Impeachment Hearings

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Will quotes from Trump or Giuliani do? "The reason you don’t know about it is because of the cover up by the corrupt Democrats and their establishment media!"

Sorry can't give you Trump. He was already in the qualification at the end. Did you forget the: "(not saying Trump hasn't already started)"?

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

 

Trump has been insulting Senate Democrats for years. Giuliani the same.

Pretty sure the jury is less than two weeks old.

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Doesn't this mean that currently the ARE the only ones?

With the exception of Trump as per above...that is what was implied. You can of course think I meant it literally if it makes you feel better about your nit picking skills.

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Pretty sure the jury is less than two weeks old.

 

This particular group has been together about 1 1/2 years old. But if you don't count insults that are older than two weeks that's fine. We'll pretend they never happened.

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You can of course think I meant it literally if it makes you feel better about your nit picking skills.

Didn't mean to nitpick. I apologize for assuming you meant what you said. 

My intent was to call out your Fox News style of debate. I wouldn't mind it so much if you didn't paint yourself as anti-Trump at the same time as you mischaracterize those who are not pro-Trump. Next time I'll speak more plainly.

[J.C.MacSwell]

53 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I wouldn't mind it so much if you didn't paint yourself as anti-Trump at the same time as you mischaracterize those who are not pro-Trump. Next time I'll speak more plainly.

Sorry. But I have to call it the way I see it, for myself, on the basis of the evidence known to me that I believe I can trust. (not easy these days to fully trust anything)

Oddly, both Biden and Trump could take a hit here if witnesses are called...which could open things up for Sanders...which could work out for Trump...given how far to the left Bernie is from the average American.

 

 

I literally said jury.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

 

Didn't mean to nitpick. I apologize for assuming you meant what you said. 

 

But you didn't.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

This particular group has been together about 1 1/2 years old. But if you don't count insults that are older than two weeks that's fine. We'll pretend they never happened.

 

How about instead of pretending I referred to a group that has been together for a year and a half...admitting that I was, literally, referring only to them this past week or so, as per the current trial.

[Raider5678]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m confused why one side gets held so consistently to a different standard than the other. Maybe Goebbels had the right idea here... something about accusing others of what you yourself are doing?

This is a ridiculous accusation to level at JC. 

JC Macswell pointed out that Democrats and Republicans are lobbing insults at each other during the impeachment trial. The Senators are doing it via twitter and news conferences, the house managers and the white house lawyers are doing it during the impeachment trial.

You however, in the same breath, dismiss what Democrat's are saying as not insults and prejudice, but take what the Republicans are saying as insults and prejudice.

However upon examining what's being said by both sides, I find that JC Macswell is correct. Both sides are lobbing insults at each other. In fact, even Judge Roberts the Chief Justice admonished both sides and told them to remember exactly they're speaking to. 

 

According to you, pointing out that both sides are doing it, is holding one side to a different standard than the other. However, claiming that one side is doing it, while flat out dismissing what the other side is doing, is the fair and correct way to do that. 

Yet you have yet to prove how JC is applying a different standard to Republicans than he is to Democrats. 

 

Let's take the example of what Adam Schiff actually said, versus how you perceived it.

Real words: "Now I don't know if that's true. But we're talking about a president who would make himself a monarch."

How you took it: "I’m unsure that’s true, but speaks to the broader theme here of Trump seeing himself like a monarch. "

 

It is a bigger stretch to say that Adam meant what you're claiming he meant, then it is to look at it and say Adam was saying Trump would make himself a monarch. Clearly, the biased approach here is yours. 

We cannot prove that Trump would make himself a monarch. Period. Yet Adam says it as a certainty. That is prejudice, a preconceived opinion that is not actually based on evidence.

That means that what JC said is not holding people to a different standard, but rather the same standard he is using to say the Republicans are doing the same thing.

 

It's easy to look at both sides and realize that they're clearly insulting each other. Yet you're making an outlandish claim that only the Republicans are doing it, and that any suggestion that Democrats are doing it is just holding them to a totally different standard.

The irony is that statement is insane. 

 

 

 

[zapatos]

57 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Sorry. But I have to call it the way I see it, for myself, on the basis of the evidence known to me that I believe I can trust. (not easy these days to fully trust anything)

Oddly, both Biden and Trump could take a hit here if witnesses are called...which could open things up for Sanders...which could work out for Trump...given how far to the left Bernie is from the average American.

 

 

I literally said jury.

But you didn't.

It's actually a very effective style of debate, pretty much perfected by Trump. You can tell whatever falsehood you like (from 'little white lie' to 'liar, liar, pants on fire') and then move on with the damage of the falsehood effectively done. Works great with with those who don't really require evidence, like many Trump supporters.

