The Impeachment Thread

[The Cat]

I don’t think you’re an idiot, but I am perplexed by the loyalty to Trump and continued insistence he is innocent of any wrongdoing.

That's life in Hollywoo for you.

 

[Maou]

I do find it interesting that there are some people who appear to have the same impression as you do. The one professor - Truley is an example. He seemed to be a very level headed guy. I came to a completely different conclusion. The evidence against Trump seemed obvious and compelling. The witnesses seemed remarkably consistent as well.

I wonder if the difference might be typologically based or what might cause that.

I would say origin of your values, and how you percieve intention in actions, and human nature playing in the big picture. Some people look at things face value, others take the nuances into consideration. I feel I read the nuances and subtle goings on behind the scenes, and look strongly at intention and motivations, not at what is said. For example.

 

[EllevenSevenSounds]

He gets impeached
Passes the house
fails in the senate
then he gets re-elected due to added media coverage.
Biggest constituent is CNN.

 

[EllevenSevenSounds]

Historically speaking, when a president is impeached and the impeachment fails, he becomes more popular and is re-elected. If trump is impeached and it passes the house but fails in the senate, the house will be washed in the next house election, for reasons mentioned following this sentence, and republicans will control the presidency, house, and senate.

The constant move of mainstream media to push democrats to the left, alienate people of certain ethnicities, after some of the biggest international war crimes in the history of man-kind have been carried out by blue presidents, will continuously destroy the democratic base and sink the party into oblivion.

For instance, to even discuss reparations for descendants of African-American slaves during an election is all but the end of the party in a world where most Caucasians and Asians in American cities who would foot this bill are either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation immigrants and came here as descendants of people wishing to escape slavery themselves or during world war II to escape the Nazis. Furthermore, it was other Africans who initially sold Africans into slavery and therefore if reparation's were even a possibility, that would and should be ethically the primary source of such fees (p.s. I am ten percent African American believe it or not).

This overall lackluster decision making by Democrats leads me to believe in the most simplest explanation, not that the democrats are as tactically dense and inferior as they have made themselves out to be for that would still leave too much inference regarding their initial rise to power, but that the democrats are quite cunning and actually on Trump's payroll and their function is to release the steam off disenfranchised and ignorant voters in order to thwart violence and protesting since the Democrats consistently make decisions which would ultimately result in Trump's re-election. Since democratic media outlets consistently provide Trump with endless coverage which is directly correlated to his victory, the democratic party in the U.S. is a laughing joke and a sinking ship that serves the function of a release valve while the new regime is ushered in.

And if Trump is smart enough to have Nanci Pelosi dance like his puppet so that a few angry people feel like something is getting done...then I guess we all deserve him as a ruler since that is the level of intelligence we rise up to.

And no, I am not a republican nor am I a democrat. I'm just a man interested in the facts.

 

[Tellenbach]

Btw, the Clinton impeachment wasn't about Monica Lewinsky; it was about perjury in relation to the Paula Jones case. I didn't think he should've been impeached for that, but he should've been impeached for raping Jaunita Broaderick, allegedly.

Because the Dems have politicized the impeachment process, we're going to see a lot more impeachments in the future. The Clinton impeachment was bipartisan; there were over 30 Dems who agreed with impeachment. Trump's impeachment will not be bipartisan. What I do like about the current impeachment circus is that it's driving more black voters to Trump. In 3 separate polls, Trump is at 33% support among black voters. This is unheard of. The more that Trump is perceived of as being an innocent victim by black voters, the more support he'll get. This is already backfiring big time.

Obama probably should've been impeached for lying about Benghazi, lying to voters about Obamacare, and withholding documents in the Fast and Furious investigation, but the GOP exercised much better judgement.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Historically speaking, when a president is impeached and the impeachment fails, he becomes more popular and is re-elected. If trump is impeached and it passes the house but fails in the senate, the house will be washed in the next house election, for reasons mentioned following this sentence, and republicans will control the presidency, house, and senate.

The constant move of mainstream media to push democrats to the left, alienate people of certain ethnicities, after some of the biggest international war crimes in the history of man-kind have been carried out by blue presidents, will continuously destroy the democratic base and sink the party into oblivion.

For instance, to even discuss reparations for descendants of African-American slaves during an election is all but the end of the party in a world where most Caucasians and Asians in American cities who would foot this bill are either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation immigrants and came here as descendants of people wishing to escape slavery themselves or during world war II to escape the Nazis. Furthermore, it was other Africans who initially sold Africans into slavery and therefore if reparation's were even a possibility, that would and should be ethically the primary source of such fees (p.s. I am ten percent African American believe it or not).

