Impeachment Hearings

[Raider5678]

On 11/29/2019 at 11:54 AM, swansont said:

Airbrush's statement was "the president should have the license to lie constantly" and you 1) aren't citing the statistics on lying, and 2) are omitting one of the categories on truth (which makes Trump look even worse, as he scores but 14%, while Obama scores 26%)

To me, a half truth is a lie.

"I gave $1000 to a poor kid with cancer. Okay. I didn't give $1000. I gave $500. Same thing."

 

Additionally, I didn't cite statistics on lying because the statistics on lying seemed implicit to me. I.E. Trump tells the truth just 15% of the time. I.E. he lies 85% of the time. For future reference to any one else reading this thread, that is how I intended it, even though it was badly clarified.

Also, how does including half truths as truths make Trump look even worse? Included half truths as "truth" makes Trump seem better actually, because now he's only lying 71% of the time as opposed to 85% of the time by considering half truths as what they are, lies.

 

"The best lies are actually the truth, but tweaked a little." (or something like that) -  Somebody I forget.

 

On 11/29/2019 at 11:54 AM, swansont said:

I seriously doubt that this is what's keeping 1/3 of Americans from embracing the democrats. Trying to be nice hasn't gotten results.

And your doubt is well founded. Which is why I stated as follows:

On 11/29/2019 at 11:23 AM, Raider5678 said:

(The) vast majority of Trump supports I know usually lament about how much of an absolute asshole he is. Some support him mostly because they don't like the other party. Some support him because they lost their jobs due to Democratic policies(or due to them believing thats why they lost it). Some support him because they wanted to see something different. Some support him because they think his policies are better. Some support him merely because of his position on Abortion. Some support him merely because of his position on Guns. Etc. 100 million people certainly don't support Trump simply because "they appreciate an entertaining con". And the faster the democratic party realizes and understands this, the faster they can begin making headway in shifting public support behind impeaching this man.

Additionally, trying to be nice hasn't gotten results? I have not been on this earth very long, but I cannot remember a time where the two parties were particularly.......decent to one another. Let alone nice.

6 hours ago, Airbrush said:

I never ever heard ANY lamenting about Trump being an a$$hole on Fox news during the last 3 years.

Two statements on this.

Firstly, Fox news is not representative of all Trump Voters. Just because you don't hear a right wing reality show complaining about trump, doesn't mean nobody is.

Secondly, if you want to hear some Trump supports who lament about Trump being an asshole, watch some videos of Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, or really most conservative talk show hosts excluding some widely accepted lunatics, led Ted Nuget or Alex Jones.

None of those talk show hows represent all Trump voters. I'd also venture to say that all of them combined likely don't represent a majority of Trump supports. But there is plenty of lamenting about how much of an asshole he is.

6 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Fox News and Trump supporters simply ignore his obnoxious mannerisms.  To them it looks normal because in their local bar there is someone with a big mouth like that.  They think Trump is funny, just Trump being Trump, big deal.

Again, this is a baseless assertion against 100 million people. This is not how we're going to get public support behind impeachment.

6 hours ago, Airbrush said:

I agree that people voted for Trump NOT ONLY because he is a skilled con, although that WAS clearly a factor.

I've yet to meet a person who says they voted from Trump because he's a skilled con. I have however, met a lot of people who voted for him DESPITE them knowing he's a skilled con. Most of those people hated Hillary Clinton with a passion. Whether hating her is right or not, is not up for debate. But that is a major reason some people voted for Trump. "Lesser of two evils" voters, as I think they're typically referred to. 

6 hours ago, Airbrush said:

But it is more than just agreeing on policy.  It is a personality cult, and members are trying to ignore reality, watch only Fox News or listen to Rush, and accept Trump's delusional interpretations.  "Don't believe the lame stream media, believe me!"

I get that it can seem like that sometimes, but remember, the squeaky wheel get's the oil. Or in this case, the media coverage. Confirmation bias plays a HUGE role here as well. I.E. "I think Trump voters are racist assholes." *Racist asshole who happens to be Trump support does something.* "See?!?!? I told you so."

Be sure not to dismiss the opinions of the many because of the actions of a few.

On 11/29/2019 at 11:53 AM, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but what mutterings would you prefer?

None.

[iNow]

On 11/26/2019 at 9:27 AM, iNow said:

This strikes me as most likely, too. The key things which may change the calculus here, though, are if the courts require Secretary Bolton and Chief or Staff Mulvaney to testify (since they were directly involved and represent a gap in current evidence... Trump stonewalling congress is actually a smart tactical decision here, but the courts could force their hand)...  or if it gets confirmed that Devon Nunes, who served as the minority leader on the Judiciary Committee during the hearings, was himself involved in trying to dig up dirt on Biden. 

