The Impeachment Thread

[Z Buck McFate]

^Exactly.

 

[anticlimatic]

If there was an actual rebuttal in there somewhere, I missed it.

As an imbiber of the media koolaid, I'm not surprised.

Evening News Spin: 100% Negative on Trump Defense, 95% Positive Dems

Between Wednesday, January 22, when Democratic House impeachment managers launched their opening arguments, and Tuesday, January 28, when the President’s defense team rested, evening newscast reporters and anchors made a total of 34 evaluative statements about the merits and effectiveness of both sides.

Democratic impeachment managers received a total of 21 evaluative statements from ABC, CBS, and NBC journalists. Of that total, 95 percent of those (20) touted their efforts and presentations, which means only one of their evaluative comments were negative. ABC’s World News Tonight had eight positive comments, CBS Evening News had five, and NBC Nightly News seven. NBC had the lone negative comment.

In stark contrast, every evaluative statement from reporters and anchors about the merits and effectiveness of Trump’s defense team were negative.

It's stunning how such a large part of his defense still rests on "they're trying to undo 2016 election results." That's like a lawyer trying to get someone off death row by arguing "they're trying to undo this person's birth" - like, that's the foundation of their argument, insisting that witnesses and evidence presented thus far is indirect and direct witnesses aren't needed and/or more direct evidence doesn't need to be submitted because just "trust us" it's a foregone conclusion that the prosecutor is trying to undo the person's birth. Any calls to bring direct witnesses or more direct evidence just isn't necessary. I don't understand how people are buying this? Maybe that's not entirely fair since the majority of people in this country do want witnesses called - even 69% of Republicans (and that poll was done before Bolton's manuscript came out). But still, how are so many people drinking this koolaid without enough skepticism? How can so many people have blind faith in a proven con artist (*cough*Trump University*cough*)? It's sad and embarrassing how effective this "Waahhh, waaahhhh, it's a partisan attack! " smoke and mirrors approach is. That's the power of confirmation bias and group think though, I guess.

Yes, confirmation bias and groupthink indeed. I'm beginning to understand why you keep returning to this rationale.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

As an imbiber of the media koolaid, I'm not surprised.

My opinions are based on watching the actual impeachment. I don't think I've even read any articles about it. Nice try, though?

If you spotted any actual rebuttal to what Democrats have been saying, with an explanation of how it directly addresses the issue instead of just being smoke and mirrors, feel free to post that.
[MENTION=20035]anticlimatic[/MENTION]: Let me rephrase. It's counterproductive to throw around "confirmation bias" and "koolaid" - I'll concede that. I'm venting because I'm frustrated, and I said it because honestly that's the only thing that makes sense to me.

I know I've been watching the trial hoping for something stronger than "Waahhh, waaahhhh, it's a partisan attack! " and they just aren't delivering. I don't need others to believe I'm watching with the earnest intention of trying to find any solid argument that's there, because I know it's what I'm doing. If, on some miracle of fate, you're watching the trial too and you do see something stronger than "Waahhh, waaahhhh, it's a partisan attack! " then by all means, post it.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Regarding Douchiwitz, I can't say I'm surprised given he also is pro-torture and has had a bunch of other terrible stances in the past.

 

[Jaguar]

In stark contrast, every evaluative statement from reporters and anchors about the merits and effectiveness of Trump’s defense team were negative.

Trump's team is a bunch of sleazy car salesmen. Perhaps the problem is . . .

 

[ceecee]

My opinions are based on watching the actual impeachment. I don't think I've even read any articles about it. Nice try, though?

If you spotted any actual rebuttal to what Democrats have been saying, with an explanation of how it directly addresses the issue instead of just being smoke and mirrors, feel free to post that.

[MENTION=20035]anticlimatic[/MENTION]: Let me rephrase. It's counterproductive to throw around "confirmation bias" and "koolaid" - I'll concede that. I'm venting because I'm frustrated, and I said it because honestly that's the only thing that makes sense to me.