This overall lackluster decision making by Democrats leads me to believe in the most simplest explanation, not that the democrats are as tactically dense and inferior as they have made themselves out to be for that would still leave too much inference regarding their initial rise to power, but that the democrats are quite cunning and actually on Trump's payroll and their function is to release the steam off disenfranchised and ignorant voters in order to thwart violence and protesting since the Democrats consistently make decisions which would ultimately result in Trump's re-election. Since democratic media outlets consistently provide Trump with endless coverage which is directly correlated to his victory, the democratic party in the U.S. is a laughing joke and a sinking ship that serves the function of a release valve while the new regime is ushered in.

And if Trump is smart enough to have Nanci Pelosi dance like his puppet so that a few angry people feel like something is getting done...then I guess we all deserve him as a ruler since that is the level of intelligence we rise up to.

And no, I am not a republican nor am I a democrat. I'm just a man interested in the facts.

Since you’re interested in the facts..

Historically only two presidents were impeached. Johnson was acquitted but failed to be nominated by his party in the next election. Clinton was impeached in his second term and could not be re-elected because he was barred by law from running for a third term. Though he did coast out of office with high approval ratings

Nixon wasn’t impeached but he was also already in his second term, and he too wouldn’t have been eligible for re-election had he not resigned due to increasing pressure from both parties and declining approval ratings


I do agree, reparations would be a logistical nightmare. Who foots the bill? What about mixed race people or blacks who immigrated after slavery ended? They’d have to DNA test every American and do records checks to find out when their ancestors came here, etc.

It’s just a political tool progressive dems like to use during any election to score points but I don’t think any of them are serious about it

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Btw, the Clinton impeachment wasn't about Monica Lewinsky; it was about perjury in relation to the Paula Jones case. I didn't think he should've been impeached for that, but he should've been impeached for raping Jaunita Broaderick, allegedly.

Because the Dems have politicized the impeachment process, we're going to see a lot more impeachments in the future. The Clinton impeachment was bipartisan; there were over 30 Dems who agreed with impeachment. Trump's impeachment will not be bipartisan. What I do like about the current impeachment circus is that it's driving more black voters to Trump. In 3 separate polls, Trump is at 33% support among black voters. This is unheard of. The more that Trump is perceived of as being an innocent victim by black voters, the more support he'll get. This is already backfiring big time.

Obama probably should've been impeached for lying about Benghazi, lying to voters about Obamacare, and withholding documents in the Fast and Furious investigation, but the GOP exercised much better judgement.

Then by your own standards, Trump should be impeached for alleged sexual assaults committed before he became president

 

[Jaguar]

The Clinton impeachment was bipartisan; there were over 30 Dems who agreed with impeachment. Trump's impeachment will not be bipartisan.

And as a former Republican I can tell you why. The current GOP isn't the GOP of the past. It died. So what you speak of is a case of apples and oranges. Hell, before she died even Barbara Bush said by the current standard she couldn't even call herself a Republican anymore. George H.W. Bush voted for Hillary Clinton. Of course it won't be bipartisan - but not because Trump is innocent of wrongdoing. The current GOP is basically a criminal entity and couldn't care less about ethics, integrity, or the rule of law.

 

[Tellenbach]

Then by your own standards, Trump should be impeached for alleged sexual assaults committed before he became president

What sexual assaults? He paid money to a Playboy model and that porn star but I've never heard any allegations of sexual assault. Obviously, if the allegations are credible (and I believe Kathleen Willey's and Juanita Broaderick's story), then sure.... No one should be allowed to rape someone and stay in office. As we saw with the Brett Kavanaugh allegations, none of them were credible. The Clinton allegations are very credible because Kathleen Willey was a Democrat and Clinton supporter.

And as a former Republican I can tell you why. The current GOP isn't the GOP of the past. It died. So what you speak of is a case of apples and oranges. Hell, before she died even Barbara Bush said by the current standard she couldn't even call herself a Republican anymore.

Both parties have changed significantly and yet, Obama wasn't impeached for doing far greater harm to the country (lying about "keeping your doctor").

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

What sexual assaults? He paid money to a Playboy model and that porn star but I've never heard any allegations of sexual assault. Obviously, if the allegations are credible (and I believe Kathleen Willey's and Juanita Broaderick's story), then sure.... No one should be allowed to rape someone and stay in office. As we saw with the Brett Kavanaugh allegations, none of them were credible. The Clinton allegations are very credible because Kathleen Willey was a Democrat and Clinton supporter.



