’s going to end with a bang or a whimper.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of sequels. They generally don’t live up to the hype of the original.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/11/19 03:39 PM

If you want to follow a game, it is usually good to have a scorecard. I found this impeachment guide useful, as it has links to the documents and a running chronology.

I also saw a story (looking for the link) that said the problem the Democrats are having is that Trump keeps expanding the bases for impeachment. His malfeasance is moving faster than investigators can keep up. At some point they have to cut bait and go with the charges they have (I had that problem as a prosecutor with serial offenders). I suggest each relevant committee submit a charge and keep it to under 12 pages, with a one page summary (with bullets) to keep Trump in the loop.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/11/19 09:10 PM

Originally Posted By: HEAVY
The vice president of Morning Consult, Tyler Sinclair, said of the poll results, “Initiating impeachment proceedings against President Trump remains a popular move among the Democratic base, but it won’t necessarily help them win voters across the aisle.

HEAVY
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/11/19 11:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: HEAVY
The vice president of Morning Consult, Tyler Sinclair, said of the poll results, “Initiating impeachment proceedings against President Trump remains a popular move among the Democratic base, but it won’t necessarily help them win voters across the aisle.

HEAVY

Citing mid-September polling? Things are changing fast, mid-September is ancient history, mon frere. I wonder what Plutarch is saying about it?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 12:18 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: HEAVY
The vice president of Morning Consult, Tyler Sinclair, said of the poll results, “Initiating impeachment proceedings against President Trump remains a popular move among the Democratic base, but it won’t necessarily help them win voters across the aisle.

HEAVY

Citing mid-September polling? Things are changing fast, mid-September is ancient history, mon frere. I wonder what Plutarch is saying about it?
For the five months of polling the average against impeachment is 61%. Was Plutarch alive five months ago?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 12:49 AM



Rasmussen has had Trump's DISAPPROVAL consistently at 50% or higher since September 27, 2019.

At least the majority of Righties have gotten on-board with the idea that Trump is a crummy-rotten POTUS. smile
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 12:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
For the five months of polling the average against impeachment is 61%. Was Plutarch alive five months ago?

Jeez, dude, I thought you liked invoking long dead people for bolstering arguments?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 03:32 PM



Deutsche Bank "might" have destroyed Trump's Tax Records that they said they had in April 2019.

Deutsche Bank needs:


Hmm
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 03:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll

Citing mid-September polling? Things are changing fast, mid-September is ancient history, mon frere. I wonder what Plutarch is saying about it?
For the five months of polling the average against impeachment is 61%. Was Plutarch alive five months ago?
For the five months of polling the average against impeachment is WAS 61%. That data set is currently irrelevant. Thing's have nearly reversed since September.
Quote:
Americans are following impeachment proceedings closely and are slightly more likely to approve than disapprove of the inquiry itself. But the public is more closely split over whether President Donald Trump should be removed from office.

Several polls published since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the start of an impeachment inquiry on Sept. 24 show a shift in views from earlier this year as the House of Representatives investigates whether Trump violated his oath of office in asking the government of Ukraine to investigate a political opponent.
(AP)
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 04:22 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll

Citing mid-September polling? Things are changing fast, mid-September is ancient history, mon frere. I wonder what Plutarch is saying about it?
For the five months of polling the average against impeachment is 61%. Was Plutarch alive five months ago?
For the five months of polling the average against impeachment is WAS 61%. That data set is currently irrelevant. Thing's have nearly reversed since September.
Quote:
Americans are following impeachment proceedings closely and are slightly more likely to approve than disapprove of the inquiry itself. But the public is more closely split over whether President Donald Trump should be removed from office.

Several polls published since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the start of an impeachment inquiry on Sept. 24 show a shift in views from earlier this year as the House of Representatives investigates whether Trump violated his oath of office in asking the government of Ukraine to investigate a political opponent.
(AP)
Do you have a current poll to show that the numbers have changed or is this just your extremely biased opinion?
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 04:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Do you have a current poll to show that the numbers have changed or is this just your extremely biased opinion?

You don't really need to supply an insult with every comment... it makes you seem mean and petty. Not a good look.

Fox News poll
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 04:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Do you have a current poll to show that the numbers have changed or is this just your extremely biased opinion?

Will the Fox News poll from this week showing 51% of American support Impeachmnt AND removal work for you? smile

Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 05:29 PM


Rudy Colludy is under investigation at the moment. smile

Originally Posted By: Trump
I hardly knew Rudy. He was an errand or coffee boy - not sure which. coffee
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 05:31 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Do you have a current poll to show that the numbers have changed or is this just your extremely biased opinion?

You don't really need to supply an insult with every comment... it makes you seem mean and petty. Not a good look.

Fox News poll
A statement of fact, NW's opinion of Trump is extremely biased, therefore it is not an insult.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 05:33 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Do you have a current poll to show that the numbers have changed or is this just your extremely biased opinion?

Will the Fox News poll from this week showing 51% of American support Impeachmnt AND removal work for you? smile
Or it could be that a lie told often enough will be believed.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 05:37 PM

I think this is still in flux. I follow independents on this, Democrats want Trump impeached and removed, Republicans. Don't.

What I find interesting is on 1 Oct 2019 to the question: If the U.S. House of Representatives votes to impeach Donald Trump, do you think the U.S. Senate should or should not remove him from office? Question 28 40% of independents said he should be removed, 33% said should not.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/eb2rrb9ofh/econTabReport.pdf

Then on 8 Oct 2019, a week later to the same question, 36% independents said the senate should remove Trump, 36% said the senate should not. Question 20.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x3neaunoh2/econTabReport.pdf

I do wish RCP would be giving us a running average of all the polls on impeachment and removal like they do on almost every other political subject, race and candidate. That I think would give us a more accurate idea of where folks stand instead of a poll here and a poll there.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 05:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
...could be that a lie told often enough will be believed.

What lie? Trump admitted to extortion and bribery. That's high crimes and misdemeanors. Trump has admitted to this on television several times. Hmm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 05:45 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista


Then on 8 Oct 2019, a week later to the same question, 36% independents said the senate should remove Trump, 36% said the senate should not. Question 20.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x3neaunoh2/econTabReport.pdf

Actually, question 20 said 45% of independents said Trump should be removed, not 36%. The independents moved 9% in favor of removal from office in one week.

smile
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 06:07 PM

Do you read your own comments????

I mean really.

How can you even think your comments are not highly biased. Really!!!!
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 06:08 PM

Quote:
Or it could be that a lie told often enough will be believed.

Yes you are an example of that phenomenon.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 06:11 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
...could be that a lie told often enough will be believed.

What lie? Trump admitted to extortion and bribery. That's high crimes and misdemeanors. Trump has admitted to this on television several times. Hmm
Post a link to Trump admitting extortion and bribery. Not a link to a partisan source that he might have committed extortion and bribery but an actual admission of guilt. BTW, I already looked for a link where Trump admits to those crimes and found NOTHING but partisan links that suggested he had. Prove that you are not lying, pdx rick.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 06:13 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Do you read your own comments????

I mean really.

How can you even think your comments are not highly biased. Really!!!!



I admit that my comments are biased. Which you sure as hell don't do rporter314!
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 06:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Post a link to Trump admitting extortion and bribery.

You can hear it straight from the horse's ass...erm, mouth. smile

Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 08:36 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista


Then on 8 Oct 2019, a week later to the same question, 36% independents said the senate should remove Trump, 36% said the senate should not. Question 20.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x3neaunoh2/econTabReport.pdf

Actually, question 20 said 45% of independents said Trump should be removed, not 36%. The independents moved 9% in favor of removal from office in one week.

smile

I beg your pardon. I looked again, under independents 36% for, 36% against, 29% not sure.

Your 45% is the total nationwide, everyone including Democrats, independents and Republicans. Nationwide is 45% for, 39% against, 16% not sure. Please look again if you would be so kind. Look under the column IND which stands for independents.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 09:11 PM

I am biased ..... against ignorance!!!!!

Post ALL the facts and I will analyze in the most objective manner possible. It is the way I operate. Just because you don't like my conclusions does not mean my conclusions are biased.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 09:16 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
I beg your pardon.

You're pardoned. smile

NPR/Marist 10/3 - 10/8

45% of Independents favor removal. (Pg 63) smile

Given that this was a very bad week for Mr. Trump, I expect that independent number to go higher in the future. smile
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 09:23 PM

Not to step on Rick commenting but perhaps you can expand your imagination for a second.

In a summary of a call Mr Trump said (and I paraphrase) I got aid but I want a favor in return. Mr Trump later admitted it was a perfect call and he said perfect things.

It is an obvious quid pro quo in my opinion. O but not only in my opinion but apparently almost everyone who heard the call "knew" it was a quid pro quo as aides went scurrying around looking for attorneys and they went around covering it up. Not only them but people at State who were aware of the efforts of Giuliani et al "knew" it was a quid pro quo and said so in texts.

Now just because Mr Trump says it was not quid pro quo does not make it so. He lies so much nothing he says is credible.

So when someone says Mr Trump admitted he committed crimes, what is meant (can't you read the subtext?) is Mr Trump admitted he said what was in the summary which was the same as admitting, as almost everyone privy to the call understood, he committed crimes.

Geeeez
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 09:46 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
I am biased ..... against ignorance!!!!!

Post ALL the facts and I will analyze in the most objective manner possible. It is the way I operate. Just because you don't like my conclusions does not mean my conclusions are biased.
Would that be like this objective comment?
Originally Posted By: rporter314
If you do not believe that is a real crisis, then you have slept through the Trump occupation of the WH.

The Trump occupation of the WH? With your own words rporter314 I have shown that you are not the objective person you claim to be. So do not complain about my biased comments until you have the honesty to admit your comments are also biased.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 11:47 PM

Trump hasn't been occupying the White House?
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/12/19 11:51 PM

Are you saying my description of a real Constitutional crisis is inaccurate and therefore I am biased or do you dispute my use of language that while Mr Trump does sleep in the WH he therefore occupies the residence?

So how exactly am I biased???
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 01:23 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Not to step on Rick commenting but perhaps you can expand your imagination for a second.

In a summary of a call Mr Trump said (and I paraphrase) I got aid but I want a favor in return. Mr Trump later admitted it was a perfect call and he said perfect things.

It is an obvious quid pro quo in my opinion. O but not only in my opinion but apparently almost everyone who heard the call "knew" it was a quid pro quo as aides went scurrying around looking for attorneys and they went around covering it up. Not only them but people at State who were aware of the efforts of Giuliani et al "knew" it was a quid pro quo and said so in texts.

Now just because Mr Trump says it was not quid pro quo does not make it so. He lies so much nothing he says is credible.

So when someone says Mr Trump admitted he committed crimes, what is meant (can't you read the subtext?) is Mr Trump admitted he said what was in the summary which was the same as admitting, as almost everyone privy to the call understood, he committed crimes.

Geeeez

Indeed. "Do us a favor, though..." is English for quid pro quo. Hmm

Originally Posted By: rporter314
...just because Mr Trump says it was not quid pro quo does not make it so. He lies so much nothing he says is credible

Everything that Trump says, if you take the opposite, then you'll have reality . smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 01:27 AM


You're correct perotista, I misread your poll. I knew the independent figure was 45% because I just saw it on PBS News Hour last night.

smile
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 01:56 AM

Matt Drudge, conservative media icon for decades, sours on Trump.

Quote:
"He's reacting to changing circumstances," a person close to the media mogul, who said Drudge had grown exasperated with Trump, told CNN Business.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 02:38 AM

Different polls even if on the same day or within a couple of days can give entirely different numbers. This is why I stated I wish RCP would be running an average on impeachment like they do with Trump's job approval. On that the polls range between 40-49%, but RCP averages all the recent polls together which I think gives us a more accurate number. Every once in awhile you do get a skewed poll.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

The kind of poll is also important, if one is using it to gauge elections. You have all adults, but we know 45% of them don't vote. Then we have polls who do registered voters which history shows around 65% of them do vote. Finally are the likely voter polls which around 80% of them vote. Then there is the margin of error in each poll which outside of a very few actually pay attention to.

You probably know all of that. YouGov did registered voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9%. I don't have the faintest idea which poll PBS used. I haven't watched PBS since they took Dr. Who off the air some 25 or so years ago.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 02:59 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Are you saying my description of a real Constitutional crisis is inaccurate and therefore I am biased or do you dispute my use of language that while Mr Trump does sleep in the WH he therefore occupies the residence?

So how exactly am I biased???

An unbiased way to say that is to say Pres. Trump. He occupies the WH because he won the 2016 Presidential election.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 03:30 AM

Quote:
Pres. Trump

Perhaps you do not know the proper protocol for addressing the legal occupant of the WH. It is either President or Mr. As I respect the office of the presidency, I prefer to address the current occupant as Mr, as I have no respect for the person.

Should he ever make the highly promoted pivot to act as a president, then I would address him as President. He has not done so, nor do I expect him to change his role as leader of a corrupt administration i.e. otherwise known as crime boss.

Now should you have evidence which would refute my description of his administration please present it.

Yes he is the occupant just as I said.

None of what I have said is biased. It is based on the facts and my conclusion. If you have some factual basis that my facts of the protocol is incorrect, please present it. If you have some facts which demonstrate this administration is not corrupt, please present it. If you have some facts which distance Mr Trump from the corruption, please present it. If not then the facts and my conclusion are unbiased.

If I were biased I would ignore the facts as you do, or would spin the facts into alternative facts or perform some other conservative voodoo word game to defend what I and my 13 RW ancestors consider indefensible.

But please ... type some facts ... no opinions wanted
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 04:10 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Pres. Trump

Perhaps you do not know the proper protocol for addressing the legal occupant of the WH. It is either President or Mr. As I respect the office of the presidency, I prefer to address the current occupant as Mr, as I have no respect for the person.

Should he ever make the highly promoted pivot to act as a president, then I would address him as President. He has not done so, nor do I expect him to change his role as leader of a corrupt administration i.e. otherwise known as crime boss.

Now should you have evidence which would refute my description of his administration please present it.

Yes he is the occupant just as I said.

None of what I have said is biased. It is based on the facts and my conclusion. If you have some factual basis that my facts of the protocol is incorrect, please present it. If you have some facts which demonstrate this administration is not corrupt, please present it. If you have some facts which distance Mr Trump from the corruption, please present it. If not then the facts and my conclusion are unbiased.

If I were biased I would ignore the facts as you do, or would spin the facts into alternative facts or perform some other conservative voodoo word game to defend what I and my 13 RW ancestors consider indefensible.

But please ... type some facts ... no opinions wanted

Occupy Your use of the phrase "Trump occupation" of the WH is a sign of your bias. Pres. Trump is our President whether you like it or not. He is not "occupying" the WH he resides there because he won the election. If you cannot accept the results of the election that is a strong indication of your bias against him.
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Should he ever make the highly promoted pivot to act as a president, then I would address him as President. He has not done so, nor do I expect him to change his role as leader of a corrupt administration i.e. otherwise known as crime boss.
It is in your opinion that Mr. Trump does not act Presidential. It is in your opinion that he is the leader of a corrupt administration. It is in your opinion that he is a crime boss. None of the allegations of corruption have been proven. So to insist that Trump is corrupt is to demand that people accept your opinion as a fact.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 10:51 AM

"None of the allegations of corruption have been proven." That is what the oversight and impeachment processes are for.

Oversight: To monitor the Executive, to ensure it is fulfilling the law, and to investigate if it is believed they are not.

Impeachment: The investigative process to ascertain if there is any evidence of wrongdoing. That can then be used in the Trial.
An example, obstruction of Congress in the performance of its duty to conduct oversight. Or, Using their office for personal gain. Or, receiving payments from foreign governments or individuals. Or, committing a crime, such as a campaign receiving money from foreign sources. Or, paying off a party to do or not do something, more commonly known as bribery. Or, any of the number of other possible violations of law, and or the Oath of Office that he has committed.

Remember, Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process, and is a power given solely and without restriction(s) to The House of Representatives; Article 1, section 2; the very last phrase "and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."


Am I biased against President Donald (...) Trump? You bet. I have experience of his antics since the early 80's and long ago decided, I would not vote for someone who conducted themselves like he has and does.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 12:50 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Different polls even if on the same day or within a couple of days can give entirely different numbers. This is why I stated I wish RCP would be running an average on impeachment like they do with Trump's job approval. On that the polls range between 40-49%, but RCP averages all the recent polls together which I think gives us a more accurate number. Every once in awhile you do get a skewed poll if the election was today.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

The kind of poll is also important, if one is using it to gauge elections. You have all adults, but we know 45% of them don't vote. Then we have polls who do registered voters which history shows around 65% of them do vote. Finally are the likely voter polls which around 80% of them vote. Then there is the margin of error in each poll which outside of a very few actually pay attention to.

You probably know all of that. YouGov did registered voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9%. I don't have the faintest idea which poll PBS used. I haven't watched PBS since they took Dr. Who off the air some 25 or so years ago.

Here is a different kind of a poll of independents. It is interesting that this group would not support removing Trump from office at this time (some citing the importance of waiting for the results of the inquiry, which they all support), but none of them would vote for him.
No votes for Trump
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 06:36 PM

Hi, I just stopped by to ask:

How IS the impeachment of Hunter Biden proceeding?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 07:35 PM

Hunter Biden to step down from board of Chinese company

At this rate he may be spending Christmas hot couching it in his peepaws basement.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 09:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Hi, I just stopped by to ask:

How IS the impeachment of Hunter Biden proceeding?

Conservatives: Any day now. smile (Along with Hillary, Obama, Rice, Holder... coffee)
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 09:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
"None of the allegations of corruption have been proven." That is what the oversight and impeachment processes are for.

Oversight: To monitor the Executive, to ensure it is fulfilling the law, and to investigate if it is believed they are not.

Impeachment: The investigative process to ascertain if there is any evidence of wrongdoing. That can then be used in the Trial.
An example, obstruction of Congress in the performance of its duty to conduct oversight. Or, Using their office for personal gain. Or, receiving payments from foreign governments or individuals. Or, committing a crime, such as a campaign receiving money from foreign sources. Or, paying off a party to do or not do something, more commonly known as bribery. Or, any of the number of other possible violations of law, and or the Oath of Office that he has committed.

Remember, Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process, and is a power given solely and without restriction(s) to The House of Representatives; Article 1, section 2; the very last phrase "and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."


Am I biased against President Donald (...) Trump? You bet. I have experience of his antics since the early 80's and long ago decided, I would not vote for someone who conducted themselves like he has and does.

As your comment I put in italics shows you are biased. Your claims about Pres. Trump demonstrate that bias. As you said the impeachment proceedings are political. Since they are all of the claims about Trump must be viewed for what they are, political attacks on him. Political attacks from very partisan sources. As in all political attacks what is left out of the complaint can be and often is just as important, perhaps even more so, than the actual complaint. But the people here will not try to get both sides because as you have shown U jest Shurly the use of a conservative source is automatically rejected.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 10:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
Am I biased against President Donald (...) Trump? You bet. I have experience of his antics since the early 80's and long ago decided, I would not vote for someone who conducted themselves like he has and does.

As your comment I put in italics shows you are biased. Your claims about Pres. Trump demonstrate that bias. As you said the impeachment proceedings are political. Since they are all of the claims about Trump must be viewed for what they are, political attacks on him. Political attacks from very partisan sources. As in all political attacks what is left out of the complaint can be and often is just as important, perhaps even more so, than the actual complaint. But the people here will not try to get both sides because as you have shown U jest Shurly the use of a conservative source is automatically rejected.


It does not show anything, I flatly stated I am biased against President Donald (...) Trump and I told you why, almost 40 years of hearing about him and his antics.

To have reached my conclusion about your source, I must have read it, don't ya think? Now, if you can source a non-biased conservative site as I have, Law Schools are generally conservative. I will gladly read that site also, and may include it in my daily reading list. If it meets the criteria, it will join Lawfare an unbiased Conservative site generally focused on "... that nebulous zone in which actions taken or contemplated to protect the nation interact with the nation’s laws and legal institutions."

And I will not only listen to all Democratic debates, but will also listen to all Republican debates as I did in 2016, if the RNC is courageous enough to hold them. However, I don't think the RNC has the cojones to hold debates, it might show President Donald (...) Trump to be the Emperor with no cloths.

I recommend Lawfare to you as a daily read.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 11:00 PM

Quote:
I will not only listen to all Democratic debates, but will also listen to all Republican debates as I did in 2016, if the RNC is courageous enough to hold them


You're a better man than me, Gunga Din.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 11:18 PM

You must be glued to your opinions, so I'll try to inform you using the facts.

Originally Posted By: Dictionary
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair


Let's examine your comments

Quote:
If you cannot accept the results of the election that is a strong indication of your bias against him
The Trump supporter belief Democrats can not accept the election of 2016 is bogus. It is fake. It was made up by Mr Trump to convince YOU and people like YOU, Democrats are out to get him because he won.

The reality is the people who criticize Mr Trump do so for a couple of reasons. Mr Trump as a "human" is a reprehensible, amoral slug. Apparently you are ok with a sexual predator ( as long as he is a "star"). Apparently you think the unethical business practices of Mr Trump is ok. That he has not been convicted in a court of law is irrelevant. The evidence of the charges is credible and massive.

The other reason is people do not believe his behavior as president is acceptable for the office. Mr Trump is a bigot. But apparently you believe bigotry should be a part of the presidency. Mr Trump continues to defy all standards of propriety and ethics regarding his businesses and those of his children. Apparently you have no problem with a president (and I guess anyone who holds elective office) to enrich themselves while in office. And yet you talk about being anti-corruption. Mr Trump routinely lies about the inconsequential as well as state business.

I never had a problem with him winning the election, but I do have a problem with his actions once he occupied the WH.

My take on Mr Trump personally. For many years I had heard of him, and only because he had to inject his persona on the front pages, and concluded he was simply another egotisical rich guy without real portfolio. I have no problem with that as I just don't mingle with fakes. However when he became the current occupant of the WH his actions struck my recollections of personality disorders. So I checked.

Here is the checklist from DSM-5

Originally Posted By: Medscape Sunday, October 13, 2019

In the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), NPD is defined as comprising a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), a constant need for admiration, and a lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by the presence of at least 5 of the following 9 criteria:
A grandiose sense of self-importance
A preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
A belief that he or she is special and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people or institutions
A need for excessive admiration
A sense of entitlement
Interpersonally exploitive behavior
A lack of empathy
Envy of others or a belief that others are envious of him or her
A demonstration of arrogant and haughty behaviors or attitudes


Of course lay people should not be making diagnostic claims, but certainly a lay person can see what is obvious. Mr Trump possesses all the criteria. Of course for supporters such as yourself you may deny he possesses any of the criteria, if so then I would have to question your objectivity and/or your integrity.

At this point I feel a certain empathy with his disorder. Certainly the level of constant pressure to maintain the delusions has to wear on him.

And despite all of that he has sexually harassed women. At least 25 women have come forward with accusations and we have the Axios video of Mr Trump admitting he sexually harasses women because he is a "star". All facts. Is it necessary to go to court? Not after he admitted he does sexually harass women.

Trump business practices, all of which he admits, borders on the unethical. Businesses go into bankruptcy where he re-negotiates loans to make money on a bankrupt business. That is his business model ... build for failure to make money. I sure that is something you teach fellow conservatives. Or how about Trump U. A scam from the gitgo, settled lawsuit out of court so YOU wouldn't be able to see the sausage. or Trump Foundation. Another scam. I hope you did not send money. All facts.

I won't go into his bigotry since you reject the notion bigotry exists for Republicans.

Administration corruption. It has been rampant. Scott Pruitt, Gen Flynn, Manafort, Sec Price, Gates, Cohen, Sec Zinke, and Stone. Those were the highlights not including sexual harassment etc. Not included are the Trump family business overseas deals making millions of dollars for the family, while Mr Trump is in office. Should I go on with ALL the family dealings while in office? All facts.

Is he a crime boss? Well he is still owner of his businesses despite the fact he said he separated himself from them. No one has ever seen the paperwork. He has the military staying at his hotels in Ireland. He has foreign governments and businessmen staying at Trump Hotel in Washington. If Pres Obama had done any of this you would have been first to say ... corruption. Further we now have a summary of a call in which he clearly withholds military aid unless he gets an investigation. A standard quid pro quo for which many federal prosecutors have tried and won.

Originally Posted By: §30121.

Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.


So Mr Trump is directly involved in illegal activities. As head of the executive branch he is the boss. His underlings, Giuliani et al, and Sec Pompeo, Amb Sondland, AG Barr, and who knows who else are all a part of a conspiracy. Conclusion, Mr Trump is a crime boss.

Your response is of course he has not been convicted of any crime. So I have to ask, does he have to be convicted if he freely admits to committing a crime?

About acting presidential, do you not remember all the Republicans who told reporters Mr trump will pivot and become presidential. I am still waiting as is every objective person in America, including many Trump supporters .... but obviously not you. Of course he is the great disrupter. Maybe that is how he thinks a president acts?

Originally Posted By: Donald Trump: Acting 'Presidential' Is Easy
Trying to devalue the notion that he needs to start acting more "presidential," Republican front runner Donald Trump on Saturday pondered the meaning of the word at a campaign rally in Waterbury, Conn.

“I can do it," he told a crowd of more than 3,000 supporters. "You know what, I'm like a really smart person. Like a lot of you people. Presidential is easy."


Or maybe Mr Trump is just clueless.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 11:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
As your comment I put in italics shows you are biased. Your claims about Pres. Trump demonstrate that bias. As you said the impeachment proceedings are political. Since they are all of the claims about Trump must be viewed for what they are, political attacks on him. Political attacks from very partisan sources. As in all political attacks what is left out of the complaint can be and often is just as important, perhaps even more so, than the actual complaint. But the people here will not try to get both sides because as you have shown U jest Shurly the use of a conservative source is automatically rejected.

There’s just those pesky little facts about all the things Trump has said and done. Thar‘s shore a lot that done bears investigatin’.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/13/19 11:46 PM

Let me point out how nonsensical your comment is.

Quote:
As you said the impeachment proceedings are political. Since they are all of the claims about Trump must be viewed for what they are, political attacks on him.
You completely misunderstand what is meant by political.

There is no legal redress available. If the Founders had allowed for the president to be criminally prosecuted Mr Trump would have been (providing the DoJ is not colluding with Mr Trump to protect him) indicted by DoJ and tried in a federal court. Since that is not the case, the only remedy is the one of the House filing charges and the Senate trying the case i.e. a political process.

Quote:
Political attacks from very partisan sources.


So we must define

Originally Posted By: political attacks
In political campaigns, an attack ad is an advertisement whose message is designed to wage a personal attack against an opposing candidate or political party in order to gain support for the attacking candidate and attract voters.


Can you describe how the whistleblower complaint is a personal attack? Of course it is not personal. It is a detailed list of actions taken by Mr Trump which he has admitted to taken and having said. Again a question, if someone in government files a complaint, wouldn't that be a partisan complaint because surely that person has political leanings? So every complaint would be partisan ... including yours. Does that mean no one can file a complaint because it may injure your partisan sensibilities?

Being a partisan does not alter the facts, and ... being a partisan did not force Mr Trump to make the call and lay down the offer Zelensky could not refuse.

Quote:
the use of a conservative source is automatically rejected
Yes I do reject conservative sources automatically for justifiable reason. Very high percent of time conservative sources misrepresent facts and definitely conclusions. As an example John Solomon has just been hired by Fox News. He was a right wing writer who typically fictionalized the facts, misrepresented the facts, and based most conclusions on insinuations and innuendo. That is my assessment since I have read a number of his articles. And that is just one case and I assure you there are many more as I have read right wing "news" sites extensively.

So if I have to choose between a conservative source and a liberal source, I would choose liberal as they get the facts right far more often and do not rely on insinuation and innuendo.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/14/19 01:02 AM

Hatrack might be interested in the definition of partisan:

Quote:
1: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person
especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
political partisans who see only one side of the problem

Just because some people think Trump is a lying, cheating, corrupt scoundrel doesn’t mean they are partisan - they might just be intelligent and not taken in by the con.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/14/19 01:32 AM

You really don't have to be a partisan to hate Donald Trump.
But to defend him takes a partisan of the most dedicated variety.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/14/19 03:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
I will not only listen to all Democratic debates, but will also listen to all Republican debates as I did in 2016, if the RNC is courageous enough to hold them.

The orange man-baby won't allow RNC primaries and RNC have acquiesced to him cancelling many states primaries already. Orange man-baby is too skert and afraid of challengers stepping-in on his grifting.


Hmm


Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/14/19 03:46 AM

Hey guys, with Mr. Trump's new friend Recep Erdogan scheduled to enjoy a full state visit with all the trimmings, what do you suppose the chances are that our fearless leader will be trading tips on how to scuttle the law a little more in both their countries?

BONUS!
As long as it keeps Americans divided against each other more and more, it's going to keep one very wealthy despot very very happy.



After all, it WAS his birthday recently... rolleyes
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/14/19 03:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
[quote=Ujest Shurly]Am I biased against President Donald (...) Trump? You bet. I have experience of his antics since the early 80's and long ago decided, I would not vote for someone who conducted themselves like he has and does.

As your comment I put in italics shows you are biased. Your claims about Pres. Trump demonstrate that bias. As you said the impeachment proceedings are political. Since they are all of the claims about Trump must be viewed for what they are, political attacks on him. Political attacks from very partisan sources. As in all political attacks what is left out of the complaint can be and often is just as important, perhaps even more so, than the actual complaint. But the people here will not try to get both sides because as you have shown U jest Shurly the use of a conservative source is automatically rejected.


Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
It does not show anything, I flatly stated I am biased against President Donald (...) Trump and I told you why, almost 40 years of hearing about him and his antics.
Yeah, right. I am unbiased but I am biased against Donald J. Trump. If you are biased against Trump you are biased!

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
To have reached my conclusion about your source, I must have read it, don't ya think? Now, if you can source a non-biased conservative site as I have, Law Schools are generally conservative. I will gladly read that site also, and may include it in my daily reading list. If it meets the criteria, it will join Lawfare an unbiased Conservative site generally focused on "... that nebulous zone in which actions taken or contemplated to protect the nation interact with the nation’s laws and legal institutions."
Lawfare is not a conservative site, it is a liberal site. A site published in cooperation with the Brookings Institute. The Brookings Institute (formerly the Institute for Government Research) was started by Robert S. Brookings who was the chairman of the Price Fixing Committee for Pres. Wilson's War Industries Board. Woodrow Wilson the Godfather of Liberalism (FYI, The Heritage Foundation is a conservative site.)

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
And I will not only listen to all Democratic debates, but will also listen to all Republican debates as I did in 2016, if the RNC is courageous enough to hold them. However, I don't think the RNC has the cojones to hold debates, it might show President Donald (...) Trump to be the Emperor with no cloths.

I recommend Lawfare to you as a daily read.
When either a Republican or a Democrat is our President their respective party does not hold primaries or limits them. That is done because the purpose of a political party is to win elections. When the President is the incumbent neither party wants to take the chance of losing that advantage. That you doubt that, as you put it, "However, I don't think the RNC has the cojones to hold debates, it might show President Donald (...) Trump to be the Emperor with no cloths." shows your bias against Republicans. Either your bias or your lack of understanding of politics.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/14/19 04:13 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
The reality is the people who criticize Mr Trump do so for a couple of reasons. Mr Trump as a "human" is a reprehensible, amoral slug. Apparently you are ok with a sexual predator ( as long as he is a "star"). Apparently you think the unethical business practices of Mr Trump is ok. That he has not been convicted in a court of law is irrelevant. The evidence of the charges is credible and massive.

And despite all of that he has sexually harassed women. At least 25 women have come forward with accusations and we have the Axios video of Mr Trump admitting he sexually harasses women because he is a "star". All facts. Is it necessary to go to court? Not after he admitted he does sexually harass women.

In the video Pres. Trump said that a star could "grab women by the pussy." When I replied to you the first time you mentioned this I said that it was disgusting, but you have ignored that comment. You continue to try to show that I agree with such behavior when I do not. As I have said it is, unfortunately, that is something men who are stars have been able to do for centuries.
I do not condone nor approve of such behavior!
(I put that in so rporter314 would not miss it.)
That Trump said that a star can do it does not mean he still does so. Just because someone can do something does not mean that they do it. You, rporter314, can jaywalk across a street and like a lot of people you probably have. Because you probably have done it once does that mean you always do? No, it does not.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/14/19 07:31 PM

If grabbing women by the pussy was the worst thing President Trump has done I wouldn't really mind it so much. I've grabbed a few myself over the years and I'm not even a star. But alas, sexual assault is among the least of his crimes. He'll never be convicted of any of them because he has such stalwart supporters as yourself who will put him back in office for life and if there is any way you can make him King and let him rule as he sees fit. Laws are for lesser men than such as he. Such great wisdom! Such a stable genius!
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/14/19 07:41 PM

Gee once again you ignore what was said and inserted what you want the narrative to be. Should I use BOLD so you can see it???

I said you continue to support the person who sexually harassed women. That is what I said.

Now some editorializing. I do not support people who sexually harass women. It is a deal breaker. Why? Because it is a quality I do not want to see in an elected official (nor do I associate with people like that), but for you, despite your demonstrations of protest, you are ok with sexual harassment as long as it is a elected official who did it.

Sorry does not make sense to me. What exactly would it take for you to end your support of Mr Trump? What about Mr Trump frakking a monkey on the WH lawn? shooting someone on 5th Ave? how about in a church? Using his office to make money? Selling America to the Russians ... cheap? Nothing? You would support Mr Trump no matter what he has done or would do?
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/14/19 07:45 PM

Could be but I think it is more personal. Republican challengers would take the spotlight away from the greatest human to have ever lived and as every narcissist knows ... keep the lights on me.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/14/19 08:28 PM

Senator Hatrack said "When either a Republican or a Democrat is our President their respective party does not hold primaries or limits them. That is done because the purpose of a political party is to win elections. When the President is the incumbent neither party wants to take the chance of losing that advantage. That you doubt that, as you put it, "However, I don't think the RNC has the cojones to hold debates, it might show President Donald (...) Trump to be the Emperor with no cloths." shows your bias against Republicans. Either your bias or your lack of understanding of politics."

True, when there are no challengers. However! There are three challengers to President Donald (...) Trump. They are: former Rep. Mark Sanford, South Carolina; former Rep. Joe Walsh, Illinois; and former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld. The Republican Party leadership has issues with each of them. In prognosticating, I can see real problems for the Republican Party. The problems, no candidate(s) for office after President Donald (...) Trump and Vice president Mike Pence are impeached and convicted.

Republicans think President Donald (...) Trump is going to win this election? He has pissed of Women, pissed of Farmers, pissed off Factory Workers, pissing off Teachers, activating the democratic base and independents, I think not. It may be poetic justice for President Donald (...) Trump to lose the election, it would crush his ego and inflated self-image of his narcissistic self.



As for Lawfare: Hmmm, did some shallow research there, did you learn about the founders of the Lawfare blog.


Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/14/19 08:50 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Gee once again you ignore what was said and inserted what you want the narrative to be. Should I use BOLD so you can see it???

I said you continue to support the person who sexually harassed women. That is what I said.

Now some editorializing. I do not support people who sexually harass women. It is a deal breaker. Why? Because it is a quality I do not want to see in an elected official (nor do I associate with people like that), but for you, despite your demonstrations of protest, you are ok with sexual harassment as long as it is a elected official who did it.

Sorry does not make sense to me. What exactly would it take for you to end your support of Mr Trump? What about Mr Trump frakking a monkey on the WH lawn? shooting someone on 5th Ave? how about in a church? Using his office to make money? Selling America to the Russians ... cheap? Nothing? You would support Mr Trump no matter what he has done or would do?

If you supported Bill Clinton you supported someone who sexually harassed women. If you supported Hillary Clinton you supported someone who defended a man who sexually harassed women. If you did support Mrs. Clinton your claim that supporting people who sexually harass women is "deal breaker" is a lie. BTW, I checked some of your comments from RR 9/2016 and you did support and defend Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/14/19 09:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
Senator Hatrack said "When either a Republican or a Democrat is our President their respective party does not hold primaries or limits them. That is done because the purpose of a political party is to win elections. When the President is the incumbent neither party wants to take the chance of losing that advantage. That you doubt that, as you put it, "However, I don't think the RNC has the cojones to hold debates, it might show President Donald (...) Trump to be the Emperor with no cloths." shows your bias against Republicans. Either your bias or your lack of understanding of politics."

