The Impeachment Thread

[Jaguar]

They're just pandering to their ravenously bloodthirsty base so they can stay in office regardless of what happens.

What a shining beacon of hope:

 

[Z Buck McFate]

If trump is "literally the worst" and is as corrupt as his opponents have been saying for the last three years, how hard should finding something simple and legitimate to go after him be? For as weak as this impeachment case is, one might almost think that all the hyperventilating over his presidency was maybe mistaken after all.

But...this is exactly what they're doing. Even though there's damning evidence of more, they're sticking to the absolute minimum. Even if the impeachment was an attempt to "reverse election results", it proceeded officially and he's legally required to cooperate with it.

If someone is charged with murder and given the death penalty, is the death penalty an attempt to "reverse that person's birth"? No. It's a consequence for actions that happened - actions that person chose - after that person's birth. The very, very least of what Trump did - the part that's irrefutable - was to abuse power and obstruct the investigation. It is the simplest thing to go after him for, and it is serious enough to merit "going after him" in spite of claims that it's partisan fueled and only happening because of so much hate for him.

I'm not saying he is innocent, but completely delegitimizing their case by rushing it through is puzzling to me. Based on the evidence of how they are going about this, I don't think democrats give two figs about succeeding here- They're just pandering to their ravenously bloodthirsty base so they can stay in office regardless of what happens.

Yes, this is exactly what appears to be the story they're selling you, assuring you it's the only reason for any investigation so none of you have to think too hard about it. Or something. And for the most part, it appears to be working. Trump can do anything, and there's a very strong appearance of the right swallowing this theory whole that the "only' reason Democrats (and haters, and/or anyone who has a problem with him acting outside the law) have a problem with anything he does is because of all the hate. There doesn't seem to be much reflection on Trump's actual actions and/or whether they were acceptable though. I can guarantee that if a Democratic POTUS tried the same shit, THEN you'd all see it.

 

[anticlimatic]

For background, I had always assumed you were merely a habitual contrarian. Then, from your last couple of posts in the thread, I learned that you don't actually know anything about politics. So I tried to make it simple for you. Not simple enough, apparently, but there is a limit to my patience. So we're back to my not wasting too much time trying to argue with helpless cases - what you read as condescension.

 

[ceecee]

But...this is exactly what they're doing. Even though there's damning evidence of more, they're sticking to the absolute minimum. Even if the impeachment was an attempt to "reverse election results", it proceeded officially and he's legally required to cooperate with it.

If someone is charged with murder and given the death penalty, is the death penalty an attempt to "reverse that person's birth"? No. It's a consequence for actions that happened - actions that person chose - after that person's birth. The very, very least of what Trump did - the part that's irrefutable - was to abuse power and obstruct the investigation. It is the simplest thing to go after him for, and it is serious enough to merit "going after him" in spite of claims that it's partisan fueled and only happening because of so much hate for him.



Yes, this is exactly what appears to be the story they're selling you, assuring you it's the only reason for any investigation so none of you have to think too hard about it. Or something. And for the most part, it appears to be working. Trump can do anything, and there's a very strong appearance of the right swallowing this theory whole that the "only' reason Democrats (and haters, and/or anyone who has a problem with him acting outside the law) have a problem with anything he does is because of all the hate. There doesn't seem to be much reflection on Trump's actual actions and/or whether they were acceptable though. I can guarantee that if a Democratic POTUS tried the same shit, THEN you'd all see it.

I never thought I would say this but Justin Amash explained this very simply (in a tweet, anyone can go look) for all the people that don't grasp what high crimes and misdemeanors mean.

What did the Framers mean by “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”? “High” denotes high office. They were not describing statutory misdeeds but rather “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.…

“They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
—Federalist No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton)

It's amazing to me that any normal person would think simply standing there and letting Trump do whatever the fuck he wants is just fine. Turn it around to a Dem and every Trump fan would need to be peeled off the ceiling.