Both parties have changed significantly and yet, Obama wasn't impeached for doing far greater harm to the country (lying about "keeping your doctor").

An ex wife alleged he raped her

 

[Jaguar]

Obama wasn't impeached for doing far greater harm to the country (lying about "keeping your doctor").

This thread isn't for Obama red herrings. Or posting bullshit. Go start a thread to bitch about your buddy.

 

[Maou]

Since you’re interested in the facts..

Historically only two presidents were impeached. Johnson was acquitted but failed to be nominated by his party in the next election. Clinton was impeached in his second term and could not be re-elected because he was barred by law from running for a third term. Though he did coast out of office with high approval ratings

Nixon wasn’t impeached but he was also already in his second term, and he too wouldn’t have been eligible for re-election had he not resigned due to increasing pressure from both parties and declining approval ratings


I do agree, reparations would be a logistical nightmare. Who foots the bill? What about mixed race people or blacks who immigrated after slavery ended? They’d have to DNA test every American and do records checks to find out when their ancestors came here, etc.

It’s just a political tool progressive dems like to use during any election to score points but I don’t think any of them are serious about it

This here perfectly portrays the divide between Democratic voters. A lot of them DO BELIEVE this shit. No the front runners in elections, but the voters. The internet has radicalized views, and the front runners use them to gauge their policies. The problem is, is the internet does not represent the entire Democrat voting base. This is what causes the divide. The fact the Democrat party fails to acknowledge they lost control because of the extremists views, is the reason they are losing. That is why you have people like Pelosi beating back the extremists like Omar and the Squad.

 

[Tellenbach]

An ex wife alleged he raped her

According to Wikipedia:

Donald (2015) and ex-wife Ivana Trump (2007) who alleged privately and legally he raped her in 1989. After the divorce, she has publicly stated "but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense", and that the claim was "without merit."

She's saying it wasn't a literal rape and that her claim was without merit. Anything else?

 

[Deprecator]

Ever since Trump first announced his candidacy in 2015, the media has literally been non-stop talk about Trump, Trump, Trump and now even more Trump. First his campaign was only just a publicity stunt, that he wasn't really serious about running and that he had no real chance of winning the presidency. Then after he won the election it was non-stop talk about how the only way he could have won was if Russia had interfered, that clearly he must have colluded with Russia and that Mueller was sure to find some sort of evidence of an elaborate criminal conspiracy (you know, even more alarming stuff than all the talk about hush money, racism, alleged affairs and campaign finance violations). Fast forward to today and the nonsensical fits of hysteria continue under the guise of this inquiry. Now, in my most sincere and honest opinion, this partisan charade of a circus show — also known as impeachment inquiry 2019 — is nothing more than the grand finale of a desperate fishing expedition from Democrats and their rather futile attempt to come up with literally any excuse at all to undermine the will of the people and democracy as we know it.

Because any which way people try and spin it, at the end of the day I still feel like the facts will speak for themselves:

Fact #1: More than half of all house Democrats were in favor of impeachment, prior to the whistle blower coming forward, and their "reasons" literally varied from Trump calling fake news fake news, for calling a rat infested city a rat infested city, for being a "Russian agent" and even for asking if it was possible for Russia to unearth the thousands of Hillary's emails that were subpoenaed by congress and then promptly deleted.

Fact #2: Republican leaders in Congress have publicly declared that impeachment is essentially dead on arrival if it ever reaches the senate. Currently in the house, Republicans have been deprived of subpoena power, have been limited in the questions they're allowed to ask, have been limited in the witnesses they're allowed to call forth, and unlike the Democrats they've also stood unanimously with their vote to oppose the inquiry (and it's also not surprising that House Speaker Pelosi would suddenly flip on her repeated claims that she'd only support impeachment if it had bipartisan support).

Fact #3: Trump has declared publicly that he hopes the inquiry reaches the senate, as there'd be a sudden and immediate shift over who had control over the proceedings. The Senate judiciary committee chairman, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, will subpoena Schiff and the whistle-blower and the Bidens, and Trump will be happy to send his whole administration to testify, something he refused to allow at the House intelligence committee investigation. Democrats have dug themselves into a hole where they're now damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they don't vote for impeachment Trump claims vindication, and if they do vote for impeachment then Democrats would face humiliation in the senate and Trump again claims vindication; in fact it's such a win-win for trump that I can't help but wonder if he isn't some sort of super genius playing 5D chess, and had brilliantly orchestrated this outcome from the get-go.