True, when there are no challengers. However! There are three challengers to President Donald (...) Trump. They are: former Rep. Mark Sanford, South Carolina; former Rep. Joe Walsh, Illinois; and former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld. The Republican Party leadership has issues with each of them. In prognosticating, I can see real problems for the Republican Party. The problems, no candidate(s) for office after President Donald (...) Trump and Vice president Mike Pence are impeached and convicted.

Even when there have been challengers both parties have cancelled primaries. BizPac
Originally Posted By: Politico
nomination for the Republican Party.

Politico reports that Trump campaign officials have promoted a smooth path to the party’s nomination, but the cancellations were prompted by state officials and not by the Republican Party itself.

While Weld and Walsh are crying foul, this is not the first time states have canceled primaries. Arizona canceled their Democratic primary when Barack Obama was running for reelection in 2012. The same also happened in 1996 when Bill Clinton was running for reelection. Kansas also did not have a primary in 1996.

“As a general rule, when either party has an incumbent president in the White House, there’s no rationale to hold a primary,” South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick told Politico. He also noted that his state did hold a primary in 1984 when Ronald Reagan was running for reelection, or in 2004 when George W. Bush was doing the same. He added that Democrats also skipped primaries in the state in 1996 and 2012.
It seems that Ujest Shurly's comment omitted some important facts and made an assumption based solely on his personal opinion.

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
Republicans think President Donald (...) Trump is going to win this election? He has pissed of Women, pissed of Farmers, pissed off Factory Workers, pissing off Teachers, activating the democratic base and independents, I think not. It may be poetic justice for President Donald (...) Trump to lose the election, it would crush his ego and inflated self-image of his narcissistic self.
Pissed off farmers? If Trump has pissed off women put "women support for Trump" in your computer's search engine and you will find a number of sites of women who support him.
Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
As for Lawfare: Hmmm, did some shallow research there, did you learn about the founders of the Lawfare blog.

While I could be mistaken but the odds of strong conservatives being on the faculty or students of Harvard University, as the founders of Lawfare were, extremely remote.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/15/19 01:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
[quote=Ujest

Politico reports that Trump campaign officials have promoted a smooth path to the party’s nomination, but the cancellations were prompted by state officials and not by the Republican Party itself.

While Weld and Walsh are crying foul, this is not the first time states have canceled primaries. Arizona canceled their Democratic primary when Barack Obama was running for reelection in 2012. The same also happened in 1996 when Bill Clinton was running for reelection. Kansas also did not have a primary in 1996.

“.


I think all of those hollaring about the cancellation of primaries when there is an incumbent president running for reelection should read this.

2020 Primary and Caucus Cancellations Through the Lens of Recent History

http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org...recent-history/

It is more the norm to cancel primaries when an incumbent president if seeking reelection. Bush, the GOP cancelled 19 Primaries in 2004. Obama, the Democrats cancelled 13 in 2012. So far we have 6 primaries and caucus cancelled for 2020.

These are the states doings. Here is Georgia we have a law that if only one candidate is on the ballot, no primary will be held. So we don't know if we'll have a Republican primary or not yet. We certainly will have the democratic primary.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/15/19 01:47 PM


The very damaging testimony of Trump's former Russia Aide, Fiona Hill.


smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/15/19 02:43 PM



Monday, October 14, 2019




smile
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/15/19 03:22 PM

First I did not support any candidate for the presidency between 1976 and 2008. I favored one particular Republican between 2008 and 2020, who has never considered running for office but has had high profile jobs in government service. I have considered him to be the most qualified, for a number of reasons and an even tempered person for the job.

Second I have defended Sec Clinton only in particulars i.e. trying to refute the demonization by right wing nut jobs who have hounded the Clintons for 30 years. You know the folks I am talking about, because you believe their crap. And after 30 years of demonization, no one ... yeah not a single person including Ken Starr has found a possible crime they have committed or one which could be prosecuted. So yes I defended her, as I would anyone who is wrongfully accused, even Mr Trump if he were wrongfully accused, on that. So maybe you know of a crime???? Well report it to Mr Trump. He has a personal attorney in AG Barr working for him.

As an aside, it appears Mr Trump has never been falsely accused of anything. His unethical activities have run a gamut of human endeavors. In addition he has been accused of criminal activities some of which he freely admits he did. Perhaps you know of a false accusation???? BTW ... if Mr trump says they're false is not a defense ... he lies too much to be a credible and reliable witness.

Third had you continued reading and simply selective reported on my comments you would have found also criticized her for some of the things she has done. In particular the extraordinary lack of good judgment in using a private server when the world is full of Clinton demonizers, such as yourself , who are looking for nothing better to do than to continue the demonization.

So your argument is, if i know someone who knows someone who knows someone then I am guilty of the crime someone committed . Do you really think about what you type or is this just the best gibberish you can come up with? Sec Clinton did not commit a crime (that I know about but if you know about some crime she committed then please don't hold back because if she did then she is on the sheis list) so I had no reason to disqualify her for reason of criminal activity.

Quote:
If you did support Mrs. Clinton your claim that supporting people who sexually harass women is "deal breaker" is a lie.
Who did Sec Clinton sexually harass?

For the record I did not support Sec Clinton as a candidate. I thought she was a poor choice but I did vote for her as I could not imagine having Mr Trump selling America to the Russians.

Still haven't answered the question, what would it take for you to .... o never mind Mr Trump is on the WH lawn acting like a monkey frakking a skunk ... so presidential ... must be easy. I know the answer.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/15/19 03:31 PM

I had not thought that impeachment was possible, as it would require 20 Republican Senators to go along, but I am changing my mind.

Events in Syria have alarmed everyone with a sense of... well, with sense. For the longest time any Republican had to go along with whatever Trump did because they were getting what they wanted - judges, tax cuts for the wealthy, government inefficiency - but now he is threatening their "brand". Republicans have always prided themselves on being [falsely] perceived as "strong" in foreign affairs - usually by loads of military spending - but Trump has exposed their flank. His moves with Turkey have been brazenly personal (and corrupt), bone-headedly stupid, dangerously disruptive and have humiliated and physically threatened the military as well as our international standing and national security. Republicans will have a hard time standing for this.

I recognize that the central issues of the impeachment inquiry are corruption and brazen abuse of office - things they rarely object to - but I suspect that they will go along with allowing the inquiry to go forward (making as much noise as they can along the way), yet deep down they recognize how much damage he is doing to the party and are calculating an exit strategy from the Trumpcoaster "Trump-catastrophe". If it happens before the end of the year, they have 9 months to get Pence ready for "prime time." I haven't checked filing deadlines, but I suspect that if he is the party nominee at the convention, that won't really matter.

Their dilemma is whether it is too late to cut bait and how much damage he could yet do as a wounded animal. I'd still bet heavily that their best option is to negotiate a Nixon-Ford style resignation-for-pardon deal, but he'll be hard to convince. A 25th Amendment exit might be hard to orchestrate and would set such a precedent as to be unpalatable. Interesting times, indeed.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/15/19 10:07 PM

I have heard this argument before about Republicans opening their eyes. At this time I have not seen any evidence there is a crossover. Despite the bi-partisan support for condemning Mr Trump, all I see is a compartmentalized response.

Resignation. Never going to happen. No self respecting narcissist would tolerate the auto-humiliation.

25th. Can't do. Did Republicans only realize after 2 years Mr Trump needed to be on the bench??? Are they stupid???

Damage. Big picture is they will bite the bullet to keep the base.

Now about 20 votes ... I have long argued the Senate would never convict because Republicans would continue to support Mr Trump. However, I sense some wavering. If in the next month the case becomes ironclad and if the Democrats promote the impeachment properly, I can see a few more possible defections. Prior to call .... I would put it at 0% possible conviction. Now I see between 10% and 20% chance.

The moderates may break loose from the rabid herd.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/15/19 10:21 PM

Pence is refusing to comply with the House impeachment inquiry. Guess he wants to be impeached for obstruction.

Can you say, Madam President Pelosi?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/15/19 11:47 PM

Those of you who want and strongly support the impeachment of President Trump are ignoring some very important facts about why he won. Here are some clues.
GOP Presidential Primary candidates.
Democratic Presidential Primary candidates
Hillary had the support of the DNC. Trump did not have the support of the RNC.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/15/19 11:49 PM



...and someone is seriously ignoring the FACT that Trump has lot a lot of support since being elected. coffee
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 12:47 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


...and someone is seriously ignoring the FACT that Trump has lot a lot of support since being elected. coffee

Let's go back to 25 Jan 2017, 5 days after Trump was inaugurated. Trump's favorable/unfavorable's. Nationwide, 45% favorable/47% unfavorable. democrats 13% favorable/82% unfavorable, Republicans 83% favorable/14% unfavorable and independents, 44% favorable/41% unfavorable. Question 125

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/pyonz5d0lq/econTabReport.pdf

As of 8 Oct 2019. Nationwide 42% favorable/53% unfavorable. Democrats 7% favorable/92% unfavorable, Republicans 86% favorable/14% unfavorable and independents 41% favorable/49% unfavorable. Question 71A.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x3neaunoh2/econTabReport.pdf

The percentage of those who view Trump favorably are close to the same as they were at the end of January 2017. A 3 point drop nationwide which is right on the line of the polls margin of error of plus or minus 3 points.

What has changed is some folks who were not sure or undecided back at the end of January 2017 have come off the fence to jump into the unfavorable column. A rise of 6 points nationwide, another rise of 8 points among independents.

I'd say Trump's support is basically the same as it was at the end of January 2017. But more importantly, those who oppose him or don't like him has grown throughout his presidency. This later came from the original group that was in the undecided or not sure column.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 02:27 AM

Quote:
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats


Warren fits that bill, so does Bernie. But they're too far to the left for you. So that's not really what you want. If Biden is as far to the left as you can stand then you might as well just vote Republican or sit home.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 02:36 AM

Quote:
Those of you who want and strongly support the impeachment of President Trump are ignoring some very important facts about why he won.

i don't give a rat's as whether he's impeached or not. And I know exactly why he won. Republicans love authoritarian asshO*es.

The bigger the asshO*e the more they love them. And Trump is the biggest of them all.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 02:42 AM


Mayor Pete 10/15/19:

Quote:
Donald Trump came within cheating distance in 2016 and won.


Good Senator, what has Donald Trump done exactly to address the issues in the midwest which caused him to "win?"

Hmm
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 02:55 AM

Why Trump won cannot be understood if looked at from a partisan perspective.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 02:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Why Trump won cannot be understood if looked at from a partisan perspective.

Try me. smile

I have my theories... coffee
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 03:38 AM

LOL

The reality is, if the Senate does convict the current occupant of the WH, they will certainly not convict the VP for the obvious reason you stated. VP Pence could shoot people on the Senate floor and they would not convict. How's that for party loyalty!!!!


VP Pence ... let the corruption begin.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 03:49 AM

Quote:
Why Trump won cannot be understood if looked at from a partisan perspective.

Let me point out the obvious.

Since you are partisan, who has no other perspective than partisan, you cannot understand why he won.

I'll ask again ... do you read what you type????
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 04:11 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Why Trump won cannot be understood if looked at from a partisan perspective.

Let me point out the obvious.

Since you are partisan, who has no other perspective than partisan, you cannot understand why he won.

I'll ask again ... do you read what you type????
Yes, I am partisan, very partisan. It is because I am looking at this from a non-partisan perspective that I understand why Trump won. And no I never read what I type. I proofread it by osmosis.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 10:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats


Warren fits that bill, so does Bernie. But they're too far to the left for you. So that's not really what you want. If Biden is as far to the left as you can stand then you might as well just vote Republican or sit home.


I like folks more or less in the center, center right or center left. Not the fringes. I think it's funny how those on the outer fringes think they're mainstream and its everyone else that is out of kilter. This goes for both the left and right.

If you think Warren and Sanders are mainstream, in the center political ideological wise, well...
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 11:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Yes, I am partisan, very partisan. It is because I am looking at this from a non-partisan perspective that I understand why Trump won. And no I never read what I type. I proofread it by osmosis.

How is it that a very partisan person can look at something from a non-partisan perspective? Let me refresh one and all on the definition of partisan: one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 12:53 PM

Quote:
If you think Warren and Sanders are mainstream, in the center political ideological wise, well...


Mainstream? You mean more of exactly what we've had for the last 40 years? Mainstream is what got us where we are and mainstream is what will keep us here. As near as I can tell you are perfectly satisfied with government and don't want to change a single thing about it.

No, they are not mainstream and that's exactly why we need them. Mainstream has gotten us into an oligarchy. Mainstream has brought us near fascism, it has brought us a filthy polluted planet, it has brought us global climate change, it has brought us income inequality not seen since the Gilded Age. Mainstream just shot a woman in her home in Fort Worth. Mainstream has failed utterly to deliver the American Dream to any but the wealthy.

I'm kind of over this mainstream crap. I'm long since done with Centrism and centrists kicking cans down the road and never accomplishing anything. I'm not a fringe leftist. I'm not a socialist.
I'm just an old man who is sick and tired of a government as impotent as myself, a useless entity that funnels money to the wealthy and f***s everybody else square in the arse.

Why are you so afraid of change? Does a 2% tax on wealth over $50Million threaten you somehow? Do you feel sorry for the poor billionaires? Or do you stand on Constitutional principles that insist all taxation is theft? But theft from the working class by the oligarchs is perfectly okay? Mainstream has stolen the lives of millions of working Americans. Mainstream has destroyed families. Mainstream has driven everyone so far into debt that they'll never see the light of day.

It's not the right nor the left who have delivered us into this nightmare. It's the Center and their overarching need to just leave things alone and let them take care of themselves. To propose half assed measures that never seem to accomplish anything. Bold action is needed and centrists will never ever deliver it.

**I haven't even had my coffee yet!**

No offense intended, Pero, nothing personal, just enjoying an early morning rant.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 01:59 PM

Pretty fair rant... I’m looking forward to the upgraded version after you’ve gotten coffeed up.
coffee eek2
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 03:21 PM

LOL .... ROFLMAO

Quote:
I am looking at this from a non-partisan perspective


Sorry but what you think is non-partisan is actually you looking in mirror ans telling yourself the image in the mirror is non-partisan. There is absolutely nothing in any of your posts which suggest you can be anything other than partisan. Why you even proclaim loudly and proudly you are a partisan.

Here is an experiment on non-partisanship ... why would you not put on what you believe to be a non-partisan hat and look at the evidence from that perspective and type your non-partisan analysis.

Let me give you this clue. Everyone involved in foreign affairs recognized the call as a quid pro quo of the criminal type and attorneys covered it up.

So let's see some of that non-partisan typing.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 03:44 PM

Because I am partisan does not mean I am always partisan. There is more, a lot more, to life than politics.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 09:32 PM

What the phrase "Because I am partisan does not mean I am always partisan. There is more, a lot more, to life than politics. " does mean is, there does not exist a non-partisan Senator regarding politics. Must be confirmation of my previous posts belying your claims of non-partisanship.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/16/19 11:45 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Let me give you this clue. Everyone involved in foreign affairs recognized the call as a quid pro quo of the criminal type and attorneys covered it up.

So let's see some of that non-partisan typing.
My comment was about why and how did Donald J. Trump defeat a field of professional politicians from both parties.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/17/19 01:23 AM





Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
If you think Warren and Sanders are mainstream, in the center political ideological wise, well...


Mainstream? You mean more of exactly what we've had for the last 40 years? Mainstream is what got us where we are and mainstream is what will keep us here. As near as I can tell you are perfectly satisfied with government and don't want to change a single thing about it.

No, they are not mainstream and that's exactly why we need them. Mainstream has gotten us into an oligarchy. Mainstream has brought us near fascism, it has brought us a filthy polluted planet, it has brought us global climate change, it has brought us income inequality not seen since the Gilded Age. Mainstream just shot a woman in her home in Fort Worth. Mainstream has failed utterly to deliver the American Dream to any but the wealthy.

I'm kind of over this mainstream crap. I'm long since done with Centrism and centrists kicking cans down the road and never accomplishing anything. I'm not a fringe leftist. I'm not a socialist.
I'm just an old man who is sick and tired of a government as impotent as myself, a useless entity that funnels money to the wealthy and f***s everybody else square in the arse.

Why are you so afraid of change? Does a 2% tax on wealth over $50Million threaten you somehow? Do you feel sorry for the poor billionaires? Or do you stand on Constitutional principles that insist all taxation is theft? But theft from the working class by the oligarchs is perfectly okay? Mainstream has stolen the lives of millions of working Americans. Mainstream has destroyed families. Mainstream has driven everyone so far into debt that they'll never see the light of day.

It's not the right nor the left who have delivered us into this nightmare. It's the Center and their overarching need to just leave things alone and let them take care of themselves. To propose half assed measures that never seem to accomplish anything. Bold action is needed and centrists will never ever deliver it.

**I haven't even had my coffee yet!**

No offense intended, Pero, nothing personal, just enjoying an early morning rant.


I hope you enjoyed your coffee. I did this AM. I don't take offense or make these things personal. It's basically entertainment, reading these posts are interesting, good conversations usually follow, then every once in awhile I learn something new. I enjoy your posts, whether I agree with them or not.

I grew up under Eisenhower, not someone one could call being right or left, a conservative or a liberal. Especially not in today's sense of what those words apply. I still rank him as the best president in my lifetime.

Yeah, in a way I don't like change. I'm still using windows 7 on my computer because I'm comfortable with it. Besides I don't need all the gimmicks windows 10 has to offer. I'd never use them. I have a flip cell phone, one you can call out on and receive calls. No smart phone or I phone or whatever.

I enjoyed Obama's last six years since he was basically a caretaker president that had to use his phone and pen to accomplish anything. His first two years got my dander up.

What I'm looking for come 2020 is not someone with bold new ideas to upset the apple cart. Just someone who will provide steady, reliable leadership. More like IKE than FDR. Certainly not a Trump, Hillary, Warren or Sanders. Yes, Biden would do nicely. Although I would prefer a much younger person.

Now I won't be voting for someone I would be very uncomfortable having as our next president. If that means another third party vote, so be it. That is totally up to the Democrats to determine. Actually I have voted third party five times in presidential elections beginning in 1968 when one had to be 21 to vote. whether I voted third party, Republican or Democratic, I wouldn't change my vote.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/17/19 03:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Let me give you this clue. Everyone involved in foreign affairs recognized the call as a quid pro quo of the criminal type and attorneys covered it up.

So let's see some of that non-partisan typing.
My comment was about why and how did Donald J. Trump defeat a field of professional politicians from both parties.

That’s not my post...
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/17/19 03:51 PM

I am sad about the passing of Elijah Cummings. I greatly respected him. I am concerned about how it will affect the process. Cummings was a steady hand who didn't tolerate crap from either side. Not a grandstander, but a gentleman. I admit, I don't admire Schiff or Nadler, although I agree with them. Impeachment is serious business and should not be blindly partisan. Cummings exemplified that approach. I'm trying to think of who can replace him in that role and I am coming up blank.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/17/19 05:37 PM



Mick Mulvaney admits to Trump's Ukranian quid pro quo. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/17/19 05:39 PM



Trump is on excuse number 5 for his Ukraine call. smile

1. It didn't happen, the call was perfect.
2. Ok, it happened, but it was a joke.
3. Ok, not a joke, but no pressure.
4. Ok, pressure, but no quid pro quo.
5. OK, quid pro quo, but the good kind.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/17/19 06:50 PM

Don't look now, but the Republicans are making their move to pre-empt the Dems in taking out Trump...
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/17/19 08:35 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista

What I'm looking for come 2020 is not someone with bold new ideas to upset the apple cart. Just someone who will provide steady, reliable leadership. More like IKE than FDR. Certainly not a Trump, Hillary, Warren or Sanders. Yes, Biden would do nicely. Although I would prefer a much younger person.


Nice dream, but utterly impossible after a reign of terror like Trump's. A Biden presidency is exactly what the Trumpers of the world would dream of if they had to endure any defeat.
A Biden presidency would give them the target rich environment that they desire.
Ready for eleven back to back Hunter Biden investigations?

Nope...sorry Perotista, but in the words of several very prominent strategists, "The Republican Party must be utterly destroyed in order to rebuild it". The appropriate response to Trump is not a spoonful of pablum and reruns of "Friends" on the Turner channel.
Friends is fun to watch but that world no longer exists.
9/11 didn't destroy it, Trump did.

And his little friends are watching the HAL TURNER channel.

Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/17/19 09:07 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I am sad about the passing of Elijah Cummings. I greatly respected him. I am concerned about how it will affect the process. Cummings was a steady hand who didn't tolerate crap from either side. Not a grandstander, but a gentleman. I admit, I don't admire Schiff or Nadler, although I agree with them. Impeachment is serious business and should not be blindly partisan. Cummings exemplified that approach. I'm trying to think of who can replace him in that role and I am coming up blank.


Not a lot of depth on the Democratic bench is there? Democrats have been the downtrodden party of losers for so long that it's showing up when one of the good ones is lost.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/17/19 10:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I am sad about the passing of Elijah Cummings. I greatly respected him. I am concerned about how it will affect the process. Cummings was a steady hand who didn't tolerate crap from either side. Not a grandstander, but a gentleman. I admit, I don't admire Schiff or Nadler, although I agree with them. Impeachment is serious business and should not be blindly partisan. Cummings exemplified that approach. I'm trying to think of who can replace him in that role and I am coming up blank.


Not a lot of depth on the Democratic bench is there? Democrats have been the downtrodden party of losers for so long that it's showing up when one of the good ones is lost.


We had some depth but we've been allowing overweening political correctness to run amuk.
We could have had Al Franken.
But I guess we can't have nice things, because...
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/18/19 01:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: perotista

What I'm looking for come 2020 is not someone with bold new ideas to upset the apple cart. Just someone who will provide steady, reliable leadership. More like IKE than FDR. Certainly not a Trump, Hillary, Warren or Sanders. Yes, Biden would do nicely. Although I would prefer a much younger person.


Nice dream, but utterly impossible after a reign of terror like Trump's. A Biden presidency is exactly what the Trumpers of the world would dream of if they had to endure any defeat.
A Biden presidency would give them the target rich environment that they desire.
Ready for eleven back to back Hunter Biden investigations?

Nope...sorry Perotista, but in the words of several very prominent strategists, "The Republican Party must be utterly destroyed in order to rebuild it". The appropriate response to Trump is not a spoonful of pablum and reruns of "Friends" on the Turner channel.
Friends is fun to watch but that world no longer exists.
9/11 didn't destroy it, Trump did.

And his little friends are watching the HAL TURNER channel.


I'm not worried about the Republican Party, sending it to the trash heap of history wouldn't bother me one bit. I'd also like to see the Democratic Party join it.

Here's a prediction, I'm sure the Democrats will nominate one of its far leftist. Because of the egotistic oaf we have as president, that leftist wins along with the Democrats gaining the senate. The Democrats will view this as a mandate for them when it was a vote against Trump, not necessarily for them or their nominee. The senate Democrats will completely eliminate the filibuster to rush through their leftist agenda. But they go too far which lets the GOP regain control of the House in 2022.

We seen this play out after the election of 2008 with 2010 happening. Little steps are fine with most Americans, they tend to rebel against gigantic steps. Especially when they aren't listen to. We have a growing number of independents, rising from 30% in 2006 to 40% of the electorate today. Neither party can win elections without attracting independents as Hillary found out. Perhaps pablum is what these folks are looking for in the form of steady, reliable leadership. Not a push to the far right or far left. We'll see as you have my forecast in writing.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/18/19 11:34 AM

I have to admit, I have been shaken by the events of today, and of the last week. I am now confident that there is no depth that Trump will not plumb in his quest to be the most corrupt President in US (and most of the world's) history. It's like he is trying to push every button he can in the quest for impeachment - emoluments, self-dealing, lying, politicizing foreign policy, giving Putin every advantage he can, betraying every ally - and not just "not hiding it" but shoving it in everyone's face. He is more arrogant and less principled that Andrew Jackson, more corrupt than Harding's entire cabinet, more criminal than Nixon, more racist than Woodrow Wilson or Andrew Johnson, less competent than Polk or Coolidge or Bush Jr. Frankly, there is no aspect of any of the worst, most contemptible White House occupants that Trump has not exceeded by a mile. He is a one-man constitutional crisis.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/18/19 01:54 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


Mick Mulvaney admits to Trump's Ukranian quid pro quo. smile


Oops! Mulvaney walks back the admission of Trump's Ukranian quid pro quo.

gobsmacked

Believe the lying liars the first time. smile
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/18/19 02:52 PM

Mr Trump said there is no QPQ therefore there is no QPQ. The Base believes it as fact and nothing can change that.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/18/19 04:08 PM

More racist than Woodrow Wilson? Wilson's favorite movie was Birth of a Nation because it glorified the Klan. Birth of a Nation If you put ALL of the racist comments that Pres. Trump is supposed to have made he does not even come close to be as racist as Wilson was. That you you or anyone else even thinks that Trump is more racist than Wilson was is based on your hatred of Trump not on the truth! Wilson segregated the federal workforce. Wilson's racism Any claim you have to being principled NW just disappeared with your claim that Trump is more racist than Wilson was.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/18/19 04:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
...If you put ALL of the racist comments that Pres. Trump is supposed to have made he does not even come close to be as racist as Wilson was.

Are you sure that you want to go there? smile

Elijah Cummings' Baltimore District:
Originally Posted By: Trump
“disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess” where “no human being would want to live.”


Trump on 'The Squad':
Originally Posted By: Trump
they should “go back” to the “totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”


Trump on Liz Warren:
Originally Posted By: Trump
Goofy Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas...


Need more examples? I'll be happy to post more - because there is A LOT more. smile
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/18/19 05:13 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
...If you put ALL of the racist comments that Pres. Trump is supposed to have made he does not even come close to be as racist as Wilson was.

Are you sure that you want to go there? smile

Elijah Cummings' Baltimore District:
Originally Posted By: Trump
“disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess” where “no human being would want to live.”


Trump on 'The Squad':
Originally Posted By: Trump
they should “go back” to the “totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”


Trump on Liz Warren:
Originally Posted By: Trump
Goofy Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas...


Need more examples? I'll be happy to post more - because there is A LOT more. smile
Go for for it! But before you do take a look at what Pres. Wilson DID! Trump may have MADE a lot of racist comments but actions speak louder than words. Wilson's racism
Originally Posted By: Government Executive
Washington was a rigidly segregated town--except for federal government agencies. They had been integrated during the post-war Reconstruction period, enabling African Americans to obtain federal jobs and work side by side with whites in government agencies. Wilson promptly authorized members of his cabinet to reverse this long-standing policy of racial integration in the federal civil service.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/18/19 11:26 PM

President Wilson? Apples and oranges, it was a different time, when racism was the norm, everything was segregated and everyone was racist.
WHen performing in blackface was perfectly fine and the words cultural appropriation had never been uttered.

Folks a little more woke these days. At least most folks. Racists have generally flocked to the Republican party. White supremacists like Steve King openly display their racism in the halls of congress and get re-elected in spite of it. Hate crimes against people of color have soared under Trump. You might know your history very well, Senator, but you don't much seem to be up on current events.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 12:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
You might know your history very well, Senator, but you don't much seem to be up on current events.


Only those parts of history which buttress the historical revisionism he takes part in, like how today's Democrats aren't really any different than the Civil War Democrats.

So tired of all the alternative facts spewing out of the Republican Ministry of Truth.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 12:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
President Wilson? Apples and oranges, it was a different time, when racism was the norm, everything was segregated and everyone was racist.
WHen performing in blackface was perfectly fine and the words cultural appropriation had never been uttered.

Folks a little more woke these days. At least most folks. Racists have generally flocked to the Republican party. White supremacists like Steve King openly display their racism in the halls of congress and get re-elected in spite of it. Hate crimes against people of color have soared under Trump. You might know your history very well, Senator, but you don't much seem to be up on current events.
Had you read the articlr Greger you would have learned that not everything was segregated. Employment in our federal government was DESEGREGATED which Pres. Wilson reversed. The only place where there is rampant racism in the Republican Party is in the minds of Democrats. When Rep. King made those comments he was punished by his fellow Republicans in Congress. Rep. King Since it appears you don't read the articles I posted a link to here is a quote from this one.
Quote:
In a formal statement, McCarthy said King's comments were "beneath the dignity of the Party of Lincoln and the United States of America. His comments call into question whether he will treat all Americans equally, without regard for race and ethnicity. House Republicans are clear: We are all in this together, as fellow citizens equal before God and the law. As Congressman King’s fellow citizens, let us hope and pray earnestly that this action will lead to greater reflection and ultimately change on his part.”
It was in the news so who is it that doesn't seem to be up on current events, Greger? It ain't me.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 12:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Greger
You might know your history very well, Senator, but you don't much seem to be up on current events.


Only those parts of history which buttress the historical revisionism he takes part in, like how today's Democrats aren't really any different than the Civil War Democrats.

So tired of all the alternative facts spewing out of the Republican Ministry of Truth.
In the case of Pres. Wilson there wasn't any difference between the Civil War Democrats and the Democrats of his day. VOX Woodrow Wilson
Originally Posted By: VOX
Leaving aside the broader question of whether Wilson's name should be removed, let's be clear on one thing: Woodrow Wilson was, in fact, a racist pig. He was a racist by current standards, and he was a racist by the standards of the 1910s, a period widely acknowledged by historians as the "nadir" of post–Civil War race relations in the United States.
Republican Ministry of Truth? The Reader Rant is a branch of the Democrat's Ministry of Truth. It is because the Democrats here have not had their views challenged.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 01:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
More racist than Woodrow Wilson? Wilson's favorite movie was Birth of a Nation because it glorified the Klan. Birth of a Nation If you put ALL of the racist comments that Pres. Trump is supposed to have made he does not even come close to be as racist as Wilson was. That you you or anyone else even thinks that Trump is more racist than Wilson was is based on your hatred of Trump not on the truth! Wilson segregated the federal workforce. Wilson's racism Any claim you have to being principled NW just disappeared with your claim that Trump is more racist than Wilson was.
Thank you, my friend! I believe that is the funniest post you've ever made. It truly made my day. I believe, though, that you posted it in the wrong thread.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 02:30 AM

Quote:
It was in the news so who is it that doesn't seem to be up on current events, Greger? It ain't me.

Yes, he finally got called on the carpet for it. It wasn't a single event and justice was not swift. But occasionally even Republicans begin to frown on blatant racism.

King began his racist agenda in 2002 and has never strayed far from it. In fact he, as others, were emboldened to speak freely of their hatred after Donald Trump made it clear that his was a racist agenda as well.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 02:43 AM

Quote:
The only place where there is rampant racism in the Republican Party is in the minds of Democrats.

Yes that is precisely the exact talking point from the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln. Only it has not been the party of Lincoln since at least the 1960's. I guess you never heard of the Southern Strategy.

Originally Posted By: wiki
In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.
Please don't tell me this is a lie or liberal propaganda.

In a study of the 2016 election the authors "found support for Trump “was strongly linked to how Republican voters felt about blacks, immigrants, and Muslims, and to how much discrimination Republican voters believed that whites themselves faced.”"

The problem is how Republicans apparently define racism. As one Trump supporter said, Mr Trump doesn't own a black slave. Or to say it another way, Republicans define racism so narrowly that only the use of the word "N&&&R" qualifies as being racist.

So NO!!!! your belief, and that is all it is, a belief, racism does not exist in the Republican Party, is some delusion you want to believe, unfortunately it is simply not true nor valid. And here where I live, where The Trump Base resides, they are all 100% racists.

Very sad ... and even more sad when party leaders continue to use the phrase "The Party of Lincoln" as if the Base is something other than racist. What do you think all those elected Republicans fear?

But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the KKK or the neo-Nazis. They understand completely what Mr Trump is talking about, and he speaks their language.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 03:19 AM

Y'know, Lincoln wasn't all that fond of black folks himself.

My family was southern democrats who never went over to the republican side. There was racism in my family but there was never hatred. Not everybody felt that way. My daddy taught me that a man was a man no matter the color of his skin.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 04:58 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
More racist than Woodrow Wilson? Wilson's favorite movie was Birth of a Nation because it glorified the Klan. Birth of a Nation If you put ALL of the racist comments that Pres. Trump is supposed to have made he does not even come close to be as racist as Wilson was. That you you or anyone else even thinks that Trump is more racist than Wilson was is based on your hatred of Trump not on the truth! Wilson segregated the federal workforce. Wilson's racism Any claim you have to being principled NW just disappeared with your claim that Trump is more racist than Wilson was.
Thank you, my friend! I believe that is the funniest post you've ever made. It truly made my day. I believe, though, that you posted it in the wrong thread.
You are not and never have been my friend. So please quit patronizing me by calling your friend.

Since you cannot refute the fact that Woodrow Wilson was a racist, when even the liberal website Vox says he was, you have to try to laugh off my comment. Here again is the article from Vox
Quote:
Leaving aside the broader question of whether Wilson's name should be removed, let's be clear on one thing: Woodrow Wilson was, in fact, a racist pig. He was a racist by current standards, and he was a racist by the standards of the 1910s, a period widely acknowledged by historians as the "nadir" of post–Civil War race relations in the United States.
In the Vox article there is a picture of the screen cards from the silent movie Birth of a Nation. The card says;
Quote:
The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation.
.....until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country. Woodrow Wilson

Smithsoian National Postal Museum
Quote:
Woodrow Wilson: Federal Segregation

During Woodrow Wilson’s 1912 presidential campaign, he promised African Americans advancement. He stated, “Should I become President of the United States, [Negroes] [sic] may count upon me for absolute fair dealing and for everything by which I could assist in advancing the interests of their race in the United States.”(1) Believing in his promise, many African Americans broke their affiliation with the Republican Party and voted for Wilson. He did not, however, fulfill the promises he made during the campaign to the African American community during his presidency. Less than a month after his March 4, 1913 inauguration,(2) President Wilson’s Administration took the first steps towards segregating the federal service.

The question of federal segregation was first discussed in high administration circles at a closed cabinet meeting on April 11, 1913.(3) At the Cabinet meeting Postmaster General Albert S. Burleson argued for segregating the Railway Mail Service. He was disturbed by whites and African Americans working in the Railway Mail Service train cars. The workers shared glasses, towels, and washrooms.(4) He said segregation was in the best interest of the African American employees and in the best interest of the Railway Mail Service.(5) Burleson’s ultimate goal was not only to make the railway lines “lily white”(6) but to segregate all government departments.(7) President Wilson replied to Burleson by saying that he had made “no promises in particular to Negroes [sic], except to do them justice.”(8) He argued that he “wished the matter adjusted in a way to make the least friction”.(9) While President Wilson expressed no direct objections to Burleson’s segregation plans, support came primarily from other cabinet members.
Want to try an laugh off proof of Wilson's racism from the liberal Vox website and the Smithsonian Museum?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 05:06 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
The only place where there is rampant racism in the Republican Party is in the minds of Democrats.

Yes that is precisely the exact talking point from the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln. Only it has not been the party of Lincoln since at least the 1960's. I guess you never heard of the Southern Strategy.

Originally Posted By: wiki
In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.
Please don't tell me this is a lie or liberal propaganda.

In a study of the 2016 election the authors "found support for Trump “was strongly linked to how Republican voters felt about blacks, immigrants, and Muslims, and to how much discrimination Republican voters believed that whites themselves faced.”"

The problem is how Republicans apparently define racism. As one Trump supporter said, Mr Trump doesn't own a black slave. Or to say it another way, Republicans define racism so narrowly that only the use of the word "N&&&R" qualifies as being racist.

So NO!!!! your belief, and that is all it is, a belief, racism does not exist in the Republican Party, is some delusion you want to believe, unfortunately it is simply not true nor valid. And here where I live, where The Trump Base resides, they are all 100% racists.

Very sad ... and even more sad when party leaders continue to use the phrase "The Party of Lincoln" as if the Base is something other than racist. What do you think all those elected Republicans fear?

But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the KKK or the neo-Nazis. They understand completely what Mr Trump is talking about, and he speaks their language.
I could tell you what you think is Nixon's Southern Strategy is a lie but you wouldn't believe me. And probably won't believe Pat Buchanan either, even though he was there when it happened. Here is Buchanan's explanation of why what you believe about Nixon's Southern Strategy is not true. Real Clear Politics
Quote:
The Democratic Party was the party of slavery, secession and segregation, of "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman and the KKK. "Bull" Connor, who turned the dogs loose on black demonstrators in Birmingham, was the Democratic National Committeeman from Alabama.