Turns out Nunes was texting Rudy Giuliani the whole time and instead of refusing himself from the impeachment inquiry, he was involved and complicit in what they were investigating:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/report-reveals-frequent-contact-between-giuliani-nunes-and-the-white-house
 

Quote

A new report compiling evidence on impeachment has revealed extensive contact between President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and California Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the Intelligence panel.

<...>

Giuliani, who has said he knew nothing about illegal campaign donations, was trying to get Ukrainian officials to investigate the son of Trump’s potential Democratic challenger, Joe Biden. Parnas and Fruman had key roles in Giuliani’s quest.

The records show that Parnas and Nunes were in frequent contact last April, when Giuliani was publicly calling for an investigation of Biden.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, who sparred with Nunes during public impeachment hearings, said he was going to “reserve comment” on the Republican’s appearance in the report. But he added that, while Trump was “digging up dirt” on Biden, “there may be evidence that there were members of Congress who were complicit in that activity.”

According to the report, Nunes was also directly involved with getting hit pieces published to smear the name of U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch so Trump could more easily fire her for standing in the way of his scheme on Biden. 

[Airbrush]

On 12/1/2019 at 6:10 PM, Raider5678 said:

….Fox news is not representative of all Trump Voters.  Just because you don't hear a right wing reality show complaining about trump, doesn't mean nobody is.

None of those talk shows represent all Trump voters. I'd also venture to say that all of them combined likely don't represent a majority of Trump supports. But there is plenty of lamenting about how much of an asshole he is.

Again, this is a baseless assertion against 100 million people. This is not how we're going to get public support behind impeachment.

I've yet to meet a person who says they voted from Trump because he's a skilled con. I have however, met a lot of people who voted for him DESPITE them knowing he's a skilled con. Most of those people hated Hillary Clinton with a passion. Whether hating her is right or not, is not up for debate. But that is a major reason some people voted for Trump. "Lesser of two evils" voters, as I think they're typically referred to....

We are talking about 2 different groups of Trump voters.  You are talking about the 10% fringe GOP that held their nose as they voted for Trump.  Many of them voted for Obama.  They really hated Hillary Clinton, even more than they hated Trump. 

I, however, am talking about his die-hard base, about 25% to 33% of Americans, or 1/3 of Americans susceptible to a clever con.  The suckers of America, they exist somewhere along a continuum of suckiness.  The butt to every traveling salesman joke.  Many of them, such as those attending his rallys, like Trump's nastiness, sarcasm, cynisism, and self-centeredness.  They love to chant "Lock her up, lock her up!"

Edited December 4, 2019 by Airbrush

[Airbrush]

"Impeachment is about cleansing the office."

About 3:00 into this YouTube, Lindsey Graham gives his famous speech in favor of impeaching Bill Clinton.  This should be replayed over an over.

"Impeachment is not about punishment.  Impeachment is about cleansing the office.  Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office."

 

[rangerx]

This video embodies the double standard that is today's GOP.

Today, they mewl about the unfair processes they wrote for themselves during the Benghazi hearings.

Their lawyer just admitted impeaching a judge who broke no laws.

[iNow]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/4/20995329/impeachment-hearing-trump-ukraine-judiciary-karlan-analogy

Quote

But the most clarifying element wasn’t one of the many quotes from the Founding Fathers, but a simple analogy offered by Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan.

Karlan, called to testify by House Democrats, started by discussing Trump’s infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where he asked the Ukrainian president for the “favor” of investigating the Bidens and 2016 immediately after a discussion of military aid. She then asked the committee to think about how this would look if Trump were on the phone with a governor rather than a foreign state, an exercise that really helps illuminate why Trump’s behavior is so troubling:

“Imagine living in a part of Louisiana or Texas that’s prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if you lived there and your governor asked for a meeting with the president to discuss getting disaster aid that Congress has provided for? What would you think if that president said, “I would like you to do us a favor? I’ll meet with you, and send the disaster relief, once you brand my opponent a criminal.”

Wouldn’t you know in your gut that such a president has abused his office? That he’d betrayed the national interest, and that he was trying to corrupt the electoral process? I believe the evidentiary record shows wrongful acts on those scale here.“

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

“I would like you to do us a favor? I’ll meet with you, and send the disaster relief, once you brand my opponent a criminal.”

Yes. That would of course be pretty convincing.

I bet she wishes Trump had said that.

 

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I bet she wishes Trump had said that.

I bet those who support the president wish it was functionally different from what actually occurred. 

But alas... they’re so convinced it was a perfect call where this poor righteous saintly president of ours merely wanted to end corruption in the world that they probably don’t care. 