Fact #4: Per Vegas odds and London bookies, Trump continues to stand strong as a heavy favorite to win 2020; he has garnered widespread and unprecedented support of his party, and meanwhile public support for impeachment, especially among independents, has only diminished since the proceeding's inception.

Fact #5: Trump never asked anyone in Ukraine for an investigation that would condemn the Bidens, only for the facts. This is reasonable — both parties should know if the former vice-president, now a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, acted improperly in Ukraine or not. There is no actual evidence that Trump tied release of aid to Ukraine to such an investigation (even witnesses called forth by Democrats readily admit that this narrative was merely a "presumption" on their part). President Zelensky of Ukraine denies it, the aid was released, and to date there's still no investigation to speak of. The Democrats may have hearsay, conjecture, presumptions, anonymous "whistle blowers" and a media blow horn to boot — but still no high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

[Jaguar]

Ivana was stupid enough to sign a confidentiality clause which prevented her from talking about her marriage, of course she had to retract her rape claim. Doesn't mean the rape didn't happen.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I do find it interesting that there are some people who appear to have the same impression as you do. The one professor - Truley is an example. He seemed to be a very level headed guy. I came to a completely different conclusion. The evidence against Trump seemed obvious and compelling. The witnesses seemed remarkably consistent as well.

I wonder if the difference might be typologically based or what might cause that.

There's a phenomenon in psychology called parasocial interaction: "...a kind of psychological relationship experienced by an audience in their mediated encounters with performers in the mass media, particularly on television. Viewers or listeners come to consider media personalities as friends, despite having limited interactions with them. PSI is described as an illusionary experience, such that media audiences interact with personas (e.g., talk show host, celebrities, fictional characters, social media influencers) as if they are engaged in a reciprocal relationship with them." This can lead to people feeling conviction that they 'know' someone they do not know, and explains how a strong feeling of trust can be cultivated on an illusion.

Authentic vulnerability - the kind that engenders strong trust, so strong that a person doesn't begin to recognize the confirmation bias at play in their perception - comes from repeated exposure and shared experience. And Trump has the extra edge of coming across as authentic because of his consistent hyperbolic exaggeration and bold-faced lying, so the potential for 'shared experience' is especially strong. His dishonesty probably amplifies the feeling of 'shared experience'. (Honest Liars: Dishonest Leaders May Be Perceived as Authentic). The fact that it's a parasocial interaction makes it an illusion, but it feels real. I think a lot of people just 'know' he didn't do anything wrong and they've lost the capacity to evaluate how damning the evidence would be for anyone else (i.e. to see it objectively, because the emotional connection/relationship is so strong).

I read a rather long article lately saying this more in depth, but I can't remember where I read it. One woman in a public poll answered - when asked if Trump would lose her support for shooting someone on 5th Avenue - that she'd assume the person did something to deserve it. I don't see how anyone can claim, at the very least, that there isn't a bizarre amount of this parasocial interaction misplaced trust (based on illusion) going on. (Unless they're enmeshed in it too).

I'm not saying this is - without any doubt - why every single level-headed person who doesn't see 'clear' evidence of Trump's guilt doesn't see the evidence in the same way (and I will add that "level-headed" Trump supporters regarding this impeachment do happen, although they are imo far, far and few between). Where perception is concerned, I don't like to lay down absolute definitives as if I personally (and everyone with the same opinions) have the single only magic key to perceiving reality. But I can't help but feel a relatively strong "probably" about it. What's going on is truly stunning. I have only met one person who comes across as very level-headed and still doesn't see the evidence as damning. If they don't have the parasocial interaction misplaced trust thing going on, then I think any mob boss would be insanely lucky to have these people in their jury.

 

[Tellenbach]

Democrat Maxine Waters called for impeachment months before the Mueller Report was released. How is that not evidence of bias?

Suppose it was President Biden who called for withholding of aid to Ukraine unless the President of Ukraine did him a favor. Would the Dems still support impeachment? Oh wait, he did do that as VP and the Dems didn't care, lol.

We know that Adam Schiff's staff met with the "whistleblower" before the charges were launched. What was discussed between Schiff's team and the "whistleblower"? Why the lack of transparency?

Dems always allege that Trump divides the nation; isn't this partisan witchhunt dividing the nation? They're trying to impeach a President who has over 90% approval with his base. Does this impeachment nonsense unify or divide the nation?

Doesn't mean the rape didn't happen.

Speculation isn't evidence.

