Impeachment Hearings

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm not the one claiming something counter intuitive.

 

Yes, you are.

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

You are saying that a minor statement critical of Trump outweighs all the crap Trump and the Republicans have been spouting. And rather than trying to support that position when called out on it, you obfuscate and tap dance in the hopes we won't see the man behind the curtain. Again, you see people not trusting Democrats because of Karlan's statement, but don't see anyone losing trust in Republicans due to their personal attacks and conspiracy theories.

If you think that the statement made by Pamela Karlan is pushing voters to Trump then back up the claim with something substantial, or admit that you can't.

I don't know if you secretly love Trump or hate all things Democrat/liberal, but it is obvious you are willing to let your beliefs influence your reasoning.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Yes, you are.

You are saying that a minor statement critical of Trump outweighs all the crap Trump and the Republicans have been spouting. And rather than trying to support that position when called out on it, you obfuscate and tap dance in the hopes we won't see the man behind the curtain. Again, you see people not trusting Democrats because of Karlan's statement, but don't see anyone losing trust in Republicans due to their personal attacks and conspiracy theories.

If you think that the statement made by Pamela Karlan is pushing voters to Trump then back up the claim with something substantial, or admit that you can't.

I don't know if you secretly love Trump or hate all things Democrat/liberal, but it is obvious you are willing to let your beliefs influence your reasoning.

No Zap. I am not.

"In this manner" is referring to constantly overstating the Democrat case, not Pamela Karlan spouting BS on this one unisolated example. Do you want another example?

For the bold: I never made that claim, though I would argue that Democrats make it far to easy for Republicans. They're overstatements are far easier to defend against than the truth.

 

Why is it that Trump's approval rating tends to drop when he does something stupid, but goes back up when the Democrats overextend when they attack him?

"Hold my beer!"

"No, you hold my beer!"

[iNow]

Perhaps the OT banter about what drives Trumps approval ratings can be taken to its own thread and we can remain focused here on the impeachment?

[rangerx]

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

Perhaps the OT banter about what drives Trumps approval ratings can be taken to its own thread and we can remain focused here on the impeachment?

Then it would be a one sided discussion. Disassociation is all they've got.

[J.C.MacSwell]

50 minutes ago, iNow said:

Perhaps the OT banter about what drives Trumps approval ratings can be taken to its own thread and we can remain focused here on the impeachment?

Are they not inexorably linked?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Are they not inexorably linked?

Electricity and magnetism are inexorably linked too, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to talk about my summer utilities bill in a thread about aurora borealis. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

Electricity and magnetism are inexorably linked too, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to talk about my summer utilities bill in a thread about aurora borealis. 

Maybe you don't agree with it, but many believe that the current impeachment proceedings are intended to affect Trump's approval ratings and thus make him less likely to be elected.

Let me know if you need any evidence that that is the case.

[Raider5678]

8 hours 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. 

Nonsense.

Trump leans Trumpism.

[iNow]

59 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Maybe you don't agree with it, but many believe that the current impeachment proceedings are intended to affect Trump's approval ratings and thus make him less likely to be elected.

Let me know if you need any evidence that that is the case.

I’m sure that’s part of it. Would be silly to argue otherwise.

What some people conveniently dismiss and seem to always omit, however, is that part of this is also surely about standing up for guiding principles, ensuring the right precedent is set for future presidents, and upholding the oaths they swore to protect and defend our constitution.  

[rangerx]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

What some people conveniently dismiss and seem to always omit, however, is that part of this is also surely about standing up for guiding principles, ensuring the right precedent is set for future presidents, and upholding the oaths they swore to protect and defend our constitution.  

It's what ended the Watergate scandal, when Republicans said enough was enough and did just that. The Republicans can end this tomorrow, but the density factor is quite thick at the moment. They're doubling down on the senate, which says more about the density factor rather than democracy or the rule of law. No less envisioning the outrage when a Democrat becomes president and remotely behaves that way.

The Republicans also grasp the election straw in the impeachment of Trump, claiming let the voters decide. However, I'd suspect that policy would go out the window if a SCOTUS seat came open.

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, rangerx said:

It's what ended the Watergate scandal, when Republicans said enough was enough and did just that

Interestingly, support for the Nixon impeachment was quite low, too... until it wasn’t. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/it-took-a-long-time-for-republicans-to-abandon-nixon/

Quote

When the House of Representatives voted in February 1974 to give the House Judiciary Committee subpoena power to investigate Nixon, it did not have the weight of public opinion behind it. According to a poll conducted by Gallup just days before the vote, only 38 percent of Americans were in favor of impeachment. And although a solid majority of Americans did eventually come to support impeachment, that moment didn’t arrive until quite late in the game

[MigL]

The difference is that, back in R Nixon's time, the Supreme Court ordered the release of the tapes and R Nixon eventually complied.
After that, no-one was defending him anymore.