And Nixon?

In 1956, as vice president, Nixon went to Harlem to declare, "America can't afford the cost of segregation." The following year, Nixon got a personal letter from Dr. King thanking him for helping to persuade the Senate to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Nixon supported the civil rights acts of 1964, 1965 and 1968.

In the 1966 campaign, as related in my new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority," out July 8, Nixon blasted Dixiecrats "seeking to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice."
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 07:00 AM

Hat, you are so busy shouting your partisan mantras that you forgot I was the one that brought up Wilson's racism. As a reminder, here's what I said:
Quote:
I am now confident that there is no depth that Trump will not plumb in his quest to be the most corrupt President in US (and most of the world's) history. It's like he is trying to push every button he can in the quest for impeachment - emoluments, self-dealing, lying, politicizing foreign policy, giving Putin every advantage he can, betraying every ally - and not just "not hiding it" but shoving it in everyone's face. He is more arrogant and less principled that Andrew Jackson, more corrupt than Harding's entire cabinet, more criminal than Nixon, more racist than Woodrow Wilson or Andrew Johnson, less competent than Polk or Coolidge or Bush Jr. Frankly, there is no aspect of any of the worst, most contemptible White House occupants that Trump has not exceeded by a mile. He is a one-man constitutional crisis.


And don't believe for a moment that I've forgotten that your diatribe was intended to cover for the distraction from the merit of my post with irrelevant and inaccurate characterizations, as is your wont. I take that to mean you concede the rest of the descriptions and just want to harp on racism. I don't understand why that motivates you so much. I know what really pisses you off isn't my beliefs at all, but the embarrassment you feel for the utter vacuity of your posts.

I'd genuinely wish you a nice day, as is my wont, but that would detract from your preferred state of just being pissy. Really. Get a grip, man.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 12:57 PM

Seven scandals in one day! Who can match such a feat?

How a brazen con artist came to be King
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 04:30 PM

Quote:
I could tell you what you think is Nixon's Southern Strategy is a lie but you wouldn't believe me.

Yes I do not believe you because of the facts. I do not sympathize with people who are incapable or unwilling to be objective. You have a choice.

Originally Posted By: Joseph Alsop
basically a segregationist strategy


Quote:
When Republican Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, his Southern surrogates played up the fact that he had just voted against the Civil Rights Act. That paid off in the Deep South where he won a handful of states


Quote:
Republican nominee Richard Nixon reached out to white Southerners by opposing school busing and promising that his administration would not "ram anything down your throats" and would appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices.


Originally Posted By: Clarence Townes
There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any.


Originally Posted By: Lamar Alexander
SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated


Originally Posted By: Kevin Phillips
If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed


Originally Posted By: Kevin Phillips
The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.


Originally Posted By: Lee Atwater
So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites


Originally Posted By: Ken Mehlman
By the ‘70s and into the ‘80s and ‘90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong


Overwhelmingly have historians and Republicans seen the Southern Strategy up close and personal. So you can take your disbelief and indignation down that delusional road you conservatives live on.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 05:23 PM

I think the Senator lives in Minnesota. A lily white state if there ever was one. They still struggle with racism.

According to the most recent ACS, the racial composition of Minnesota was:

White: 83.75%
Black or African American: 5.95%
Asian: 4.66%
Two or more races: 2.81%
Other race: 1.74%
Native American: 1.05%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 0.04%

But I'm sure the Senator has many black friends which is the hallmark of the "I'm not racist" Republican. I'm also sure he has seen Confederate flags plastered on pick up trucks because slavery was cool and coloreds are low class, unintelligent, subhumans who deserve no respect.

Or maybe he doesn't even know a black person and doesn't even begin to understand the plight of all dark skinned Americans and the Republicans lack of concern for anything but the interest of businesses and the very wealthy. Unless those businesses are minority owned,then they are pariahs, much like black men who own weapons or look like they might own weapons, or are playing videogames with their nephew in their own homes as policemen shoot through the windows with no warning. Anybody wanna bet who the cop voted for?

Coulda been either party, right? Riiiiight...LOLs
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 05:35 PM

I admit, I find it difficult to resist responding to posts that are informed by ideological purity and a resistance to rational construction, historical facts, and reason. I can get acidic in my derision. It isn't good for conversation, comity or my blood pressure. To that end, I will endeavor to ignore the distractions and refocus on the central themes. I'll try to shorthand dismissal of irrelevancy and falsehood, intentionally asserted or not, unless they are strictly germane.

The topic of this thread is "the impeachment of Donald Trump." I was, initially, resistant to it for pragmatic reasons, as was Nancy Pelosi. But, Trump's increasingly erratic and dangerous behavior has made it a constitutional necessity. As the Syrian betrayal and Doral grift have demonstrated, he can do too much damage too quickly to be ignored. It's now the only responsible course.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 05:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I could tell you what you think is Nixon's Southern Strategy is a lie but you wouldn't believe me. And probably won't believe Pat Buchanan either, even though he was there when it happened.


No he wasn't. He was in Washington.
I lived in the Deepest Heart of Dixie for THIRTEEN years.
Senator, both you AND Mr. Buchanan are engaging in another right wing weapons grade batch of historical revisionism.

In other words, both of you are lying, but what's interesting is, only Mr. Buchanan got PAID to lie.

What's your excuse?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 05:48 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I admit, I find it difficult to resist responding to posts that are informed by ideological purity and a resistance to rational construction, historical facts, and reason. I can get acidic in my derision. It isn't good for conversation, comity or my blood pressure. To that end, I will endeavor to ignore the distractions and refocus on the central themes. I'll try to shorthand dismissal of irrelevancy and falsehood, intentionally asserted or not, unless they are strictly germane.

The topic of this thread is "the impeachment of Donald Trump." I was, initially, resistant to it for pragmatic reasons, as was Nancy Pelosi. But, Trump's increasingly erratic and dangerous behavior has made it a constitutional necessity. As the Syrian betrayal and Doral grift have demonstrated, he can do too much damage too quickly to be ignored. It's now the only responsible course.


At this point, his conduct as POTUS has become so erratic that I find that my most nightmarish fantasies are given to flight sometimes.

What if he really DOES try to start a world war?
He really could do it, you know.
And at this stage of the game, with him behaving like some caged rabid vermin, there isn't much I would put past him.
And from the look of it, all the grownups have left the building.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 06:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I think the Senator lives in Minnesota. A lily white state if there ever was one. They still struggle with racism.

According to the most recent ACS, the racial composition of Minnesota was:

White: 83.75%
Black or African American: 5.95%
Asian: 4.66%
Two or more races: 2.81%
Other race: 1.74%
Native American: 1.05%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 0.04%

But I'm sure the Senator has many black friends which is the hallmark of the "I'm not racist" Republican. I'm also sure he has seen Confederate flags plastered on pick up trucks because slavery was cool and coloreds are low class, unintelligent, subhumans who deserve no respect.

Or maybe he doesn't even know a black person and doesn't even begin to understand the plight of all dark skinned Americans and the Republicans lack of concern for anything but the interest of businesses and the very wealthy. Unless those businesses are minority owned,then they are pariahs, much like black men who own weapons or look like they might own weapons, or are playing videogames with their nephew in their own homes as policemen shoot through the windows with no warning. Anybody wanna bet who the cop voted for?

Coulda been either party, right? Riiiiight...LOLs


Pffftt, I lived in Minnesota for five years, Minneapolis.
There's five million souls in Minnesota and most of the racial and cultural diversity one encounters is in Minneapolis and St. Paul.

I know the neighborhood he lives in because it was MY neighborhood, South Minneapolis, around Lake Street.
It's actually a fairly diverse area, certainly the most diverse in the state.
So there is really no excuse for his prattling on the issue, and if he doesn't have a diverse group of friends, it would be by personal choice.
You can't live in the Twin Cities and not encounter diversity.
In fact, Minneapolis is home to Little Earth, the largest urban Indian reservation in the world.
And then there are the Hmong, a very fast growing segment, the Somalis and the East Indians.

Now, if you were to talk about the Iron Range, or Duluth, or Cambridge, Brainerd, etc...then you could say it's very insular and very white.
Because that's the area in Minnesota that is lily white.
The only part of the Twin Cities that really is "lily white" is "Nordeast". (Northeast Minneapolis)

Back when I lived up there, Nordeast was where all the bikers liked to live.

No no, if you live in the Twin Cities, diversity is indeed a fact of life. Don't let the demographic tables fool you. The Twin Cities just might be one of the more diverse large cities in the country.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 06:27 PM

According to the most recent ACS, the racial composition of Florida was:

White: 75.67%
Black or African American: 16.13%
Asian: 2.68%
Other race: 2.64%
Two or more races: 2.54%
Native American: 0.28%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 0.06%

Don't much matter where you live in Florida. Diversity is everywhere.

Plenty of confederate flags here too and they say one thing to everybody...I'm a republican arsehole and I hate black people...

Okay that's two things but they're generally synonymous.

I don't think the Senator is a racist, but I also don't think he fully understands just how racist his party has become. It's a denial thing. Once he gets past it he'll drop that nasty party like a rock. It's up to us to help him along.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 07:04 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Hat, you are so busy shouting your partisan mantras that you forgot I was the one that brought up Wilson's racism. As a reminder, here's what I said:
Quote:
I am now confident that there is no depth that Trump will not plumb in his quest to be the most corrupt President in US (and most of the world's) history. It's like he is trying to push every button he can in the quest for impeachment - emoluments, self-dealing, lying, politicizing foreign policy, giving Putin every advantage he can, betraying every ally - and not just "not hiding it" but shoving it in everyone's face. He is more arrogant and less principled that Andrew Jackson, more corrupt than Harding's entire cabinet, more criminal than Nixon, more racist than Woodrow Wilson or Andrew Johnson, less competent than Polk or Coolidge or Bush Jr. Frankly, there is no aspect of any of the worst, most contemptible White House occupants that Trump has not exceeded by a mile. He is a one-man constitutional crisis.


And don't believe for a moment that I've forgotten that your diatribe was intended to cover for the distraction from the merit of my post with irrelevant and inaccurate characterizations, as is your wont. I take that to mean you concede the rest of the descriptions and just want to harp on racism. I don't understand why that motivates you so much. I know what really pisses you off isn't my beliefs at all, but the embarrassment you feel for the utter vacuity of your posts.

I'd genuinely wish you a nice day, as is my wont, but that would detract from your preferred state of just being pissy. Really. Get a grip, man.
Yes, you did bring up Pres. Wilson's racism. But when you made the claim that Pres. Trump is more racist than Wilson was you made a claim that is and was proven wrong. That you included Pres. Andrew Johnson shows that not only are you wrong but that you are delusional. No one alive today could be more racist than a former slave owner as Andrew Johnson was. The reason I chose that portion of your comment was due to the fact that it is so blatantly wrong that it is difficult to believe anything you say. My "diatribe" was not to distract from the merit of your post. That cannot be done because you post has no merit at all!

To illustrate how I feel about you NW here are the lyrics of a song by a famous MN, Robert Zimmerman.
Originally Posted By: Bob Dylan
"Positively 4th Street"

You got a lotta nerve
To say you are my friend
When I was down you just stood there grinning
You got a lotta nerve
To say you got a helping hand to lend
You just want to be on the side that's winning

You say I let you down
You know it's not like that
If you're so hurt why then don't you show it
You say you lost your faith
But that's not where it's at
You had no faith to lose and you know it

I know the reason
That you talk behind my back
I used to be among the crowd you're in with
Do you take me for such a fool
To think I'd make contact
With the one who tries to hide what he don't know to begin with

You see me on the street
You always act surprised
You say, "How are you? Good luck"
But you don't mean it
When you know as well as me
You'd rather see me paralyzed
Why don't you just come out once and scream it

No, I do not feel that good
When I see the heartbreaks you embrace
If I was a master thief perhaps I'd rob them
And now I know you're dissatisfied
With your position and your place
Don't you understand it's not my problem

I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment I could be you
Yes I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is to see you.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 10:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Yes, you did bring up Pres. Wilson's racism. But when you made the claim that Pres. Trump is more racist than Wilson was you made a claim that is and was proven wrong.
Au contraire, mon frere. You expressed an opinion. That opinion is about 100-150 years out of date. It is yours. You can keep it. You "proved" absolutely nothing. You expressed an opinion. I happen to disagree.

I am bemused that you form such strong opinions about me when you know absolutely nothing about me. It appears that these opinions are based solely on preconceived notions about what "the other" must be like. There is a word for that... I'll think of it...
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/19/19 10:44 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
more racist than Woodrow Wilson or Andrew Johnson,...
There is your claim about Pres. Trump's racism, taken from your comment, NW. In reply to your claim that has no basis in fact I posted links to prove that it is not true. What has been your response? Patronizing evasions of what you said. Again, you have shown that your comments are without merit.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/20/19 01:06 AM

I don't figger anybody is more racist than anybody else. It's like being queer. Either you are or you aren't. And only you know for sure.

I'm a redhead and I've had melanin envy all my life. Used to go to the beach and the other kids turned brown as nuts while I turned flag-stripe red then sloughed off my skin like a lizard. We Gingers don't have souls you know, but we'll steal yours with a glance.

Stands to reason that the darker your skin the more soul you must have.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/20/19 01:51 AM

Uh-oh... bad news for me. The sun is not my friend. I like soul music, though.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/20/19 02:41 AM

Quote:
I like soul music, though.

Of course you do. You're jealous of those who actually have souls, it's a common cause of racism. Bigger souls mean bigger dicks, more cause for jealousy and hatred.

Black people are so much better than us. I choose to admire them rather than hate them.

Brown people too, their joie de vivre even in the face of adversity is astounding.

White folks are the bane of the human race. Especially the men. But as warriors and conquerors we are unsurpassed.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/20/19 03:21 AM

No argument there... do you think I should try a spray tan?
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/20/19 04:13 AM

I tried that once in junior high. We took showers together, I got laughed at. But it seems to work for The President.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/20/19 06:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I tried that once in junior high. We took showers together, I got laughed at. But it seems to work for The President.
For a very broad application of "works".
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/20/19 11:31 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Greger
I tried that once in junior high. We took showers together, I got laughed at. But it seems to work for The President.
For a very broad application of "works".

Trump saw on the teevee that orange is the new black, but was nettled that an orange spray-tan didn’t make his vienna finger into a bratwurst.

It didn't work, but he keeps trying it anyway... say, isn't that the definition of something? wink
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/20/19 03:53 PM

There is an issue that is currently being overlooked in this current impeachment frenzy. Anyone notice the date? It's October 20. The federal fiscal year ended in 20 days ago. Congress is already behind schedule for the 2020 budget/appropriations process.
Quote:
Congress did not complete action on appropriations before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. The House passed a continuing resolution (CR) on Sept. 19 that funds the government through Nov. 21, which the Senate passed on Sept. 26 and President Trump signed on Sept. 27. The House and Senate, meanwhile, are expected to use the next few weeks to continue negotiations on full appropriations for the rest of FY 2020. A package of four appropriations bills stalled in the Senate in September, but nine appropriations bills may advance the week of Oct. 21 through procedural votes on two "minibus" packages.
Appropriations Watch: FY 2020 (CFRB)

Remember what happened last year? Trump created a partial shutdown for 35 days to try to force Congress to pay for his wall (it didn't work). That was just a campaign issue. Think what he's likely to do to protect himself now. I expect him to engage in hostage-taking to try to derail his impeachment. He's already created a war in Syria and a controversy about the G-7 summit to distract the public. He has more hostages available than the Sinaloa cartel at his disposal. Don't expect him not to use them.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/21/19 07:28 PM

I'm beginning to suspect that the Senate may convict him. Elections are coming up and he's an albatross around their necks. I'm pretty sure he's dug up dirt on most of them and held them hostage with it. As president he's a threat to them. Convict him and they can take control of Mike Pence and the narrative leading up to the elections.

It's a long shot but it could happen. I imagine the G7 shocked them to the core. Abandoning our allies didn't sit well either. His border emergency stole funds from their states. They can make it all go away...
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/21/19 07:31 PM

Chris Wallace says a well connected Republican says Republicans who would vote for impeachment is about 20%. I believe my thought a week ago or so was 10-20%.

There is some movement for sanity in the GOP.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/21/19 08:06 PM

Quote:
There is some movement for sanity in the GOP.


I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that, but the stink of the albatross takes all the pleasure out of life...

Word is leaking out that some are willing to break ranks. It might be political suicide and it might make you a hero. There will be death threats and more, there will be shots fired into your office...

There are a lot of extremely dangerous Republicans out there with a lot of extremely dangerous weapons. It may be best just to hang on until the elections...

But what if he wins...

The pressure is building. Sucks to be a Republican right now.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/22/19 04:06 AM

Quote:
White folks are the bane of the human race.


Certainly the meanest SOBs out there, according to my wife. She's allowed to say that because she's half Japanese, the "White Folks" of Asia.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/22/19 04:59 PM



Trump calls impeachment inquiry a 'lynching'

What...a...racist...crybaby and drama queen. That's one lynching I'd like to see televised. coffee
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/22/19 05:06 PM




How many Conservatives got goosebumps when they saw the word "lynching?" Hmm
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/22/19 05:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
"A coalition of groups is waging a massive propaganda campaign against the president of the United States. an all-out attack. Their aim is total victory for themselves and total defeat for him."
Who said this?

I know! I know!

Senator Hatrack.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/22/19 07:59 PM

OK I don't know. I don't see a current propaganda campaign. I see a lot of facts being bandied about, all being about Mr Trump.

My guess is the Conservative movement against Pres Obama led by Hannity, Limbaugh, Gingrich, tea people.

So who said it???
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/22/19 09:23 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
OK I don't know. I don't see a current propaganda campaign. I see a lot of facts being bandied about, all being about Mr Trump.

My guess is the Conservative movement against Pres Obama led by Hannity, Limbaugh, Gingrich, tea people.

So who said it???
No, rporter314 isn't partisan at all. He just automatically jumps to the conclusion that this comment was made by conservatives about Pres. Obama. He is wrong.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/22/19 09:27 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Chris Wallace says a well connected Republican says Republicans who would vote for impeachment is about 20%. I believe my thought a week ago or so was 10-20%.

There is some movement for sanity in the GOP.
Republicans are sane only when they agree with rporter314. But he is not biased or partisan. He isn't partisan and the sun isn't hot.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/22/19 10:45 PM

When people say asinine things I will call them out. It is not partisan. It is stating the truth and validity of saying something asinine.

Quote:
He just automatically jumps to the conclusion

I did not automatically jump to anything. Please note the chronolgy of comments

first, I say I do not know. I do not know. and continue with off the top of my head could someone be talking about Mr Trump? I do not know.

second, I guess ... it is a wild guess as I can not think of any recent propaganda campaign except the one directed against Pres Obama by right wing nuts. Don't you remember .... homosexual, Kenyan, Moslem, communist. Almost daily I heard that crap on Beck, Berry (local right wing nut), Hannity, and Limbaugh, and occasionally Levin. Do you deny these folks had entered into a propaganda campaign against Pres Obama???? So while it was a guess in the context of WHO say it. It was a guess.

third, I am still curious so I again restated (notice the emphasis in doubling down on my curiosity) my question, who said it.

The only one jumping is you.


again in my best Hannity GEEEEEZ
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/22/19 10:57 PM

why would you think it sane for any elected official to maintain the indefensible??? I guess I could have said they are stupid, but I know most of them are not. So my only option is they are intentionally or unintentionally irrational trying to support the statement, the apple is not an apple. In an Orwellian universe it would make sense and apparently it makes sense to you. but for rational folks that universe is not viewed as real. It is delusional. It is the world of irrational folks. So when people from that universe admit the apple is an apple. I am forced to conclude they have been cured of their political irrationality or they have become sane.

Now none of this has anything to do with politics. It is based on the widespread acknowledgement that an apple is an apple.

My comment was a note that I had previously noticed a shift in Republican thinking which had nothing to do with what I am thinking, and Chris Wallace corroborated by note with factual numbers from real sources. Please notice it had nothing to do with what I think about impeachment.

This is a serious problem trying to discuss anything with conservatives. You yourself ( notice again how I re-emphsized the "you" part of that) had commented that people will misinterpret what has been said. You sir do it quite often.


Again my fav Hannity impression .... GEEEEEZ
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/22/19 11:15 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
why would you think it sane for any elected official to maintain the indefensible??? I guess I could have said they are stupid, but I know most of them are not. So my only option is they are intentionally or unintentionally irrational trying to support the statement, the apple is not an apple. In an Orwellian universe it would make sense and apparently it makes sense to you. but for rational folks that universe is not viewed as real. It is delusional. It is the world of irrational folks. So when people from that universe admit the apple is an apple. I am forced to conclude they have been cured of their political irrationality or they have become sane.
Only in your biased opinion is opposition to the impeachment of Pres. Trump indefensible.

Originally Posted By: rporte314
Now none of this has anything to do with politics. It is based on the widespread acknowledgement that an apple is an apple.
It has everything t do with politics. With the exception of Richard Nixon, which started as political but soon turned into a Constitutional crisis, every time there has been an attempt to impeach our President it has been political.

Originally Posted By: rpoter314
My comment was a note that I had previously noticed a shift in Republican thinking which had nothing to do with what I am thinking, and Chris Wallace corroborated by note with factual numbers from real sources. Please notice it had nothing to do with what I think about impeachment.
If those Republicans had thought the attempt to impeach Trump was a bad idea you would have either condemned them for being against it or you would not have mentioned it. Every comment you make about this has to do with what you think about the attempt to impeach Trump.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
This is a serious problem trying to discuss anything with conservatives. You yourself ( notice again how I re-emphsized the "you" part of that) had commented that people will misinterpret what has been said. You sir do it quite often.

Again my fav Hannity impression .... GEEEEEZ
The problem is yours rporter314. You have a problem when a conservative disagrees with you. When a conservative, like myself disagrees with you, you claim that your comments have been misinterpreted. When I have made that claim it was not because someone disagreed with me.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 12:07 AM

Sen Hatrack,
Why did you post a quote from Gerald Ford about the impending impeachment of that criminal Richard Nixon? Was it because of the obvious parallel to the impeachment inquiry of that criminal Donald Trump?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 01:29 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Sen Hatrack,
Why did you post a quote from Gerald Ford about the impending impeachment of that criminal Richard Nixon? Was it because of the obvious parallel to the impeachment inquiry of that criminal Donald Trump?

Because when Rep. Ford made the comment it was still a political attack on Nixon. Only later did it become the Constitutional crisis known as Watergate. He also made this comment.
Originally Posted By: Gerald R. Ford
An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.
That is an accurate comment about current House of Representatives.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 02:05 AM



White House: Bill Taylor Testimony Part of a ‘Coordinated Smear Campaign’

There you have it folks, the Trump White House has gone full 'whiny little bytch.'

smile
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 02:15 AM

Quote:
You have a problem when a conservative disagrees with you
Not the case Senator.

However, I do have a problem with anyone of any political or non-political persuasion who says stupid stuff. Anyone who says you have to believe what I believe is saying something stupid. And if you say it about me, then etc etc

So lets examine what you believe is me disagreeing with your political beliefs and concluding I have a problem because of it.

Quote:
Only in your biased opinion is opposition to the impeachment of Pres. Trump indefensible.

WRONG!!!!!

I don't give a ratsazz if you are for or against impeachment. What I am concerned about is why you fail to recognize the criminal quid pro quo (QPQ) in the Ukraine phone call which has been corroborated and supported not only by multiple State department people but by Trump's own people. So why do you fail to see it????? That is what I find indefensible!!!!! (If Pres Obama had done the same things Mr Trump has done and said you would be the first one calling for impeachment. But wait ... if Pres Obama had done or said the same things Mr Trump has done and said, I would be standing next to you calling for his impeachment. I suspect I tolerate corruption in public less than you because I don't tolerate it for anyone of any political party).

Quote:
It has everything t do with politics.
You completely missed the point. I was speaking of the QPQ call. The apple is a metaphor. The QPQ is obvious. It is not an orange. It is a QPQ call. That it would become a Constitutional matter is irrelevant to the point I was making.

Quote:
If those Republicans had thought the attempt to impeach Trump was a bad idea you would have either condemned them for being against it or you would not have mentioned it. Every comment you make about this has to do with what you think about the attempt to impeach Trump.
I don't want to use the word but stu**d comes to mind.

My comment had nothing to do with whether anyone was for or against impeachment. My comment was solely a report on what I sensed in the Republican community. The commentary was regarding Republicans who finally saw the apple (QPQ call) for what it was.

Quote:
you claim that your comments have been misinterpreted. When I have made that claim it was not because someone disagreed with me.
Because they have been.

Conservatives misunderstanding anyone outside the conservative community is commonplace, so you are not the first. O and BTW liberals have a similar problem. I point out the misunderstandings for both ... because I am not a partisan.

Here is a problem I see with your logic. You say I am a partisan if I am for impeachment. So that would mean I am not a partisan if I am against impeachment, but you are an admitted partisan and you are against impeachment. So how can someone be both a partisan and a non-partisan at the same time???

The solution is obvious but you would not consider it. Use the facts. The facts do not care nor do they know whether you are a partisan or not.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 02:25 AM

Quote:
That is an accurate comment about current House of Representatives.
Now you should know better than that.

The Constitution does not spell out what an impeachable offense is other than in broad, open to interpretation, words. And the SC has never ruled on the meaning, so it is therefore up to ANY House to determine what is impeachable.

I suspect for you anything Mr Trump does is OK.

I believe that any president running a criminal conspiracy out of the WH should be impeached ...

So if that is not up to snuff for you, what exactly should an impeachable offense look like???? Here is a clue for consideration ... be very careful what you say because we may find in a couple of weeks Mr trump has done exactly that and I would hate to see you embarrassed and have to walk back your definition.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 02:32 AM

https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery...ats/3827381002/
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 02:39 AM


Trump's thinking is so infantile, that he thinks saying “no quid pro quo” somehow magically makes a quid pro quo disappear.

crazy
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 02:42 AM


According to Ambassador Bill Taylor's Congressional testimony today, Trump's henchmen wanted Zelensky to make a made-up statement, and do so in public, about the Bidens on CNN, but not on Fox News, to "publicly box-in" the newly elected Ukrainian President. Remember, Shepard Smith who has been anti-Trump was still at Fox News and Trump didn't want Shepard Smith ruining his plan for Zelensky with his base.

What other Republican Administration wanted false statements made publicly? Does Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby fixing the Iraq intel and giving it to Colin Powell to read at the UN ring a bell?
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 02:25 PM

Yeah sure and I think Amb Sondland thought by saying Mr Trump says it is not a QPQ to Amb Taylor that would make it so or at least convince Amb Taylor his eyes were lying when he saw a QPQ.

The other thing which is strange is I sense some of these clowns (I have to say that since these characters are brain deficient) believe a person has to say the words, I am offering you a quid pro quo for it to be a QPQ.

Amazing ... no .... I have not been amazed by what some conservatives say for some time
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 03:58 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
...The other thing which is strange is I sense some of these clowns (I have to say that since these characters are brain deficient) believe a person has to say the words, I am offering you a quid pro quo for it to be a QPQ.

Amazing ... no .... I have not been amazed by what some conservatives say for some time

Conservatives seem to fail to understand that the term "I want you to do us a favor, though" IS English for quid pro quo.

In other thread, " Where have all of the conservatives gone " I frankly don't care. These people support a corrupt President and political party. Hmm
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 05:40 PM

No one can be legally accountable unless they speak Latin in their negotiations. All real estate agents know this.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 08:14 PM

Apparently one of these critters is so convinced that this is a "lynching" that he attempted to take a "horde of clueless angry white men" on a raid of a closed door House hearing on Capitol Hill.

MATT GAETZ ATTEMPTS TO PROVE HIS LOYALTY BY TRASHING CONGRESSIONAL RULES

Twitter link

Sigh, I guess no one can pull off a Brooks Brothers Riot like old Roger Stone!
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 08:20 PM

Friday night Frat house bleacher fight.

Stone gave the game away in the Frontline Candidates of 2016 Bio documentary.

To roughly remember quote:

There's no news TV, there's no entertainment TV...... there's just TV.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 08:27 PM

Of course, to the average Hannity/InfoWars audience member, Matt Gaetz probably seems like he's a "hard chargin' patriot".
After all, this whole stunt is just red meat orchestrated for .......

Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 10:26 PM



One of the GOP idiots, Rep. Alex Mooney, videoed himself going into the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). In other words, the rightwing moron videoed a secured area.

That should be good for a few weeks in jail, don'cha think? smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 10:28 PM


These lying GOP basturds claim that The Dems are holding super-secret meetings behind closed doors. What these lying GOP sociopaths don't say is that there are other GOP members in these super-secret meetings being held behind closed doors WITH The Dems.

Matt Gaetz, et all are tying to insinuate that these meetings are all Dems.

Hmm
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 10:54 PM

What do you get when you put Matt Gaetz and Matt Whitaker together in a sealed room?
A masculine toilet maker and a master baiter.

DEMS DEMAND INFO ON ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL’S “MASCULINE TOILET” SCAM
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 11:03 PM

Quote:
he thinks saying “no quid pro quo” somehow magically makes a quid pro quo disappear


Like saying "No homo" before doing something blatantly gay. Face it dude, you are gay! (Or should I say, fabulous!)

Did anybody notice this?
Quote:
The Manhattan judge had called the immunity claim “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values,” and said he could not “square a vision of presidential immunity that would place the President above the law.”

This case was about Trump's tax records getting subpoenad by a DA. The judge basically tore Trump's immunity claim a new arsehole. The dominos are falling! It's all over the internet, because this could end all of his immunity claims and the justice department memos that shield him.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/23/19 11:38 PM

I think that is precisely the argument I have promoted for some time. If any president is not subject to the law while in office, it implies he is above the law. I think the Founders would have objected to anyone being above the law.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 01:15 AM

Pfffffft...the founders flaunted the law and fomented revolution.

They were the lefties of their day. They tried to create a document that would prevent someone like Trump from ever becoming president.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 01:39 AM

Okay, Trump's brain is officially demented:
Quote:
We're building a wall in Colorado. We're building a beautiful wall. A big one that really works.

We are building a wall...

I doubt he's going to make it to 2020. It's going to be "resigned for health reasons", or Amendment 25 time. Then off he goes into a memory care facility. It's not funny any more. It's pathetic.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 02:08 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Okay, Trump's brain is officially demented:
Quote:
We're building a wall in Colorado. We're building a beautiful wall. A big one that really works.

We are building a wall...

I doubt he's going to make it to 2020. It's going to be "resigned for health reasons", or Amendment 25 time. Then off he goes into a memory care facility. It's not funny any more. It's pathetic.

Trump's daily shyte show is fatiguing. #TrumpFatigue

Is Trump getting New Mexico to pay for Colorado's southern wall?

crazy
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 03:42 AM



This little stunt that many of the GOP Reps pulled today is the equivalent of a suicide bomber running into a crowd of people and as he yells Trump Akbar! and presses the button to martyr himself, instead of a bomb going off, a little flag unrolls that says 'Boom!" on it.

Notice these idiots pulled his stunt while Nancy is away in Baltimore, burying her brother. I'm hoping she shoves her stiletto'd foot up their asses when she comes back. smile
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 04:47 AM

Impeachment just went up another notch.

Judge orders State Department to release Ukraine records in 30 days
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 04:51 AM

Those morons are just asking for a censure, or worse. Invading a secure space, taking in cell phones, and even shooting video is a big no-no. People (both Democrats and Republicans) on these committees have security clearances for a reason. I imagine those guys just killed their chances to ever get one themselves.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 05:05 AM

This court order to turn over Ukraine materials in 30 days will probably be appealed by Trump which means it will likely land in the SCOTUS.

If SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump, saying he has no need to turn over materials, I cannot think of a larger constitutional crisis.
It would be about as close to any definition of "an end to democracy" AND even to "the rule of law" as I can think of, because it effectively DOES put President Trump ABOVE the LAW.

And if a majority of Americans and our lawmakers simply acquiesce to such a travesty, then we'd better damn well learn to love our yokes and the whip, which is sure to come.



Congress wanted the materials, Trump told them to go to Hell.
Now the courts have weighed in, Trump appeals, it goes to SCOTUS.
If SCOTUS favors Trump then Congress and the Judiciary are effectively stripped of all power and are rendered entirely irrelevant.

That's the end of our democratic republic. We will be finished.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 01:55 PM

Trump's personal attorney William Consovoy argued in court yesterday that a president could, indeed, shoot someone on the street and walk away scott-free - but only while s/he's president.

Here's one way to test the validity of that premise: Let's go back to when Obama was president and Moscow Mitch refused to bring the Garland nomination to the senate to advise and consent... Obama could have simply shot the corrupt old bastard and said, "Who else wants some a that kinda action?" We would now have Garland on the bench and the beer-drinkin' frat boy still raping passed out girls on Friday nights.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 02:01 PM

About the umpire who is predicting "cival war"? People aren't taking into account that the guy said there'd be cival war only if Trump gets "impeached that way." I reckon he wants Trump to get impeached in the way that the Republicans used on Bill Clinton - for lying about an affair. I'm sure the Dems could oblige, as Trump has no shortage of illicit affairs and illegal payoffs to choose from. And they didn't happen while he was president (well, maybe some did) so he can't claim immunity from the law.

I could be wrong, but the Ump sounds like a flaming far-left liberal radical to me.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 02:39 PM

Civil war? Who ya reckon he's gonna shoot with that AR15?

Republicans just gonna come out of their houses and start gunning down civilians they suspect of being Democrats?
Do they expect us to put on blue hats so they'll know who to shoot? Or will they head to DC en masse to storm the Capital Building.

Law enforcement is all Republican run so I guess they'll join in? Same with the military?

It sounds like a really bad idea to me.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 03:34 PM



Remember good and decent Americans, it's the conservatives with AR-15. Be careful out there today. smile
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 03:39 PM

The problem is no one can prevent stupidity or indifference in the electorate.

To maintain our form of government (unless someone wants a different form of government) citizens must remain vigilant and root out the cancers which endanger it. Folks, we are in the midst of not only a Constitutional crisis but an existential crisis. The current occupant of the WH has viciously assaulted all the institutions which form the foundation of our society and bulk work of our government. Only once in over 200 years has the tenuous thread holding reasonable people together in polity been tested. For those of us who believe in the Grand Experiment, it may have been pyrrhic, as the forces which welled up into conflict continue to this day, and is personified by the current occupant of the WH.

I am not so optimistic of the future of our government nor our nation. I believe there is an overwhelming majority of citizens who are either indifferent or too stupid to ensure the continuation of the experiment. Perhaps we are deserving of such a fate or perhaps it is simply part of the evolution of societies.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 03:49 PM



WSJ says Trump is too incompetent to impeach. Here is a non-subscription summary.

Most Americans knew that Trump lacks the intellectual and emotional discipline and sophistication to manage a large organization.

smile
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 05:40 PM

I tried to argue something similar with my brother that because he suffers from NPD he would be incapable of aiding his defense if prosecuted. I was however convinced just because he is a narcissist and would lie often, that did not in any way prohibit legal proceedings.

I suspect incompetence will not be excusable. Better would be my dog bite me and I have rabies.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 06:12 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
I suspect incompetence will not be excusable. Better would be my dog bite me and I have rabies.

In Ivanna's 1996 lawsuit against Trump, the suit where she claims he raped her (and subsequently later recanted), Ivanna makes mention of her dog not liking Trump. Trump today still doesn't own a dog.

Dogs know. Hmm
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 08:57 PM

Maybe her dog bite him and he has latent rabies???
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 10:47 PM


Trump lawyer: Trump can’t be prosecuted for shooting someone


It's comforting to know that Barack Obama could have marched onto the floor of Congress, whipped out a Glock and shot that corrupt old codger Mitch McConnell after he decided to tell him "You will not select a Supreme Court justice."
It's also frustrating as Hell.

He could have done it and gotten away with it, and he should have. After all, if Trump is above the law, so was Obama.

In fact, next Dem POTUS should carry several clips and just mow down the entire GOP Senate.
Why stop at just Mitch?
After all, if the President cannot be prosecuted, and can escape for life by a pardon, then clearly the thing to do is for the next Dem POTUS to exterminate the entire Republican House and Senate, get a pardon and walk free.