 

[EllevenSevenSounds]

Democrat Maxine Waters called for impeachment months before the Mueller Report was released. How is that not evidence of bias?

Suppose it was President Biden who called for withholding of aid to Ukraine unless the President of Ukraine did him a favor. Would the Dems still support impeachment? Oh wait, he did do that as VP and the Dems didn't care, lol.

We know that Adam Schiff's staff met with the "whistleblower" before the charges were launched. What was discussed between Schiff's team and the "whistleblower"? Why the lack of transparency?

Dems always allege that Trump divides the nation; isn't this partisan witchhunt dividing the nation? They're trying to impeach a President who has over 90% approval with his base. Does this impeachment nonsense unify or divide the nation?



Speculation isn't evidence.

Just to rift off this, the first president to divide the nation in the modern era was Obama. He declared that Trevon Martin, "Could have been his son," a borderline racist remark that started the racial divide we see today. (I'm 10% African American).

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I do find it interesting that there are some people who appear to have the same impression as you do. The one professor - Truley is an example. He seemed to be a very level headed guy. I came to a completely different conclusion. The evidence against Trump seemed obvious and compelling. The witnesses seemed remarkably consistent as well.

I wonder if the difference might be typologically based or what might cause that.

Two movies, one screen, per Scott Adams (an avowed leftist).

Plenty of leftists see through the lies of the media narrative. They still think Trump is awful and would never vote for him, but see through the nonstop propaganda.

One is Aaron Mate, the son of Gabor Mate, who has written for the Nation among other publications.

Another is Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone reporter. Another is Glenn Greenwald. There are many more.

All are leftists. All see through the "offical media narrative".

Now, if educated, professional, leftist journalists can see the "official media narrative", and still despise Trump and yet see the impeachment as a fraud, then perhaps you might need to check your cognitive basis.

Cognitive science shows that we largely decide things emotionally and then think we rationally decide our beliefs.

Now cognitive bias is independent of party or ideology. Lots on the Right and Left are easily captured, and then believe they are clear thinking and their opponents are blind slaves.

 

[Maou]

There's a phenomenon in psychology called parasocial interaction: "...a kind of psychological relationship experienced by an audience in their mediated encounters with performers in the mass media, particularly on television. Viewers or listeners come to consider media personalities as friends, despite having limited interactions with them. PSI is described as an illusionary experience, such that media audiences interact with personas (e.g., talk show host, celebrities, fictional characters, social media influencers) as if they are engaged in a reciprocal relationship with them." This can lead to people feeling conviction that they 'know' someone they do not know, and explains how a strong feeling of trust can be cultivated on an illusion.

Authentic vulnerability - the kind that engenders strong trust, so strong that a person doesn't begin to recognize the confirmation bias at play in their perception - comes from repeated exposure and shared experience. And Trump has the extra edge of coming across as authentic because of his consistent hyperbolic exaggeration and bold-faced lying, so the potential for 'shared experience' is especially strong. His dishonesty probably amplifies the feeling of 'shared experience'. (Honest Liars: Dishonest Leaders May Be Perceived as Authentic). The fact that it's a parasocial interaction makes it an illusion, but it feels real. I think a lot of people just 'know' he didn't do anything wrong and they've lost the capacity to evaluate how damning the evidence would be for anyone else (i.e. to see it objectively, because the emotional connection/relationship is so strong).

I read a rather long article lately saying this more in depth, but I can't remember where I read it. One woman in a public poll answered - when asked if Trump would lose her support for shooting someone on 5th Avenue - that she'd assume the person did something to deserve it. I don't see how anyone can claim, at the very least, that there isn't a bizarre amount of this parasocial interaction misplaced trust (based on illusion) going on. (Unless they're enmeshed in it too).

I'm not saying this is - without any doubt - why every single level-headed person who doesn't see 'clear' evidence of Trump's guilt doesn't see the evidence in the same way (and I will add that "level-headed" Trump supporters regarding this impeachment do happen, although they are imo far, far and few between). Where perception is concerned, I don't like to lay down absolute definitives as if I personally (and everyone with the same opinions) have the single only magic key to perceiving reality. But I can't help but feel a relatively strong "probably" about it. What's going on is truly stunning. I have only met one person who comes across as very level-headed and still doesn't see the evidence as damning. If they don't have the parasocial interaction misplaced trust thing going on, then I think any mob boss would be insanely lucky to have these people in their jury.

>makes up mental illness, or searches for one to explain the opposition rather than addressing their points.

I find it curious that the people who don't support Trump have extensive posts saying nothing, in attempts to defend their views.