D Trump, on the other hand, doesn't give a damn what the Supreme Court orders him to release.
If the stonewalling comes to an end, it may be the end of his Presidency; but if/until that happens, the Impeachment will never make it past the Senate, and it'll be seen as partisanship on both sides.

Oh, and he called our Prime Minister 'two-faced', after throwing a hissy-fit and leaving the Summit..
( black-faced I could understand, but 'two-faced' ? )

Edited December 6, 2019 by MigL

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

black-faced I could understand, but 'two-faced' ?

Lol. Well played. 

BREAKING NEWS: Large orange man who claims he’d rush in unarmed to face school shooter left international summit because someone hurt his feelings  

 

[Airbrush]

On 12/5/2019 at 7:05 PM, MigL said:

The difference is that, back in R Nixon's time, the Supreme Court ordered the release of the tapes and R Nixon eventually complied.
After that, no-one was defending him anymore.

D Trump, on the other hand, doesn't give a damn what the Supreme Court orders him to release.
If the stonewalling comes to an end, it may be the end of his Presidency; but if/until that happens, the Impeachment will never make it past the Senate, and it'll be seen as partisanship on both sides.

Nixon won the 1972 election in a landslide, he took 49 of 50 states.  Nixon remained very popular, with high approval, until near the end, when evidence against him became overwhelming.

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the White House stonewalling of the investigation.  The House decided to not wait until the courts could order Trump to do anything.  They need to impeach asap to not interfere with the 2020 election.  Of course it will never make it past the Senate, unless there is a huge flip in the polls within a month.  Trump will boast all day, everyday, about how he totally beat the hell out of the impeachment attempt.  "It was a total witch hunt!"  Then the voters can decide in November of 2020 what they REALLY think about him and his enabling Senate.  I have great hopes that the impeachment process will be hanging over Trump enough to damage him just enough.  We saw the GOP lose 40 seats in the House in the 2018 midterms, as a referendum on Trump's bizarre performance.  Enough of the GOP finally got tired of his stink.

But Democrats often seem to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, so I don't know what will happen.

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by Airbrush

[YJ02]

Hello, new here.....

 

on this, a few thoughts,I'll just put them as "bullets" for brevity (I could go on and on and on)

-I am NOT a Trump supporter. Back in the 90's I saw him interviewed on TV, 20/20 or something. He struck me as a callous ass who thought he was entitled to everything he had. Yes, people should be proud of their accomplishments, he seemed to be somewhere far above proud though.

I find myself having to 'preamble' myself on this topic because it seems whenever someone has some little criticism of the democrats and this impeachment process, they get labeled immediately as a 'MAGA hat wearing racist Trump supporter'--yeah not me. Didn't vote for him--didn't vote for Hillary either

So while I don't think Trump should be President, this impeachment ordeal is bad for the country, nothing is being done for the everyday benefit of everyday Americans. It is a lot like medieval England where the different branches of royalty fought over the crown. The poor saps dying in ditches then didn't benefit from this at all, they were just dragged along into the fray. None of us poor saps of today will benefit from this either. Instead the homeless situation will go unacted upon, drug prices will go unlooked at by Congress, as well as all manner of other items of the People's business.

-The way the democrats are going about this attempted ousting of Trump is very tainted by their personal contempt for him. They were mad before he even had a chance to do anything official--like on the day after the 2016 election. Protests, near riots, burning cars in the streets.And then people coming out with things like 'the resistance has formed'. 'the coup has begun, impeachment will follow' and the like way back in 2016, all serve to  give a type of non-legitimacy to the impeachment process.

It has become a crusade where the ending desired was put far ahead of the material needed to achieve the end. The democrats have therefore been a party with a stated goal but with no way to get there- Comey, Mueller report, Stormy Daniels. all of that flopped. 

-Those in America that did vote for him and support him still, will NOT be swayed by any of this. Just as the democrats will never give Trump credit for any of the good things he has done -like the first steps program, or declaring the opioid crisis a national health emergency- the Trump supports are likewise entrenched in their beliefs

more important to the democratic presidential hopes is the fact that many independents are not swayed yet either. If they cannot get them on their side, they will not win.