Just carrying that lawyer's logic to its logical conclusion.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/24/19 11:16 PM

PLAGIARISM!!

eek2
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 12:11 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
PLAGIARISM!!

eek2


??? Naah man, I am agreeing with you.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 03:50 AM

Of course, the greatest compliment! ThumbsUp
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 05:03 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Okay, Trump's brain is officially demented:
Quote:
We're building a wall in Colorado. We're building a beautiful wall. A big one that really works.

We are building a wall...

I doubt he's going to make it to 2020. It's going to be "resigned for health reasons", or Amendment 25 time. Then off he goes into a memory care facility. It's not funny any more. It's pathetic.

Trump's daily shyte show is fatiguing. #TrumpFatigue

Is Trump getting New Mexico to pay for Colorado's southern wall?

crazy

The whole point of the GOP stunt is to make the Impeachment procedure looks like a circus and thereby not taken seriously by the American public. Hmm

The Dems are very serious about impeaching Trump - trust me. smile
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 07:47 AM

The whole reason for secrecy at this point in the investigation is so various witnesses can't coordinate their testimony. If you don't know what previous witnesses have told them and about documents they have, your best bet is to tell them the truth. Anybody who lies has a very good chance at a perjury conviction.

Republicans want it to be public so a cover-up can work. At this stage, police NEVER discuss what their investigation is finding. After they gather sworn testimony from everybody involved, THEN they present it all and they have a trial in the Senate. If they were releasing stuff, the Republicans would be screaming about "leaks". I expect they will as soon as it all comes out.

Trump is just making this worse by dragging it out. House Democrats are going to have to go through the multiple levels of courts until the Supreme Court tells Trump they can't get involved and he has to comply with House subpoenas. This will take months and months, so run the impeachment right up to the election.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 04:31 PM

The current gambit used by Trump supporting Republicans is since the Ukrainians did not know the military aid was help up there is no QPQ. I suppose Trump supporters are buying this, so is there something to it?

So what is the definition of QPQ?

Originally Posted By: law.cornell.edu/wex/quid_pro_quo
In general, Latin for "something for something." An exchange of acts or things of approximately equal value.


I do not see anything about anyone knowing or not knowing about items in question. So just on the face of it, their claim is bogus.

But we can examine it further.

Quote:
President Zelenskyy: We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

Donald Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though ...


Pres Zelenski already knows the aid has not arrived (it is being held up) so he says he is almost ready, meaning when the money arrives he will buy the Javelins. At that point Mr Trump completes the solicitation by saying implicitly, sure you can buy the Javelins, and now explicitly, however you need to do me a favor first.

QPQ says something value for something of value, that is the equation. Javelins for investigation into 1) DNC & Crowdstrike and he continues with 2) the Bidens. It seems strange the DoJ would not consider oppo research into political rivals as having any value but every political operative knows oppo research has value and in some cases has great value. Apparently Mr Trump thought the investigations were worth $400M in military aid.

Republicans have no leg to stand on if they try and parse the call, because the salient part of the call is the QPQ.

Go with process Rep Ratcliffe.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 05:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas

Trump lawyer: Trump can’t be prosecuted for shooting someone


It's comforting to know that Barack Obama could have marched onto the floor of Congress, whipped out a Glock and shot that corrupt old codger Mitch McConnell after he decided to tell him "You will not select a Supreme Court justice."
It's also frustrating as Hell.

He could have done it and gotten away with it, and he should have. After all, if Trump is above the law, so was Obama.

In fact, next Dem POTUS should carry several clips and just mow down the entire GOP Senate.
Why stop at just Mitch?
After all, if the President cannot be prosecuted, and can escape for life by a pardon, then clearly the thing to do is for the next Dem POTUS to exterminate the entire Republican House and Senate, get a pardon and walk free.

Just carrying that lawyer's logic to its logical conclusion.
Here is a "moderator" blatantly violating the forum rules!
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 05:57 PM

Quote:
To Democrats who say that President Trump’s decision to freeze $391 million in military aid was intended to bully Ukraine’s leader into carrying out investigations for Mr. Trump’s political benefit, the president and his allies have had a simple response: There was no quid pro quo because the Ukrainians did not know assistance had been blocked.


Ukraine Knew

Another excuse bites the dust.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 06:48 PM

Quote:
Here is a "moderator" blatantly violating the forum rules!

And which rules would that be? Jeffery is now our administrator, if you can clear up which rule he is violating he can change it.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 06:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Here is a "moderator" blatantly violating the forum rules!

And which rules would that be? Jeffery is now our administrator, if you can clear up which rule he is violating he can change it.

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
corrupt old codger Mitch McConnell...

In fact, next Dem POTUS should carry several clips and just mow down the entire GOP Senate.
Why stop at just Mitch?
After all, if the President cannot be prosecuted, and can escape for life by a pardon, then clearly the thing to do is for the next Dem POTUS to exterminate the entire Republican House and Senate, get a pardon and walk free.
He did not address Sen. McConnell with respect and suggesting that all Republican members of the Senate be murdered is extremely disrespectful of elected officials.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 07:16 PM

We decided to drop some of the requirements for respecting elected officials since so few of them up there deserve any respect at all. It was a charade from the get go anyway. We do still try to respect each other though, whether we really do or not. It makes the board easier to moderate and we're fairly lazy about it these days.

When the President is calling his own party members "Human scum" who are we to blow against the wind?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 07:32 PM

Trump was the first to bring up murdering people with no consequences, way back in 2016. We used to refrain from using the terms "pussygrabber" or "shithole" as well... So much for civil discourse.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 07:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
We decided to drop some of the requirements for respecting elected officials since so few of them up there deserve any respect at all. It was a charade from the get go anyway. We do still try to respect each other though, whether we really do or not. It makes the board easier to moderate and we're fairly lazy about it these days.

When the President is calling his own party members "Human scum" who are we to blow against the wind?
Originally Posted By: Forum Rules
Respect for Elective Offices

Elected Officials, both past and present, are referred to by name, not by nickname or by verbal/visual insulting reference. Feel free to criticize an elected official's actions, but don't attack the person. Address what the person did, not what the person "is".

That was taken from the Forum Rules. Are you going to enforce the rules?
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 09:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
That was taken from the Forum Rules. Are you going to enforce the rules?

If they do, most of your posts are going in the waste basket, you know.

Originally Posted By: Forum Rules
We do not tolerate personal attacks on members. Feel free to dispute another member's assertions, but don't attack the person. Your response should pertain to what the person said, not what the person "is".

Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 09:49 PM



John Bolton is in talks to testify in the impeachment inquiry

John Bolton to speak to Congressional committee in a closed-door session. Bolton is no "deep state" slouch - he's a conservative's Conservative.

The Fox News coverage of John Bolton testifying will be priceless. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 09:57 PM



Federal Judge Orders Un-Redacted Mueller Report and Grand Jury Evidence Be Given to House Judiciary

The judge ordered the Justice Department to turn over all redacted portions of the Mueller report, grand jury material and exhibits and transcripts to the House Judiciary Committee by Oct. 30. smile

It's no coincidence that Trump's July 25th call to the Ukraine came one day after Mueller testified in front of Congress and Trump claiming that Mueller "exonerated" him.

There was no exoneration. Mueller outlined ten instances where Trump obstructed justice. Mueller even testified that if there DoJ Memo stating that a sitting president could not be indicted, Mueller would have indicted Trump.

Hmm

Many of the very same players in Mueller's report, show up in the Ukraine scandal. Trump has always played dirty. Now Trump's chickens are coming home to roost. laugh
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 10:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Here is a "moderator" blatantly violating the forum rules!

And which rules would that be? Jeffery is now our administrator, if you can clear up which rule he is violating he can change it.

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
corrupt old codger Mitch McConnell...

In fact, next Dem POTUS should carry several clips and just mow down the entire GOP Senate.
Why stop at just Mitch?
After all, if the President cannot be prosecuted, and can escape for life by a pardon, then clearly the thing to do is for the next Dem POTUS to exterminate the entire Republican House and Senate, get a pardon and walk free.
He did not address Sen. McConnell with respect and suggesting that all Republican members of the Senate be murdered is extremely disrespectful of elected officials.


Ahhh, scuse me.
I addressed Mitch McConnell as "Mitch McConnell".
The RULES state that "respect" consists of using their proper names.
Senator Mitch McConnell being addressed as "Mitch McConnell" is kosher.

Adding "corrupt old" TO "Mitch McConnell" is not and never was a violation of ANY rule, otherwise it would be against the rules to accuse an elected official of corruption, yes?

As to the fever dream suggestion of mowing down the GOP Senate, all I did was use President Trump's attorney's logic and draw it out to its logical conclusion. Take it up with President Trump's personal attorney. After all, at some point the exact same argument might just be used by another attorney in court to argue as to WHY such logic is seriously flawed.

It IS seriously flawed BECAUSE if Trump's attorney is correct, then the scary scenario I described would be REALITY.
It would be the LAW. President Obama COULD HAVE done exactly that.

Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 10:42 PM

Quote:
mowing down the GOP Senate

Sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/25/19 10:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
mowing down the GOP Senate

Sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots.


If anyone has violated anything, it's William Consovoy, Trump's "other personal attorney".
All I did was use his words and go to the wall with his logic.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/28/19 07:06 PM



Rudy Colludy's butt-dialing is a real smoking gun. smile
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/28/19 08:38 PM

Well! The house to vote on the next steps in the Impeachment process MSNBC video.


:ohsnap: popcorn2 :applaud:
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/29/19 02:37 AM

"You asked for, YOU GOT IT, Toyota!"

Remember that commercial? ROTFMOL
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/29/19 02:25 PM

Y, yes eye do.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/29/19 02:32 PM

Inexorable. That's the word. Pelosi will keep the pressure on, and Trump will continue to make reasons for his own impeachment. It may not happen in time, though, as 2020 is just around the corner and the mantra will be "time has run out, let the votes decide." The most dangerous time will be between November and January.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/29/19 02:34 PM

Lt. Col Vindman, may just be the nail that seals the wooden boxes...

Now a Pay-to-Play oops for the RNC and the White House.

When President Donald (...) Trump finally leaves, we may have to power wash, with bleach, the Gray House to make it the White House again, no amount of Kilz will cover the stains....
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/29/19 03:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
Lt. Col Vindman, may just be the nail that seals the wooden boxes...

Now a Pay-to-Play oops

Ironically Predictably, a struggle is setting up between witnesses that has Sondeland (a hotel owner who gained his ambassadorship via a $1 million Trump inauguration quid pro quo "donation") telling one story and multiple distinguished career diplomats telling quite another.

King Kon's Kabal is defending his unConstitutional Art of the Deal behaviors with more of the same.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/29/19 05:46 PM


Republicons have taken to smear a Lt. Col. who bled for our country for telling the truth about the lying bloated orange clown in the Oval.

Donald Trump's America.

frown
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/30/19 12:29 AM

Apparently a shouting match broke out on the floor of the House today when Republicans tried to do the verbal equivalent of a brute force password cracking attempt, in trying to out the ID of the secret whistleblower, whose identity is unknown to Colonel Vindman...

...if by brute force we're talking about whining, crying, stomping of feet and flinging poo from a nearby gigantic mountain of lies and conspiracy theories for the cameras. LOL

Who here watches the HBO comedy series "Silicon Valley"?
If so, you remember last week when Gilfoyle set up an AI chatbot and Dinesh spent the entire day arguing with AI Gilfoyle, not knowing it wasn't the real Gilfoyle.

I think we need to hire a Bertram Gilfoyle to create an AI version of "The Whistleblower" so Republicans can interrogate that while the grownups go talk to the real guy. TrumpCo will never know the difference anyway. LOL

PS: By the way, I have that exact same multimeter, with the green rubber protective sleeve - - hee hee!
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/30/19 03:25 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick

Republicons have taken to smear a Lt. Col. who bled for our country for telling the truth about the lying bloated orange clown in the Oval.

Donald Trump's America.

frown
Ain't that the truth, and ain't it disgusting. Most of the Republican Reps don't have a frigging clue what "honor" or "sacrifice" look like. I wonder how many ever put on a uniform- except for Halloween or at a frat party.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/30/19 10:13 PM


This can't be good.

coffee
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/31/19 12:47 PM

Just as many Trump sycophantsCabinet members and White House appointees prostrate themselves before their Dear Leader, performing for an audience of one to remain in His Good Graces, it has to be remembered that Pelosi is seeking to persuade only 20 people: the 20 senators she needs to have Trump removed from office. She is bringing them on slowly, building public pressure so that they can see the stark political realities of supporting a corrupt leader. Either they support his removal, or encourage their own removal. And, this will not be a one-time thing, either. In two years there will be another election and opportunity to remind voters who supported the Constitution and who supported corruption. REPUBLICANS don't want another four years of Trump. They just don't know how to get rid of the tar baby.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/31/19 01:27 PM

Executive privilege

Neither executive privilege nor Congressional presidential oversight are in the Constitution, so their authority is established through precedent. Both are the subject of court cases being heard today - Kupperman's duty to obey a subpoena from Congress vs Trump's orders to not appear; and Don McGahn's long-running refusal to testify before Congress regarding the Mueller investigation.

My understanding of executive privilege is that it applies to maintaining the confidentiality of conversations between the president and immediate advisors on issues pertaining to national security or the ability of the government to function properly.

While a case could be made that "taking down" a president is a matter that probably would have the effects listed above, if the confidentiality relates to wrongdoing then it stands to reason that any secret information needs to be revealed precisely to improve national security and proper functioning of the government.

Surely EP does not apply to covering up presidential crimes. But what will the courts say?
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/31/19 02:09 PM

In my reading, logtroll is right, Congressional Oversight of the President, is not directly mentioned or granted in the Constitution. However, it is implied. Here is the Supreme Court Decision that firmly established that Congress has the power of oversight: Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957) and a Constitution Society article on the matter: Oversight Is a Constitutional Necessity, Not a Luxury.

I am no lawyer, so I may be so far out in left field on my reading that being wrong would be a mercy.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/31/19 02:16 PM




Rightwigers are getting their wish today: The House will vote on a formal Impeachment Inquiry for Donald J Trump


Chief among this vote is to open the inquiry to public hearings. This will be a good thing for the American people to hear for themselves just what a lying crook Donald J Trump actually is.

smile
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/31/19 02:33 PM


Executive Privilege
Originally Posted By: nolo.com
The privilege that allows the president and other high officials of the executive branch to keep certain communications private if disclosing those communications would disrupt the functions or decision-making processes of the executive branch. As demonstrated by the Watergate hearings, this privilege does not extend to information germane to a criminal investigation.[ed.]
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/31/19 04:11 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Just as many Trump sycophantsCabinet members and White House appointees prostrate themselves before their Dear Leader, performing for an audience of one to remain in His Good Graces, it has to be remembered that Pelosi is seeking to persuade only 20 people: the 20 senators she needs to have Trump removed from office. She is bringing them on slowly, building public pressure so that they can see the stark political realities of supporting a corrupt leader. Either they support his removal, or encourage their own removal. And, this will not be a one-time thing, either. In two years there will be another election and opportunity to remind voters who supported the Constitution and who supported corruption. REPUBLICANS don't want another four years of Trump. They just don't know how to get rid of the tar baby.


Yeah they do, they just hate the notion of being forced to take that nasty cod liver oil twice in less than a century, twice in less than HALF a century, no less.

They know it's gonna sting.
The rest of the country will have to force them to stand in the corner for a time-out.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/31/19 04:30 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
They just don't know how to get rid of the tar baby.


By the way, I am sensing a trend, maybe one of them thar innernet viral things. You're maybe the fifth person in a week that I have heard use the term "tar baby".

You are clearly in good company, Mistuh NWP! ThumbsUp
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/31/19 04:41 PM



For you disbelieving conservatives: Andrew Napolitano explains all of Trump's shenanigans and criminality for you.

Fox News Channel.com

You're welcome. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/31/19 04:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
They just don't know how to get rid of the tar baby.


By the way, I am sensing a trend, maybe one of them thar innernet viral things. You're maybe the fifth person in a week that I have heard use the term "tar baby".

You are clearly in good company, Mistuh NWP! ThumbsUp


#TarBaby

smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 10/31/19 06:15 PM


Nancy's resolution in the House passed with a final vote of 232 to 196. Pretty much along party lines with two Dems voting no.
Collin Peterson (MN) and Jeff Van Drew (NJ) are the two Dems who voted against the bill.

It's on conservatives. What are you going to bellyache about now? smile
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/01/19 02:39 AM

Three Republicans abstained. Not as unanimous as McCarthy wanted.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/01/19 03:48 AM

Quote:
What are you going to bellyache about now?


Now one of them had the audacity to claim that all the information collected so far has to be thrown out as "fruit of the poisoned tree"!

A very "lawyer" thing to say. The lawyers are pounding the table now, because they don't have the law or the facts on their side.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/01/19 12:24 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Quote:
What are you going to bellyache about now?


Now one of them had the audacity to claim that all the information collected so far has to be thrown out as "fruit of the poisoned tree"!

A very "lawyer" thing to say. The lawyers are pounding the table now, because they don't have the law or the facts on their side.

Welp, all of the witnesses so far said they'd come-back and testify in public. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/02/19 01:56 PM


Rachael: Trump has done this before with Ukraine

What are the odds that when a bank robber is caught, this is the first time he's committed this particular crime? Hmm
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/02/19 02:26 PM

when viewed through the lens of the Ukraine call and the conspiratorial efforts of of Trump's team, Sec Pompeo, AG Barr, Giuliani, you just have to wonder what was missed with all the Russian contacts during the campaign and all the effort Mr Trump has placed in making life easier for Russians after assuming office.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/03/19 02:05 AM

Boy, does this all stink of an organized crime RICO case. All these guys should be in prison and all of their ill-gotten gains confiscated. It would be fun to see the Trump kids picking up trash on the side of the freeway for about 20 years, then going to their day jobs working the counter at Chick-Fil-A.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/06/19 12:53 PM

Here's an article from Gallup comparing the impeachment of Nixon to Trump. It highlights the polarization and ultra high partisanship that is present today, but wan't in 1974.

"Eighty-nine percent of Democrats currently say Trump should be impeached and removed from office. That compares with 71% of Democrats who in 1974 said the charges against Nixon warranted his removal from office. The 1974 survey was conducted days before Nixon announced his resignation from office on August 8, 1974.

Among Republicans, 92% reject Trump being impeached and removed from office while just 7% are in favor of it. Under Nixon, a smaller 59% of his fellow Republicans opposed his removal from office while 31% endorsed it."

and

"Party differences between 1974 and now reflect the more politically polarized U.S. environment, with Americans' opinions about the president now more unified within party groups than in the past. Eighty percentage points currently separate Democratic (87%) and Republican support (7%) for removal, double the size of the party gap under Nixon (71% and 31%)."

https://news.gallup.com/poll/268052/demo...ign=syndication

Is it any wonder that those in neither the pro or anti Trump camps tend to view this as a battle between the two major parties? A partisan battle at that. On average independents are split on the subject. Averaging 35% for, 35% against, 30% unsure, undecided or plain don't care.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/06/19 02:58 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Is it any wonder that those in neither the pro or anti Trump camps tend to view this as a battle between the two major parties? A partisan battle at that. On average independents are split on the subject. Averaging 35% for, 35% against, 30% unsure, undecided or plain don't care.

What happened to the Republican party - they used to be the "Law & Order" party. Now, if their politicians commit crimes, "everybody" does it.

Hmm
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/06/19 03:40 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
Is it any wonder that those in neither the pro or anti Trump camps tend to view this as a battle between the two major parties? A partisan battle at that. On average independents are split on the subject. Averaging 35% for, 35% against, 30% unsure, undecided or plain don't care.

What happened to the Republican party - they used to be the "Law & Order" party. Now, if their politicians commit crimes, "everybody" does it.

Hmm



That's the bone of contention. Most Republicans view this impeachment process as a partisan political vendetta against Trump for winning an election. In their view, Trump has done nothing wrong. The Democrats view it as a search for justice and the truth. To get rid of a president who has committed numerous crimes.

In today's polarized and ultra high partisan world of our politics, it isn't surprising to me that the two parties view this completely opposite. I don't know how old you are, but I remember a much friendlier time between parties. A time when each party had their conservative and liberal wings. Of course over time each party discarded the wing they didn't want and now both parties are in the process of getting rid of their moderates. What's left is the hard core on each side of the aisle. Of course this has taken 50 years to accomplish.

I think when this first started to go overboard was the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the introduction of the Hastert rule. Since then polarization and partisanship has continued to increase by leaps and bounds. Cooperation between parties, the willingness to compromise went out the window as the parties became more and more partisan. I think this is the reason why independents, call them swing voters has increased from 30% in 2006 to 43% of the electorate today as the two major parties continue to shrink. Most Americans want the two parties to work together. They're not doing that which is why government now has replaced all other issues as the number on problem facing this nation.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/220265/americans-favor-compromise-things-done-washington.aspx


https://news.gallup.com/poll/267581/ment...ign=syndication
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/06/19 05:21 PM

Quote:
Most Republicans view this impeachment process as a partisan political vendetta against Trump for winning an election. In their view, Trump has done nothing wrong.

BS!!!

Trump's Base ... The Base .... the rabid base .... yes ... Mr Trump can shoot people ... he can frak monkeys on the WH lawn ... he can etc etc ... and they would continue their support.

However, I don't think anyone can continue to believe these folks are "Republicans".

Now "real" Republicans who say this are being seriously duplicitous. When asked the simple questions they deflect ignore or simply don't answer. The reason? They know Mr Trump's actions were at the minimum unethical and more likely illegal and impeachable.

Ask them the hypothetical question if Pres Obama had done etc and their answer is that is a hypothetical. Well ... the question is not hypothetical as Mr trump has already done it so you can answer by saying yes Pres Obama could do whatever the frak he wanted and that would be OK.

I mean geeeeez

Had Pres Obama done the same thing ... you bet he would have been on list
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/06/19 05:52 PM

You can either face facts or not. Gallup had only 7% of Republicans favoring impeachment this poll has 10% in favor, 80% against. Democrats 82% favor impeachment, 7% do not. Question 33

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zgaz948hzw/econTabReport.pdf

Trump has an 86% favorable among Republicans, 12% unfavorable, question 56A. Among democrats 8% favorable, 90% unfavorable, question 56A. Notice the ultra high partisanship when it comes to Trump.

84% of all Republicans want Trump to run for reelection, 10% do not. Question 74.

86% of all Republicans say they'll vote for Trump in 2020, 5% say they'll vote for the Democrat. Question 52. Compare that to the actual Republican vote in 2016 where 88% of Republicans voted for Trump, 8% for Clinton, 4% third party.

79% of republicans say the impeachment proceedings has been unfair vs. only 8% who say it has been. 80% of democrats say the proceedings have been fair, 7% unfair. Question 35.

Now this poll didn't ask about impeachment being a political vendetta, but you can rest assured most Republicans are squarely behind Trump.

The only conclusion I can come to, your real republicans amount to around 10% of all those who call themselves Republicans. Or is it to be a real republican, one must favor impeaching Trump? No, what you see here is the polarization the two major parties have caused with their hyper, ulta partisanship. Perhaps Trump needs to be removed for cause, maybe not. I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is that for most Republicans they view this impeachment as a very partisan political vendetta against Trump, democrats taking revenge only because he beat Hillary Clinton.

How else would one interpret the numbers?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/06/19 06:07 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
Is it any wonder that those in neither the pro or anti Trump camps tend to view this as a battle between the two major parties? A partisan battle at that. On average independents are split on the subject. Averaging 35% for, 35% against, 30% unsure, undecided or plain don't care.

What happened to the Republican party - they used to be the "Law & Order" party. Now, if their politicians commit crimes, "everybody" does it.

Hmm



That's the bone of contention. Most Republicans view this impeachment process as a partisan political vendetta against Trump for winning an election. In their view, Trump has done nothing wrong. The Democrats view it as a search for justice and the truth. To get rid of a president who has committed numerous crimes.

In today's polarized and ultra high partisan world of our politics, it isn't surprising to me that the two parties view this completely opposite. I don't know how old you are, but I remember a much friendlier time between parties. A time when each party had their conservative and liberal wings. Of course over time each party discarded the wing they didn't want and now both parties are in the process of getting rid of their moderates. What's left is the hard core on each side of the aisle. Of course this has taken 50 years to accomplish.

I think when this first started to go overboard was the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the introduction of the Hastert rule. Since then polarization and partisanship has continued to increase by leaps and bounds. Cooperation between parties, the willingness to compromise went out the window as the parties became more and more partisan. I think this is the reason why independents, call them swing voters has increased from 30% in 2006 to 43% of the electorate today as the two major parties continue to shrink. Most Americans want the two parties to work together. They're not doing that which is why government now has replaced all other issues as the number on problem facing this nation.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/220265/americans-favor-compromise-things-done-washington.aspx


https://news.gallup.com/poll/267581/ment...ign=syndication

Your lengthy post did not address why Republicans are choosing to ignore the fact that the POTUS held funds up for military aid, approved by Congress in February 2019, until the Ukrainian government made a public announcement, preferably on CNN, that it was investigating Joe and Hunter Biden - and then, only released the funds on September 11, 2019 when it became public that the POTUS was holding-up the funding. This is the very definition of a quid pro quo and/or extortion.

This reminds me so much of how the TParty protested the deficit under a Democrat President, but when the deficit is even higher under a Republican president, nary a word is said.

It appears that moral, ethical, and financial concerns is an expediency for Republicans, but a major, breathless, hyperventilating concern, when Democrats do it.

Hmm
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/06/19 06:40 PM

Quote:
How else would one interpret the numbers?

Did you notice I began the last post with .... The Base.

Yes The Base is the one most critical variable to consider. I have heard The Base through my neighborhood local. He is their voice. He is their "god". and bigotry is alive and well in my neighborhood.

Now if I were a "Republican" candidate in my area, I would have to acquiesce to The Base and not cross them or suffer being primaried by some really outright bigot, who has pledged fealty to Mr Trump. I for a long time pooh poohed this idea the base was that powerful but have been convinced it is a valid premise. You may not agree but then you don't live in my neighborhood. And I would suggest my neighborhood is like many in the South. It is just a fact of life.

And that is how else I would interpret the numbers.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/06/19 08:57 PM

Quote:
in the South. It is just a fact of life.


Ayup. I keep my head low and my mouth shut.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/06/19 10:32 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
Is it any wonder that those in neither the pro or anti Trump camps tend to view this as a battle between the two major parties? A partisan battle at that. On average independents are split on the subject. Averaging 35% for, 35% against, 30% unsure, undecided or plain don't care.

What happened to the Republican party - they used to be the "Law & Order" party. Now, if their politicians commit crimes, "everybody" does it.

Hmm



That's the bone of contention. Most Republicans view this impeachment process as a partisan political vendetta against Trump for winning an election. In their view, Trump has done nothing wrong. The Democrats view it as a search for justice and the truth. To get rid of a president who has committed numerous crimes.

In today's polarized and ultra high partisan world of our politics, it isn't surprising to me that the two parties view this completely opposite. I don't know how old you are, but I remember a much friendlier time between parties. A time when each party had their conservative and liberal wings. Of course over time each party discarded the wing they didn't want and now both parties are in the process of getting rid of their moderates. What's left is the hard core on each side of the aisle. Of course this has taken 50 years to accomplish.

I think when this first started to go overboard was the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the introduction of the Hastert rule. Since then polarization and partisanship has continued to increase by leaps and bounds. Cooperation between parties, the willingness to compromise went out the window as the parties became more and more partisan. I think this is the reason why independents, call them swing voters has increased from 30% in 2006 to 43% of the electorate today as the two major parties continue to shrink. Most Americans want the two parties to work together. They're not doing that which is why government now has replaced all other issues as the number on problem facing this nation.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/220265/americans-favor-compromise-things-done-washington.aspx


https://news.gallup.com/poll/267581/ment...ign=syndication

Your lengthy post did not address why Republicans are choosing to ignore the fact that the POTUS held funds up for military aid, approved by Congress in February 2019, until the Ukrainian government made a public announcement, preferably on CNN, that it was investigating Joe and Hunter Biden - and then, only released the funds on September 11, 2019 when it became public that the POTUS was holding-up the funding. This is the very definition of a quid pro quo and/or extortion.

This reminds me so much of how the TParty protested the deficit under a Democrat President, but when the deficit is even higher under a Republican president, nary a word is said.

It appears that moral, ethical, and financial concerns is an expediency for Republicans, but a major, breathless, hyperventilating concern, when Democrats do it.

Hmm


Basically, what you mentioned in my opinion is irrelevant to them. All part of a Democratic Party scheme to bring down Trump. Republicans for the most have seen in their mind the Democrats taking up the gun to destroy Trump since the day after the election. Whatever the democrats say or do in relation to Trump is going to fall on deaf ears.

You don't want to go to the national debt or shall I say raising the debt ceiling. Under G.W. Bush almost all Democrats voted to not to raise the debt ceiling, almost all Republicans voted to raise it. Change presidents, Obama, now almost all democrats are voting to raise the debt ceiling, almost all Republicans are voting against it. I'm using the debt ceiling because I have figures on that. How the senate voted.

BUSH THE 2ND TENURE
Year Democrats for Democrats against Republicans for Republicans against
2003 3 45 50 1
2004 2 46 50 1
2006 0 44 52 3 *

*It is interest to note in 2006 President Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling and made a speech stating it was unpatriotic to do so.
OBAMA PRESIDENCY
2009 59 0 1 40
2010 60 0 0 40
2012 52 3 1 45
2013 54 0 18 27

When it comes to the debt, deficit, debt ceiling etc. neither party is worth a plug nickle.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/06/19 10:37 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
How else would one interpret the numbers?

Did you notice I began the last post with .... The Base.

Yes The Base is the one most critical variable to consider. I have heard The Base through my neighborhood local. He is their voice. He is their "god". and bigotry is alive and well in my neighborhood.

Now if I were a "Republican" candidate in my area, I would have to acquiesce to The Base and not cross them or suffer being primaried by some really outright bigot, who has pledged fealty to Mr Trump. I for a long time pooh poohed this idea the base was that powerful but have been convinced it is a valid premise. You may not agree but then you don't live in my neighborhood. And I would suggest my neighborhood is like many in the South. It is just a fact of life.

And that is how else I would interpret the numbers.


That's one interpretation. I was using the numbers to show how and why most Republicans think impeachment is a very partisan political vendetta.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/06/19 11:35 PM

Quote:
I was using the numbers to show how and why most Republicans think impeachment is a very partisan political vendetta
I think you meant to say how and why they rationalize their support for Mr Trump in light of the facts which are obvious to any competent reader of the "transcript" as well as all the witnesses who have testified QPQ was their analysis of the facts on the ground in real time.

Or to put it another way ... Mr Trump could shoot someone i.e. hold up military defense aid to a country fighting a political enemy QPQ dirt on the Bidens for personal political advantage, etc and they would continue to support him. Now, the real question is why, not whether there is some fictitious partisan vendetta.

My answer provides greater insight into the real why.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/06/19 11:38 PM

This analysis could be meaningful if everything is equal. Unfortunately it is not.

When Pres Bush assumed office there was not a raging contraction in the the economy vis a vis when Pres Obama etc etc.

While it is probably true and valid there is a whole lot of hypocrisy going around, a little more care should be taken when using blanket statements about debt, deficits, etc
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/07/19 01:55 AM

Originally Posted By: perotista
I was using the numbers to show how and why most Republicans think impeachment is a very partisan political vendetta.

Perhaps in general, but not in this case. The evidence and the witnesses validate that there was a quid pro quo aka extortion carried-out by the POTUS, Donald J Trump.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/07/19 02:44 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
I was using the numbers to show how and why most Republicans think impeachment is a very partisan political vendetta
I think you meant to say how and why they rationalize their support for Mr Trump in light of the facts which are obvious to any competent reader of the "transcript" as well as all the witnesses who have testified QPQ was their analysis of the facts on the ground in real time.

Or to put it another way ... Mr Trump could shoot someone i.e. hold up military defense aid to a country fighting a political enemy QPQ dirt on the Bidens for personal political advantage, etc and they would continue to support him. Now, the real question is why, not whether there is some fictitious partisan vendetta.

My answer provides greater insight into the real why.

Rationalization is another way to put it. Although I don't think there is anything rational about our politics these days. Politics is all about perceptions, right, wrong or indifferent. Republicans perceive the Democrats are out to remove Trump not because he did something that would warrant impeachment. But as revenge for losing an election.

This might or might not make any sense. There was an expression that went, "One side's terrorist is the other side's freedom fighters." Each side in this, pro and anti Trump view the other as their terrorist and themselves as freedom fighters.

I suppose as we become more and more polarized, more and more partisan and attach more and more importance to the R and the D, what we're going through will become the norm in our politics.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/07/19 02:50 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
This analysis could be meaningful if everything is equal. Unfortunately it is not.

When Pres Bush assumed office there was not a raging contraction in the the economy vis a vis when Pres Obama etc etc.

While it is probably true and valid there is a whole lot of hypocrisy going around, a little more care should be taken when using blanket statements about debt, deficits, etc


What that showed is the party that holds the White is all in favor of raising the debt ceiling. When that party is out of the White House or the other party holds the white house, they are against raising it.

Quite simple really. Deficits, adding to the debt. Republicans don't complain about it when Trump is president, although they hollered at the top of their lungs about it when Obama was president. Democrats are hollering now with Trump, but not when Obama was president. They didn't care then, but do now. Same with G.W. Bush, Republicans willing to raise the debt to whatever extent, Democrats were hollering. The reverse was true with Bill Clinton.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/07/19 02:53 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
I was using the numbers to show how and why most Republicans think impeachment is a very partisan political vendetta.

Perhaps in general, but not in this case. The evidence and the witnesses validate that there was a quid pro quo aka extortion carried-out by the POTUS, Donald J Trump.


We'll see.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/07/19 05:02 AM

Quote:
Republicans perceive the Democrats are out to remove Trump not because he did something that would warrant impeachment. But as revenge for losing an election.
If I recollect correctly, that was in fact Trump's rationalization and attack on Democrats for opposing him on his agenda. My take is of course the Democrats were upset about losing an election which had several intruding factors from the normal. Can you imagine if Dir Comey came out and said the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign for possible criminal conspiracy with the Russians and suppose he lost!!!!!!

But the only reason I can see for Democrats to "be after" MR Trump is the egregiously odious behavior which should have disqualified him from being a candidate and his equally egregiously damaging attacks on America and its values. Simply being an amoral slug is not an impeachable offense. Abusing the office of the president is.

"revenge for losing an election" is simply a cheap non-thinking persons response to reality. The reality is even Trump supporters recognize he is a loathsome person, but of course etc etc
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/07/19 05:04 AM

Abusing statistics like that is the same as claiming the occupant of the WH is responsible for the GDP or stock market index. Without proper context, it doesn't have much value.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/07/19 08:39 AM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
I was using the numbers to show how and why most Republicans think impeachment is a very partisan political vendetta.

Perhaps in general, but not in this case. The evidence and the witnesses validate that there was a quid pro quo aka extortion carried-out by the POTUS, Donald J Trump.


We'll see.

Trump, Guiliani, and Mulvaney all admitting on TV that there was a quid pro quo hasn't convinced you? Not even Bill Taylor's testimony and transcript?

Hmm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/07/19 08:43 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Abusing statistics like that is the same as claiming the occupant of the WH is responsible for the GDP or stock market index. Without proper context, it doesn't have much value.

Since Trump has been elected, rightwingers have lost their minds: Up is now down, bad is now good, committing a crime is no longer a crime.

rolleyes
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/07/19 09:17 AM

How soon we forget:
Quote:
During Barack Obama's tenure as President of the United States from 2009 to 2017, certain Republican members of Congress, as well as Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich,[1] stated that Obama had engaged in impeachable activity and that he might face attempts to remove him from office.[2] Rationales offered for possible impeachment included false claims[3] that Obama was born outside the United States, that he allegedly allowed people to use bathrooms based on their gender identity, an alleged White House cover-up after the 2012 Benghazi attack, and failure to enforce immigration laws. No list of articles of impeachment was ever drawn up and proposed to the Judiciary Committee.

Multiple surveys of U.S. public opinion found that the clear majority of Americans rejected the idea of impeaching Obama, while a majority of Republicans were in favor; for example, CNN found in July 2014 that 57% of Republicans supported these efforts while about two thirds of adult Americans in general disagreed with them.[4]
(Wikipedia) Efforts to impeach Barack Obama
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/07/19 11:00 AM

Was there really a quid pro quo? Does it matter?