I know I've been watching the trial hoping for something stronger than "Waahhh, waaahhhh, it's a partisan attack! " and they just aren't delivering. I don't need others to believe I'm watching with the earnest intention of trying to find any solid argument that's there, because I know it's what I'm doing. If, on some miracle of fate, you're watching the trial too and you do see something stronger than "Waahhh, waaahhhh, it's a partisan attack! " then by all means, post it.

lol like they think they're spewing anything other than the GOP group think.

 

[Maou]

Pot, meet kettle x100000

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Pot, meet kettle x100000

Orange Man Bad forever!!!!

 

[anticlimatic]

[MENTION=20035]anticlimatic[/MENTION]: Let me rephrase. It's counterproductive to throw around "confirmation bias" and "koolaid" - I'll concede that. I'm venting because I'm frustrated, and I said it because honestly that's the only thing that makes sense to me.

Worse than counter productive, it's a copy-paste of your media's narrative verbatim. It makes you sound like just another brainwashed shill rather than the actual human being I'm certain you really are.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Worse than counter productive, it's a copy-paste of your media's narrative verbatim. It makes you sound like just another brainwashed shill rather than the actual human being I'm certain you really are.

I'd like some links to this left-leaning media that actually uses "confirmation bias" and "kool-aid" regularly. I've not seen that. In fact, the two individuals in my purview I've seen rant about "confirmation bias" the most (with emphatic/delusional "the other side clearly does this, my side is magically immune" confidence) are both Trump supporters - constantly citing how the media brainwashes those who don't believe what they do.

It's counterproductive because it's lazy/easy to say and it's going to shut down dialogue with the people you're referring to before it even begins. So it's just kinda ignorant to throw carelessly, regardless of how true it appears to be. (I also feel compelled to point out it's basically the only thing you initially said in return: something to keep in mind if you're interested in not sounding lazy/ignorant yourself).

That being said: if you have something stronger to share about this GOP "rebuttal" than posting about media bias in the reporting of it - like a clear explanation of how any of it can be correctly labeled "rebuttal", instead of more of the same aggressive deflecting/pettifogging they'd been dishing out all along - then please share.

 

[highlander]

I have resigned myself to vote against every incumbant in every office as I no longer have confidence in our government

 

[anticlimatic]

I'd like some links to this left-leaning media that actually uses "confirmation bias" and "kool-aid" regularly. I've not seen that. In fact, the two individuals in my purview I've seen rant about "confirmation bias" the most (with emphatic/delusional "the other side clearly does this, my side is magically immune" confidence) are both Trump supporters - constantly citing how the media brainwashes those who don't believe what they do. It's counterproductive because it's lazy/easy to say and it's going to shut down dialogue with the people you're referring to before it even begins. So it's just kinda ignorant to throw carelessly, regardless of how true it appears to be. (I also feel compelled to point out it's basically the only thing you initially said in return: something to keep in mind if you're interested in not sounding lazy/ignorant yourself). That being said: if you have something stronger to share about this GOP "rebuttal" than posting about media bias in the reporting of it - like a clear explanation of how any of it can be correctly labeled "rebuttal", instead of more of the same aggressive deflecting/pettifogging they'd been dishing out all along - then please share.

I'm on a cell phone (link searching/pasting is difficult) so try googling "political kool aid news" and measure the ratio of news source results between pubs and dems and report back.

As for Trumps defense, he wasn't accused of any crime. The end. You can buy into the avalanche of media articles about how crimes are not necessary for impeachment, as though that is going to mean anything at all to the majority republican jury box in charge of deciding whether the president should be removed from office. For doing essentially what every other president has ever done. If the point of impeachment was to remove the president, I'm afraid dems missed it completely with the articles they drafted. And everyone knows it. You can't drag someone to court for jaywalking And expect a judge to throw them in prison.

I swear, if the media had even a shred of unbiased perspective and dignity people would probably not be as bewildered and confused over this whole affair as they are.

 

[ceecee]

I have resigned myself to vote against every incumbant in every office as I no longer have confidence in our government

If you feel that way, you might want to support the people running against the incumbents. Because they are not getting anything otherwise..

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I'm on a cell phone (link searching/pasting is difficult) so try googling "political kool aid news" and measure the ratio of news source results between pubs and dems and report back.