-Lastly-for now- is the perception by said groups that impeachment just looks like 'cheating'. To explain, to many Americans, doing this is like a short cut to get rid of him, as if the Dem's know they will have a tough time in 2020 at the election, so they are trying to get rid of him by a loophole/technicality/bad refereeing. Like when a person in a barfight pulls out a knife instead of 'fighting fair'. Follow? I don't hold to this myself, but it is what I hear and read from many other people's opinions.

This just makes his supporters even more supportive and shows independents that the democrats are desperate, and why would they want a desperate party taking over the White House? 

The dems should be convincing people why any of their candidates would be better as President, better for the nation. You don't do this by saying "i wont be Trump". We are tired of that, stop telling us how bad he is, tell us how good you can be.

 

Sorry if I broke any rules..I did read them..really

 

[zapatos]

20 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

So while I don't think Trump should be President, this impeachment ordeal is bad for the country, nothing is being done for the everyday benefit of everyday Americans. It is a lot like medieval England where the different branches of royalty fought over the crown. The poor saps dying in ditches then didn't benefit from this at all, they were just dragged along into the fray. None of us poor saps of today will benefit from this either. Instead the homeless situation will go unacted upon, drug prices will go unlooked at by Congress, as well as all manner of other items of the People's business.

If you are going to tie the lack of progress on the homeless situation, high drug prices and many other items to the impeachment, you'll need to show the cause and effect. Were these things being address prior to the impeachment hearings and they are now on hold? Are bills on hold until after the impeachment? If not, then it is not reasonable to tie them together. It makes it look like you are just looking for an excuse to stop the impeachment, just like the Republicans have been looking for excuses. 

27 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

The way the democrats are going about this attempted ousting of Trump is very tainted by their personal contempt for him.

How would you suggest the Democrats change their approach to the impeachment process in order to ensure the process is not tainted by personal contempt? What exactly have they done that has not followed the rules, or what piece of evidence presented seems far-fetched?

30 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

'the resistance has formed'. 'the coup has begun, impeachment will follow' and the like way back in 2016, all serve to  give a type of non-legitimacy to the impeachment process.

Who are you quoting here? If no one, then you are just creating straw men.

Exactly what have the Democrats done in the impeachment process that is not legitimate? Please be specific.

33 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

-Lastly-for now- is the perception by said groups that impeachment just looks like 'cheating'.

Well, that's a shame. But what are you going to do? We can't very well stop legal proceedings just because some people don't like them. If we let public opinion hold sway over the rule of law we would not have enforced civil rights in the South, pursued impeachment against Nixon, prosecuted those who blow up abortion clinics, or fight against those who don't want some US citizens to have equal rights because of the gender of the person they love.

Sometimes you just have to say "fuck it", and do what you believe to be the right thing regardless of what people might think of you.

[YJ02]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

If you are going to tie the lack of progress on the homeless situation, high drug prices and many other items to the impeachment, you'll need to show the cause and effect. Were these things being address prior to the impeachment hearings and they are now on hold? Are bills on hold until after the impeachment? If not, then it is not reasonable to tie them together. It makes it look like you are just looking for an excuse to stop the impeachment, just like the Republicans have been looking for excuses. 

How would you suggest the Democrats change their approach to the impeachment process in order to ensure the process is not tainted by personal contempt? What exactly have they done that has not followed the rules, or what piece of evidence presented seems far-fetched?

Who are you quoting here? If no one, then you are just creating straw men.

Exactly what have the Democrats done in the impeachment process that is not legitimate? Please be specific.

Well, that's a shame. But what are you going to do? We can't very well stop legal proceedings just because some people don't like them. If we let public opinion hold sway over the rule of law we would not have enforced civil rights in the South, pursued impeachment against Nixon, prosecuted those who blow up abortion clinics, or fight against those who don't want some US citizens to have equal rights because of the gender of the person they love.

Sometimes you just have to say "fuck it", and do what you believe to be the right thing regardless of what people might think of you.

this is about a subjective issue- thoughts on the impeachment. as such, it is opinion. but, I'll be your Huckleberry

its really quite easy to find on any search

here you go, took my about 20 seconds:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/trump-impeachment-inquiry-illegitimate-ten-reasons-why/

 

as for the rest, and how it all looks so biased, a bias based not on anything- indeed these sentiments were evident before inauguration, like in any law proceeding, any member of a jury or a judge or a witness, cannot have a pre-determined bias against a defendant. if they do, it is grounds for a mistrial or a retrial. the democrats are clearly biased and have been the whole time.

 

they set out to try to remove trump, they just had to wait to get what they needed

 

and if you cant see how this is damaging the country, then you are just not looking

as for the things not being done by congress, those are examples i gave. They are obvious ones. if you watched any of the hearings, you would have heard GOP members listing what hearings they were NOT having. you cannot just say something is a strawman just because you do not want to hear it

 BOTH parties in Congress are using the impeachment as a reason to do quite little.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/nov/14/what-congress-doing-besides-impeachment/

and you totally ignored my first bullet. thats ok, its a disease thats spreading like wildfire. that is, no one can seem to have an opinion on this unless they are either totally against or totally for impeachment. instead, people like you try to shut down the speech and opinion of someone like me. And, its exactly where both of the party's want us to be-fighting each other. good for distraction and great for the media.

me? outsider, libertarian. But I may actually go with a major party this time if the dems nominate Gabbard, Yang or Mayor Pete

 

and support of independents for impeachment. it has constantly been below 50%. it rose a bit with the further release of the Ukraine phone call, now it has been dropping

important because in recent Presidential elections, it is the ind voters who have decided the winner. ex: their pattern of voting for Obama 08, Obama 12, Trump 16

 

Support for impeachment by party--and the dems don't get to say "we are doing the work of the people on impeachment" and then say "polls don't matter". polls reflect the will of the people

well, dont know how to put a chart in here from another site, but you can find it here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

 

and here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

 

Sometimes you just have to say "fuck it", and do what you believe to be the right thing regardless of what people might think of you.

This is essentially what Pelosi is saying. In fact she is even claiming that the impeachment is not politically driven at all. It is only going ahead due to the Democrats sense of duty and higher purpose.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2019/12/05/cnn-townhall-with-nancy-pelosi-n2557584

Host Jake Tapper asked the speaker of the House if she would have any regrets, come 2020, if exit polls revealed that pursuing impeachment had helped President Trump win reelection. 

“No,” Pelosi answered unequivocally. “This isn’t about politics at all. This is about patriotism. It’s not about partisanship. It’s about honoring our oath of office.” 

Congratulations if you believe it. (not saying you do, or do not)

 

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

 Were these things being address prior to the impeachment hearings and they are now on hold? Are bills on hold until after the impeachment? If not, then it is not reasonable to tie them together. 

 

It isn't unreasonable to note that an awful lot of effort and attention is being put toward impeachment that could otherwise be put toward these bills...and not having them officially on hold or shelved does not make the tie unreasonable.

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

 It makes it look like you are just looking for an excuse to stop the impeachment, just like the Republicans have been looking for excuses. 

 

To you it might. Others might actually believe that it is in fact distracting from other important law making. It's hardly a stretch.

The sentiment expressed by YJO2 might be more common than you might like to think.

Don't shoot the messenger.

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

 

Well, that's a shame. But what are you going to do? We can't very well stop legal proceedings just because some people don't like them.

This is a fair point. It certainly suggests the dilemma now facing the Democrats...one they could have avoided.

[John Cuthber]

5 hours ago, YJ02 said:

its really quite easy to find on any search

here you go, took my about 20 seconds:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/trump-impeachment-inquiry-illegitimate-ten-reasons-why/

 

As far as I can tell, none of those is actually valid.

That's not to say there aren't viable claims to be made; just that the report you cited doesn't show them.

It's interesting to note that the Left is saying that the impeachment action is in support of justice, rather than their cause.- They may be lying.

What is the Right's justification for opposing it?

Do they not want an investigation and hearing that  would clear their guy and make the opposition look stupid?

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Do they not want an investigation and hearing that  would clear their guy and make the opposition look stupid?

Stonewalling and contempt congress provides greater time to bury proof of their innocence.

I'm just guessing, but I suspect the 300* Trump ads banned by Google and YouTube this week had "hoax" written all through them.

[iNow]

9 hours ago, YJ02 said:

while I don't think Trump should be President, this impeachment ordeal is bad for the country, nothing is being done for the everyday benefit of everyday Americans

And why is that? Your implication is that the democrats by upholding their oaths to our constitution are preventing things from getting done for the public, yet that’s not where stuff is getting stalled. 

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump
 

Quote

House Democrats have passed nearly 400 bills. Trump and Republicans are ignoring them.

<...>

For months, President Donald Trump has fired off tweet missives accusing House Democrats of “getting nothing done in Congress,” and being consumed with impeachment.

Trump may want to look to the Republican-controlled Senate instead. Democrats in the House have been passing bills at a rapid clip; as of November 15, the House has passed nearly 400 bills, not including resolutions. But the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee estimates 80 percent of those bill have hit a snag in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is prioritizing confirming judges over passing bills.

McConnell himself proudly wears the label of legislative grim reaper, so perhaps instead of decrying the impeachment for failure to help us in the public, you should more accurately recognize the root cause here as the senates myopic focus on installing partisan federal judges. 