As usual, the defense for a person caught doing bad things is to create chaos and confusion, which provides lots of opportunity for deflection, distraction, denial, and obfuscation. And of course, gaslighting and bald-faced lying. Trump is a master at it, as are many of the Republican leaders. About the only forces available to moderate such behavior are integrity and ethics, which were jettisoned by these people long ago.

But back to the quid pro quo. The con men are trying a variety of sleight of hand tricks; it’s not illegal, it’s a common practice in diplomacy, it never happened, the Ukrainians didn’t know that the military aid was on hold, and my favorite - Trump is too incompetent to set it up. Something for something, that is quid pro quo. It’s an exchange, a deal... when it’s shady and unethical it’s called a bribe.

But when it is the threat of taking of something of value away from another, unless they do what you want, it’s called extortion. Extortion is an interesting act in that it’s simply the threat - it doesn’t have to be consummated. It also contains an element of force and implied harm. It’s not an exchange of something for something, there is no deal. It’s “do what I want, or else I will make you suffer.”

Extortion. Not quid pro quo. It is common - in organized crime.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/07/19 12:37 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
I was using the numbers to show how and why most Republicans think impeachment is a very partisan political vendetta.

Perhaps in general, but not in this case. The evidence and the witnesses validate that there was a quid pro quo aka extortion carried-out by the POTUS, Donald J Trump.


We'll see.

Trump, Guiliani, and Mulvaney all admitting on TV that there was a quid pro quo hasn't convinced you? Not even Bill Taylor's testimony and transcript?

Hmm

Actually I'm not in either the pro or anti Trump camps. I'm still very angry at both major parties for giving us the choices they did in 2016 which led directly to Trump's election. I don't personally care if Trump stays or goes. This stuff began the day after the election. Plain fact is I don't trust neither the Democrats nor Trump. This is a two major party battle. I just thought folks here would be interested in the Gallup article and poll. Most non-affiliated are divided into three groups, 35% favor impeachment, 35% against impeachment, 30% undecided, not sure or plain don't care.

For me 2016, I didn't care who won between Trump and Clinton. I wanted neither one. 25% of all Americans wanted neither one to become president. That included 54% of all independents, the non-affiliated. Impeachment, if Trump is impeached, fine, if not, fine, 2020 is right around the corner.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/07/19 04:27 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
I'm still very angry at both major parties for giving us the choices they did in 2016 which led directly to Trump's election.

Well, get over it. smile

Originally Posted By: perotista
I don't personally care if Trump stays or goes.

You don't care that Trump broke laws (Campaign finance, extortion)? Interesting.


Hmm
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/07/19 05:08 PM

I like that Sen Graham supports an incompetent president. Makes for an excellent list of qualities one should have to run for the presidency ... and incompetence does not even top the list.

You left out the real possibility of a campaign violation, Unfortunately there is only a penalty involved which may amount to $M's. Of course the problem is the FEC can not meet to impose the penalty (if proven to be a violation) since there are not enough members to have a quorum, which apparently the administration is well aware of.

What an amazing perversion of democracy to have a leader who has for all intents and purposes transformed the DoJ into his personal protection service, and he has stopped the FEC from filing charges of campaign violations, thus effectively circumventing campaign finance laws & regulations.

We are in the shadow of extreme corruption of the federal government.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/07/19 05:48 PM




Lindsey Graham might as well put wheels on his goal posts - he's constantly moving them. coffee
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/09/19 02:20 PM

With impeachment looming in the near future, I found this article interesting. It reflects the polarization and ultra high partisanship of today. It also reveals in my opinion how Trump has become a cult figure, for those who both support and oppose him. Those who support or oppose Trump are very cultish in their zeal of support or opposition.

62% of people who approve of the job Donald Trump is doing as president say they can't think of anything he could do that would cause him to lose their support, according to a Monmouth University poll published Tuesday.

Also

The other side: Among those who disapprove of the job Trump is doing, 70% say there's nothing the president could do to gain their support.

https://www.axios.com/monmouth-poll-trump-approval-a05b8144-1d1b-4296-a0d4-6ca0390b05ee.html

Not being a political party animal, it's very hard for me to fathom the love given Trump by his supporter and the hate thrust upon him by his opponents. I seen this type of hard core feelings taking shape under Obama, where Republicans felt Obama could do no good, Democrats felt he could do no wrong. But not to the heights we see today.

Perhaps this is just the result of the political era we entered into with all its polarization and ultra high partisanship. Perhaps that is why both major parties are shrinking. More and more Americans are deserting both major parties, maybe because they don't like the polarization and partisanship that both represent and has caused.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/09/19 03:37 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
62% of people who approve of the job Donald Trump is doing as president say they can't think of anything he could do that would cause him to lose their support...

Commit extortion, fraud a charity, set-up a scam University, cheat on his wife with a porn star and then pay the porn star to be silent, embarrass the US on the world stage, shoot someone on 5th avenue - absolutely nothing.

Oh well, Trump needs to go anyway. smile

Originally Posted By: perotista
Perhaps this is just the result of the political era we entered into with all its polarization and ultra high partisanship. Perhaps that is why both major parties are shrinking. More and more Americans are deserting both major parties, maybe because they don't like the polarization and partisanship that both represent and has caused.

I'm not buying this "independent" stuff, as I know in discussions from Disqus of people I have chatted with there, that there are right-leaning "independents" that would not vote for a Democrat even if a gun was held to their head - and visa versa.

Hmm
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/09/19 05:38 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
62% of people who approve of the job Donald Trump is doing as president say they can't think of anything he could do that would cause him to lose their support...

Commit extortion, fraud a charity, set-up a scam University, cheat on his wife with a porn star and then pay the porn star to be silent, embarrass the US on the world stage, shoot someone on 5th avenue - absolutely nothing.

Oh well, Trump needs to go anyway. smile

Originally Posted By: perotista
Perhaps this is just the result of the political era we entered into with all its polarization and ultra high partisanship. Perhaps that is why both major parties are shrinking. More and more Americans are deserting both major parties, maybe because they don't like the polarization and partisanship that both represent and has caused.

I'm not buying this "independent" stuff, as I know in discussions from Disqus of people I have chatted with there, that there are right-leaning "independents" that would not vote for a Democrat even if a gun was held to their head - and visa versa.

Hmm


History shows that those who affiliate themselves with the two major parties vote for their party's candidate an average of 90% of the time. Independents lean Republican and lean Democratic, they vote approximately for the party they lean toward roughly 75% of the time. Now those independents with no leans, who the heck knows who they'll vote for. They're all over the place. I call those independents with no leans pure or true independents. Now they only make up around 10% of the total electorate. Sometimes a bit more.

Gallup as of 13 Oct 2019 list party affiliation as 26% Republican, 29% Democratic. Independents lean Republican 15% of the electorate, independents lean Democratic 19% with true or pure independents at 11%. Now these numbers are dynamic and change month to month.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/09/19 09:35 PM

Quote:
it's very hard for me to fathom the love given Trump by his supporter and the hate thrust upon him by his opponents. I seen this type of hard core feelings taking shape under Obama, where Republicans felt Obama could do no good, Democrats felt he could do no wrong.

Bigotry. I still do not know why so many people ignore it. Why would so many Republicans support someone who is not a Republican nor believe in Republican ideology? When you strip away the curtains it is clear something else drives the support. Good looks? Large hands? Sex scandals? Poor business practices? Lack of intellectual acuity? Come on ... remember all the "real" Republicans, the establishment Republicans who did not support him? Anyone believe xSen and xAG Sessions is not a bigot? He is not a KKK bigot, he just hires people like S Miller and supports people like Trump, who are bigots.

Yes bigotry explains both the support for Mr trump and the hatred of Pres Obama. At least in my non-scientific survey of local politics, that statement is absolutely true and valid. Of course I suppose pollsters could devise a poll which would guarantee some other explanation, but why contort oneself to get a preconceived conclusion when real authentic explanations are available.

So why do Democrats hate Mr Trump and love Pres Obama? I can't speak for other folks but I don't hate Mr Trump, nor do I believe Pres Obama walked on water.

I never liked Mr trump as a person. I don't care to be around people who have very large egos without portfolio. When he became a candidate it became apparent to me he is a narcissist. In a way I feel sorry for him. He will never be a whole human, just another broken person living in a delusion. Regarding his politics, I disagree with everything he believes or has done. I don't hate him for what I believe are misguided politics, but I do think his politics are a result of his narcissism. Everything he does or says can be viewed through the lens of his narcissism to make sense of what is seemingly nonsensical. He has compromised everything America stands for. He is incompetent despite people saying he has a different managerial style. He has no style. He is simply an incompetent narcissist.

Why do I like Pres Obama? I didn't vote for him, and in fact I rather loosely supported a Republican who did not run for office. However I naturally found as a pragmatic liberal his policy initiatives were congruent with my political ideals. At the same time I disagreed with some of his policies, as I thought there were better alternatives. It could be of course political realities prevented more aggressive policies but then I was not in a position to know that. Also remember he was the alternative to a Republican Party which started a war over non-existent WMD's. He was the president who took the lead of a country which was in the throes of economic collapse and righted the ship as it floundered. and my favorite ... he gave, in a most painful manner, intelligent answers to questions. He was not involved in any known corrupt practices.

It is hard for me to fathom how anyone misses the obviousness of the answers to your implicit question. Maybe you are too close to the trees.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/09/19 09:46 PM

I have seen similar studies (you should have included the link to the one you cite) and those numbers look about right. And the conclusions are probably close. I mean it seems kinda obvious if you are a liberal leaning independent you would vote for a Democrat/Republican ... since a Democrat/Republican probably supports your political ideals. I don't think it took a survey to figure that out.

I listened to some author today who claimed an Independent could win a presidential. This guy is clearly delusional or way ahead of his time.

Can you imagine the scenario if in a 3 party race the votes came out without a clear winner. It goes to the House and guess what, unless third party candidates had won enough seats in Congress, the vote would go along party lines and the House could elect a president who did not get a majority of popular votes nor the required electoral college votes. Sounds l like the SC electing a president ... o that already happened. Of course even if a third party had enough congressmen, based on a number of studies they would lean either left or right anyway.

So the question is, is there a legitimate third party platform which is neither left nor right???
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/10/19 02:41 AM

Since we don't have a viable third party, it doesn't really matter which way the third party leans. There probably will never be a viable third party. Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. If there is one thing both major parties agree on, it is no viable third party will ever arise.

Then there is the financial aspect with corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega, huge money donors etc. giving their money to the two major parties. Heck, Clinton raised and spent 1.191 billion in 2016 to Trump's 636.8 million. Johnson was in third place with 3 million.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

I'll never understand why all these third parties insist on running candidates for the presidency. If they want to become viable, they need to start off at the grass roots level. Mayors, county commissioners, city councils, state legislatures where it doesn't take tens of millions of dollars to run. Once successful there, then move to statewide, governors, secretary of state, senators, etc.

I suppose none of the third parties want to take the time to do it right. It would take 10-20 years to become viable. Quite a lot of the existing third parties are to the right of the GOP and to the left of the Democrats.

Personally, I think the two party system worked just fine when both parties had their liberal and conservative wings. Each party would have a battle over their candidates between each faction and usually avoid nominating candidate to the extreme left and right. Electability played a more important role than ideology.

We went to the modern primary system in 1976, I wonder if that was a mistake. Looking at modern history, under the old system we had FDR ranked 1 among all presidents, Truman 6, Eisenhower 8, JFK 10, LBJ 13, Nixon 33. Carter in 1976 began the modern primary system is ranked 27, Reagan 16, G.H.W. Bush 22, Bill Clinton 18, G.W. Bush 32. Obama and Trump hasn't been around enough or out of office enough time to know or find out how their policies effect the long term future of this nation.

Historians tell us a president needs to be out of office 20 years to rank or rate them fairly accurately as given that time it lets them know how their policies effected this nation in the long term. It also give the partisanship time to die down.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/10/19 06:06 AM

The future of the Republican Party is FORMER Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin refusing to concede.

Expect the same nonsense from a defeated or even impeached Donald Trump.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/10/19 07:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
The future of the Republican Party is FORMER Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin refusing to concede.

What...a...crybaby. coffee
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/10/19 01:54 PM


What the miltary leaders think of their Clown Commander
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/10/19 04:51 PM



Strong support for Trump among veterans in new national poll

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/penta...-national-poll/

And here's one on military officers, although it doesn't give you a poll or percentage. It certainly reflects some military officers don't like Trump much.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/penta...-national-poll/

Now going to my VFW and American Legion meetings, Trump isn't talked much about. Of course talk about him would take place in casual conversations prior to and after the meetings. Not during. That was also the Case when Obama was president, he wasn't either. Where there was a lot of talk was the time leading up to the presidential election. Hillary certainly wasn't liked and the butt of a lot of jokes. Veterans did vote for Trump 60-34 over Hillary with 5% voting third party against both.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

One thing you need to understand by the lack of talk is once a president is elected, he is our CINC, commander in chief. Regardless of who that is, he gets the respect of the office. The military mind at work.

This shouldn't be a surprise. Veterans have been voting heavily republican since Vietnam. They tend to view the Democratic Party as anti military. Even the 2018 midterms when the public as a whole voted for the Democratic congressional candidates 55-44 over Republicans, Veterans voted for the Republican congressional candidates 58-41

https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/10/19 05:00 PM

Quote:
Regardless of who that is, he gets the respect of the office

Does that mean get gets respect because of the office??

I respect the office, but I have no respect for Mr Trump as a person. He does not earn my respect because of the office. I cannot and will not bend the knee.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/10/19 07:40 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Regardless of who that is, he gets the respect of the office

Does that mean get gets respect because of the office??

I respect the office, but I have no respect for Mr Trump as a person. He does not earn my respect because of the office. I cannot and will not bend the knee.


No body's asking you too. But with us military types it would be, "Yes, Mr. President," or "No, Mr President," regardless of who the president is. You would also see a snappy salute, again regardless who is president.

Most of those on active duty aren't political. In an average presidential election only around 40% vote compared to 55% on average for those not in the military. Retirees and older veterans, that average goes up to perhaps surpass the average non-military voting public.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/10/19 09:53 PM

Since all of our military has sworn allegiance to our constitution, I think it's fitting they see the Commander-In-Chief as the top of their chain of command. They are loyal to the President. But if the President was legally impeached, a new President would take office and their loyalty would be to that person. That's a very important point: Their loyalty is to the office, not the person. And that's exactly what our Republic requires.

Now this does not mean they have avoided their responsibility to resist illegal orders. High ranking officers tend to be well educated, so their ability to recognize orders as illegal tend to be better than lower ranks. But every soldier has that responsibility.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/10/19 09:53 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista


This shouldn't be a surprise. Veterans have been voting heavily republican since Vietnam. They tend to view the Democratic Party as anti military.


Yes, thanks to a ton of PR help by a certain political party who shall remain nameless, the military CONTINUES to view the Democratic Party as anti-military, even after Republicans consistently underfund the safety of our soldiers, give conflicting orders and leave them high and dry once they come home sick and broken.

If the goal is to create a military with a one-sided view of Americans, they're succeeding, which also means that they are succeeding in sowing the seeds of the destruction of democracy from right within our own ranks.
Democrats have faithfully served in uniform for our entire history and continue to do so today.

Bring back the draft and establish at least a year of compulsory service in exchange for things like free education. That will thin the ranks of the so called "elite right wing warrior class".
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/10/19 10:55 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Since all of our military has sworn allegiance to our constitution, I think it's fitting they see the Commander-In-Chief as the top of their chain of command. They are loyal to the President. But if the President was legally impeached, a new President would take office and their loyalty would be to that person. That's a very important point: Their loyalty is to the office, not the person. And that's exactly what our Republic requires.

Now this does not mean they have avoided their responsibility to resist illegal orders. High ranking officers tend to be well educated, so their ability to recognize orders as illegal tend to be better than lower ranks. But every soldier has that responsibility.

I agree, it's to the office of the presidency. The CINC, who that is, is irrelevant.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/10/19 11:16 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista

I agree, it's to the office of the presidency. The CINC, who that is, is irrelevant.


As it should be.
If we ever reach the point where adherence to the platform of a particular party is a requirement for military obedience and respect for chain of command, we are finished as a nation and just on our first voyage as an authoritarian cult led by a junta.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/10/19 11:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: perotista


This shouldn't be a surprise. Veterans have been voting heavily republican since Vietnam. They tend to view the Democratic Party as anti military.


Yes, thanks to a ton of PR help by a certain political party who shall remain nameless, the military CONTINUES to view the Democratic Party as anti-military, even after Republicans consistently underfund the safety of our soldiers, give conflicting orders and leave them high and dry once they come home sick and broken.

If the goal is to create a military with a one-sided view of Americans, they're succeeding, which also means that they are succeeding in sowing the seeds of the destruction of democracy from right within our own ranks.
Democrats have faithfully served in uniform for our entire history and continue to do so today.

Bring back the draft and establish at least a year of compulsory service in exchange for things like free education. That will thin the ranks of the so called "elite right wing warrior class".

There’s a history as to why. This isn’t meant to be partisan rhetoric, just providing some basic reasons why. Most military like the country at large were Democrats during FDR and Truman. Eisenhower won a bunch over to the Republicans, but still the Democrats held sway. Vietnam, with the Democratic Party taking up the anti-war side as highlighted by the surrender at any cost campaign by McGovern probably was a turning point. Back then the Democratic Party among the military became known as the peace dove party.

Then the drawdown from Vietnam era figures which occurred during Jimmy Carter and the hollow army. Now any president at that time would have drawn down our forces, but it happening after McGovern campaign reinforced the idea. For those of us left in the military at the time, Jimmy was real good to us. I liked Jimmy and voted for him twice. Reagan then built our forces back up over quite a lot of objections from Democrats. Then another drawdown under Bill Clinton. G.W. Bush added a couple of hundred thousand more troops only to see Obama draw them back down. This is just the highlights without going into detail.

Another reason today for roughly 60% of the military supporting the Republican Party is that 44% of all active duty comes from the south. A very Republican area. Few come from the Northeast and West Coast.

https://www.ozy.com/acumen/why-the-u-s-military-is-so-southern/72100/

Then it seems with every campaign the Democratic candidate is always talking about cutting the military and increasing social programs. If you’re in the military or a veteran, you don’t want that. So like everyone else, those in the military tend to vote their own self interests. Which is usually Republican.

Also the military mindset is completely different from the civilian one. Perhaps it’s the training, the environment they live in and under, life’s experiences, we just plain think different. Not right or wrong from a civilian thinking, but different.

The draft? Why, we have an all volunteer military force. There’s nothing stopping other regions of the country from joining. If you think our military is too right wing, then get more folks from the Northeast and west coast to join. They’re free to do so.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/11/19 12:40 AM

I am confused.


Originally Posted By: Manual for Courts Martial, Rule 916(d)
It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.


Yes snap to lawful orders ... but should anyone snap to when a president issues unlawful, or ethically compromised orders? I suspect DoD concluded the stop order from OMB was illegal and did not follow the presidents orders ... NSC Adv Bolton did not snap to and ordered rescinding the illegal order

This occupant of the WH has exposed himself as a possible unwitting agent of Russia. Would following his orders be the same as Putin ordering American soldiers?

I seriously believe the SC should have emptied the docket and considered only the Constitutional issues raised by this occupant and his attempted destruction of America. He believes he is above the law and operates as if he is a monarch.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/11/19 12:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Yes, thanks to a ton of PR help by a certain political party who shall remain nameless...

The “PR” has gotten so bad that the news is talking about the fake news as a breaking news story. Man, is that Orwellian, or what?

Brian Stelter on seeing through the smokescreen

I don’t think abject dishonesty and gaslighting during a serious impeachment process can be casually passed off as “partisanship”. As though the “side” that is doing the investigation is equally “partisan”, making it all just a political game with no rules or integrity. I might buy that perspective if it can be shown that the Dems are making up their facts like the Reeps are. But I don’t see any of that at the moment.

Working to corrupt a legitimate (even if partisan) process is deeply dishonest - if if Trump did not commit impeachable offenses, then let the investigation, and trial (if it comes to that), prove it.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/11/19 02:49 PM

Quote:
Working to corrupt a legitimate (even if partisan) process is deeply dishonest - if if Trump did not commit impeachable offenses, then let the investigation, and trial (if it comes to that), prove it.


It's up to the accusers to prove that impeachable offenses were committed. As near as i can tell the Republicans insist that no crimes were committed and that the impeachment process is a sham since there were no crimes.

If Democrats actually want to get a conviction they need to come up with some charges that will stick when it comes time to send it to the Senate. Without that they're wasting a lot of taxpayer time on this.

Republicans hold the key to conviction and as long as they think no crimes were committed there will be no conviction.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/11/19 03:37 PM

There is in the realm of 230 million eligible voters in the United States. One quarter of them have not registered to vote. Another quarter are Republicans. Something like 55 million. 65% of those are dedicated Trump supporters, for whom he can do no wrong. 35,750,000 people. That's his base. He got 63 million votes last go around. That leaves about 27 million Trump 2016 voters who are not fanatics. How many of those voters are likely to vote for him again? Probably the other 20 million Republicans who did so last time. My guess is about a third of the remaining 8 million voters. Let's just say 3 million. My prediction is he gets about 58 million votes this go around, assuming he survives impeachment (which I strongly suspect). If the Democratic nominee gets in the realm of 63 million votes (Clinton got nearly 66), they will win all the toss-ups. If, however, voting turnout is higher than the 57% of 2016, they could eclipse 70 million votes. That would tip many of the Senate races, too.

My head says 68 million to 60 million, D/R votes. My heart is still scared.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/11/19 04:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
It's up to the accusers to prove that impeachable offenses were committed. ....
Republicans hold the key to conviction and as long as they think no crimes were committed there will be no conviction.
I agree with the premises, but disagree with the conclusion. REPUBLICAN Senators will not vote for removal unless they see it as in their best political interest.

It is up to the Democrats to demonstrate to the public that this sham of a presidency is too dangerous to continue. That is a harder sell than just proving guilt. They also have to face "let the voters decide" claims, and "it's relitigating 2016" complaints - neither of which is true, but sways voters. Until public opinion begins to swing dramatically - nearing 3/4ths territory - I don't see significant push to remove.

But... Trump will be on the ballot in 2020, and public testimony will persuade voters even if ads don't. If they demonstrate corruption strongly enough, it will move 10 million votes and may drive registration and turnout even in red zones. Turnout helps Dems. And Senators may become vulnerable if they bet wrong. Especially McConnell.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/11/19 04:32 PM

Can't look at it in broad brush strokes. Doesn't matter if 100M votes for a Democrat if the Mr Trump has a 1 vote margin of victory in all of the necessary states to win the electoral college vote. That he will not win the national popular vote (unless Stephanie Grisham tells you he won it) is a given.

Gotta get more granular and check out not just the battleground states but the one time flipped states and possible states which may flip to Mr Trump. The calculus for this may be a complex arithmetic problem with no simple clarity.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/11/19 07:08 PM

It might not SEEM related but Peter King announced he will not seek reelection today.

How is this related to the Trump impeachment?
Welp, seems a little while ago, a certain "anonymous" GOP congressman gave a furtive interview in the dairy aisle of a supermarket to conservative never Trumper Erick Erickson, and apparently it was strongly worded enough to burn your ears off.

Quote:
"He wakes up in the morning, sh*ts all over Twitter, sh*ts all over us, sh*ts all over his staff, then hits golf balls. F**k him.

Of course, I can't say that in public or I'd get run out of town."


Another condensation of it here:

THE MOST HONEST POLITICAL INTERVIEW YOU WILL EVER READ

Not long afterward, some internet sleuths deduced that the anonymous Congress Critter HAS to be Peter King.
And no, I can't seem to dig up the sleuthing part but I remember reading about the wagers and the arguments back and forth and it sure sounds like King to me.

Anyway, WATCH THIS SPACE because it could get very interesting, particularly if King makes any Forrest Gump references, which will be something of a dead giveaway. LOL

On the president's uncanny electoral success...
"It's like Forrest Gump won the presidency, but an evil, really f**king stupid Forrest Gump.”
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/13/19 07:44 PM

Quote:
It might not SEEM related but Peter King announced he will not seek reelection today.


It's not gonna be much fun being a Republican congressman after 2020.

But is it related to impeachment directly? I kinda doubt it. Impeachment mighta been the last straw.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/13/19 11:39 PM

I think a failure to convict will actually be the last straw.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/14/19 01:33 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I think a failure to convict will actually be the last straw.


How about a failure to even impeach?
I realize that almost everyone recognizes how disturbing all of this is getting to be.
If we normalize Trump's actions, in any way whatsoever, that is forever. There is no reset from there.
And any man or woman who occupies the Oval Office in the future and chooses to use 'Trump-tactics' against their political adversary will be free to do so.

Not to mention turn most of civil society into a pack of vultures who would sell their own mother or their own baby in return for political gain right down to streetcorner level, and that's because once we've abandoned what Trump cultists hate most about ourselves, we become no different than members of a street gang or a cartel. The whole goddamn country would turn into a cartel, in our minds, our way of thinking, our way of relating to each other, the entire personality of America dies and is reborn as a pure kleptocracy.

If the President, any president, is excused for behaving like a gang member, then we are all gang members.
Somewhere between Idiocracy, Walking Dead and The Postman, there is a fate that awaits us.
If we normalize and admit and tolerate these things, then the plot of The Postman changes to where General Bethlehem wins.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/14/19 01:47 AM

I’m sure it’s no accident that Trump’s “family” business is called the Trump Organization.

He’s just expanding Donnie Soprano’s territory.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/14/19 06:59 AM



The GOP wants Americans to believe that Trump was very interested in corruption in Ukraine - when Trump has ever expressed interest in corruption anywhere else on Earth, plus the fact that Trump ran a scam "University" and stole from his charitable Foundation - two very definitions of corruption.

Hmm
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/14/19 08:12 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
The GOP wants Americans to believe that Trump was very interested in corruption in Ukraine - when Trump has ever expressed interest in corruption anywhere else on Earth...
Oh, Rick, Trump is always interested in corruption, especially in Ukraine. He's been trying to corrupt them since before he took office. That why he hired Manafort. Who knows more about Ukrainian corruption than him? He practically invented it!
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/14/19 11:12 AM

Quote:
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed, and love of power. -P.J. O'Rourke, writer (b. 14 Nov 1947)
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/15/19 12:05 PM

Good morning! I perceive that we will be adjusting our perception of “quid pro quo” to become “bribery”, which should add a certain improved level of efficiency to the impeachment process. Republicans are expected to welcome this streamlining technique as it will save the taxpayers a good deal of money increased deficit spending by reducing confusion and unnecessary muddling about in distracting arguments. (Personally, I think “extortion” is a better descriptor but the Founders, in their crazy naiveté, apparently didn’t think that a president would ever be that blatantly criminal and corrupt, or that the presidency would ever be considered above the law as a result of a DoJ memo).

Bribery!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/15/19 09:50 PM

Trump is impeached but the GOP Senate plays "party over country" and acquits him, but then he LOSES the 2020 election...

What nightmarish scenarios can you imagine happening between 11/3/2020 and 1/20/2021? That is seventy-nine days where a lame duck Trump is able to pretty much do whatever he wants, yes?

Saddam set the Iraqi oilfields on fire.
Extrapolate that.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/16/19 02:16 AM

Been following the impeachment, of course, but not close enough to be tracking all the characters that well, or the timelines. I had a good deal of driving today, though, and listened to about three hours of the Yovanovitch testimony, which was eye opening.

Here’s a thing I haven’t heard brought out - it’s related to the question of why Yovanovitch was smeared and yanked from her job (which seems to be accepted at Hmm).

Yovanovitch was smeared by Ghouliani and Lutsenko (a corrupt prosecutor);
Lutsenko and Yovanovitch were adversaries;
Trump praised Lutsenko, even though he is supposedly concerned about Ukrainian corruption ;
Lutsenko was out because of Zelensky’s election;

Doesn’t it seem obvious that Trump had a deal with Lutsenko to smear Biden, then saw it evaporate due in part to Yovanovitch’s corruption fighting?

Trump was fully engaged with the corrupt Ukraine government (in his natural element) and then lost his connections and had to start from scratch by putting the muscle on the new guy, leading in with a little extortion.

Why else would he characterize Marie Yovanovitch as a bad person?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/16/19 01:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Trump is impeached but the GOP Senate plays "party over country" and acquits him, but then he LOSES the 2020 election...

What nightmarish scenarios can you imagine happening between 11/3/2020 and 1/20/2021? That is seventy-nine days where a lame duck Trump is able to pretty much do whatever he wants, yes?

Saddam set the Iraqi oilfields on fire.
Extrapolate that.
This has been my biggest fear throughout this process. He pardoned three war criminals yesterday just to distract from the impeachment. He allowed the invasion of Syria just to distract from the impeachment. There will be interminable lawsuits to correct the misadventures we will see. He will probably do more damage in those 79 days than he has in the last 1000.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/16/19 03:42 PM

Quote:
Why else would he characterize Marie Yovanovitch as a bad person?
well ... yeah

Republicans kept saying she had nothing to do with the "phone call", but it is obvious she had everything to do with the "phone call". The conspirators would not have been able to conduct their nefarious plot if she continued as Amb. They needed a more ... amenable person in place. She had to go.

Originally Posted By: Findlaw
A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. A person may be convicted of conspiracy even if the actual crime was never committed.


What was the crime?
Originally Posted By: 52 USC 30121
Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;


The question is whether this is a criminal violation or a civil violation. In either case, a crime has been committed by the current occupant of the WH.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/16/19 06:47 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
This has been my biggest fear throughout this process. He pardoned three war criminals yesterday just to distract from the impeachment. He allowed the invasion of Syria just to distract from the impeachment. There will be interminable lawsuits to correct the misadventures we will see. He will probably do more damage in those 79 days than he has in the last 1000.


Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/16/19 07:03 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Why else would he characterize Marie Yovanovitch as a bad person?
well ... yeah

Republicans kept saying she had nothing to do with the "phone call", but it is obvious she had everything to do with the "phone call". The conspirators would not have been able to conduct their nefarious plot if she continued as Amb. They needed a more ... amenable person in place. She had to go.

Exactly. Amb. Yovanovitch stood in the way of Trump's own corruption that he sent Giuliani over to Ukraine to further. Trump initially had his corrupt Ukrainian official, prosecutor general Yuri Lutsenko, but Lutsenko lost his job and Trump had to start over.

THAT is why Amb. Yovanovich had to go, she stood in the way of Trump's Plan B which was to get to the newly-elected President of Ukraine to publicly state an investigation into the Biden's AND to clear Russia of the US Intel Community's fact-finding evidence that Russia DID interfere in our 2016 election.

The pressure that Trump asserted on Ukraine President Z was to withhold the Javelins that Congress approved in February 2019.

Hmm

Side note: I don't understand why the media is not specifically naming the military aid that Trump was holding-up, it was the Javelins that President Z asked about in the July 25th call.

Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/16/19 09:44 PM

What he does in those 79 lame duck days is somewhat limited by Amendment 25. For instance, if he tried to launch nukes at somebody I think Pence would cooperate in Amendment 25. It would do wonders for Pence's reputation, which is pretty much in the toilet now.

I think it would consist of Trump being carted of by ambulance to some nice rubber room, for a "mental breakdown". They'd drug him up and render him incommunicado while they do the paperwork.

I also read something about Pence being willing to do it after some Trump outrage in the past. That has the advantage for Trump of giving Pence some time as President so he can pardon Trump of his federal crimes. Happened with Nixon!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/16/19 09:48 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
What he does in those 79 lame duck days is somewhat limited by Amendment 25. For instance, if he tried to launch nukes at somebody I think Pence would cooperate in Amendment 25. It would do wonders for Pence's reputation, which is pretty much in the toilet now.

I think it would consist of Trump being carted of by ambulance to some nice rubber room, for a "mental breakdown". They'd drug him up and render him incommunicado while they do the paperwork.

I also read something about Pence being willing to do it after some Trump outrage in the past. That has the advantage for Trump of giving Pence some time as President so he can pardon Trump of his federal crimes. Happened with Nixon!


I wish I could agree but I view 25A as something of a unicorn which would never finally be approved until AFTER something significant and damaging occurred.
You brought up the nuclear football, for example.
I don't think we would hear serious talk of 25A unless there is already a mushroom cloud somewhere.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/16/19 11:53 PM

I think an important point you're missing is that DJT is a pussy. He hasn't got the cojones to pull off something like that.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/17/19 02:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I think an important point you're missing is that DJT is a pussy. He hasn't got the cojones to pull off something like that.

Donald Trump's mother, Mary, hated Donald's guts. Mary and Fred Trump sent Donald off to military school during his teen years. Donald Trump has never gotten over how his mother treated him - and who can blame Mary? Look at the type of person she gave birth to.

smile
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/17/19 05:56 PM

I kinda like "Bribery AND Extortion" better. Why exclude either one! (they both apply)
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/17/19 07:37 PM

Quote:
He hasn't got the cojones to pull off something like that.


He's a spoiled little boy, and his impression is that as President he can do anything. Losing the election will be a massive blow to his self-concept. He's convinced that he is "a perfect President" and very popular. That might kick him over the edge into full psychotic break.

Of course some mental health professionals would say he's already there.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/17/19 08:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I think an important point you're missing is that DJT is a pussy. He hasn't got the cojones to pull off something like that.


Greger I think you may be seriously underestimating the depth of his depravity at this point in the situation, and here is the situation:

Donald Trump, scion of the Fred Trump real estate empire, having for the last seventy some years of his entitled, sheltered life, has enjoyed the luxury of not ever being held accountable for his action, and he has now reached the pinnacle of his dreams, leader of the free world, President of the United States of America.
He can do ANYTHING HE WANTS BECAUSE, he believes, he's the POTUS.
Top all that off with his sociopathic belief that no one else is real except him and his family, everyone else, the entire human race, are just props in his show, and it IS HIS SHOW, according to him.
And as far as he's concerned, if they're going to "cancel his show" then he's going to cancel Earth.


Never ever underestimate sociopaths, and the depths to which they will sink, and never underestimate Trump.

The #1 most important chapter in his infamous book is about REVENGE.

Truly, in America, anyone really CAN be President.
ANYONE.

And this is who the idiots picked.
Don't underestimate them either.

Cowardice has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/17/19 09:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Donald Trump, scion of the Fred Trump real estate empire, having for the last seventy some years of his entitled, sheltered life, has enjoyed the luxury of not ever being held accountable for his action, and he has now reached the pinnacle of his dreams, leader of the free world, President of the United States of America.
He can do ANYTHING HE WANTS BECAUSE, he believes, he's the POTUS.

Yup, Donald Trump is a sick-in-the-head sociopath, and when regular people like us who don't have degrees in psychology can see it, the mental illness has got to be pretty bad in the individual.

Hmm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/17/19 09:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Truly, in America, anyone really CAN be President.
ANYONE.

And this is who the idiots picked.
Don't underestimate them either.

Cowardice has nothing to do with it.

Damn sister-fckers. coffee
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/18/19 12:11 AM

Quote:
Greger I think you may be seriously underestimating the depth of his depravity at this point in the situation


Hide and watch, boyo...hide and watch. He's a rich assh0le not a supervillain.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/18/19 01:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Greger
I think an important point you're missing is that DJT is a pussy. He hasn't got the cojones to pull off something like that.


Greger I think you may be seriously underestimating the depth of his depravity at this point in the situation, and here is the situation:

Donald Trump, scion of the Fred Trump real estate empire, having for the last seventy some years of his entitled, sheltered life, has enjoyed the luxury of not ever being held accountable for his action, and he has now reached the pinnacle of his dreams, leader of the free world, President of the United States of America.
He can do ANYTHING HE WANTS BECAUSE, he believes, he's the POTUS.
Top all that off with his sociopathic belief that no one else is real except him and his family, everyone else, the entire human race, are just props in his show, and it IS HIS SHOW, according to him.
And as far as he's concerned, if they're going to "cancel his show" then he's going to cancel Earth.


Never ever underestimate sociopaths, and the depths to which they will sink, and never underestimate Trump.

The #1 most important chapter in his infamous book is about REVENGE.

Truly, in America, anyone really CAN be President.
ANYONE.

And this is who the idiots picked.
Don't underestimate them either.

Cowardice has nothing to do with it.