If someone calls you out you just ignore, refuse to engage, don't answer questions, obfuscate, hoping the person will go away. If they don't, just say you didn't mean it "literally" (or whatever), and that the fault really belongs to the person who brings it up due to their own weakness, such as "nitpicking". Trump's preferred phrasing seems to be that he eventually says "it was only a joke" and then faults the person bringing it up as someone who has no sense of humor.

Personally I prefer the style where if someone calls you out for something you said, you either explain why you were right all along, possibly that they actually misunderstood what you were saying, or if appropriate, respond with a "yes, perhaps that was a bit overstated".

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How about instead of pretending I referred to a group that has been together for a year and a half...admitting that I was, literally, referring only to them this past week or so, as per the current trial.

So THIS time you were being literal. Got it. Kind of hard to tell when to take it literally and when not to take it literally. My bad.

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

JC Macswell pointed out that Democrats and Republicans are lobbing insults at each other during the impeachment trial.

Guess I misunderstood him, which seems to be the entire issue here. When he said...

Quote

and then Nadler and Schiff won't be the only ones prejudging and insulting the jury prior to final verdict.

...I for some reason thought that he was implying that Nadler and Schiff were the only ones insulting the jury prior to final verdict.

[MigL]

This thread moves pretty fast.
Certainly faster than the actual Impeachment trial.

As for browbeating and put-downs, you guys are starting to make the trial participants look like amateurs.
( really, comparisons to Goebbels and D Trump debating style ? )

We have opinions.
So does everyone else.
Every once in a while you can even change someone's mind.
But most of the time people are too passionate about politics.
( strange, as JC is Canadian and we are laid back, go with the flow, kind of guys  )

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

( strange, as JC is Canadian and we are laid back, go with the flow, kind of guys  )

Yeah, it is kind of weird that two of the people who most often take (what I would have considered) conservative positions, are two of the people who think the US is too conservative.

You are two wild and crazy guys! 😀

[MigL]

We have no choice Zap.
If we didn't, who would you have a discussion with ?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

This is a ridiculous accusation to level at JC. 

I can see how it looks like I aimed that at JCM. I should’ve been more precise in my language. My intent was to remind us how often arguments from Trump and his supporters seem to accuse and lambaste the left for actions they themselves are terribly guilty of. 

Case in point: Crying about how awful Hunter Biden getting a job on that oil company board is all while the Trump children have jobs for which they’re clearly unqualified right there today in our White House and get Saudi investments and Chinese patents and make hundreds of millions due to their daddy’s job. 

Edited January 29, 2020 by iNow

[Raider5678]

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

I can see how it looks like I aimed that at JCM. I should’ve been more precise in my language. My intent was to remind us how often arguments from Trump and his supporters seem to accuse and lambaste the left for actions they themselves are terribly guilty of. 

I can agree that many Trump supporters hold double standards.

[iNow]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mcconnell-tells-gop-senators-votes-block-witnesses-trump/story?id=68597835

Quote

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Republican senators [behind closed doors] Tuesday evening that he doesn't currently have the votes to block witnesses at President Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial.

The Senate was set to vote as early as Friday on whether to consider having witnesses and allowing new evidence.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

...I for some reason thought that he was implying that Nadler and Schiff were the only ones insulting the jury prior to final verdict.

I knew they had, and was unaware of anyone else, but admitted Trump may have (it's pretty bad conduct IMO). Was there anyone else? 

For some reason you also thought I was implying that the behavior of Republican Senators had been above reproach.

22 hours ago, zapatos said:

So tell me what you mean by this as you seem to be implying that Nadler and Schiff are behaving poorly in the matter while the behavior of the Republican Senators has been above reproach.

I had said nothing of the kind in bold. How do I reply? I did think Nadler and Schiff were behaving poorly...

I'm anti-Trump to a point. I think he is unfit to be President. But he is not all bad...and when he is bad that does not excuse bad behavior by the Democrats. Nor does bad behavior by Democrats justify bad behavior by Republicans.

I realize this is politics and to some degree can't be helped but it's gone overboard and it's divisive. And it's not just Trump. Or Republicans.

Sometimes one side is worse than the other. Calling out one side doesn't mean the other is beyond reproach.

 

 

 

 

[MigL]

Up until the tea party movement you could expect both Democrats and Republicans to be fairly honorable.
These days most people have given up on the Republicans; they don't have any shame anymore.
However we still expect some decency and the 'high road' from Democrats.

That's why, when they occasionally slip into the gutter with Republicans, and act like them, it LOOKS even worse.

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I realize this is politics and to some degree can't be helped but it's gone overboard and it's divisive. And it's not just Trump. Or Republicans.

Sometimes one side is worse than the other. Calling out one side doesn't mean the other is beyond reproach.

Reproach is one thing, equivalence is something yet again.