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It isn't unreasonable to note that an awful lot of effort and attention is being put toward impeachment that could otherwise be put toward these bills...and not having them officially on hold or shelved does not make the tie unreasonable.

See above 

Quote

As we near the end of the year, much of the media focus will continue to be on impeachment. House Democrats will also be focused on a vote on a major bill to lower prescription drug costs (something Trump has said is a priority for him), the Voting Rights Advancement Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act. 

Just because impeachment is the main story in Washington doesn’t mean policy work isn’t happening. It just means it isn’t getting talked about as much, and that the president — a figure who could apply pressure on McConnell to take up some of the bipartisan legislation currently gathering dust — has other priorities. 

Given the Senate could soon be consumed by an impeachment trial, the remaining weeks of 2019 could be the final opportunity for lawmakers in the upper chamber to advance legislation. However, there are no signals that Republican Senate leaders will seize that opportunity.

 

[Airbrush]

11 hours ago, YJ02 said:

Back in the 90's I saw him interviewed on TV, 20/20 or something. He struck me as a callous ass who thought he was entitled to everything he had. Yes, people should be proud of their accomplishments, he seemed to be somewhere far above proud though.

I find myself having to 'preamble' myself on this topic because it seems whenever someone has some little criticism of the democrats and this impeachment process, they get labeled immediately as a 'MAGA hat wearing racist Trump supporter'--yeah not me. Didn't vote for him--didn't vote for Hillary either.

Do you realize that by NOT voting for Clinton, you indirectly enabled Trump?

In 2006 Trump went to war with the comedian Rosie O'Donnell.  This was when I learned who Trump was.  He was, and is, a spoiled 8-year-old, in the body of a big hulk of a man.  He has always been a big fan of pro wrestling (WWE), which we know is fake.  He, like his base, loves fakery.  He is even in the pro wrestling hall of fame, not for wrestling, but as a big-mouthed promoter. 

He lived his entire life in a bubble of privilege, protected by his lawyers.  My initial assessment of Trump was correct, and has been confirmed daily since 2006.  What I want is an ADULT for president.  Is that too much to ask for?  It would also be nice if my president was not afflicted with a severe personality disorder.  I want a president that will have enough humility to listen to experts and not say absurd things like "I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me!"

"She added that Trump is "not a self-made man" but a "snake-oil salesman on Little House On The Prairie," and she proceeded to slam his multiple marriages: "[He] left the first wife -- had an affair. [He] had kids both times, but he's the moral compass for 20-year-olds in America. Donald, sit and spin, my friend."

Following those comments, Trump fired back at the comedian and told People Magazine that O'Donnell is "a real loser" and "a woman out of control.   You can't make false statements. Rosie will rue the words she said," referencing her claims that he went bankrupt. "I'll most likely sue her for making those false statements -- and it'll be fun.  Rosie's a loser. A real loser. I look forward to taking lots of money from my nice fat little Rosie."

There are few things I hate more than someone in power calling someone else a loser.  That is a permanent condemnation to be a lifetime loser.  It is a curse, plain and simple.  That is pure EVIL.  That is antichrist shit.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/politics/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud/index.html

Edited December 8, 2019 by Airbrush

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, YJ02 said:

its really quite easy to find on any search

here you go, took my about 20 seconds:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/trump-impeachment-inquiry-illegitimate-ten-reasons-why/

 

8 hours ago, YJ02 said:

the democrats are clearly biased and have been the whole time.

 

8 hours ago, YJ02 said:

and if you cant see how this is damaging the country, then you are just not looking

 

8 hours ago, YJ02 said:

They are obvious ones.

 

8 hours ago, YJ02 said:

its a disease thats spreading like wildfire.

 

8 hours ago, YJ02 said:

people like you try to shut down the speech and opinion of someone like me

 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It isn't unreasonable to note that an awful lot of effort and attention is being put toward impeachment that could otherwise be put toward these bills.

 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Don't shoot the messenger.

This is why it pains me to join these types of discussions. If people refuse to discuss specifics, use generalities as evidence, claim responses are an unfair attempt to stifle speech, then all we are left with is useless 'debate' based on 'feelings' about who is right and who is wrong. To shamefully steal from Bill S...

It is a debate

between idiots*, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

 

*not directed at anyone here, that was part of the quote

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 hours ago, zapatos said:

It makes it look like you are just looking for an excuse to stop the impeachment, just like the Republicans have been looking for excuses. 

 

Stuff like this Zap? Is this the type of statement you are against?

Edited December 8, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

Whataboutism is a disease too