This got me thinking, “And this is who the idiots picked.” Acknowledging that our presidential election is basically nothing more than a beauty contest along with the nomination process since we went to the modern primary system in 1976. This got me thinking, old vs. new. The previous era, pre-1976 you had 10-15 primaries, some of those non-binding. Which candidate a state supported was pretty much decided by the state political party leaders.

The old system gave us FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ and Nixon. Historians rank them, 2, 9, 6, 10 and 29. The new, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Bill Clinton, Bush II, Obama, Trump. Their ranking, 26, 13, 21, 33 with Obama and Trump not ranked or rated. Historians will tell you it takes around 20 years after a president leaves office for them to see how a president’s policies effect this nation in the long term. It also gives it time for the partisan effect to die down some.

I left out Ford as he wasn’t elected and appointed by the congress as VP who latter became president. 4 top 10 presidents under the old system, although it did give us Nixon. Verses no top 10 with the best is 13 and 16 under our new primary system.

Okay, coincidence perhaps as the old system did basically give us every other president prior to FDR. Then I got thinking about charisma in a presidential beauty contest. I’d say neither Trump nor Hillary Clinton had charisma. Trump had something that made his supporters willing to go to the four corners of the earth for him. Hillary, as far as I’m concern came across as a wet mop, aloof and an elitist. So perhaps the charisma meter would nudge toward Trump.

Obama had Charisma out the ying yang. Neither McCain nor Romney could match Obama in the charisma department. G.W. Bush didn’t have much charisma, but he came across as a down home boy. But G.W. was more charismatic than either Gore, the statue and Kerry, perhaps statue II. Now Bill Clinton had charisma, tons of it. He also was able to connect to the voter like no one else other than Reagan and FDR. Dole and G.H.W. Bush, really none.

G.H.W. vs. Dukakis, the presidential battle totally lacking charisma. Dukakis made the huge mistake of downing a helmet and riding around in a tank looking like an idiot. Reagan, lots and lots of charisma over both Mondale and Jimmy Carter. Carter was another down home boy vs. Ford the stoic Midwestern Republican.

I’m not sure what point I’m trying to make here, just some thoughts put on paper. Or maybe our beauty presidential contest comes down to charisma, personality, likableness. Over substance, visions, ideas at times. This doesn’t really explain Trump who was obnoxious, uncouth and had a persona more fit for the WWE than politics. But perhaps that is what made him stand out, to grab all the attention, to take everyone else’s air out of the room.

Maybe the above explains why I want the democrats to nominate a fresh young face instead of some tired, old politician from the northeast. I wouldn’t classify none of the democrats top three as charismatic although Sanders seems to have the most energy of the three. Something Hillary lacked. Okay, thinking done. Thoughts?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/18/19 01:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Greger I think you may be seriously underestimating the depth of his depravity at this point in the situation

Hide and watch, boyo...hide and watch. He's a rich assh0le not a supervillain.

Many blue-collar workers he stiffed after they worked on his many properties would disagree.

Many businesses stiffed and sued them to get out of paying their invoices would disagree.

All of his wives who he has cheated-on would disagree.

Ambassador Youvanovitch would disagree.

Hmm
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/18/19 02:28 AM

They would disagree that he was a rich assh0le?

He aint The Joker and he aint The Penguin, they were criminals with class. He's a rich creep from New York City, the type we were all taught not to trust and tried to teach our daughters to steer clear of.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/18/19 02:59 AM

Sounds accurate to me. Presidential elections have become beauty pageants, though Trump proves beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

A really excellent leader would have charisma and smarts. Maybe the answer is another amendment to the Constitution?
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/18/19 04:04 AM

Quote:
a fresh young face instead of some tired, old politician from the northeast.


Way early on I was thinking Beto O'Rourke might be that face. The centrist choice between Biden and Bernie. He failed to seize the moment though.

Buttigieg is trending right now so maybe there's still a little excitement to be had in this primary season. I could comfortably vote for him. Maybe not my ideal candidate but I wouldn't have to hold my nose.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/18/19 04:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
They would disagree that he was a rich assh0le?

Yes they would disagree. Only sociopaths act like that.

Hmm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/18/19 04:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
He aint The Joker and he aint The Penguin...

That we know of... coffee
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/18/19 04:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
a fresh young face instead of some tired, old politician from the northeast.


Way early on I was thinking Beto O'Rourke might be that face. The centrist choice between Biden and Bernie. He failed to seize the moment though.

Buttigieg is trending right now so maybe there's still a little excitement to be had in this primary season. I could comfortably vote for him. Maybe not my ideal candidate but I wouldn't have to hold my nose.

I will vote for ANY Dem, but Hillary. smile
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/18/19 06:00 AM

Originally Posted By: perotista


Maybe the above explains why I want the democrats to nominate a fresh young face instead of some tired, old politician from the northeast. I wouldn’t classify none of the democrats top three as charismatic although Sanders seems to have the most energy of the three. Something Hillary lacked. Okay, thinking done. Thoughts?



What I truly wish conservatives would come to understand is, in reality even if we DID wind up with a Sanders presidency, people's TV sets are not going to suddenly blare some EAS Emergency Alert:

"United States of America Converting to Socialism"



Sanders will have to do what EVERY president has had to do, adapt and compromise.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/18/19 12:46 PM

How we choose our candidates is left to the political parties. The Constitution has nothing to do with it. I don't think Trump qualified as a beauty. He had the largest faction in the Republican Party, roughly 35% which was enough to win since everyone else, the other 65% couldn't decide on a candidate in their extra large field back in 2016.

There were no beauties in 2016. You had 38% of all America viewing Hillary favorably or positive vs. Trump at 36%. Assuming those folks voted for the candidate they viewed positively, there were a whole lot of folks voting for the lesser of two evils or the candidate they wanted to lose the least, not win, but lose the least.

How unique was 2016, both Trump and Hillary set the record for the lowest favorable's ever, also for the highest unfavorable's. What are the odds of having the most disliked candidates in our history facing off against each other?

Here's the favorable/unfavorable list if you're interested. One thing is for sure, Barry Goldwater can now rest in peace. He is not longer the record holder.

Highest to lowest favorable/unfavorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.
Favorable/unfavorable
1956 Eisenhower 84/12%
1964 LBJ 81/13%
1976 Carter 81/16%
1960 JFK 80/14%
1960 Nixon 79/16%
1968 Nixon 79/22%
1976 Ford 79/20%
1972 Nixon 76/21%
1968 Humphrey 72/28%
1984 Reagan 71/30%
1980 Carter 68/32%
1984 Mondale 66/34%
1980 Reagan 64/31%
1992 Bill Clinton 64/33%
2008 Obama 62/35%
2012 Obama 62/37%
1956 Stevenson 61/31%
2004 G.W. Bush 61/39%
2008 McCain 60/35%
1992 G.H.W. Bush 59/40%
2000 G.W. Bush 58/38%
2004 Kerry 57/40%
1996 Bill Clinton 56/42%
1988 G.H.W. Bush 56/39%
2000 Gore 55/45%
2012 Romney 55/43%
1972 McGovern 55/41%
1996 Dole 54/45%
1988 Dukakis 50/45%
1964 Goldwater 43/47%
2016 Hillary Clinton 38/56%
2016 Donald Trump 36/60%
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/18/19 07:12 PM


Quote:
Charisma out the ying yang
I have been saying it for a while. If a dead ham sandwich has charisma, I'll vote for it against Mr Trump.

So should we just consider someone from this list and forget the debates?

George Clooney, Jack Nicholson, Morgan Freeman, Anthony Hopkins, Al Pacino, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Christopher Walken ... these are highly popular actors who, some would have to say, have the ying yang stuff of presidents
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/18/19 07:13 PM

Was your post a long version of simply ... The dumbing down of America?
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/18/19 09:05 PM

I have noticed that Folks continue to refer to Trump as a "rich" guy. I tend to doubt this. This is, however, a guy who's daddy gave something like 45 million dollars to who took the money and proceeded to go banko at least 4 times. In addition to that he rarely paid his bills and contractors would no longer work for him unless he paid up front. Its also thought that the Russians bailed him out with approximately 4 billion dollars 9 or 10 year ago (this was explained in a book by a man who has spent most of the last 20 years studying Trump). I suspect he has blowed through that too. Trump is, basically, the demonstrably worst businessman in the history of the nation! (possibly even the World!)

In my own mind he is, basically, a bankrupt, traitorous, really bad businessman with a penchant for conning a LOT of people which tend to confuse just about everybody who is not a member of the Trump worshipping group.

I believe that Trump runs a criminal enterprise. The Dems could actually get the goods on him if they would go directly to the supremes and force them to decide whether they are actually going to support the constitution and give the Democratic house the power to subpoena the top tier of which house staff who, I also believe, have probably broken laws at the behest of Trump and can report stuff not even thought of yet. Our Government is divided into 2 parts; executive, legislative and Judicial. I also believe that when one part of the government is battling another part of the government then one can go directly to the supremes for sorting. The legislative party, battling the executive, certainly qualifies for that, I think. The House can also convict, for instance, refusal to obey a subpoena with contempt of congress and then proceed to arrest and put the miscreant in jail. That is actually a law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
I they actually did arrest, and jail, a Republican miscreant I betcha you would see the Republicans get it into court, and to the supremes VERY fast!

Until the House actually gets off its collective butt, and use their power, I will not consider their efforts to be reasonable or believable. Right now they just seem to be almost entertaining and little else. Since they are not, obviously, going to have a senate that will convict their current current path to impeachment The house can, however, if there is no trial or the trial fails then they can censure the president. Censured presidents are not exactly thought of well. If they do have a trial the senate not only has to remove Trump but also make sure he can never again run for office (otherwise he can).

Just saying.................
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/18/19 11:25 PM

It actually has gone up the Judicial Branch to see if they can enforce the subpoena of Trump's financial data from his accountant. The federal judge said yes, the appeals judge said yes, and now the Chief Justice says he wants to think about it for a while.

The law and the Constitution both say yes, so all he can do and stay on the good side of history is to make it take the usual delay for the court to consider it. If the court says no, they go down in the history books as totally corrupt and Justice Roberts' legacy is destroyed. The smartest thing Roberts could do is to refuse to hear it.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/19/19 02:10 AM

Hmm, the dumbing down of America. Or perhaps it was a case of both parties choosing candidates America didn't want. 25% of all Americans disliked both major party candidates and didn't want neither one to become president. This included 54% of all independents.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-...candidates.aspx

Maybe it was the political parties that were dumb, not so much America as a whole or the voting public. Each nominated a candidate that they knew that a majority of Americans didn't like.

When the two major parties come up with candidates viewed by 56% and 60% negatively on election day, you're asking a lot of those voters to choose between negative A and Negative B. Yet, that is exactly what each major party expected the voter to do.

Perhaps if America is so dumb when it comes to popular voting, we should go back to the pre-civil war days when quite a lot of states awarded their electoral votes via their state legislature.

Now I have this feeling that even if we did, if the state legislature or even the people at large in today's political world didn't vote for your candidate, that somehow they end up being dumb.

Perhaps for the next go around, a better candidate is needed. One more acceptable to America as a whole and not just their avid supporters. I suppose we'll learn in 2020 if any lessons were learned from 2016.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/19/19 06:20 AM

I have to strongly recommend this video. It's an hour long, but one of the best dissections/discussions of impeachment history and intent I've ever seen. https://constitutioncenter.org/debate/pa...-to-impeachment
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/19/19 01:42 PM

Why would an intelligent, well informed electorate vote for candidates who fail the basics of fitness?

Despite the fact the Democrat Party machine selected a candidate who was less than inspiring, and the Republican Party machine recognized the power of the bigotry in THE BASE and selected their voice of bigotry as their candidate, a well informed, intelligent electorate would have seen, or should have seen, the Republican candidate did not represent the best of Republican or American ideals and not voted for him. My conclusion is the electorate is ignorant at best, and at worst wallows in the most craven of human characteristics and certainly antithetical to the fundamental values of our Founders.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/19/19 03:25 PM

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

This is (thankfully) a little-used article of the Constitution. It is, however, a critical provision and informs every other one. What I mean by that is that it is the "enforcement mechanism" that ensures faithful execution of office for all federal officers.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/19/19 03:38 PM

Using multiple devices to post here creates some mistiming of responses....

It appears that last weeks hearings have accelerated public support of removing Trump through impeachment. Somme of it may have been his bullying tweets. Polls habe swung in opposite directions (within their margins of error), but are collectively hovering around 48%-42% Approval vs. Disapproval.
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/19/19 06:52 PM

I saw that notice yesterday. My problem with this stuff getting to the Supremes is twofold. The first is exactly what The chief justice said (he wanted to think about it) - no reference to a time length - could be years. The second possible problem is the narrowness of the decision. Even if they rule in favor of those wanting the data it may be very narrow in width. This is why I would prefer a direct approach asking for a wider judgment which would force the administration to grant the house full access to everybody who has anything to do with the president and all testimony given after being sworn in.

This would solve most of the problems for the House, and give them the actual ability to run a real investigation instead of what is going on right now.

I guess I should mention that a lot of the drama, I think, has to do with the simple fact that the house has not, in my estimation, pointed out that they are investigating, just like a police department and should not be expected to allow opposing parties any more authority than the police would allow any other opposing parties to influence or access to their investigations until such investigations are done and charges made. Apparently making such a suggestion is too offensive to the opposition and likely to encourage their ire.

The very fact of media does cover such nonsense kinda points to the problem of the media. Their coverage, as far as I can tell, pretty much controls all of it and, I think, is just flat out wrong. They are no longer not only picking candidates, for us ALL, but now also seem to be more or less controlling the investigations themselves. I have no solution for this but I am sure that they are, in large part, responsible for all the drama and bullsh*t.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/20/19 06:35 PM

Ken Starr just suggested that Gordon Sondland's testimony might just force Republicans to take a little walk to the Oval Office to deliver a message:

RESIGN.

Ken Starr on Fox via Daily Beast
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/20/19 07:34 PM

Random thoughts:

The Washington Post gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) three Pinocchios on Wednesday for his claim that the whistleblower in the impeachment process against President Trump "has a statutory right to anonymity."

Mike Conaway is trying to justify outing whistleblowers by citing a WaPo op-ed that agrees with his Trump loving positions.
Thing is, I'd love to know why this same Republican party eagerly defended whistleblower anonymity in:
BENGHAZI
FAST AND FURIOUS
WHITEWATER
MONICA-GATE
etc etc

Jackie Speer (D-CA):
"It's interesting that Republicans are showing so much concern for the effects of public bullying on Sondland's business when these hearings are ALL ABOUT bullying, President Trump's bullying.
The President has at least FIVE Pinnochios minimum on a daily basis, so let's not go there."

And now GOP-ers are expressing concern about blowback effects on Gordon's hotel biz.
Maybe Sondland should have considered the blowback effect on his business when he purchased his diplomatic post for a million dollars.

Chris Stewart: Withholding aid is common and an everyday occurrence.
YES, it IS, but never for the purpose of enhancing one's own personal career at the expense of the American people or in contravention of the will of Congress.
It is a crime to do so according to the Constitution and is specifically named as BRIBERY.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/20/19 07:43 PM

Quote:
RESIGN.


Not a chance.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/20/19 07:44 PM

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
Jim Jordan is such a weenie.
Imagine if Paul Teutul of Orange County Choppers played his role.

Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/20/19 07:51 PM

Quote:
It is a crime to do so according to the Constitution and is specifically named as BRIBERY.


Unfortunately it's extortion, which isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

"I will not give you what you need unless you do this for me."

Bribery is like "I will give you this if you do this for me."

So no, I'm not going with Pelosi's version of the story. If it was "bribery" Giuliani would have delivered a suitcase full of cash and the investigation would have happened.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/20/19 08:03 PM

Quote:
Orange County Choppers


Never much cared for that assh*le. Just Duck Dynasty with scooters.

I've seen his obnoxious mug on way too many memes but when you need a genuinely obnoxious mug for your meme there is none better.

Inverted Sam Elliot.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/20/19 08:21 PM

$391M dollars to buy Javelin missiles is not cash???
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/20/19 09:47 PM

He was forcing Zelensky to do something for the military aid he'd been promised. Not promising the military aid in exchange for a favor.
Trump had no authority to make any demands regarding its release nor to hold it up while he made a private deal for a foriegn nation to help him win an election. Nor to use it to extort a foriegn leader into doing his political dirty work.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/20/19 10:38 PM

Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/20/19 11:12 PM

extortion
Originally Posted By: Findlaw
Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force or threat of violence, property damage, harm to reputation, or unfavorable government action.


bribery
Originally Posted By: Findlaw
At the most fundamental level, charges of bribery need only to prove that an agreement for the exchange of something of value (political influence, for example) for a sum of money or something else of value [ed., Rporter314 The proverbial quid pro quo]. While a written agreement isn't required, prosecutors must be able to prove that an agreement was actually made.


bribery vs extortion
Originally Posted By: Laws
The key difference, then, is that in extortion the extorting individual, the receiver of goods, is not offering anything to the extorted individual, the giver.


always start with the definitions
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/20/19 11:47 PM

It's actually both extortion and bribery. Trump was soliciting a bribe in the form of help with his reelection by getting Zelensky to announce an investigation. The constitution does not say one side of the bribery transaction is impeachable, while the other side is peachy. This case is a little more complicated because of the quid pro quo deal, but just half of that deal is bribery. Trump wanted something illegal and he tried to get it.

Just because he's gotten help from other countries before, does not make it legal. That seems to be a large portion of Trump's legal strategy: Do all his crimes in public view and confess to them in tweets or on TV, so we get desensitized to them. Then when any criminal consequences slowly wind there way through the legal system, claim that it is already "old news". But the statute of limitations on these crimes is not 3 months!
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/21/19 12:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
...And now GOP-ers are expressing concern about blowback effects on Gordon's hotel biz.
Maybe Sondland should have considered the blowback effect on his business when he purchased his diplomatic post for a million dollars.

My friends in Portland are saying this Ukraine inquiry is having a devastating affect on Sondland's hotels. Sondland's home is Portland, OR.

There have been pickets and negative Yelp reviews ever since the beginning of September 2019 when this whistle-blower story broke at Sondland's Portland hotels.

Mrs. Sondland is pissed that her husband's Trump adventure has wrought financial harm to "her" business. smile (It's the husband's business, but she apparently "runs" it and benefits significantly financially - or at least used to benefit financially. laugh )
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/21/19 01:03 AM

Moral of this story is: Don't pay a lot of money to join in a criminal conspiracy!
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/21/19 03:14 AM

I think there is a misperception about what bribery is. See 18 U.S. Code §201.Bribery of public officials and witnesses

Quote:
Whoever -
....
(2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A)being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B)being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;


Noting, of course, that the framers intended the term far more broadly, nonetheless all the elements are present: Zelensky said, "We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins [anti-tank missiles] from the United States for defense purposes."

"I would like you to do us a favor though..."

The "ask" alone is explicitly bribery. Whoever "seeks"; a "thing of value"; "in return for; "being influenced in the performance of any official act".

I would like... (seek)
Pivotally it was "of value" because he asked for it
And he held up appropriated funds in violation of statute to enforce the "get"
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/21/19 03:54 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I think there is a misperception about what bribery is. See 18 U.S. Code §201.Bribery of public officials and witnesses
And he held up appropriated funds in violation of statute to enforce the "get"

Well...you know...peanut gallery. coffee
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/21/19 03:55 PM

A thought struck me today. As has been mentioned, some of us participate on other forums in addition to the Rant. My observation is that analysis on this site, by nearly every poster, is far more in-depth than on other sites. Part of that, I think, is the result of our enforced politeness. But, more significantly, I think we Ranters just cogitate more. We also hold each other to a higher standard - we don't put up with one-liners and genetic put downs, and demand sources. As a result, I think, the dreck-to-thoughtful ratio is pretty low.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/21/19 04:16 PM

A thought just crossed my 3-cylinder brain. I wonder if Adv Bolton were to announce, just announce, he would testify. Does he have enough information to convict a number of people and if so could that lead to Mr Trump resigning???
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/21/19 06:53 PM

What a wonderful idea! I've been listening this morning. Dr. Hill is absolutely destroying every GOP talking point.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/21/19 09:03 PM

Revenge of the Immigrants?

eek2
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/21/19 09:07 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
... I think we Ranters just cogitate more. ...the dreck-to-thoughtful ratio is pretty low.


WoW, forced to the dictionary twice in one post.

:applaud: :applaud:
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/21/19 09:53 PM

Well, all Trump wanted was a notification, by the president of Ukraine that he was going to investigate Biden so the threat of Bolton testifying my also do the job?

The whole thing is based on few facts as the attack on Biden was going to be. I wonder, however, if this stuff actually gets to the senate, and they have a trial judged by the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court, then does this mean that judge can also order testimony from the top tier of the Trump criminal organization?

Oh, I also note that the Dems are now putting hope into the fact that the Supremes are going to hear the suit against the Trump attorney. I think they are hoping for a wider judgment than just deciding whether McGahn must give testimony. there are also a few other law suits in the works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lawsuits_involving_Donald_Trump
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a9962852/lawsuits-against-donald-trump/
https://ballotpedia.org/Multistate_lawsuits_against_the_federal_government,_2017-2020

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/us/politics/trump-house-lawsuits.html

The above is just a small portion of law suits making their way through the system. Most will probably win but that will also probably happen a LONG time from now and will end up moot.



Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/21/19 10:38 PM

I don't think the senate will convict. He is doing business The American Way™, and having him ousted would cause a financial impact on the people that own the senators.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/21/19 10:51 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
A thought struck me today. As has been mentioned, some of us participate on other forums in addition to the Rant. My observation is that analysis on this site, by nearly every poster, is far more in-depth than on other sites. Part of that, I think, is the result of our enforced politeness. But, more significantly, I think we Ranters just cogitate more. We also hold each other to a higher standard - we don't put up with one-liners and genetic put downs, and demand sources. As a result, I think, the dreck-to-thoughtful ratio is pretty low.


Plus, it's pretty obvious that we are in many ways a great big happy and slightly dysfunctional family, but a family to be sure.
And I want to find more of our "lost family members" wherever they may be. We all are at the point where each of us recognizes a quality debater when we see one. Those folks are our "family".

The enforced politeness? It's clear that among us, there really isn't much need for more than a private message to advise someone.
Everyone here is smart enough to understand.
So, we're just a family.
And by the way, let me make clear just how much I care about each and every one of you.

All of you are a part of what makes up "the glue of my life".
Thank you for being you.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/21/19 10:55 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
A thought just crossed my 3-cylinder brain. I wonder if Adv Bolton were to announce, just announce, he would testify. Does he have enough information to convict a number of people and if so could that lead to Mr Trump resigning???


I never thought I would ever appreciate John Bolton, but as Fiona Hill just said: "Here we are."

But I'd appreciate him a lot more if he would stop standing on ceremony. He seldom does that when he thinks something will benefit him.
I don't think he sees any benefit from helping the Democrats impeach President Trump. Perhaps he still thinks all of this can somehow "be managed enough" to take the Republicans to another victory?

Does he still think Trump will do something for him?
Kinda difficult to imagine the President doing anything but throw him under the bus, even if he doesn't testify.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/21/19 11:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: rporter314
A thought just crossed my 3-cylinder brain. I wonder if Adv Bolton were to announce, just announce, he would testify. Does he have enough information to convict a number of people and if so could that lead to Mr Trump resigning???


I never thought I would ever appreciate John Bolton, but as Fiona Hill just said: "Here we are."

But I'd appreciate him a lot more if he would stop standing on ceremony. He seldom does that when he thinks something will benefit him.
I don't think he sees any benefit from helping the Democrats impeach President Trump. Perhaps he still thinks all of this can somehow "be managed enough" to take the Republicans to another victory?

Does he still think Trump will do something for him?
Kinda difficult to imagine the President doing anything but throw him under the bus, even if he doesn't testify.


I think he's looking for a way to bury Trump that will not splash back on him.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/22/19 02:19 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
The whole thing is based on few facts as the attack on Biden was going to be. I wonder, however, if this stuff actually gets to the senate, and they have a trial judged by the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court, then does this mean that judge can also order testimony from the top tier of the Trump criminal organization?

Oh, I also note that the Dems are now putting hope into the fact that the Supremes are going to hear the suit against the Trump attorney. I think they are hoping for a wider judgment than just deciding whether McGahn must give testimony.


An interesting angle on the Senate trial. I wonder if that is part of Speaker Pelosi's strategy? Can't get inquiry testimony from administration officials, because of the Administration's refusal? The solution, call them at trial where they can not refuse... But, I think the Articles of Impeachment would have to have an Obstruction of Justice or Obstruction of Congress charge with a charge for each witness' failure to comply with a lawful subpoena? Oh, the trial could be such fun hitsfan popcorn2 Just hope and pray it is an open and televised public trial...

I think any Supreme Court decision concerning the President will be so narrow it would easily slide through the eye of a small needle.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/22/19 02:30 PM

here's the problem i have with Amb Bolton. Despite the fact I have disagreed with almost all if not all of his foreign policy ideas, I have always thought he was a person of integrity and truly (yep truly) believed in American patriotism. Some have tossed around the idea he is holding out to confess for a book deal. I think that only elicits the most craven instincts in those people and an equal mischaracterization of who Amb Bolton is. While it did cross my mind, I could not convince myself that was his real motivation.

I suspect he has been in the throes of a moral dilemma. He has been ordered not to testify and yet he knows and understands there is a far greater obligation to the country, the nation, the democracy to divulge any relevant information on the question of whether a sitting president has abused his power.

This morning he tweeted a cryptic message regarding a back story. Has he found a solution to his conundrum? Does it even pertain to the current impeachment proceedings? I predict he has found a way to expose Mr Trump with the most damning testimony yet for which there is no defense, other than an admission of guilt.

This is THE shoot someone in Times Square moment for Republicans.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/22/19 06:48 PM

Quote:
This is THE shoot someone in Times Square moment for Republicans.


And if it is we will see that the popular prediction that Trump would get away with it will come true. The Party will deem it self defense and invoke the "stand your ground" clause of the rule of law.

Republicans...when in fear of their political careers...
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/22/19 07:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl


I think he's looking for a way to bury Trump that will not splash back on him.


Eggs Ackley.
He doesn't want to be seen with any fecal overspray on that giant streetsweeper broom of a mustache he has. It takes a lot of effort to keep that monster gleaming white.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/22/19 07:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
Revenge of the Immigrants?

eek2


Even if it WASN'T Revenge of the Immigrants, she HAS "the accent".
We Yanks are suckers for that accent.
We instinctively assume that Brits are smarter than we are because to our ears that accent subconsciously suggests they just might be.

Never mind Boris, never mind Brexit, never mind UKIP, when we hear those terse, clipped intonations and those pear shaped tones, we are conditioned to believe we are being addressed by our betters.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/22/19 08:19 PM

I like how she started her testimony: "No BS conspiracy questions that benefit Russia, please." She really shut that down. I think she was signalling Republicans on the committee that she would humiliate them if they followed their scripts.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/23/19 12:00 AM

She really didn't.

They almost to a person all claimed they signed a report which concluded the Russians were the culprits. .... O and then they proceeded with their Ukraine conspiracy.

I dunno ... stupid ... maybe oblivious of reality ... but in any event she did not stop them from their delusion. Ukraine and their op-ed's were the main source of meddling in the 2016.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/24/19 01:37 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
here's the problem i have with Amb Bolton. Despite the fact I have disagreed with almost all if not all of his foreign policy ideas, I have always thought he was a person of integrity and truly (yep truly) believed in American patriotism. Some have tossed around the idea he is holding out to confess for a book deal. I think that only elicits the most craven instincts in those people and an equal mischaracterization of who Amb Bolton is. While it did cross my mind, I could not convince myself that was his real motivation.

Conservatives have no core values that can't be sacrificed in the name of political expedience or profit. Hmm
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/24/19 02:29 PM

For only those interested. Public response to impeachment hearings. Comparing Trump’s approval ratings, percentage of those who want Trump impeached and removed along with those who don’t.

Impeachment hearings began on 13 Nov 2019 vs. 24 Nov 2019

Trump’s approval 13 Nov 43.9%, 24 Nov 44.3%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html


13 Nov Democrats for impeachment and removal 82%, 24 Nov Democrats for impeachment and removal 87%.
13 Nov Republicans for impeachment and removal 12%, 24 Nov Republicans for impeachment and removal 9%.
13 Nov Independents for impeachment and removal 38%, 24 Nov Independents for impeachment and removal 41%.
13 Nov Democrats against impeachment and removal 6%, 24 Nov Democrats against impeachment and removal 8%.
13 Nov Republicans against impeachment and removal 80%, 24 Nov Republicans against impeachment and removal 87%.
13 Nov Independents against impeachment and removal 39%, 24 Nov Independents against impeachment and removal 47%.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...trump-6957.html

10 days after the start of the hearings, we finally see a bit of movement. Impeachment and removal have gained 5 points among Democrats and 3 points among independents. Although support for impeachment and removal has dropped 3 points among Republicans. The biggest rise was independents against impeachment and removal, an 8-point rise, Republicans against impeachment and removal have risen 7 points. It seems after 10 days of hearings, Republicans and Democrats have harden their view on this. But I think it is more important to keep tabs on independents, the less to non-partisan group, probably most not in either the pro or anti Trump camps. On 13 Nov you had 38% for impeachment and removal, 39% against. 24 Nov shows 41% of independents for impeachment and removal, 47% against impeachment and removal.

Draw your own conclusions. The numbers I find fascinating are the answers to this question. Question 7. Watched public hearings - Did you watch any part of the of public impeachment hearings? Democrats 52% yes, 48% no, Republicans 44% yes, 56% no. Independents, the less to non-partisan's, the group of voters most likely to change their minds. 31% yes, 69% no. Hard to change someone's mind when they're not watching.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/u9tu99dui5/econTabReport.pdf
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/24/19 05:20 PM

I'm an independent, I'm against impeachment because it will fail and is nothing but political theater. I didn't watch the proceedings and my mind will not be changed. It will likely do Trump more good than harm when the 2020 elections roll around.

Donald Trump should be impeached and removed from office. But the attempt appears doomed to failure. The crimes are not high enough and the misdemeanors too minor in the eyes of Republicans.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/24/19 05:40 PM

Don’t forget the stunning hypocrisy
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/24/19 06:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I'm an independent, I'm against impeachment because it will fail...

You mean removal will fail. Impeachment will be successful and Trump will have to wear the Scarlet "I" on his shirts for the rest of his presidency.


Originally Posted By: Greger
Donald Trump should be impeached and removed from office.mes are not high enough and the misdemeanors too minor in the eyes of Republicans.

Agreed. Remove the corrupt conman from Office.

smile

Originally Posted By: Greger
The crimes are not high enough and the misdemeanors too minor in the eyes of Republicans.

"...not high enough..."

Even a smidgen is enough for removal, if you're a Founding Father purist. Hmm
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/24/19 06:26 PM

and please allow me to refute ... no no .... confute your statements.

Quote:
I'm against impeachment because it will fail and is nothing but political theater
While it may devolve into some kind of surreal theater, one can not be against may/will fail. Should one accept that as any principle for living, we would still be living in caves.

Regardless of the outcome in the Senate, we the people have an obligation to ensure a government accountable to the people. Abusing power the people have given to elected officials should be met with every tool available to the people to reject it. Allowing this or any elected official to "get away" with abusing their power will ensure we will live under nothing but corrupt government forever or until good men step up and do what is right.

Quote:
It will likely do Trump more good than harm when the 2020 elections roll around
And it still does not matter. Allow this official to get away with abuse and guess whata happens next? You better believe it will embolden him to do the unthinkable. In essence you will have given him a license to unleash the narcissistic delusions he is master of the universe.

Quote:
The crimes are not high enough and the misdemeanors too minor in the eyes of Republicans
And in the eyes of all criminals their crimes do not amount to anything much less an indictment. As for Republicans, there is no crime which change their support for this occupant of the WH. He could shoot you and guess what, your life does not matter to the Republicans. Principles are far more important than fearing what Republicans believe.
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/24/19 07:19 PM

The decision on mcgahn testifying is about to arrive. Hopefully he will be forced to testify. I am also hoping that the decision is wider than that (expert wishful thinking thought)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t...e-idUSKBN1XY093

Anyway, if he does it just may bring another bunch of stuff to the front. If the decision is actually wider then BINGO! We will be truly off and running (assuming the Dems will be willing to have at the close advisors of our dear leader).

In theory this will happen tomorrow!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/24/19 08:33 PM

Parnas was represented by Giuliani's lawyer, John Dowd.
That made Parnas part of Trump's mutual mobster CYA, meaning they all share information among themselves and the others, Konstantin Kilimnik, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and even Devin Nunes...or so Parnas THOUGHT.

Parnas has fired Dowd, because apparently he was very upset that Trump said he didn't know him. No honor among crooks!
So he flipped on Trump.

Giuliani henchman fires former Trump lawyer and agrees to comply with impeachment inquiry after snub

Personally I can't imagine he had any other options.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/24/19 08:59 PM

Quote:
and please allow me to refute ... no no .... confute your statements

I agree with you across the board. But...

Remember how I said the obstruction charge wasn't enough for impeachment? Well this here aint enough either. I think of impeachment as a last resort and times just aren't that desperate.

It was inevitable though and no president has ever deserved it more, I just woulda liked to have an even chance of getting a conviction before i pulled the trigger.

What bewilders me most is that no amount of investigation seems to turn up any crimes committed by Trump. Without the whistleblower they'd still be grasping at straws(and waiting for the courts).

So if this damages Trump I'm cool with it, if it screws up 2020 for Democrats I'm against it. If we are watching the birth of a new Hitleresque dictator then we should be thankful to be alive during such interesting times. Like the Jews...before the holocaust.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/25/19 12:10 AM




ABC News reported Sunday afternoon that the Intelligence Committee has tapes of Rudy Giuliani’s associate Lev Parnas. This week, Parnas revealed he has extensive evidence of President Donald Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani involved in the Ukraine scandal.

The only reason why Lev Parnas turned on Trump is because Parnas was "very upset" that Trump pretended he did not know Parnas.

Parnas to Trump: "Don't dis me bro."

smile
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/25/19 04:39 AM

Actually, the most important impeachable offense is Trump's refusal to cooperate or let any Executive Branch employees cooperate with the impeachment proceedings. This flies in the face of our system or checks and balances, separation of powers, and the Constitution. The American Republic is broken irretrievably if nothing happens because of this. It replaces our Presidency with a dictatorship.

This is the real constitutional crisis, unless the Supreme Court tells Trump he has to cooperate, and everybody honors that decision.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/25/19 02:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I'm an independent, I'm against impeachment because it will fail and is nothing but political theater. I didn't watch the proceedings and my mind will not be changed. It will likely do Trump more good than harm when the 2020 elections roll around.

Donald Trump should be impeached and removed from office. But the attempt appears doomed to failure. The crimes are not high enough and the misdemeanors too minor in the eyes of Republicans.


You stated, "The crimes are not high enough and the misdemeanors too minor in the eyes of Republicans." Perhaps independents are coming to this same conclusion. On 13 Nov you had 38% of independents for impeachment and removal, 39% against. 24 Nov shows 41% of independents for impeachment and removal, 47% against impeachment and removal.

For me, I'm not going to keep track of Republicans and Democrats when it comes to impeachment. Their opinion and wants on this matter are set in stone. I'm more interested to see how independents are reacting, probably quite a lot of them in neither the pro or anti Trump camps.

I don't think this impeachment process will have much affect on the 2020 presidential election one way or the other. Unless some earth shattering additional evidence shows up. But I do feel if this comes to a AYE and NAY vote in the senate, their vote could decide whether or not the Democrats regain the senate.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/25/19 05:30 PM

Originally Posted By: US Constitution
... treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


These are the two questions I would ask any Republican, please define bribery, please tell me what crimes ARE impeachable?

Many times when trying to proof a conjecture or claim all the standard approaches do not yield results. This may be predicated on an ambiguous understanding of the items in question. So a good analyst will start at the beginning, start with the definitions.

I believe if the Democrats use a dumbed down approach starting with the definitions the general public will at least understand what the issues are. As an example, many crimes can be either a high crime or an ordinary crime. An example would be Mr trump shooting someone on 5th Ave. If he does that as a citizen, it would not be a high crime, but if he did it in the line of duty, it would be a high crime.

Bribery is an example of something so misunderstood it needs a lot of PSA's. Here is one succinct example

Originally Posted By: Lawfare
the Founders had a broader conception of bribery than what’s in the criminal code. Their understanding was derived from English law, under which bribery was understood as an officeholder’s abuse of the power of an office to obtain a private benefit rather than for the public interest.


Quote:
I don't think this impeachment process will have much affect on the 2020 presidential election one way or the other.

I agree

Quote:
Unless some earth shattering additional evidence shows up.
Don't think that will matter as I don't believe the electorate understands what is important.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/25/19 06:20 PM

Quote:
I don't think this impeachment process will have much affect on the 2020 presidential election


Nor do I. That election is pretty much written in stone at this point.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/25/19 08:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
I don't think this impeachment process will have much affect on the 2020 presidential election


Nor do I. That election is pretty much written in stone at this point.



I agree. I really don't see how Trump can win unless the Democrats nominate a dunce of a candidate. A candidate disliked more than Trump by independents, ALA Hillary Clinton. Landslide or close race, that I think is all up to the Democrats and who they nominate.

My usual caveat, We'll see.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/25/19 09:43 PM

Some have wondered what it will mean for the Democratic primary. When it gets thrown into the Senate, won't the three leading democratic candidates be required to attend? Would that be a schedule conflict with New Hampshire and Iowa?
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/26/19 01:51 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Some have wondered what it will mean for the Democratic primary. When it gets thrown into the Senate, won't the three leading democratic candidates be required to attend? Would that be a schedule conflict with New Hampshire and Iowa?

I don't know if they're required to attend or not. But if they're out on the campaign trail instead of in the senate when the trial is taking place, it certainly would look like they aren't doing their job.

New Hampshire isn't until 11 FEB. I don't think I'd be too worried about NH, it's Super Tuesday, 3 March that's the big ones. There is a chance the nomination could be decided on Super Tuesday or at least have a presumptive nominee.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/26/19 03:53 AM

I heard a rumor that Mitch McConnell is gonna ram it through as soon as it hits his desk. It could be done by Christmas.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/26/19 03:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I heard a rumor that Mitch McConnell is gonna ram it through as soon as it hits his desk. It could be done by Christmas.

There’s a lot of talk about the fact that Trump molested a teen girl. I know nothing about it. I hear that he molested a teen girl. I’m sure that somebody will be looking at that.

coffee
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/26/19 04:11 AM

could be and would make sense. If he does it early and fast it would prevent any possibility of witnesses testifying who have direct incontrovertible evidence of abuse of power. There can be little doubt Sen McConnell will do whatever it takes to preserve Mr Trump as leader of THE BASE.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/26/19 01:00 PM

A case for abuse of power as the primary article of impeachment
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/26/19 01:12 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Greger
I heard a rumor that Mitch McConnell is gonna ram it through as soon as it hits his desk. It could be done by Christmas.

There’s a lot of talk about the fact that Trump molested a teen girl. I know nothing about it. I hear that he molested a teen girl. I’m sure that somebody will be looking at that.

coffee


The problem with that Rick is at least half the population sees the corruption going on with both parties and has dismissed this impeachment trial as a ‘partisan witch hunt’.
They’re not totally wrong either.
I wish they had brought up charges other than the ones they have but now they’re stuck with it and any further allegations will be dismissed as partisan.
Had the Democrats brought real charges that the public agrees with, like emoluments, I think any follow on allegations would have a better chance of getting a hearing.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/26/19 01:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I heard a rumor that Mitch McConnell is gonna ram it through as soon as it hits his desk. It could be done by Christmas.


Possible. But it all depends on when the House passes the Articles of Impeachment and sends them to the senate.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/26/19 02:06 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Greger
I heard a rumor that Mitch McConnell is gonna ram it through as soon as it hits his desk. It could be done by Christmas.

There’s a lot of talk about the fact that Trump molested a teen girl. I know nothing about it. I hear that he molested a teen girl. I’m sure that somebody will be looking at that.

coffee


The problem with that Rick is at least half the population sees the corruption going on with both parties and has dismissed this impeachment trial as a ‘partisan witch hunt’.
They’re not totally wrong either.
I wish they had brought up charges other than the ones they have but now they’re stuck with it and any further allegations will be dismissed as partisan.
Had the Democrats brought real charges that the public agrees with, like emoluments, I think any follow on allegations would have a better chance of getting a hearing.


I hear you. Another problem I think is since the day after the election there's been so much partisan propaganda from both sides, a lot of independents have put the whole thing on ignore. No way to determine fact from fiction. It seems the Democrats let it be known as soon as Trump was elected they were going to do away with him.

For the most part, we know the Democrats want Trump gone, the Republicans want him to stay. Independents don't seem to be interested in the public hearings. To this question 7. Watched public hearings
Did you watch any part of the last set of public impeachment hearings?
69% of independents answered none.

Then to the question 6. Interest in public impeachment hearings
How interested are you in the public impeachment hearings? 47% of independents stated not interested at all, 34% say somewhat. Somewhat may be just getting the highlights on the news and then going about your normal business.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/u9tu99dui5/econTabReport.pdf

It seems this whole dog and pony show is just for Democrats and Republicans. They're the only ones showing any type of real interest with the GOP not so much compared to the Democrats.

Regardless of what one thinks of Trump, what he deserves or doesn't, the vindictiveness shown by Democrats against Trump since the day after the election most likely has caused a high number of independents to chalk all of this up as partisan politics and they have put the whole thing on ignore.

That is what the numbers are showing.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/26/19 04:52 PM

Quote:
Regardless of what one thinks of Trump, what he deserves or doesn't, the vindictiveness shown by Democrats against Trump since the day after the election most likely has caused a high number of independents to chalk all of this up as partisan politics and they have put the whole thing on ignore.

That is what the numbers are showing.


Trump Derangement Syndrome. We saw the same thing when Obama was President. In a sense this is revenge politics.

They impeached Clinton
We hated Bush
They lynched the Obama family
We're impeaching Trump
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/26/19 04:56 PM

Quote:
Had the Democrats brought real charges that the public agrees with, like emoluments, I think any follow on allegations would have a better chance of getting a hearing.

That hotel alone should be enough to do the trick. But yes, these charges, just like the obstruction charges, simply aren't enough for the public to get behind.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/26/19 05:21 PM

Quote:
the vindictiveness shown by Democrats against Trump since the day after the election

wow ... and you missed Rep Boehner and Sen McConnell's almost exact same remarks regarding Pres Obama's agenda?

I think vindictiveness would be more like some petty political matter i.e. policy differences which devolve into food fights. The use of public funds for private, personal gain is clearly not in the same the Washington DC Vindictives Ballpark.

Remember, it was about one year before the nuts started calling for the impeachment of Pres Obama. And consider the reasons .... talk about crazy ... they were crazy and had nothing to do with actual Constitutional violations. Mr Trump has had possible Constitutional issues from Day 1.

So not quite the same.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/26/19 09:59 PM

Quote:
So not quite the same.

No, they had to make up sh*t about Obama. Trump delivers it fresh to our doorstep every morning.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/26/19 11:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Regardless of what one thinks of Trump, what he deserves or doesn't, the vindictiveness shown by Democrats against Trump since the day after the election most likely has caused a high number of independents to chalk all of this up as partisan politics and they have put the whole thing on ignore.

That is what the numbers are showing.


Trump Derangement Syndrome. We saw the same thing when Obama was President. In a sense this is revenge politics.

They impeached Clinton
We hated Bush
They lynched the Obama family
We're impeaching Trump


I do think you have something there. The impeachment of Bill Clinton was totally uncalled for. A censor would have done nicely. Quite a lot of Democrats were willing to go along with a censor. The GOP overplayed their hand, a majority of Americans were against impeaching Bill. In fact his approval rating rose from 59% to 65% during the whole impeachment process.

I don't think the Democrats hated G.W. They gave an average of a 36% approval rating for G.W.'s first term. Only a 10% average approval during his second term. Most Americans weren't all that keen on G.W. in his second term either. The Recession and being tired of the wars, time for a change if you weren't a Republican. I don't think most democrats hated G.W. they were just tired of his policies and the whole situation.

I do agree that after 2010, the whole Republican agenda was to stop anything and everything Obama. They weren't interested in accomplishing anything at all. whether or not one agreed with Obama's policies, he was a gentleman, a likable individual, a president who acted presidential. that is unless you were a hard core GOP'er.

Revenge by the Democrats on Trump. Certainly there is some of that. Maybe even a lot. I'd say the vast majority of democrats thought they had the election won. Heck, I thought so too. The presidency belong to them even before the first vote was cast. What a shock that must have been to wake up Wednesday morning after the election to find out Trump won. I was totally surprised, not shocked, unexpected for sure.

It's interesting the way the numbers stack up on this impeachment among independents, the less to non-partisans. Roughly you have a third who think this is nothing more than a partisan political vendetta, revenge to use your word against Trump for losing an election. Another third who think the hearings are all about truth, justice, bringing an end to a president who has committed crimes and abused power. Then a third who just don't care. Probably just sick and tired of hearing about Trump, Mueller, impeachment et.al.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/27/19 05:05 AM

The revenge is not for losing an election. It's for the way they treated Obama. It's for what they did with the supreme court nominee, it's for what they did with Obamacare. It's about 2010-2016. It's about the racism. It's about the nooses and the effigies hung and burned. It's about the crass things said about the president's wife and daughters. It's about making Obama a single term president being Mitch McConnell's foremost goal. It's about the birth certificate, and the secret Muslim stories.

This here is payback.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/27/19 05:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
The revenge is not for losing an election. It's for the way they treated Obama. It's for what they did with the supreme court nominee, it's for what they did with Obamacare. It's about 2010-2016. It's about the racism. It's about the nooses and the effigies hung and burned. It's about the crass things said about the president's wife and daughters. It's about making Obama a single term president being Mitch McConnell's foremost goal. It's about the birth certificate, and the secret Muslim stories.

This here is payback.


What Gregor said.

Frankly, I'm in favor of it.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/27/19 06:01 AM

There may be other charges in the Articles of Impeachment. It's just that this is a very clear instance of Bribery, and Bribery is one of the non-ambiguous reasons for impeachment mentioned in the constitution. But they may include other charges, like Perjury for lying to Mueller's written questions. Emoluments. Campaign fund violations. Money laundering (for trying to hide the bimbo payoffs). Tax evasion and bank fraud for evaluating assets very differently for taxes and loan applications. And who knows what else when they get his financial info and tax returns.

All of these charges are based on hard facts and documents. But then there all the philosophical high crimes about abuse of power, treason, trying to destroy the intelligence agencies and the military, etc. These are arguable. The hard ones listed previously are not.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/27/19 12:54 PM

Well the show is not over, the Judiciary Committee is set to begin hearings the fourth. And, we thought it was time to put away the popcorn. Oh, what a Christmas Season it is turning out to be...


popcorn2 :applaud: :ohsnap: popcorn2
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/27/19 01:22 PM

Regardless of what is the cause for revenge, it is in full view of the public. This is perhaps the reason why many think impeachment is nothing more than a partisan political vendetta. Regardless of what Trump has done or not. Why 90% of all Americans minds are made up about this, set in stone, concrete, whatever. The other 10% are completely ignoring these hearings. Probably just sick and tied of it.

So far the hearings have been a wash in my view. They only harden the views those held of Trump prior to going into the hearings. More Democrats support impeachment and removal than when the hearings started, more Republicans oppose impeachment and removal than when the hearings began. Independents continue to be split right down the middle with roughly 40% for, 40% against and the rest not giving a darn one way or the other.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/27/19 02:10 PM

and your point is --> we should allow occupants of the WH do whatever the frak they want to because their supporters don't give a crap about lawlessness?

I don't get it.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/27/19 07:03 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
and your point is --> we should allow occupants of the WH do whatever the frak they want to because their supporters don't give a crap about lawlessness?

I don't get it.


I don't think you understand the public's mood. Roughly half see impeachment, removal as nothing more than a partisan political vendetta, revenge if you will was the word Gregory used. The other roughly half see this as an attempt to bring a president to justice for things he has done wrong. Broken the law, went against the constitution, etc.

The polarization, ultra high partisanship of today is front and centered. 90% of Democrats want Trump removed for cause, 90% of Republicans want him to stay and see nothing he has done wrong. You can't get more partisan than that. As I stated, those less to non-partisan's, independents are split. With independents also, the partisan split is there. Independents lean Democrats, want Trump gone, independents lean Republicans want him to stay.

Purely another example of the polarization of our politics today. In your eyes along with approximately 45% of other Americans, Trump needs to go for cause. In another 45% of Americans, Trump needs to stay because he has done nothing wrong, this whole impeachment hearings are nothing more than the Democratic Party partisan vendetta against Trump as the Democrats try to gain political advantage for 2020.

The other 10% don't gives an owl's hoot whether he goes or stays or what's happens during impeachment. The reality of the situation is these hearing hasn't changed anyone's minds. It has only harden prior beliefs. What else would you expect in the era of polarization of our politics and the ultra high partisanship that exists in this country today?

My view, unless both parties lose some of their ultra high partisanship, go back to being willing to compromise and begin once again to work together. We'll destroy ourselves from within due to internal politics. It's been nice while it lasted.

I'm sure you're sincere in your beliefs, but so too is the other fellow.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/27/19 11:14 PM

If about 50% of the voters don't think crime should be punished if the perpetrator is a member of your Party, then our criminal justice system is ruined: Zero convictions would ever happen again! If you can't convince the average person with scientific, eye-witness, or video recorded evidence of some fact, then we are lost as a Republic. So I doubt your analysis.

I think Trump has a hard core of loyalists who accept anything he says as Revealed Truth, no matter what evidence refutes it. But I bet they are less that 5% of the voters. Most people actually manage to function in the real world, so they have some ability to see reality as it is.

This explains why Trump has rallies where he endorses Republican candidates in Red States, and then they lose. 2018 happened. These recent races happened. Trump's endorsed candidates are almost all losing or winning by much lower than usual margins for their district or state.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/27/19 11:23 PM

PIA, I hate to say it but you're ignoring (at least a little bit) the FACT that plenty of countries have watched in horror AS their criminal justice system was ruined, plenty of countries have watched in horror as their nation of laws was steadily and then inexorably transformed into first a nation of men, then an absolute cult of personality.

And when one takes into account the larger number, one realizes that out of that larger number, it was only one third that "watched in horror".

Another third cheered and the remaining third sat on their keisters and watched TV or otherwise ignored what was happening until they were literally unable to ignore it any longer.

This is not a rare occurrence in human history.
It's our democracy that is the rare occurrence.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/27/19 11:41 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
If about 50% of the voters don't think crime should be punished if the perpetrator is a member of your Party, then our criminal justice system is ruined: Zero convictions would ever happen again! If you can't convince the average person with scientific, eye-witness, or video recorded evidence of some fact, then we are lost as a Republic. So I doubt your analysis.

I think Trump has a hard core of loyalists who accept anything he says as Revealed Truth, no matter what evidence refutes it. But I bet they are less that 5% of the voters. Most people actually manage to function in the real world, so they have some ability to see reality as it is.

This explains why Trump has rallies where he endorses Republican candidates in Red States, and then they lose. 2018 happened. These recent races happened. Trump's endorsed candidates are almost all losing or winning by much lower than usual margins for their district or state.

One more time, about half of America think Trump has committed crimes, the other half think he hasn't. If you think someone hasn't committed a crime, you don't vote to send him to the gallows. We've been at a juncture where 6 members of the jury thinks the guy is guilty, the other 6 innocent. Each side is convinced they're right. One side will never understand how the other side thinks guilty and vice versa. Hung Jury.

Impeachment is a political process, like any political processes and votes, there will be repercussions. What they will be I haven't the slightest idea. But we'll find out in November of Next Year.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/28/19 03:03 AM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
If about 50% of the voters don't think crime should be punished if the perpetrator is a member of your Party, then our criminal justice system is ruined: Zero convictions would ever happen again! If you can't convince the average person with scientific, eye-witness, or video recorded evidence of some fact, then we are lost as a Republic. So I doubt your analysis.

I think Trump has a hard core of loyalists who accept anything he says as Revealed Truth, no matter what evidence refutes it. But I bet they are less that 5% of the voters. Most people actually manage to function in the real world, so they have some ability to see reality as it is.

This explains why Trump has rallies where he endorses Republican candidates in Red States, and then they lose. 2018 happened. These recent races happened. Trump's endorsed candidates are almost all losing or winning by much lower than usual margins for their district or state.

One more time, about half of America think Trump has committed crimes, the other half think he hasn't. If you think someone hasn't committed a crime, you don't vote to send him to the gallows. We've been at a juncture where 6 members of the jury thinks the guy is guilty, the other 6 innocent. Each side is convinced they're right. One side will never understand how the other side thinks guilty and vice versa. Hung Jury.

Impeachment is a political process, like any political processes and votes, there will be repercussions. What they will be I haven't the slightest idea. But we'll find out in November of Next Year.



Except it's not a referendum. There are 100 opinions that matter.

The verdict will be straight down party lines, with one person on either side defecting. Total.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/28/19 04:37 AM

I would agree but you have disregarded the context of why Senate Republicans will not vote for conviction. It's not that they can not see the impeachable offense ... it is they understand the political repercussions if they say anything about it. Those are two different animals. And that was the point in my post.

The polls could show 90% of Americans would vote for conviction but that does not mean Senate Republicans would convict. They would still have to face .... {{{{{THE BASE}}}}}.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/28/19 05:31 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
I would agree but you have disregarded the context of why Senate Republicans will not vote for conviction. It's not that they can not see the impeachable offense ... it is they understand the political repercussions if they say anything about it. Those are two different animals. And that was the point in my post.

The polls could show 90% of Americans would vote for conviction but that does not mean Senate Republicans would convict. They would still have to face .... {{{{{THE BASE}}}}}.


Hence my comment on the senate voting 98% along party lines.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/28/19 01:24 PM

could be two democrats, Jones Alabama and Manchin West Virginia where Trump approval is at 60% plus. Perhaps as many as 4-5 GOP senators, but you're right. It will be pretty much along party lines.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/28/19 01:54 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
I would agree but you have disregarded the context of why Senate Republicans will not vote for conviction. It's not that they can not see the impeachable offense ... it is they understand the political repercussions if they say anything about it. Those are two different animals. And that was the point in my post.

The polls could show 90% of Americans would vote for conviction but that does not mean Senate Republicans would convict. They would still have to face .... {{{{{THE BASE}}}}}.






Self preservation, they would if their jobs depended on it. But I disagree with your premise that they see that Trump has committed impeachable offensives. Almost all senators are party animals for sure. The vote in the senate will be pretty much along party lines. Foregone conclusion. But most GOP senators don't see where Trump has committed an impeachable offense. At least not in what I've read, heard or listened to. They view impeachment as a partisan political vendetta trying to over turn a legal election.

This, the Democratic side can't understand, the Republican side can't understand why the Democrats are going after Trump. This isn't set in legal terms, but as a political process which impeachment is. Perhaps Trump could be convicted in a court of law, maybe not. But impeachment is played out in the political arena, not the legal arena.

In the political arena, both parties are close to equal strength. The Democrats have an advantage of 31-28% over the GOP if Gallup is to be believed. That means both parties must woo independents. On impeachment, independents are split right down the middle, roughly 45-45 with the remaining 10% not giving a darn one way or the other.

There are hard, set, feelings about this on both sides. Feelings set in concrete. That isn't about to change.
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/28/19 06:14 PM

I think you are probably right, insofar as the Democrat and Republican voters are concerned, kinda. On the other hand, pretty much proven in another topic, that the Democrats are so busy fighting with one another, up to the point of actually not voting against Trump, that they may get their wish for 4 more years of Trump. I know, they will deny, but the end result of their battles can easily end up with 4 more years of Trump.

Its kinda like the current crop of Democratic candidates. I no longer waste my time on the 'debates' as they are, pretty much, a waste of time. The candidates rarely even mention their opponent, Trump, as they seem more dedicated to wrecking their Democratic opposition instead.

One can only wonder...................
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/28/19 06:25 PM

Greger said something about "burning the MF-er to the ground".

Yes, I'd love to burn the MF-er to the ground, let me put my disabled wife and son on the front line so at least they will go quickly and painlessly.
Okay, ready now, hand me the blowtorch, because with them gone, I have nothing left to lose.

What? I don't want to lose them yet?
Dammit, I guess I'm a fascist lover!
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/28/19 06:54 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
I think you are probably right, insofar as the Democrat and Republican voters are concerned, kinda. On the other hand, pretty much proven in another topic, that the Democrats are so busy fighting with one another, up to the point of actually not voting against Trump, that they may get their wish for 4 more years of Trump. I know, they will deny, but the end result of their battles can easily end up with 4 more years of Trump.

Its kinda like the current crop of Democratic candidates. I no longer waste my time on the 'debates' as they are, pretty much, a waste of time. The candidates rarely even mention their opponent, Trump, as they seem more dedicated to wrecking their Democratic opposition instead.

One can only wonder...................

I think unless the Democrats nominate the wrong candidate, ala 2016 with Hillary Clinton, they should win easily. I would say after Trump, Americans, especially independents are looking for someone who can provide steady, reliable leadership. A return to normalcy so to speak. Not someone with fancy huge, gigantic new ideas. I realize this isn't what the Democrats want to hear, but I think it is true. Who that candidate is, that is up to the Democrats to decide.

I think Obama is correct, after all he has been elected twice as president. The Democrats do have an advantage, Trump isn't liked much by independents. But this was also the case in 2016. 57% of independents disliked Trump, but 70% disliked Clinton. Question 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

This enabled Trump to win the independent vote and thus the white house. If I were a Democrat, I'd be looking for someone to provide that steady, reliable leadership that independents are looking for. Not someone who is planning on pushing this country 50,000 miles to the left with a lot of new government programs. New huge government programs work for the Democrats base and left leaning independents. Maybe not for those independents looking for common sense leadership after the chaos of Trump's. Trump will get his vote, the democrats theirs. The question is what are the swing voters looking for and how does one attract them?

What worries me is that the democrats may not have learned the most valuable lesson from 2016. That to those non-affiliated, less to non-partisan voters, call them independents, perhaps swing voters for the lack of a better word, phrase, candidates matter.

It seems to me, because they will be running against Trump that quite a lot of democrats think they can throw anyone out there and still win. The election is in the bag, guaranteed victory. I don't think that is the case. Time will tell.
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/28/19 09:40 PM

Here is something that can change everything. Apparently the trump attorneys have agreed to send their appeal of the Trump tax thing to the supremes which will, then, in theory, "The court’s action signals that, even as Congress considers impeaching Trump, the court will undertake a more complete consideration of the legal powers of Congress and state prosecutors to investigate the president while he is in office."

I think this means that several things will be decided. The first is whether the Trump packing of the Supreme Court works for him. This is one everybody would like to know. If they do not decide in Trump's favor AND give the house the power to get folks to testify who have refused so far we will be in an entirely different world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...1ebc_story.html
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/28/19 10:50 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
Here is something that can change everything. Apparently the trump attorneys have agreed to send their appeal of the Trump tax thing to the supremes which will, then, in theory, "The court’s action signals that, even as Congress considers impeaching Trump, the court will undertake a more complete consideration of the legal powers of Congress and state prosecutors to investigate the president while he is in office."

I think this means that several things will be decided. The first is whether the Trump packing of the Supreme Court works for him. This is one everybody would like to know. If they do not decide in Trump's favor AND give the house the power to get folks to testify who have refused so far we will be in an entirely different world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...1ebc_story.html


I knew it was just a matter of time before the SCOTUS heard the case about Trump's tax returns. This is an old article, but here is the catch.

"As the Supreme Court explained in Watkins v. United States, “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure.” Rather, if Congress wants to collect information from the executive branch or other outsiders, it must do so in connection with its legislative power. That is, a Congressional attempt to investigate an official or request information from him is valid only to the extent it serves proper legislative purposes.*** Congress cannot simply engage in “a fruitless investigation into the personal affairs of individuals.” Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 195 (1880).."

https://yalejreg.com/nc/can-congress-get-president-trumps-tax-returns/

That is from the SCOTUS itself. there's a lot more which basically leaves the whole thing up in the air. Then what exactly is "proper legislative purposes?" Passing or drawing up legislation? So like everything else surrounding Trump, it's a "We'll see." Every time I predict any ruling by the SCOTUS, I get it wrong. I read the Constitution in plain English, the SCOTUS reads it in lawyerese.

I've always thought if congress subpoenas someone, they must appear. Now they can take the fifth, but they must show up. Perhaps we need a SCOTUS ruling on how far and what does executive privileged cover.

One thing is certain in my mind. The Congress needs to get back a lot of their Constitutional powers they voluntary ceded away to the administration and other government agencies and departments. The way I see it, congressional members of the party of the president have been more members of that president's administration than members of the institution of congress. It's been this way for 50 plus years or more. Probably ever since Sam Rayburn and Mike McCormick stepped down as Speaker. Both were very protective of the powers of congress and neither would cede any. Not even to a president of their own party.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/29/19 12:46 AM

That requirement that Congress can't go on a fishing expedition only applies when they are NOT considering impeachment. During an impeachment proceeding, all immunity to investigation of the Executive Branch goes away. According to the Constitution, impeachment is an enumerated power of The House. In order to impeach, they have to have the tools of investigation. So this case is pretty moot now.

Also, the President has no power to say when an impeachment is legitimate. That is up to The House, and again according to the Constitution they get to make their own procedural rules.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/29/19 01:53 AM

I agree as far as impeachment is concerned. Tax returns are another matter or are you saying that the house wants them as part of the impeachment process? The house, democrats have wanted them way before the election of 2016. Way before impeachment was even thought about, back when Trump was but a candidate. It might be difficult arguing that Democrats, the house wanting his tax returns solely for impeachment reason and not for purely political reasons trying to get a gotcha. Not when the democrats have been harping on them for 3 plus years now.

I don't know, not a lawyer. your guess is as good as mine. I certainly get everything wrong when the SCOTUS comes into play. I don't speak Lawyerese.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/29/19 11:09 AM

It doesn't matter if they wanted them in 2017. They are impeaching him NOW. They are entitled to them NOW. But even before the impeachment, the law that House committees can obtain the President's tax returns has no exceptions. It says "shall". It does not say "shall if the President allows it" or "shall if it's for a legislative purpose". And besides, they already listed several legitimate legislative purposes. Just claiming it's political is nonsense: Everything the Congress or President does is political. It's call Checks and Balances.

In 2016, the people voted and Trump won. That has to be honored. In 2018 the people voted and they made the House Democratic. That has to be honored, too.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/29/19 12:27 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
In 2016, the people voted and Trump won. That has to be honored. In 2018 the people voted and they made the House Democratic. That has to be honored, too.

Not to put too fine on a point on how Trump ascended to the White House, but...Trump was not "democratically elected" - he lost by 2.9 million votes. He was "constitutionally elected," by an 18th century constitutional design that includes a ban on foreign bribes to the president and that offers impeachment and removal as a remedy for bribe-seeking.

smile
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/29/19 02:11 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
It doesn't matter if they wanted them in 2017. They are impeaching him NOW. They are entitled to them NOW. But even before the impeachment, the law that House committees can obtain the President's tax returns has no exceptions. It says "shall". It does not say "shall if the President allows it" or "shall if it's for a legislative purpose". And besides, they already listed several legitimate legislative purposes. Just claiming it's political is nonsense: Everything the Congress or President does is political. It's call Checks and Balances.

In 2016, the people voted and Trump won. That has to be honored. In 2018 the people voted and they made the House Democratic. That has to be honored, too.

You may be right about the tax returns. We'll see. I'm just not sure. Trump, the polarization of America and the ultra high partisanship on both sides of the aisle has turned the political world upside down. For someone as old as me, who has seen better times among the major parties, this really sucks.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/29/19 02:39 PM

Major reasons why Hillary lost. 1 she was lazy and ceded the campaign trail to Trump. Trump made 116 campaign visits, stops, appearances, held rallies from 1 Sep through 8 Nov 2016 to Hillary's 71. That 71 looks larger than it was, it includes fund raisers in deep blue California and New York.

2 lack of enthusiasm in Hillary base. Her Ho Hum Campaign. The Democrats had a 6 point advantage in party affiliation back in Nov 2016. But only a 3 point advantage among those who actually turned out to vote. Trump's supporters were energetic and enthusiastic, willing to go to the four corners of the earth for him. Hillary's wouldn't even go to the polls.

3 A very inept campaign strategy on Hillary's part. That is if you call receiving more electoral vote than Obama did a strategy. She spent way too much time, energy and money trying to win Georgia, Arizona and Utah. While ignoring her backyard, the so called blue wall states.

4 The media, Hillary ceded the media to Trump also. Hillary basically hid from the media going over 200 days without a press conference, only going on shows that were 100% in support for her like the view. Every day Trump would be calling into every morning talk show, whether they were for him or against him. Trump kept his name in the limelight, always the lead story and headliner on the news. Sure Hillary raised and outspent Trump 1.191 billion to 646.8 million, but Trump was the master of the free media.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

5 The Sanders vote. Jury rigging of the Democratic primaries in Hillary's favor by the DNC and Democratic state party leaders made a lot of them angry. Who knows how many stayed home. But in those who voted, Hillary won them 75-12 over Trump with 13% voting third party. Compare those number to Hillary's base numbers, Democrats, she won them 89-8 over Trump with just 3% voting third party.

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

And of course many other reasons. But the above Hillary had direct control over. Had she not ceded the campaign trail to Trump, she'd be sitting in the white house today. Had she inspired her base, she'd be in the oval office. If democrats had turnout to vote in the same percentage as republicans did, she'd be president today. Had she adopted her husband Bill's campaign strategy instead of being so stubborn, she would have won. Had she not ignored the media, instead of hiding, and on and on.

As far as I'm concerned, Hillary caused her own defeat. You can blame it on the electoral college, the Russians, any number of things. But that doesn't explain Hillary's laziness, her inept campaign strategy, her ho hum campaign, among other reasons. Sure she won the popular vote in spite of all her shortcomings. Just think if she actually tried to win how much more that margin would have been.

The only reason I can come up with for all the above, is that Hillary thought her election was in the bag, guaranteed. All she had to do was show up, the election would be handed to her. fait accompli
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/29/19 04:52 PM

Quote:
Major reasons why Hillary lost.

1 she was lazy and ceded the campaign trail to Trump.

A very inept campaign strategy

The media, Hillary ceded the media to Trump also.

The Sanders vote.

The only reason I can come up with for all the above, is that Hillary thought her election was in the bag, guaranteed


And despite all that she won by nearly 3 million votes. Yet Donald Trump was installed to the office.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/29/19 05:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Major reasons why Hillary lost.

1 she was lazy and ceded the campaign trail to Trump.

A very inept campaign strategy

The media, Hillary ceded the media to Trump also.

The Sanders vote.

The only reason I can come up with for all the above, is that Hillary thought her election was in the bag, guaranteed


And despite all that she won by nearly 3 million votes. Yet Donald Trump was installed to the office.

Yep, exactly. Makes one wonder, at least me, why Hillary didn't give it the old college try. Either there was something physically wrong with her or she absolutely believed whether she tried or not, the election was her's. She really didn't need to show up.

As an avid follower of elections ever since I watched the Democratic and Republican conventions way back in 1956 on an old black and white TV, I never saw a major party candidate give such a lackadaisical effort. The closest I can come was to G.H.W. Bush's 1992 performance where he appeared he didn't care if he won or lost until 2 weeks prior to the election when he went into overdrive. By then it was too late.

I'm sure if the democrats in 2020 look at how Hillary conducted her campaign, do the exact opposite, they'll win in a landslide. With Sanders energy he showed during 2016, I believe he would have beaten Trump by 10-15 million votes. Besides, Sanders was respected and liked by the swing, independent voter. Hillary wasn't. Sanders was one of three candidates to be viewed more positively than negatively by independent voters. The other two, Kasich and Rubio. But none of them went through the general election campaign, so who knows how the public would have viewed them on election day.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/29/19 06:59 PM

Quote:
she absolutely believed whether she tried or not, the election was her's.


She read the same polls we did.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/29/19 07:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
she absolutely believed whether she tried or not, the election was her's.


She read the same polls we did.

And then Comey announced that emails had been found on Mr. Dik Pix's computer two weeks before the election...
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/29/19 08:43 PM

I saw nothing in those polls that I would assume victory.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...inton-5491.html

The polls predicted a 3 point win for Hillary in the popular vote, she won by 2. With a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points, the polls were right on as far as the popular vote goes.

The electoral college was different, RCP had it 203 Clinton, 164 Trump with the rest too close to call or predict.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Was she looking at the same polls we were or at internal polling which the public doesn't have access? She probably did the same thing as I did, due to the history of the states I automatically gave Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Iowa to Hillary. Boy was I wrong about Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Iowa. I never seen those states coming.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/29/19 11:15 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
could be two democrats, Jones Alabama and Manchin West Virginia where Trump approval is at 60% plus. Perhaps as many as 4-5 GOP senators, but you're right. It will be pretty much along party lines.


Jones and Manchin are republicans in all but name.

That was the 2% I was talking about.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/29/19 11:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Originally Posted By: perotista
could be two democrats, Jones Alabama and Manchin West Virginia where Trump approval is at 60% plus. Perhaps as many as 4-5 GOP senators, but you're right. It will be pretty much along party lines.


Jones and Manchin are republicans in all but name.

That was the 2% I was talking about.


Hmm, DINO's huh? You just hit on my major problem. I'm so use to having Republicans dub so and so a RINO, not so much a Democrat as a DINO. I was taught way back when in civics class that those officials we elect are support represent the people who elected them. In other words, Representatives, the people of their districts, senators the people of their state. First and foremost I might add. It sounds like you don't like that. That you think our elected officials should only represent their political party and not the people. Toe the party line.

Manchin and Jones if they were to vote NAY on convict and remove, would be doing exactly what the people of West Virginia and Alabama want them to do. Representing the people of their state instead of the DNC or the Democratic Party. The same applies to Collins, Maine, Gardner Colorado, a couple of other Republicans, if they represent the people of their state instead of their party, they'll vote AYE to convict and remove. If they don't, they just representing the Republican Party and not the people.

I'll never be a political party animal. Not when I must show more loyalty to the party then to the people of my district, my state, America as a whole. There was a time when representatives and senators listen to the people, not anymore. It's the party leaders that call the shots, most heed exactly what the party leaders order, walk that line like a mindless robot bowing to the party leaders. Not caring about the wishes and wants of the folks in their district and state. Basically telling them to go to Hades in a hand basket.

No wonder we are so divided, so polarized today. Our elected official most just listen and obey party leaders. Not the folks they supposedly represent.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 12:55 AM

Quote:
they were to vote NAY on convict and remove, would be doing exactly what the people of ... want them to do.
huh????

A Senate trial is not representing a state regarding new legislation. They are jurors who represent the nation ... the whole of America ... in accordance with the Constitution. That any senator would rely on polling or what their constituency believes or wants them to do does not sound like those senators ever listened to the evidence.

I did not read the rest of your post as I now believe the Great Experiment is a failure. We should dissolve the union, break into the various states, and become 50 3rd rate countries. We deserve it.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 01:01 AM

Going into the last 11 days of the campaign she had a 6-8 advantage despite all the reasons she "lost". So imagine if she had done everything right, she would have had a 12-15 point advantage, and yet, you again have ignored the Comey effect.

It was palpable long distance over the inet. I felt it and sensed dropping numbers as soon as Dir Comey finished talking.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 01:58 AM

If the Senate vote to convict and remove could be held in secret, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, we'd be measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 02:46 AM

Quote:
It was palpable long distance over the inet. I felt it and sensed dropping numbers as soon as Dir Comey finished talking.


I remember that very moment.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 03:35 AM

Quote:
With Sanders energy he showed during 2016, I believe he would have beaten Trump by 10-15 million votes.


Yes, Sanders polled well in 2016, but that was only because the Republicans never said a word against him. They wanted him to win the nomination because he would have been so easy to defeat. Had he become the candidate, they would have gone into hysterical red-baiting mode. The fact that he self-labelled as a Socialist for so long would be on everybody's mind. Then a few weeks before the election, they would have dragged out some of his early writing in which he expressed some sympathy for teenagers convicted of sexual crimes. So they would add "PEDOPHILE" to "COMMUNIST" and by the election he would have been lucky to get 10% of the vote.

Personally, I love Bernie and I would be happy to live in the country he envisions. But candidates with a gigantic boat anchor chained around their necks don't win. All Hillary had in her past was that Republicans smeared her for 30 years. Bernie had real stuff.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 06:06 AM

Originally Posted By: perotista

Toe the party line.