And speaking of Trump fans, Nico is actually right. You don't know anything about politics and you don't know anything about the law. And, like Trump, you don't want to be bothered learning even a little. Many Trump supports rarely if ever voted in the past and probably won't post-Trump.

So many of you long for an authoritarian overlord who will destroy everything you hate, you're all willing to go down with him. Why do you expect the rest of us to allow your fantasy?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

It's amazing to me that any normal person would think simply standing there and letting Trump do whatever the fuck he wants is just fine. Turn it around to a Dem and every Trump fan would need to be peeled off the ceiling.

Yeah. I have trouble wrapping my head around it. I don't want to say it's definitely what's happening, but I think the parasocial bond theory (people feeling like they 'know' him, and trust intentions enough that they don't have to pay attention beyond "they're only accusing me of stuff because they hate me!" to feel like they 'know' what is going on) makes the most sense. But yeah, if any Dem tried a fraction of this bullshit the reaction would be so much worse*. I get a kick out of seeing the occasional Daily Show flashback about Fox anchors losing their shit over stuff like Obama using a selfie stick or wearing beige pants.

*And Dems wouldn't because they'd lose their base. See: Al Franken compared to the many GOP - accused of the same and worse - who stayed.

 

[anticlimatic]

But...this is exactly what they're doing. Even though there's damning evidence of more, they're sticking to the absolute minimum. Even if the impeachment was an attempt to "reverse election results", it proceeded officially and he's legally required to cooperate with it. If someone is charged with murder and given the death penalty, is the death penalty an attempt to "reverse that person's birth"? No. It's a consequence for actions that happened - actions that person chose - after that person's birth. The very, very least of what Trump did - the part that's irrefutable - was to abuse power and obstruct the investigation. It is the simplest thing to go after him for, and it is serious enough to merit "going after him" in spite of claims that it's partisan fueled and only happening because of so much hate for him. Yes, this is exactly what appears to be the story they're selling you, assuring you it's the only reason for any investigation so none of you have to think too hard about it. Or something. And for the most part, it appears to be working. Trump can do anything, and there's a very strong appearance of the right swallowing this theory whole that the "only' reason Democrats (and haters, and/or anyone who has a problem with him acting outside the law) have a problem with anything he does is because of all the hate. There doesn't seem to be much reflection on Trump's actual actions and/or whether they were acceptable though. I can guarantee that if a Democratic POTUS tried the same shit, THEN you'd all see it.

Homie, I don't watch the news. That was a thought I came up with all by myself based on a few simple facts:

1) Rushing things weakens the Democrats case. If they did it right and waited for the judiciary to force first-hand testimony nobody could say they were rushing things just to beat the upcoming election.

2) Without bipartisan support, which is impossible without number 1, impeachment is not just DOA- it's going to make Trump even more electable than he currently is with a booming economy.

3) Nancy Pelosi isn't an idiot, and must know this.

I don't think my speculation that they're just looking out for themselves and have already conceded that they can't dislodge trump from office here is too far off the mark. They sacrificed potentially getting rid of him midway through his second term, for not getting rid of him at all and keeping their base happy. A politician is a politician.

 

[Nicodemus]

Yeah. I have trouble wrapping my head around it. I don't want to say it's definitely what's happening, but I think the parasocial bond theory (people feeling like they 'know' him, and trust intentions enough that they don't have to pay attention beyond "they're only accusing me of stuff because they hate me!" to feel like they 'know' what is going on) makes the most sense. But yeah, if any Dem tried a fraction of this bullshit the reaction would be so much worse*. I get a kick out of seeing the occasional Daily Show flashback about Fox anchors losing their shit over stuff like Obama using a selfie stick or wearing beige pants.

*And Dems wouldn't because they'd lose their base. See: Al Franken compared to the many GOP - accused of the same and worse - who stayed.