I didn't hear any Dems claiming this is a hoax, attacking the procedure or the institutions bringing it. No advocating to bring a partisan result irrespective of the oaths taken.

In practically every breath, Trump slurs derogatory names, lies through his teeth and turns a blind eye to corruption, nepotism, malfeasance and threats.

Being quick to admonish Dems for things said as though it undermines the case against Trump, is grasping at straws and little else.

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 hours ago, rangerx said:

Reproach is one thing, equivalence is something yet again.
 

Right. And in this particular instance of insulting the jury...there is no Republican equivalent (but give Trump time...)

 

13 hours ago, rangerx said:

I didn't hear any Dems claiming this is a hoax, attacking the procedure or the institutions bringing it. No advocating to bring a partisan result irrespective of the oaths taken.
 

 Presidents through history have done more than what Trump was actually impeached for as per the known facts. I realize that opinion is a minority one here.

 

14 hours ago, rangerx said:

In practically every breath, Trump slurs derogatory names, lies through his teeth and turns a blind eye to corruption, nepotism, malfeasance and threats.
 

 He's a piece of work. That doesn't justify overstating it, or making claims of certainty of facts without proof.

14 hours ago, rangerx said:

Being quick to admonish Dems for things said as though it undermines the case against Trump, is grasping at straws and little else.

Dems overstating there case undermines their case. Nothing I say changes that.

Similarly, Trump's claim that the phone call was "perfect" undermines his case, at least to any reasonable person. (but note that Republicans, generally speaking, aren't repeating this absurdity)

Having said that...I realize a small degree of overstating works...too bad the Dems can't stick to that and roll over Trump, rather than slip and risk getting rolled over.

 

 

[rangerx]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Right. And in this particular instance of insulting the jury...there is no Republican equivalent (but give Trump time...)

 

 Presidents through history have done more than what Trump was actually impeached for as per the known facts. I realize that opinion is a minority one here.

 

 He's a piece of work. That doesn't justify overstating it, or making claims of certainty of facts without proof.

Dems overstating there case undermines their case. Nothing I say changes that.

Similarly, Trump's claim that the phone call was "perfect" undermines his case, at least to any reasonable person. (but note that Republicans, generally speaking, aren't repeating this absurdity)

Having said that...I realize a small degree of overstating works...too bad the Dems can't stick to that and roll over Trump, rather than slip and risk getting rolled over.

 

 

Again, your equivalence is in the gutter and responses obtuse.

The Republicans insult the constitution, yet you've equated that with a perceived insult to the jury. Snowflake and absurd.

Presidents in history is your interpretation, not historical fact even if it were true, there's a hundred reasons impeachment wasn't brought. Mainly the balance of power. Me avoiding a speeding ticket years ago does not automatically mean you don't get a speeding ticket for being caught doing 60 in a 30 zone.

Without proof? Trump ADMITS making the call. The evidence is overwhelming. It's the Republican's claim that's contrived and bogus.

Overstating what? if anything, it's understated. Oh, maybe one aspect or sentence was overstated, but that certainly is not any ground for dismissal.

Thanks for alluding to my statement about grasping at straws.

Edited January 30, 2020 by rangerx

[moth]

He didn't doit. Even if he did, it wasn't a crime. Also he has the affluenza so you can't blame him for his actions.
This presidency reminds me of the death of a Spinal Tap drummer. A mystery best left unsolved.
 

[iNow]

GOP Sen. Susan Collins says she "will vote in support of the motion to allow witnesses and documents to be subpoenaed." https://abcn.ws/2RHTu32

[Airbrush]

Romney also will vote for witnesses, but Murkowski is undecided.  So at best there could be only 3 GOP voting for witnesses.  That makes a tie.  The judge will not break the tie.  Witnesses and documents fail.  Who is the 4th GOP senator that will vote for witnesses and documents?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

Romney also will vote for witnesses, but Murkowski is undecided

Murkowski has said she's going to vote No

[CharonY]

Lamar Alexander is also a no, so there is no real chance for witnesses to be allowed. His justification is basically in line with the GOP strategy: 

Quote

There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a “mountain of overwhelming evidence.

So in other words the "he did not do it" is done and now we are firmly in "it does not matter" territory.

[iNow]

The vote to allow witnesses and testimony was defeated 51 to 49.

Romney and Collins were the only two Republicans to vote yes. No Democrats defected. 

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

The vote to allow witnesses and testimony was defeated 51 to 49.

Romney and Collins were the only two Republicans to vote yes. No Democrats defected. 

Do you think it's perhaps better if the American public pass their own judgement in November?

[moth]

32 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Do you think it's perhaps better if the American public pass their own judgement in November?

That would be nice. Looks like we'll have plenty of foreign assistance so everybody votes "right".