It’s called an analogy, JCM, and you’re attacking it for its lack of perfection. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by iNow

[Raider5678]

10 hours ago, Airbrush said:

We are talking about 2 different groups of Trump voters.  You are talking about the 10% fringe GOP that held their nose as they voted for Trump.  Many of them voted for Obama.  They really hated Hillary Clinton, even more than they hated Trump. 

I, however, am talking about his die-hard base, about 25% to 33% of Americans, or 1/3 of Americans susceptible to a clever con.  The suckers of America, they exist somewhere along a continuum of suckiness.  The butt to every traveling salesman joke.  Many of them, such as those attending his rallys, like Trump's nastiness, sarcasm, cynisism, and self-centeredness.  They love to chant "Lock her up, lock her up!"

Trump claimed just 44% of the Republican Primary votes. Why did he win then? Because the other votes by the majority of Republicans were split between Rubio, Kasich, and Cruz. Had Rubio and Kasich dropped earlier, I highly suspect Cruz would be our president right now, not Trump. This was a case where a candidate won because the biggest contenders split the vote between them.

And even then, of those 44% I find it highly unbelievable that they all "like" Trump's nastiness, sarcasm, cynicism, nor narcissism. 

Your claims are unsupported. Where did you get your numbers?

Also, you've seemingly fundamentally changed your argument from saying that 1/3rd of American's liked Trump being a con, to now 1/3rd of Americans being susceptible to a clever con. I'm not saying you're changing your argument on purposes or anything, I suspect it's just a slip of the keyboard. However they are fundamentally very different things, and I'd like to know which you think it is.

 

And finally, once again, terming 100 million people as the suckers of America is NOT the way to rally support for impeachment. 

I have a lot of discussions with a lot of people of many different political backgrounds. I can usually have a nice, civil conversation. If I opened it up with "Hello, Sucker of America, let me tell you why I disagree with you" it'd go horrible. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Raider5678

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I bet those who support the president wish it was functionally different from what actually occurred. 

But alas... they’re so convinced it was a perfect call where this poor righteous saintly president of ours merely wanted to end corruption in the world that they probably don’t care. 

It’s called an analogy, JCM, and you’re attacking it for its lack of perfection. 

This is from someone called, by the Democrats, as an expert witness on impeachment.

An Elementary school child can tell where it is "functionally different", and why, and also why it wasn't a "perfect call".

This is a fail. She was there for one purpose: To convince the American Public that what Trump did rises to that of an unequivocally impeachable offence. She would convince no one with that argument. Those that think it's convincing are so far down the rabbit hole of wishful thinking there is no hope for them.

There is a difference between questioning Trump's motives and having an "expert" answer in such an obviously biased manner.

Purpose and fail.

They're handing the 2020 election to Trump in this manner.

Trump constantly reminds us all why he shouldn't have been elected, and shouldn't get reelected. Democrats should just watch and point...not say "hold my beer!".

Edited December 5, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

I understand. Thanks for sharing your opinion. 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

They're handing the 2020 election to Trump in this manner.

 

How so? Who is going to vote for Trump due to this that wasn't before?

You consistently bemoan the fact that most everything said or done that is negative to Trump will only help get him reelected. I think that is more wishful thinking on your part than based on reality. There don't seem to be that many people on the fence who can be nudged in one direction or the other based on perceived 'bias' on the part of someone. If there were, then the behavior of Nunes and the conspiracy theories of key Republicans would have handed the upcoming election to the Democrats a long time ago.

Edited December 5, 2019 by zapatos

[J.C.MacSwell]

14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

How so? Who is going to vote for Trump due to this that wasn't before?

You consistently bemoan the fact that most everything said or done that is negative to Trump will only help get him reelected. I think that is more wishful thinking on your part that based on reality. There don't seem to be that many people on the fence who can be nudged in one direction or the other based on perceived 'bias' on the part of someone. If there were, then the behavior of Nunes and the conspiracy theories of key Republicans would have handed the upcoming election to the Democrats a long time ago.

People who lose trust in the alternative.

We need less Schiff and more Yang.

Edited December 5, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

People who lose trust in the alternative.

 

Yes, very touching response. Got any numbers to back up this assertion?

Also curious why you only seem to see voters losing trust in Democrats and not Republicans. I don't understand how the perceived bias in a statement by Pamela Karlan trumps the misogynistic and racist statements made by Trump over the past several years. You seem to be letting your own biases cloud your view of this situation.

[iNow]

Maybe 6% of the electorate are independent, and even then this is merely what they call themselves so they can pretend to be above the fray. In reality, they nearly always vote for one party over the other.

A slightly less than perfect analogy during one single opening statement in a congressional hearing isn’t going to cause them to suddenly back off their intent to vote for Elizabeth Warren or Tom Steyer and choose instead to throw their support behind Trump. 

I agree with Zap. This narrative you seem to put forward every 3-7 days, JCM, is absurd on its face. I know your intentions are good, but your analysis is not.