If the other party is functionally insane, that is not an unsound philosophy.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 06:08 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
We should dissolve the union, break into the various states, and become 50 3rd rate countries. We deserve it.


That's going to happen within the next 10 years or so, anyway.

The United States have reached a level of complexity that makes it increasingly impossible to govern as a single entity.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 01:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
If the Senate vote to convict and remove could be held in secret, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, we'd be measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.

I think you're wrong. I think we have more than enough secrecy in government than to let our legislatures conduct their or shall I say the peoples business in secret also. I'm sure they would love that, no one could ever be held accountable.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 01:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Originally Posted By: perotista

Toe the party line.



If the other party is functionally insane, that is not an unsound philosophy.


Politics is always about perspectives. Personal perspectives. I have no doubt most republicans think the Democrats are insane and their philosophy is totally unAmerican.

from my peach, I think both parties have crossed the insanity line.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 01:19 PM

Take the Northeast down to Virginia, add the west coast, throw in a couple of states around the great lakes, you have your division. The rest is the other country.

I remember a time when outside of the solid democratic south every other state was in play when it came to presidential elections. I've been working on my senate, house and presidential forecasts on another site, I find at the moment, only five states that can't be placed in one or the other column. Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. These are in my mind, as of today, the only toss up states on the map.

Polarization has become a fact of life in our politics today. We have in my opinion reached the point where political parties have become much more important than the country as a whole. So division may end up being the only remaining solution.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 04:04 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
If the Senate vote to convict and remove could be held in secret, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, we'd be measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.

I think you're wrong. I think we have more than enough secrecy in government than to let our legislatures conduct their or shall I say the peoples business in secret also. I'm sure they would love that, no one could ever be held accountable.


Of course. I know, that is the problem. They are paralyzed with fear of the Trump base, which isn't large enough to reelect the guy but certainly large enough to throw the individual Congress critters out of office.
And with a job as cushy as that one, nobody wants to leave. The gravy train and the power is more important to them than the fate of the country's future.
I was mocking their lack of accountability and their lack of balls, because deep down I am sure that at least twenty Republican secretly agree that Trump's excesses are damaging our democracy and respect for the law itself.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 07:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
If the Senate vote to convict and remove could be held in secret, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, we'd be measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.

I think you're wrong. I think we have more than enough secrecy in government than to let our legislatures conduct their or shall I say the peoples business in secret also. I'm sure they would love that, no one could ever be held accountable.


Of course. I know, that is the problem. They are paralyzed with fear of the Trump base, which isn't large enough to reelect the guy but certainly large enough to throw the individual Congress critters out of office.
And with a job as cushy as that one, nobody wants to leave. The gravy train and the power is more important to them than the fate of the country's future.
I was mocking their lack of accountability and their lack of balls, because deep down I am sure that at least twenty Republican secretly agree that Trump's excesses are damaging our democracy and respect for the law itself.

Perhaps, doubtful, but perhaps. There was a time when most states had one R and one D representing them in the senate. That's no longer the case. Most deep red states have two R's and deep blue states 2 D's with very little play among the rest. the deep red states are convinced Trump has done nothing wrong, the deep blue states that Trump has done everything wrong. That is the nature of our present political situation.

How many are split? Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin. that's 9, I can remember when 30 states were split between the parties, the main exception was the solid democratic south.

I really don't think a secret vote would change much.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 07:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
If the Senate vote to convict and remove could be held in secret, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, we'd be measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.

I think you're wrong. I think we have more than enough secrecy in government than to let our legislatures conduct their or shall I say the peoples business in secret also. I'm sure they would love that, no one could ever be held accountable.


Of course. I know, that is the problem. They are paralyzed with fear of the Trump base, which isn't large enough to reelect the guy but certainly large enough to throw the individual Congress critters out of office.
And with a job as cushy as that one, nobody wants to leave. The gravy train and the power is more important to them than the fate of the country's future.
I was mocking their lack of accountability and their lack of balls, because deep down I am sure that at least twenty Republican secretly agree that Trump's excesses are damaging our democracy and respect for the law itself.

And here's the public perception of the impeachment hearings, process so far.

Public response to impeachment hearings since their beginning. Comparing Trump’s approval ratings, percentage of those who want Trump impeached and removed along with those who don’t. As you can see Trump’s approval rating hasn’t really moved an inch. Then there is the party break down. Democrats totally for impeachment and removal, Republicans totally against. Independents split right down the middle. This impeachment isn’t an America battle. It’s a battle between parties. One party who has wanted Trump gone since the day after the election, the other fighting for him to stay. With the percentages listed below, one can only come to the conclusion this is purely, 100% a very partisan battle. Who’s right and who’s wrong, let history judge.
Impeachment hearings began on 13 Nov 2019 vs. 30 Nov 2019
Trump’s approval 13 Nov 43.9%, 26 Nov 43.5%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

13 Nov Democrats for impeachment and removal 82%, 30 Nov Democrats for impeachment and removal 87%.
13 Nov Republicans for impeachment and removal 12%, 30 Nov Republicans for impeachment and removal 9%.
13 Nov Independents for impeachment and removal 38%, 30 Nov Independents for impeachment and removal 44%.
13 Nov Democrats against impeachment and removal 6%, 30 Nov Democrats against impeachment and removal 8%.
13 Nov Republicans against impeachment and removal 80%, 30 Nov Republicans against impeachment and removal 88%.
13 Nov Independents against impeachment and removal 39%, 30 Nov Independents against impeachment and removal 45%.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...trump-6957.html
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 07:51 PM

Quote:
deep down I am sure that at least twenty Republican secretly agree that Trump's excesses are damaging our democracy and respect for the law itself.

Oh, I'm certain of it! But let's not forget that they consider it a goal to be attained at all costs. A feature...not a flaw. Plutocracy disguised as democracy is the aim. Donald Trump is the Perfect Plutocrat....here, this is a good example of it...

Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 08:53 PM

Quote:
one can only come to the conclusion this is purely, 100% a very partisan battle.


And the argument can be made that practically every facet of our government has been reduced to purely 100% very partisan battles.
Practically every facet of our lives.

I'm down with the revolution, bring out the torches and pitchforks!

As long as my check shows up each month we're all good.

No one despises Donald Trump and the Republican Party more than I do. But still, I don't consider myself a "partisan". I've got no particular love for Democrats and I don't find this Ukraine thing to be a big deal. It's a Benghazi Her Emails thing, Lock Her Up!

But the Democratic Base was screaming for it.

So here we go, even though no laws were demonstrably broken as far as the jury is concerned they press on with their case.

This is Donald Trump, the third generation leader of a white-collar criminal family. He is probably guilty of innumerable crimes that would disqualify him from the presidency. But just as Donald Trump has proven himself to be ruthless in digging up dirt on his opponents he also covers up his own dirt completely. Donald Trump is a financial criminal and no one will ever be able to prove it.

He's where he is because he's good at what he does.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 09:04 PM

Quote:
We should dissolve the union, break into the various states, and become 50 3rd rate countries.


49 3rd rate countries and my country that would have the fifth largest economy in the world. Hardly "third-rate". We would be better off economically, as would many blue states. Actually, many states would form new unions.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 11/30/19 10:52 PM

PIA ... clearly I was a bit hyperbolic as it is well known there are several states which could easily compete in a global market place and not devolve into some kind of conservative fascist dream.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/01/19 12:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
one can only come to the conclusion this is purely, 100% a very partisan battle.


And the argument can be made that practically every facet of our government has been reduced to purely 100% very partisan battles.
Practically every facet of our lives.

I'm down with the revolution, bring out the torches and pitchforks!

As long as my check shows up each month we're all good.

No one despises Donald Trump and the Republican Party more than I do. But still, I don't consider myself a "partisan". I've got no particular love for Democrats and I don't find this Ukraine thing to be a big deal. It's a Benghazi Her Emails thing, Lock Her Up!

But the Democratic Base was screaming for it.

So here we go, even though no laws were demonstrably broken as far as the jury is concerned they press on with their case.

This is Donald Trump, the third generation leader of a white-collar criminal family. He is probably guilty of innumerable crimes that would disqualify him from the presidency. But just as Donald Trump has proven himself to be ruthless in digging up dirt on his opponents he also covers up his own dirt completely. Donald Trump is a financial criminal and no one will ever be able to prove it.

He's where he is because he's good at what he does.


Perhaps partisan is the wrong word. I'm not sure. We do have one party who declared war on Trump, basically from the day after the election. The other party has retaliated to keep him. So this is a war between major parties. The results are preordained. Trump stays.

But I was curious enough to take a look back at Nixon and the numbers when impeachment hearings began in the House back in 1974. I'm taking formal impeachment hearings, not the Watergate committee.

Nixon - Republicans 19% for, 70% against. Trump 9% for, 88% against.
Nixon - Democrats 58% for, 27% against, Trump 87% for, 8% against.
Nixon - Independents 43% for, 42% against, Trump 44% for, 45% against

Independents are almost identical for both Nixon and Trump. It's the major parties where the differences lie. A 30 point difference among Democrats. Probably due to the era of our politics. We weren't as polarized or as partisan back in 1974 as we are today. Certainly not as ideological crazed. Partisanship, my party right or wrong has definitely grown immensely since 1974. There also wasn't the hate of each party for the other either.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/01/19 05:42 PM

I think partisan is the right word.

Donald Trump chose to rule as a partisan. Focusing entirely on the desires of his partisan base. In theory, a president leads the entire nation, Trump chose to lead only Republicans. Every rally, speech, policy, decision, statement or tweet is designed to anger his enemies...Democrats.

He has no other enemies in the world. He has literally declared war on half of America. So yes...there's going to be a bit of a partisan backlash.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/01/19 05:46 PM

I'm partisan as hell. Right now, it makes sense to be partisan.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/01/19 06:15 PM

I fully understand we have entered the era of polarization and ultra high partisanship. Loyalty to party, for the good of the party, not the nation or the country.

I remember a time when it wasn't this way. Perhaps I have grown too darn old. I'm totally ashamed for those who put party first and foremost. We've forgotten what it means to be an American.

Trump be damned, democrats and republicans be damned. I have finally given up on the whole thing. You all do whatever you want to the country. what a waste.
Posted by: HumblePi

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/01/19 09:37 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
I fully understand we have entered the era of polarization and ultra high partisanship. Loyalty to party, for the good of the party, not the nation or the country.

I remember a time when it wasn't this way. Perhaps I have grown too darn old. I'm totally ashamed for those who put party first and foremost. We've forgotten what it means to be an American.

Trump be damned, democrats and republicans be damned. I have finally given up on the whole thing. You all do whatever you want to the country. what a waste.


This state of affairs that we're finding ourselves struggling with is unprecedented to say the least. I, as you seem to be, have thrown my hands up in the air (for today anyway) and damn everyone of each party and, for better or worse, let the chips fall where they seem to be destined to fall.

I realize, as many others do, that our government is under control of the Kremlin. The right has made the choice to keep their blinders on. Although they may understand what has happened yet reject these dire facts in favor of partisan politics, leaves little choice but to relinquish our democracy to the more influential forces of Russia which are guiding the compass of our democratic government.

There's little that will impeach Trump at this point and unless someone like John Bolton or Mike Pompeo suddenly become true patriots rather than a book-pusher, or ambitious career seeker, we'll be looking at the reelection of the worst president in U.S.history. In that case, 2021 will signal a whole new beginning for this country. We should all be able to judge from the past what the future will hold for this country. Personally, I have no hope that our democracy will survive for much longer.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/01/19 10:27 PM

Should I ask "craig234" to join the Rant?
Seems he's totally on topic with this post on DP.

Originally Posted By: craig234
It's odd how people can look at corruption in plain sight and not recognize it.

Here's a hint: when 'free' isn't 'free'.

Here's what much of the public thinks is happening with Rudy Giuliani and trump: trump has hired Rudy as his personal attorney, and a media front-man; Rudy has been found to employ two suspicious American immigrants linked to Ukraine, who have been charged with crimes.

What they don't realize, or appreciate, and has been little focused on by the media: the actual situation is that trump pays nothing to Rudy, who is his lawyer for 'free', and Rudy has paid nothing to the two Ukranians who 'work for him' - one of the Ukranians has paid Rudy at least $500,000.

Now, what does all that suggest about what's going on? Who's working for whom and why? And this is the US president we're talking about in this mess.

The same guy who chose a campaign manager for president who offered to work for "free", who was then convicted of being an unregistered agent for the Putin-supported communist regime in Ukraine at the time. Manafort offered to work for "free" to gain influence to help the Russian oligarch he owed tens of millions of dollars to...

'Free' is often very expensive.

trump works for 'free' not taking a salary - as he takes millions in emoluments, in tax dollars from stays at his properties (he just hit 100 visits to Maralago), and tax cuts for wealthy taxpayers.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/02/19 06:47 PM

He seems a reasonable poster. Like Perotista, not a flame-thrower, which is a style I prefer. I can get snide (when it seems warranted), but I can't keep it up. I make as much fun of myself as I do of others, which I think is healthy. People like that seem to make the best Ranters.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/02/19 07:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
I'm partisan as hell. Right now, it makes sense to be partisan.
I have been accused of being a "partisan" - which I personally find incredibly amusing - but I confess to having strong opinions. I don't see that as the same thing at all. There are things that I am, truly, a partisan* about: civil liberties, social justice, equality, fairness, the Constitution, good government... it's a long list. But I'm not an uncritical supporter of a party, so not a partisan in that manner. I am, however, an extremely stern critic of the Republican party and of extremism in nearly any form. The one thing I don't tolerate is intolerance. I won't put up with it.

* "a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person."
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/02/19 08:05 PM

Quote:
The one thing I don't tolerate is intolerance.
So I had to wonder if my intolerance of intolerance makes it tolerate of me to be intolerant? Reminds me of sugar-plums dancing in my brain ... I think I'll try to figure out when bribery is not bribery but something perfect
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/02/19 09:10 PM

Quote:
something perfect

Be careful: There be dragons in that direction.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/02/19 09:41 PM

Originally Posted By: HumblePi


I realize, as many others do, that our government is under control of the Kremlin.


"Ukraine did it" is direct from the Russian GRU.
(military intelligence)
This is confirmed by Trump appointee Fiona Hill, plus seventeen US intelligence agencies, which by the way have already BRIEFED Republicans in closed door classified sessions.

They were also briefed in closed door sessions by the following who testified IN ADDITION TO their public appearances.

Marie Yovanovitch
Fiona Hill
George Kent
Michael McKinley
Gordon D. Sondland
William Taylor
Laura Cooper
Philip Reeker
Alexander S. Vindman
Tim Morrison

So, Republicans ALREADY KNOW this is a fact.
And they're still pumping this nonsense anyway, which for me at least, is the textbook definition of "acting as an unregistered foreign agent".

Ergo, Republicans in Congress are, with few exceptions, unregistered foreign agents working for the Kremlin.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/02/19 09:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas

So, Republicans ALREADY KNOW this is a fact.
And they're still pumping this nonsense anyway, which for me at least, is the textbook definition of "acting as an unregistered foreign agent".

Ergo, Republicans in Congress are, with few exceptions, unregistered foreign agents working for the Kremlin.


I am unsure why this would be a surprise. The current crop of the GOP, starting with McConnell, are devoid of any morals whatsoever, and working against US interests with the Russians doesn't seem to pose any problem at all.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/02/19 10:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas

So, Republicans ALREADY KNOW this is a fact.
And they're still pumping this nonsense anyway, which for me at least, is the textbook definition of "acting as an unregistered foreign agent".

Ergo, Republicans in Congress are, with few exceptions, unregistered foreign agents working for the Kremlin.


I am unsure why this would be a surprise. The current crop of the GOP, starting with McConnell, are devoid of any morals whatsoever, and working against US interests with the Russians doesn't seem to pose any problem at all.
That is, genuinely, what I find so shocking. I am a real patriot. What they are is not fit for human company. I can't adequately describe it here. They are [censored] Traitors.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/02/19 11:14 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas

So, Republicans ALREADY KNOW this is a fact.
And they're still pumping this nonsense anyway, which for me at least, is the textbook definition of "acting as an unregistered foreign agent".

Ergo, Republicans in Congress are, with few exceptions, unregistered foreign agents working for the Kremlin.


I am unsure why this would be a surprise. The current crop of the GOP, starting with McConnell, are devoid of any morals whatsoever, and working against US interests with the Russians doesn't seem to pose any problem at all.
That is, genuinely, what I find so shocking. I am a real patriot. What they are is not fit for human company. I can't adequately describe it here. They are [censored] Traitors.


They're not even traitors. That would imply loyalties betrayed.

They're gangsters. They didn't have any loyalty to begin with.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/03/19 12:07 AM

Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/03/19 12:27 AM

I'm not throwing up my hands. Have Palestinians thrown up their hands?

Have black people given up the struggle? Have refugees stopped coming?

Donald Trump is a tempest in a teacup. Our napkins might get blown away, our crumpets damp, our scones all soggy, but in the end we'll have a laugh and clean up the mess.

I have an agenda. Global Utopian Social Democracy. A world where every nation is like the Scandinavian nations and everybody's happy, well paid, healthy and educated.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/03/19 12:28 AM

If John Bolton won't testify, arrest him.

TIME MAGAZINE
Posted by: HumblePi

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/03/19 01:30 AM

I know that the Democrats want to rush through this impeachment because they are pretty certain they have more than enough evidence to impeach Trump, but of course it doesn't matter how much evidence there is or how many witnesses they call, the Republicans will deny it, or say 'yeah he did something bad, but not impeachable bad'. So we're back to square one. The House will impeach, the Senate will not.

I would have preferred that the Democrats would have just bitten the bullet and went full steam on taking the refusals to obey subpoenas to court. The courts would have expedited those cases and since all subpoenas are legal and empowered by the Constitution to hand out, the courts would have to rule in favor of Congress. Then these people who were either ordered not to appear or refused out of fear of retribution would have to either appear or be jailed. Sure, that would take a couple of extra months and put us into the election cycle. But at this point I think it's the better choice because those testimonies under oath by people like Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton would be absolutely devastating for the Trump presidency.

Yeah, the country would be divided, but at this point how much more could it be divided than it already is? At least justice would be done and Trump would be not only impeached but removed from office. Denny Dimwit could beat Mike Pence if he replaced Trump in the 2020 election.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/03/19 02:35 AM

All of those subpoena cases are working their way through the courts. (Trump keeps on losing.) Some may be decided very soon at the Supreme Court. John Roberts legacy depends on it. And he has to be on the court for many years. Trump will be gone sooner or later. Why give up your legitimacy for somebody who is almost out of office? Trump has no loyalty to anybody: Why be loyal to him? You would ruin your reputation when the next Democratic administration sends him to prison.

All they have to do is refuse to hear the appeals at this point, which should be easy since there are no legal questions at issue.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/03/19 05:39 PM

Oh, by the way idea

Russia renewed SIX Trump trademarks--while interfering in the 2016 election — 4 were approved on Election Day.

BUT NO COLLUSION!!! NO COLLUSION!!! NO BUSINESS DEALS IN RUSSIA!!!
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/03/19 07:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Serenity
I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.


Idealism .... is it such a bad thing it is not to be pursued?
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/03/19 07:06 PM

Those trademarks may be worthless in the near future
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/03/19 07:28 PM

Sen Lindsey Graham is now promoting the idea of censure because it would have bi-partisan support and impeachment would be too traumatic to the country. Gee Senator .... when a public official, one who has been duly elected, violates the public trust, they has committed a Constitutional sin punishable by impeachment and hopefully removal. Of course it is traumatic, but necessary, as it is mandated by the Constitution.

For all the obfuscation Sen Graham has performed in service to his master, Mr Trump, it is clear he knows and understands Mr Trump broke his oath of office and something needs to be done to satisfy the Constitutional mandates dealt to Congress.

I haven't explored the ramifications of censure but superficially the first thing to come to me was the political implications. Could a presidential censure be more damaging politically to Mr Trump than an impeachment trial in which he is acquitted? I would hate to debase myself to support censure when the Constitution does not consider the matter political in nature.

I dunno ... what do you think????
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/03/19 08:17 PM

The impeachment document is out.

https://apnews.com/2aad68c64968dc6f1a450052bbadb90f
Posted by: HumblePi

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/03/19 09:11 PM

I have investigation censure to some degree and from what I've read it equates to basically a slap on the wrist. "You did a bad thing, shame-shame". That's about it. That's why Lindsey Graham is suggesting censure, not impeachment. A motion of censure expresses formalized disapproval but carries no practical consequences or sanctions. Should one pass against Trump, it would indicate that his fear-based grip on the Republican party’s sitting members had been broken.

As far as Trump’s personal reaction or impact, the only variable would be who or what he would blame because he has a lifelong record of always being blameless and without responsibility.
Posted by: HumblePi

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/03/19 09:13 PM

“The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment inquiry Report” provides a detailed, if stunning, account of a shadow diplomacy run by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, resulting in layers of allegations, which can be distilled into specific acts like bribery, extortion or obstruction, and the more amorphous allegation that Trump abused his power by putting his interests above the nation." AP press release
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/03/19 10:59 PM

Hamish :applaud:
Humble :applaud:
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/04/19 01:13 PM

Have had my copies since 6 pm yesterday. Now, just need some falling snow and a hot cup of decaf (yuk).
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/04/19 06:48 PM

So is Turley trying to say that what Trump has done is not as bad as lying about a blow job in the Oval Office?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/04/19 07:03 PM

SO:

(A) Lying about a blow job in the Oval Office - - Impeach and remove

(B) Bribery, extortion and obstruction of Congress - - Nothing to see here
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/04/19 07:19 PM

"If what we are talking about is not impeachable, then NOTHING is."
---Professor Michael Gerhardt
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/04/19 08:39 PM

As far as Republicans impeaching Republicans, I think we can safely say that nothing is impeachable.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/04/19 09:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
As far as Republicans impeaching Republicans, I think we can safely say that nothing is impeachable.


With the exception of "disloyalty to the loser in the whitehouse."
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/04/19 10:18 PM

Jonathan Turley's concept of "legitimate impeachment" is equivalent to Todd Akin's concept of "legitimate rape".
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/04/19 10:23 PM

Disloyalty to the supreme leader will be censured at the polls by the base.
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/04/19 11:10 PM

I watched some of the tv stuff today. Amazing! The Republicans continue to rank on the Dems for standing in the way of 'REAL' legislation (kinda like the 350+ pieces passed by the Dems and sent to languish in the Senate). The Dems, on the other hand, also continue - to allow charges like that, from the Republicans, to be said, again, and again, and again with nary a squeak. I think this is the Dem effort to assure Trump another term to REALLY screw us over whilst helping Russia as much as possible.

Oh, I believe that Trump was bailed out, to the tune of 4 billion dollars, between 10 and 7 years ago by Putin (may be off on the time stuff). There was a book that claimed that by a guy who had spent most of his life studying Trump and Russia (forget the name, posted it here a couple of years ago - House of Trump, House of Putin, The Untold - Craig Unger).
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/05/19 12:00 AM

I am very careful about "hit" books/pieces. They are generally very biased even if supported by facts. It is the nature of biased works to take the facts and distort to a preconceived conclusion. I don't know this book but in his previous book on the Bush's, I do know there has been some criticism of some of the conclusions and statements, to which he responded. I don't have the time to track down all the sources and develop my own conclusion, so the point is accept at your own risk. It may be fairly accurate or ...
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/05/19 12:44 AM

Quote:
spent most of his life studying Trump and Russia


Sounds like a wasted life.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/05/19 02:33 AM

IIRC Bill Barr testified under oath that spying was happening in the FBI.

Calls for Barr to Be Investigated–and Possibly Impeached –Intensify After Lying to Congress About FBI Spying

Quote:
Law&Crime reached out to former White House ethics counsel and current University of Minnesota Law School Professor Richard Painter for his take on Barr’s previous congressional testimony in light of the OIG’s soon-to-be-released findings.

Painter was asked if he thought Barr lied to Congress and, if so, whether such lies warranted Barr’s impeachment.

“Yes and yes,” Painter replied.

The full DOJ OIG report will be released December 9.


Well, guess what?

OIG's Durham says there's no "there there", and Barr was betting the farm there was, to the point where he swore there was, yes?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/05/19 08:24 AM

Speaking of delusions, some top psychiatrists and psychologists urgently want to testify before the House Justice Committee.

Trump’s mental state is deteriorating dangerously

Quotes from Yale Medical School Professor Dr Bandy Lee, George Washington University Professor Dr John Zinner, and former CIA profiler Dr Jerrold Post:

Quote:
the US president is “is ramping up his conspiracy theories” and “showing a great deal of cruelty and vindictiveness” in his “accelerated, repetitive tweets,” which she explained are signs that he is “doubling and a tripling down on his delusions”.

“Impeachment is the greatest threat to his self esteem that he’s experienced so far, and we’re very worried that his rage will be even more destructive than it’s been in the past,” he said.

He also dismissed Republicans who defend Mr Trump by claiming that his style is that of a blunt-talking New York businessman as “simply ignorant about the whole area of psychology that pertains to him”.

“These aren’t alternative viewpoints,” Dr Zinner explained, calling one “the product of very sound psychology... that comes from mainly from psychoanalytic theory, but is very established and sound and studied,” and the other “just ignorance and dismissiveness”.

Dr Lee explained that the president’s continued embrace [of] conspiracy theories was actually a public health issue because of his ability to draw members of the public into a “shared psychosis at the national level”.


I think he needs to resign "for health reasons" quite soon, or he's going to have a psychotic break. That could get very messy. Hopefully the Boys in Black are ready with the tranquilizer darts.
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/05/19 07:42 PM

I betcha being a laughing stock at the big meeting in the UK has not helped him at all - seems he cut and ran from that one............
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/05/19 08:27 PM

unfortunately it was his opinion using his definition of spying they spied. sorry can't persecute for opinions.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/06/19 01:34 AM

I think "the opinion" that the FBI is not supposed to investigate a possible crime is actually a delusion. We have loads of Trump's "opinions" actually being delusions, right from the size of his inauguration crowd.

Quote:
“I believe that they fit the pattern of delusions rather than just plain lies,” she continued, pointing to the claim he made during a meeting with Jens Stolenberg, Nato’s secretary-general, that “many legal scholars” were “looking at the transcripts” of his 25 July phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy and agreeing with his description of the call as “absolutely perfect” as an example of his pathology.


That's not an opinion, it's a delusion. He pulled that right out of his ass, and now he believes it.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/06/19 02:39 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
He pulled that right out of his ass, and now he believes it.

Are you saying it’s temious?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/06/19 03:36 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
He pulled that right out of his ass, and now he believes it.

Are you saying it’s temious?


If it is, there's probably some kind of cream for that.
Now all we need is a volunteer to rub it all over that ass.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/06/19 04:06 AM


Trump is the first president to score a trifecta in a single scheme:  abuse of power, betrayal of our national security and corruption of elections.

smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/06/19 04:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
He pulled that right out of his ass, and now he believes it.

Are you saying it’s temious?


If it is, there's probably some kind of cream for that.
Now all we need is a volunteer to rub it all over that ass.

Ask your dermatologist TemiousTM is right for you. coffee
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/06/19 04:52 AM

If your comment was a response to what I typed in response to Jeffrey, I was referring to AG Barr. I don't think he is delusional. He has a well thought out reason to believe the executive branch should be more like a dictatorship than a presidency, but that is his opinion.

Now if your comment was about Mr Trump, I think there is a problem trying to decipher his "reasons" for saying he was spied upon. However, it is clear that what he believes in regards to this is solely to support his narcissistic delusions about himself. His "reasoning" is however not clear. Off the top of my head I can think of at least two and maybe three reasons he would resort to this delusion. The result of any of them would be adulation from his base as a victim of the {{{DEEPSTATE}}}. And you may have thought the delusion was singular and personal to Mr Trump .... lol
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/06/19 05:14 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
If your comment was a response to what I typed in response to Jeffrey, I was referring to AG Barr. I don't think he is delusional. He has a well thought out reason to believe the executive branch should be more like a dictatorship than a presidency, but that is his opinion.

It's called the DICK Cheney Effect. A lot of really old boomer Conservatives have that condition. Hmm
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/06/19 04:21 PM

What stat did I see today? .... some 44% of Republicans would like for the dissolution of the SC and Congress to allow Mr Trump to reign unfettered.

Now if you don't think that is scary ... maybe you have seen too many slasher movies.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/06/19 05:10 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
What stat did I see today? .... some 44% of Republicans would like for the dissolution of the SC and Congress to allow Mr Trump to reign unfettered.

Now if you don't think that is scary ... maybe you have seen too many slasher movies.


Yes, I too saw that stat the other day. Obviously 44 percent of Republicans harbor extreme contempt for democracy. As the Chinese say, we are living in interesting times.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/06/19 05:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: rporter314
What stat did I see today? .... some 44% of Republicans would like for the dissolution of the SC and Congress to allow Mr Trump to reign unfettered.

Now if you don't think that is scary ... maybe you have seen too many slasher movies.


Yes, I too saw that stat the other day. Obviously 44 percent of Republicans harbor extreme contempt for democracy. As the Chinese say, we are living in interesting times.


Beats a Clinton/Dole match up.

Hamish,
Easily amused.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/06/19 11:04 PM

Seems Lindsey Graham has clutched his pearls for the last time for Mister Trump. He says that he is now "one thousand percent certain" that Ukraine was not the villain, and that it really was Russia screwing with us the whole time.

Quote:
"It was the Russians. I'm 1,000 percent confident that the hack of the DNC was by Russian operatives, no one else," Graham told reporters on Capitol Hill.

"I have no evidence [Ukraine] did. Russia stole the emails, not the Ukraine," he added.

Asked about whether Trump was muddying his defense by pushing the claim, Graham said he thinks it's "always wrong to say things that can't be proven."


*************

Simply put, the risks Graham exposed himself to with Trump were apparently far outweighed by the larger risks inherent in continuing to believe the Trump CT on Ukraine when the truth is finally exposed. And it's obvious that someone somewhere finally made that crystal clear to him.
I've concluded that the biggest reason these bootlickers continue to pimp the Ukraine CT is because many of them still believe that they are on the winning side.
The safety of this country doesn't matter to them, only what's in it for them if they "win"...even if the rest of the country loses...loses everything.

Clearly someone sat "Miss Graham" down and laid out in stark terms how all of this is eventually going to boil out in the end, and Graham must have wound up "staring into the abyss."
Thus, Lindsey Graham, is corrupt and purely transactional just as the rest of TrumpCo is.
He just realized that his investment in TrumpCo was about to go bust sooner than the rest of them did.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/06/19 11:38 PM

It means absolutely nothing if he votes to acquit Trump.

He will vote to acquit Trump.

Col. Lindsey Graham, US Air Force(ret), is a military guy. He will do whatever he has to do to keep money funneling into the military and to keep the hands of our fighting forces busy. Up to and including kissing the orange man's ass. But he's a Senator, a body somewhat more serious than the House, and must adhere to some standards because, like all the rest of us, he knows that Trump will be gone soon and he plans on sticking around a bit longer.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/07/19 12:09 AM

New York Review of Books, article by Garry Wills

Three Myths About Impeachment

Quote:
Myth One: “Co-Equal”

Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who has been overseeing the impeachment hearings, is badly misrepresenting the Constitution when he says that the Congress is a co-equal branch of government with the presidency. It is not. It is by far the superior branch. James Madison made that clear for all time with his lapidary sentence in Federalist No. 51: “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Necessarily. Discussion over.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/07/19 01:34 AM

It's co-equal if you own both halves. If you're the whiney half that has no real power except to accuse, then you may not get taken too seriously when your case goes to court...It's a slam dunk for Mitch McConnell.

What if Mitch tables it to let the voters decide...
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/07/19 02:18 AM

Quote:
let the voters decide


Of course the voters DID decide back in 2016, when 3 million more of them voted for Clinton, and again in 2018 when they made the House Democratic. They would have done the same to the Senate but for the particular Senators who had to run that cycle.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/07/19 02:57 AM

It is a phony argument to say let the voters decide. The voters will decide when they get to vote and Congress gets to enforce their Constitutional mandate all the time.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/07/19 05:30 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
It is a phony argument to say let the voters decide. The voters will decide when they get to vote and Congress gets to enforce their Constitutional mandate all the time.

...and if the SCOTUS doesn't get involved and (s)elected a president for us. coffee
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/07/19 05:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Seems Lindsey Graham has clutched his pearls for the last time for Mister Trump. He says that he is now "one thousand percent certain" that Ukraine was not the villain, and that it really was Russia screwing with us the whole time.

That old gal gets a serious case of the vapors much too often. She needs to lie down on her fainting couch and have some smelling salts waved under her nose. smile
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/07/19 06:31 AM

Ladies and Germs, John Dean...

John Dean on Twitter

Quote:
John Dean
@JohnWDean
Let’s impeach him now and NOT send it to the Senate rather keep investigating in the House, and add such supplemental articles as needed! Just let it hang over his head. If the worst happens and he is re-elected, send it to the Senate. But keep investigating!!


Quote:

George Conway
@gtconway3d
· Dec 4
In the spirit of compromise, which I think is missing from this age, may I suggest this: Let’s impeach him now but keep investigating, and if we find more evidence, impeach him again. https://twitter.com/philippereines/status/1202267055526989825
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/08/19 03:07 AM

How the modern media has ensured division on impeachment
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/08/19 04:17 AM



Wow, excellent, good catch, Loggy!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/08/19 04:25 AM



--Cable television news is a consumer product, but in a time when impeachment is in process, it is incumbent upon ALL networks to commit and re-commit, every single day, to the public service approach.
In a time of great national peril, this is no longer an option, it is an obligation.
The Impeachment of the President is not the SuperBowl.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/08/19 02:56 PM

How sad it must be...
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/09/19 12:43 PM

Quote:
It is wrong. It has to change.
D. Trump on allowing women to give birth in the 9th month of pregnancy

The very stable genius

Maybe the 25th is a better option?
Posted by: logtroll

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/09/19 12:46 PM

Trump’s thoughts on impeachment
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/09/19 05:18 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll


Wow...

Quote:
Remember how shocked and outraged the Republicans were back in that day and age as they assured us the moral fiber of the country had been irreparably rent? Oh, they were beyond consolation. Trump selling out the country, on the other hand, they manage to live with very comfortably.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/09/19 08:10 PM

You've got to admire their flexibility. Outrage over their flip-flops requires people to remember what they said or did in the distant past...like last week.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/10/19 12:47 AM

Yesterday another article about Rudy Giuliani appeared, one with a familiar story.
William Barr apparently repeated his warning to Trump that Rudy Giuliani is a liability.

Apparently he's becoming even more of one, now that he's expanding his "services" to foreign officials.

Quote:
In several conversations in recent months, Attorney General William P. Barr has counseled Trump in general terms that Giuliani has become a liability and a problem for the administration, according to multiple people familiar with the conversations.


When do you think Trump will throw him under the bus?
I think before Christmas.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The Impeachment of Donald trump - 12/10/19 05:09 AM

It is clear that as much as a third of this nation is incredibly desirous of extreme Right wing authoritarianism.
Part of that 1/3 is likely yearning for Right wing authoritarian theocracy.
The thing is, it is also possible to seduce a third of our country to yearn for ultra-Left authoritarianism, but that's what triggered the October Revolution of 1917, and that's what triggered the 26th of July Movement revolution in Cuba, although that revolution was a backlash against another authoritarian dictatorship on the extreme Right.

Not all revolutions that culminate in authoritarian dictatorship even start out that way, but it is very important to gauge the will of the people in the runup to these catastrophic fractures in leadership and government, because those which do start out that way yell the loudest about subjects like "freedom" or "liberty", and they wax poetic in equal measure about constitutions and leaders who were "chosen by God", and they are quick to react to aspects of the democratic process which might ensnare corrupt leadership, because they are indoctrinated to believe that failure to kow-tow 100% to their authority figures automatically labels one a dehumanized enemy who deserves no "democratic rights", rights which, in true democratic fashion would never consist of loyalty oaths at all costs to anyone, but rather, loyalty or respect to and for established constitutional wisdom and law.

That is the weathervane that tells us when we are deviating far afield of ethics, lawfulness and the very oath taken when in public service.
You cannot quite trust a weathervane to be spinning true when one group is forcing it to spin by shooting at it.
Eventually, if they are allowed to continue apace, they'll lob a rocket at it.

And tonight, that rocket is looking more and more Russian by the minute.