I'm not sure there'd be much left of the US if Democrats were as unscrupulous in their pursuit of power as Republicans. Imagine what Gotham City would look like if Batman shared the Joker's moral code.

 

[Nicodemus]

1) Rushing things weakens the Democrats case. If they did it right and waited for the judiciary to force first-hand testimony nobody could say they were rushing things just to beat the upcoming election.

If they waited for the judiciary, the election would already be over, having been influenced by foreign interference, resulting in an illegitimate president to take office in 2021. Even if that president would then, following a decision by the Supreme Court, be impeached and removed with bipartisan support, there would still be an illegitimate vice president waiting to assume the office. You would have to remove him as well, and have another election.

 

[Jaguar]

Someone needs to get after Rudy. Come on SDNY, do your job.

 

[anticlimatic]

If they waited for the judiciary, the election would already be over, having been influenced by foreign interference, resulting in an illegitimate president to take office in 2021. Even if that president would then, following a decision by the Supreme Court, be impeached and removed with bipartisan support, there would still be an illegitimate vice president waiting to assume the office. You would have to remove him as well, and have another election.

Woah- you're saying we have some flimsy- I mean "solid" evidence that Saddam has weapons of mas destruction, and unless we rush in there right away with guns ablazing he might use them on us or his people? Solid play. What could possibly go wrong.

 

[Nicodemus]

Woah- you're saying we have some flimsy- I mean "solid" evidence that Saddam has weapons of mas destruction, and unless we rush in there right away with guns ablazing he might use them on us or his people? Solid play. What could possibly go wrong.

What a dumb-ass analogy. As previously observed, you really don't do well with those.

Do you know who Gerald Ford was?

Anyway, the fact that you don't know shit doesn't mean shit is unknown. The evidence isn't even in dispute. You can be glad others are looking out for you while you mind your own little business.

 

[anticlimatic]

What a dumb-ass analogy. As previously observed, you really don't do well with those.

Do you know who Gerald Ford was?

Anyway, the fact that you don't know shit doesn't mean shit is unknown. The evidence isn't even in dispute. You can be glad others are looking out for you while you mind your own little business.

You seem to be on tilt, amigo. Maybe take a quick 5 around the block before returning to the discussion.

 

[Nicodemus]

You seem to be on tilt, amigo. Maybe take a quick 5 around the block before returning to the discussion.

Don't ascribe to tilt what is just as easily explained by condescension.

Again, do you know how Gerald Ford became president?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Homie, I don't watch the news. That was a thought I came up with all by myself based on a few simple facts:

1) Rushing things weakens the Democrats case. If they did it right and waited for the judiciary to force first-hand testimony nobody could say they were rushing things just to beat the upcoming election.

Maybe not, but they'd pull something else out of their ass. This "rushing things" is a very small part of their criticism/defense (so small that I haven't even heard about it).

2) Without bipartisan support, which is impossible without number 1, impeachment is not just DOA- it's going to make Trump even more electable than he currently is with a booming economy.

Bipartisan support isn't going to happen anyway. Not so long as Moscow Mitch is head of the Senate. GOP senators can't afford to listen to the facts and vote according to their conscience because - so long as Trump has the rabid, mindless support of their constituencies - it'd be political suicide (not only because it wouldn't please the GOP base, but Trump would immediately start smearing them with bullshit accusations to ensure their base turned against them).

I'm starting to think Trump could shoot a baby in broad daylight, in front of cameras, and GOP senators would still vote against the impeachment. He'd maybe send out a couple of tweets about how it 'had to be done', and problem solved.

So the impeachment was DOA before it started regardless. But they did it because not doing it was setting a shitty precedent: it's okay to let a POTUS get away with patently illegal acts if calling him on it costs votes. And it probably is going to cost some of the Dem representatives (who voted in favor of impeachment) votes. Overall, there's a good chance this hurts Dems more than helping (by "pandering" to their base) and they knew that going into it.

Woah- you're saying we have some flimsy- I mean "solid" evidence that Saddam has weapons of mas destruction, and unless we rush in there right away with guns ablazing he might use them on us or his people? Solid play. What could possibly go wrong.

The director of the FBI testified that Russia did in fact interfere with the 2016 election, and that they were continuing to do so. His exact words, said emphatically: "They're doing it as we speak." It's not flimsy evidence. Moscow Mitch and Trump do nothing because it works in their favor. Moscow Mitch actually earned his nickname by voting against measures to protect elections from interference.

You probably shouldn't mock the claim as sensationalist or alarmist if you have no interest in reading the Mueller Report directly or watching the impeachment hearings (both to circumvent media's reporting of it) to find out how true it is.

 

[anticlimatic]

Maybe not, but they'd pull something else out of their ass. This "rushing things" is a very small part of their criticism/defense (so small that I haven't even heard about it).



Bipartisan support isn't going to happen anyway. Not so long as Moscow Mitch is head of the Senate. GOP senators can't afford to listen to the facts and vote according to their conscience because - so long as Trump has the rabid, mindless support of their constituencies - it'd be political suicide (not only because it wouldn't please the GOP base, but Trump would immediately start smearing them with bullshit accusations to ensure their base turned against them).

I'm starting to think Trump could shoot a baby in broad daylight, in front of cameras, and GOP senators would still vote against the impeachment. He'd maybe send out a couple of tweets about how it 'had to be done', and problem solved.

So the impeachment was DOA before it started regardless. But they did it because not doing it was setting a shitty precedent: it's okay to let a POTUS get away with patently illegal acts if calling him on it costs votes. And it probably is going to cost some of the Dem representatives (who voted in favor of impeachment) votes. Overall, there's a good chance this hurts Dems more than helping (by "pandering" to their base) and they knew that going into it.




The director of the FBI testified that Russia did in fact interfere with the 2016 election, and that they were continuing to do so. His exact words, said emphatically: "They're doing it as we speak." It's not flimsy evidence. Moscow Mitch and Trump do nothing because it works in their favor. Moscow Mitch actually earned his nickname by voting against measures to protect elections from interference.

You probably shouldn't mock the claim as sensationalist or alarmist if you have no interest in reading the Mueller Report directly or watching the impeachment hearings (both to circumvent media's reporting of it) to find out how true it is.

You sure do wield a lot of hard faith and certainty regarding the things you read. I'm an empiricist at heart- which means I am naturally skeptical of any evidence I don't divine with my own 5 senses. I don't know what Trump did or didn't do. I don't necessarily believe anything he says at all. I don't necessarily believe what any random person I don't know says either, FBI director or otherwise. I believe the things people say could be true, but that's about as far as I take it to the bank. I just don't operate with any kind of 'faith necessity.' I observe what people do, and trust them to keep doing more of the same. Surprises in behavior break my trust, sometimes for the better, but even not I'm seldom in a position to be devastated by it. Am I alone in this type of mentality? Maybe. I don't know. Even though his words carry very little weight with me, I like what Trump does enough to throw another vote at him if I get the chance.

Life is a chess game of decisions and actions- consequences and reactions- and I imagine politics is no different. Democrats have made some bad moves here, and it's going to hurt I'm sorry to say. I don't think the level of impassioned investment people put into it is good for their mental health. Regardless of how high the stakes are, it's still just a game. Trump plays it better than his opponents, and like any sport whoever excels the most should and typically does win. It's not personal. If you can't respect and admire him for that, you really have no business playing. I had the same level of respect and admiration for Obama for his similar skill set- difference being I hated what Obama actually did with his time in office. It was never a personal animus- I always liked him. Investing actual feelings of love and hatred towards a political figure and stranger is somewhat of an alien concept to me, so you will forgive me if I'm not connecting the same way as the rest of the people in this discussion- and you'll forgive me if I don't see the same 'clear and present danger' other people have been talked into seeing about our current POTUS. What was that phenomenon you mentioned about 'thinking you know someone' based on the news? Or something like that. Maybe there is something to it- there's a lot of people on this forum that think they know him quite well.