There aren't enough voters in the middle to turn this election. As Trump himself has proven, this is about turning out the base. The milquetoast middle probably won’t even bother voting. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

People who lose trust in the alternative.

 

 

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

Yes, very touching response. Got any numbers to back up this assertion?

 

It's not a very bold assertion. Got any numbers saying those losing trust will still vote Democrat?

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Maybe 6% of the electorate are independent, and even then this is merely what they call themselves so they can pretend to be above the fray. In reality, they nearly always vote for one party over the other.

...

There aren't enough voters in the middle to turn this election. As Trump himself has proven, this is about turning out the base. The milquetoast middle probably won’t even bother voting. 

Can you truly back this up? The fact that the presidential elections are always close does not prove this. 

With both parties attempting to "turn out the base" at the expense of appealing to the middle, what proof do you have that it won't work?

How many voters have been turned off by both sides? 

[iNow]

I'm not the one claiming how one persons testimony will shift a bunch of people over to vote for Trump.. You ask for proof, yet offer no evidence of your own. 

Regarding independents: https://www.people-press.org/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/

Quote

An overwhelming majority of independents (81%) continue to “lean” toward either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Among the public overall, 17% are Democratic-leaning independents, while 13% lean toward the Republican Party. Just 7% of Americans decline to lean toward a party, a share that has changed little in recent years. This is a long-standing dynamic that has been the subject of past analyses, both by Pew Research Center and others.

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How many voters have been turned off by both sides? 

 

Quote

Independents who do not lean to a party are most likely to have an unfavorable opinion of both parties (37%). Another 22% have favorable opinions of both parties. Just 11% of independents who do not lean to a party view the Democratic Party favorably, while about as many (9%) have a favorable view of the GOP.

[mistermack]

If you want to know about independents, ask Donald Trump. He's been in all the parties and donated to all the parties at some time or other. Apparently he's leaning towards the Republicans at the moment. 

[CharonY]

33 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If you want to know about independents, ask Donald Trump. He's been in all the parties and donated to all the parties at some time or other. Apparently he's leaning towards the Republicans at the moment. 

Right now it seems that he is heavy leaning into isolationist ethnonationalism. 

 

Going back to the impeachment hearings, I found it interesting that even the witness for the Republicans (Turley) essentially criticized the process, though not the question at its heart. 

Quote

“The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

Since the witnesses were there to present legal arguments, it seems to me that that perspective is pretty much settled and that there is unquestionable grounds to proceed with the impeachment process, as only then the case will be made to prove (or not) whether there was a quid pro quo. 

Considering the various testimonies we heard earlier indicating that:

- pretty much everyone involved on the US as well as the Ukrainian side saw it as an quid pro quo (including Mulvaney, on camera)

- Trump was only interested in having a public announcement of the investigation, regardless whether it happened

- private lines of communication rather than State Department procedures were used to facilitate this exchange (plus folks involved are being indicted)

as well as that there is probably more that I already forgot. Considering the wealth of information available  there is a lot substance here on the legal side to go foward with in a trial. But then again it is not about substance for most, is it?

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Right now it seems that he is heavy leaning into isolationist ethnonationalism. 

More precisely, he’s leaning into whatever political currents will allow him to win. The one you cite just happens to be the flavor of the month. 

To the thread topic, Nancy Pelosi has asked for articles of impeachment to be drawn up:

 

[CharonY]

Just now, iNow said:

More precisely, he’s leaning into whatever political currents will allow him to win. The one you cite just happens to be the flavor of the month. 

I was thinking that initially, but his uncharacteristic doggedness in that particular matter seems to go beyond just branding. Moreover, in addition to the over cruelty, his administration has been pushing policies through on the quiet to further these goals, which makes me believe that this is really the only part that is part of his actual convictions. 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It's not a very bold assertion. Got any numbers saying those losing trust will still vote Democrat?

Ah yes, I forgot. The burden of proof isn't on you to prove your assertions are true, but is instead on me to prove your assertions are false. Classic.

[iNow]

When I think of convictions and this president, principles and ideologies are not what come to mind. Handcuffs do.

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

When I think of convictions and this president, principles and ideologies are not what come to mind. Handcuffs do.

They are not mutually exclusive.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Ah yes, I forgot. The burden of proof isn't on you to prove your assertions are true, but is instead on me to prove your assertions are false. Classic.

Again. It isn't a very bold assertion to claim people don't tend to vote for those they don't trust.

If you make a reasonable argument that they do (you haven't)...then I might feel obligated to back up my claim that they don't.

Un-extraordinary claims, which every thread in Science Forums is full of, require little extra supporting evidence.

I'm not the one claiming something counter intuitive.

If you want proof...best of luck...you won't find any either way, in cases such as this where secret ballots are used.

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell