Jump to content

The Impeachment of Trump?


Airbrush

Recommended Posts

Let's also not forget that democrats repeatedly made it clear that the U.S. election could not, in any way, shape, or form be "hacked," up until Trump's victory, at which point, election hacking went from an impossibility to a certainty in the blink of an eye.

 

I missed the part where the Dems blamed the win on hacking. Who claimed the voting machines were hacked?

 

Unless you mean all the fake Russian newsfeeds on the voters FB pages? Or the continuous misinformation campaign all round? Or the hacking of both Republican and Democrat email, but only the Democrat's were leaked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are not serious, rationally-minded people. These are hyperpartisan political hacks spouting out nonsense because they're spoiled little brats who can't handle not getting their way.

 

This is true. But that doesn't mean there aren't things going on that would be impeachment-worthy. Just because the left was chomping at the bit for it prematurely doesn't automatically mean that an impeachment isn't warranted. And even if the "investigations" turn up nothing, that won't guarantee that he did nothing wrong - it will just mean either that he did nothing wrong or that he did and gets away with it. The deck is pretty heavily stacked in his favor in terms of being positioned to dodge repercussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet more evidence of this adminstration's impeachment worthy deference to Russia. The Trump administration is allowing Russia to reopen, unconditionally, two spy headquarters in the U.S. that were ordered closed in the wake of Russia's interference in our elections. Treasonous and absolutely shameful.

 

So, exactly what was it Russia was supposed to have done during the election other than publish information? I never caught on to any actual tampering they were supposed to have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, exactly what was it Russia was supposed to have done during the election other than publish information? I never caught on to any actual tampering they were supposed to have done.

How are you limiting your definition of tampering?

 

Lots of new revelations have come up in the two months since this was published, but perhaps it will help provide you with a baseline: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446339/donald-trump-russia-2016-election-controversy-explained

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, exactly what was it Russia was supposed to have done during the election other than publish information? I never caught on to any actual tampering they were supposed to have done.

Frankly I'm surprised you are not aware of this.

 

 

American intelligence agencies have concluded with high confidence that [/size]Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm [/size]Hillary Clintons chances and promote [/size]Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.[/size]

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding which they say was also reached with high confidence that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committees computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2Frussian-election-hacking&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I haven't been as attentive since the post-election period; the last I'd heard about hacking was that it was uncertain who did it (with Russia definitely a possibility). But that was some months ago.


I'm sure the US would never engage in any such behavior wrt the elections of other countries...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no equivalence in the way you imply, and frankly even if there were we should still all value and respect our nation enough to stand up and fight back when it happens to us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm plenty nationalistic. But for me the focus here isn't on what Russia did or did not do - it's what Trump may or may not be doing. I'm perfectly glad appropriate investigations are underway, and if he crossed the line I'd like to see him ousted. But re: Russia, I'm nationalistic but not hypocritical - it's hard to brand them the Antichrist of nations for doing something that we've done plenty of times. The US has a long history of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. I expect other nations to try to do the same, and I expect our intelligence community to be good enough to stop it. It's a shame if that wasn't the case this time - we need to do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure the US would never engage in any such behavior wrt the elections of other countries...

It always amazes me that people use that argument as justification when someone has wronged us. I remember hearing it in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, as if that justified the deaths of innocent people.

 

We should fight against all improper behavior no matter who commits it, and not accept it as 'the way it is'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not justifying it - just noting that we don't have any paricularly high moral ground to claim here. And I agree with you - I'd prefer a world where we never cheated and never broke the rules and thoroughly showed those that did so with us that they never should again. You wanting us to go to war with Russia over it or something? I'd rather not - it doesn't rise to that level. But Trump is the topic of conversation here, right? If he was complicit in such things in any way, then let's rid ourselves of him and fast. And in the meantime, let's *do* improve our ability to defend against such intelligence breeches, because it's certainly not going to be the last time some other nation tries to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not justifying it

Of course you are. Read again what you wrote.

 

You wanting us to go to war with Russia over it or something?

Seriously? That's what you got out what I posted? Nice straw man. Perhaps you should read again what I wrote.

 

But Trump is the topic of conversation here, right?

YOU are the one who brought up what Russia did, remember?

"So, exactly what was it Russia was supposed to have done during the election other than publish information?"

 

Edited by zapatos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are making a false equivalence between the moral character of a totalitarian regime of Putin, and the moral character of the USA liberal democracy. These systems of government are not comparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not justifying it - just noting that we don't have any paricularly high moral ground to claim here. And I agree with you - ... in the meantime, let's *do* improve our ability to defend against such intelligence breeches, because it's certainly not going to be the last time some other nation tries to do it.

We all likely agree here far more than is apparent by the last few exchanges.

 

We must improve our ability to defend against such intelligence breeches.

 

The challenge, of course, is that we're being purposefully distracted and our energy intentionally siphoned off by those suggesting such breeches never even occurred or are somehow unnoteworthy, no different than daily operations of otherwise kind and decent peoples.

 

We're so busy reinforcing the basic bulwarks of reality that any potential leak in the dam gets met with ferocity. You've proven yourself a rational, reasonable, intelligent community member, but your suggestion that we're equally guilty was unfortunate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a case of cries for impeachment, followed by an evidence-free witch hunt to justify those cries.

 

 

 

This is not a place for propaganda. You are blatantly ignoring and misrepresent the facts, such as Flynn's failure to disclose his association with foreign governments, Kushner's and Sessions' omissions on their SF86 forms, Sessions lying under oath, etc. etc. All of those are violations of the law, and merit further investigation into the depth of the corruption of this administration. That none of these people have been removed for these violations* is further indication of corruption.

 

Edit: and Trump is known to have tried to get the FBI to drop their investigation, pressuring several people. (Investigations like that imply a reasonable suspicion exists). There's also his abuse of power and violations of the emoluments clause. Only a denialist or liar could claim an investigation of impeachable offenses is evidence free.

 

 

*Flynn was removed, but only because the public found out, not because the administration responded to the violations themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree... Chasing after Clinton with accusation after accusation THAT DID NOT STICK is a witch hunt imo because the allegations were false (not proven true). Chasing after people that have actually been know to have broken the law and covered it up is not a witch hunt... it is just bringing the guilty to justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The impeachment of Trump will be a slow death of a "thousand cuts". There will be a tipping point when enough Trump followers will become disillusioned, republicans turn against him with impeachment, then Trump resigns in a spectacular rage, like a child having a temper tantrum.

 

Today the latest cut for Trump is his withdrawal from the Paris climate deal. I would like to hear his reasons for thinking it is unfair to the USA.

 

Before that was his "Covfefe" tweet, which I believe may be attributed to Trump's senile dimentia, which will probably become more visible over time, as the stress from constant negative media feedback wears out the 70-year-old.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/31/what-is-covfefe-donald-trump-baffles-twitter-post

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before that was his "Covfefe" tweet, which I believe may be attributed to Trump's senile dimentia, which will probably become more visible over time, as the stress from constant negative media feedback wears out the 70-year-old.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/31/what-is-covfefe-donald-trump-baffles-twitter-post

 

Ok, now that's just idiocy. Who here has not had text entered into a phone get funky on them because of auto-correct??? I'm perfectly willing to listen to real, meaningful criticisms, but getting all hot and bothered over an autocorrect is just ridiculous. Anyone here who it's never happened to, feel free to criticize it, but I'm definitely not on that list - it's happened to me plenty of times.

 

Please, you only make yourself look ridiculous when you stretch things that far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ok, now that's just idiocy. Who here has not had text entered into a phone get funky on them because of auto-correct??? I'm perfectly willing to listen to real, meaningful criticisms, but getting all hot and bothered over an autocorrect is just ridiculous. Anyone here who it's never happened to, feel free to criticize it, but I'm definitely not on that list - it's happened to me plenty of times.

 

Please, you only make yourself look ridiculous when you stretch things that far.

I agree with you, although the fact that he seems to be insisting that it was not a typo is mildly embarrassing and somewhat bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before that was his "Covfefe" tweet, which I believe may be attributed to Trump's senile dimentia, which will probably become more visible over time, as the stress from constant negative media feedback wears out the 70-year-old.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/31/what-is-covfefe-donald-trump-baffles-twitter-post

You have got to be kidding me....

Of ALL the things, you get all riled up over this?

Seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he's getting riled over it... he's just pointing out that the man is lacking in smarts. That's not an autocorrect mistake - it looks like he over rid the auto correct to enforce his version of the spelling on it. He is delusional... like many of the old people in this country that blame the worlds problems on immigration and foreigners rather than taking some responsibility themselves.

 

I think he made a good speech yesterday... if you believe foreigners are to blame for all your problems and you don't care about the environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thew thing about Covfefe is not the tweet itself (though some were concerned he had had a mini-stroke). It's the WH response to it. Insisting that it was not a typo and that certain people in the WH knew exactly what it meant was ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thew thing about Covfefe is not the tweet itself (though some were concerned he had had a mini-stroke). It's the WH response to it. Insisting that it was not a typo and that certain people in the WH knew exactly what it meant was ludicrous.

 

I missed that part. I just saw that by the time I woke up the morning after he'd done it people were already carrying on - had they already mounted a response that quickly? By, I guess, 7am the following morning, Eastern time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I missed that part. I just saw that by the time I woke up the morning after he'd done it people were already carrying on - had they already mounted a response that quickly? By, I guess, 7am the following morning, Eastern time?

Trump tweeted "Who can guess the real meaning of "covfefe" ??? Enjoy!" a few minutes after 6 am ET.

 

People were already making fun of it, but it definitely picked up after that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.