 

[Jaguar]

I observe what people do, and trust them to keep doing more of the same. Surprises in behavior break my trust

Then you should have little trust in Trump. I'm in the market every day. From beginning to end of each trading day, I know what's going on. All it takes is Trump contradicting himself on China or creating more uncertainty about something he announced but then changed his mind in an hour, or claimed he never said something despite it being on camera he said it, and the market reverses course or starts bouncing up and down like a kid on a trampoline. At least Obama was smart enough to realize that in his position you have to watch what you say because it can greatly affect markets around the world. And he said as much, years ago.

Democrats have made some bad moves here

You didn't watch all the testimony on TV so you're in no position to judge anything.

Trump plays it better than his opponents. If you can't respect and admire him for that, you really have no business playing.

I taught people who worked for me Jag's golden rule: "If you have to lie, cheat, or steal to make a deal, you suck at what you do." I've said it for decades. Using my rule, Trump is a failure. When you're good at what you do, you can simply play it straight. No nonsense is necessary. No bribes. No lies. And if someone can't play the game without breaking the rules all day long, it's time for that person to get the fuck out of the game altogether.

 

[anticlimatic]

Then you should have little trust in Trump. I'm in the market every day. From beginning to end of each trading day, I know what's going on. All it takes is Trump contradicting himself on China or creating more uncertainty about something he announced but then changed his mind in an hour, or claimed he never said something despite it being on camera he said it, and the market reverses course or starts bouncing up and down like a kid on a trampoline. At least Obama was smart enough to realize that in his position you have to watch what you say because it can greatly affect markets around the world. And he said as much, years ago. You didn't watch all the testimony on TV so you're in no position to judge anything. I taught people who worked for me Jag's golden rule: "If you have to lie, cheat, or steal to make a deal, you suck at what you do." I've said it for decades. Using my rule, Trump is a failure. When you're good at what you do, you can simply play it straight. No nonsense is necessary. No bribes. No lies. And if someone can't play the game without breaking the rules all day long, it's time for that person to get the fuck out of the game altogether.

Is investing/training your business? I don't know anything about it- the stock market is up there with CSPAN for me on the boring-o-meter, but I wouldn't hold it against you to vote the other way if it was hurting your bottom line. In the end it will just depend on how many people he's hurt there vs how many people he's helped. I'm in the later category, so I'm not sure why you would hold my position against me. Seems only fair.

 

[Jaguar]

Is investing/training your business? I don't know anything about it- the stock market is up there with CSPAN for me on the boring-o-meter, but I wouldn't hold it against you to vote the other way if it was hurting your bottom line. In the end it will just depend on how many people he's hurt there vs how many people he's helped. I'm in the later category, so I'm not sure why you would hold my position against me. Seems only fair.

I don't know anything about it, but it's boring. Do you realize how silly that sounds? No wonder you think Trump is good at what he does, you make decisions based on not knowing anything about a subject before passing judgment. Are you always this lazy?

 

[Nicodemus]

Is investing/training your business? I don't know anything about it- the stock market is up there with CSPAN for me on the boring-o-meter, but I wouldn't hold it against you to vote the other way if it was hurting your bottom line. In the end it will just depend on how many people he's hurt there vs how many people he's helped. I'm in the later category, so I'm not sure why you would hold my position against me. Seems only fair.

The Greeks had a word for a man who was disinterested in public affairs and cared only about his own.

 

[anticlimatic]

I don't know anything about it, but it's boring. Do you realize how silly that sounds? No wonder you think Trump is good at what he does, you make decisions based on not knowing anything about a subject before passing judgment. Are you always this lazy?

You know there are other aspects of the economy beyond the narrow window of your expertise right?