So are you saying now it's just "koolaid"? Because I'll absolutely concede that single term is currently probably mostly used to describe the cult of Trump supporters.

But my own experience - probably mostly in reading friends' Fb discussions - is that Trump supporters more often rely on the lazy/ignorant "confirmation bias" and "group think (media brainwashing)" phrases when they feel the need to participate in discussion but just can't be bothered to actually listen and engage enough to dismantle the other side's position in a respectful, dialogical way. In fact, there are at least two members in this forum whose posts I stopped bothering to read because they relied so heavily on it. (I don't block anyone for having a different point of view, but I have no problem ignoring people who are vapid fart chambers).

As for Trumps defense, he wasn't accused of any crime. The end.

You are aware this wasn't a criminal trial, right?

You can buy into the avalanche of media articles about how crimes are not necessary for impeachment, as though that is going to mean anything at all to the majority republican jury box in charge of deciding whether the president should be removed from office. For doing essentially what every other president has ever done. If the point of impeachment was to remove the president, I'm afraid dems missed it completely with the articles they drafted. And everyone knows it. You can't drag someone to court for jaywalking And expect a judge to throw them in prison.

So, you can't point to any specific moment the defense successfully "rebutted" anything the Democrats said, with an explanation of how it was an effective rebuttal. You're just reverting to generic points to deflect from the specifics, which is exactly what the defense did as well.

The thing is, you'd have to actually listen to what the Democrats said in the first place in order to either come up with a true rebuttal of your own or point out an effective rebuttal on the part of Trump's defense team. Can you list a single specific thing the Democrats mentioned in their argument about what Trump has done that should be considered unacceptable, and why they're saying it's unacceptable? Showing up to confidently assert something about how an argument that you can't be bothered to listen to is ridiculously wrong is just kind of odd. It's common, people are doing it a lot these days, but it's still odd. Because what exactly is the point?

At the bolded: I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe this opinion is your own (instead of a talking point you heard, and you're merely regurgitating), but are you even able to list the impeachment articles on your own right now or would you have to google it to find out what they are?

I swear, if the media had even a shred of unbiased perspective and dignity people would probably not be as bewildered and confused over this whole affair as they are.

It would definitely help if there were media personalities more committed to forging a bridge between sides, and/or at least taking care not to say things that actively make the divide bigger. But obviously, I think you're way off if you believe that the default perception of shared reality would basically be what yours is right now. No one is immune to confirmation bias and group think - and those who don't acknowledge it and aren't paying attention to how they might be influenced are the ones most mired in/blind to it.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

A pretty good Borowitz Report yesterday, pretty aptly mocks one of the biggest problems: EL CHAPO OUTRAGED THAT HIS TRIAL INCLUDED WITNESSES.

The convicted drug lord known as El Chapo said on Thursday that he was “outraged” his 2019 trial had included witnesses. He also revealed that he was demanding a new trial without them. [...]

El Chapo said that, at the time of his trial, he had been totally unaware that it was possible to have a trial without any witnesses at all.

“I didn’t know that was a thing,” he said. “If someone had told me that you could have a witness-free trial, that’s the route I would have gone, for sure.”​

If you feel that way, you might want to support the people running against the incumbents. Because they are not getting anything otherwise..

The past 3 years is the first time I've ever donated to a campaign happening in another state. (I didn't donate much, but still).

Mitch McConnell is a fucking nightmare to democracy, and he needs to go.

 

[Jaguar]

“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday."

- Senator Lamar Alexander (R)

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

In fact, there are at least two members in this forum whose posts I stopped bothering to read because they relied so heavily on it. (I don't block anyone for having a different point of view, but I have no problem ignoring people who are vapid fart chambers).

Most people here aren't worthy of anything better. TypoC members pat each other on the back for regurgitating information. A new perspective that didn't come from the media? Better hurry up and shit all over that. It's like, "Quick! Someone accuse her of conspiracy theories and watching Fox News!"

 

[Maou]

I highly doubt this will be the last thing Trump is smeared with, in attempts to get rid of him simply because they do not like his personality. Even after his reelection.

I hate how trivialized the Democrats have made impeachment to be.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I hate how trivialized the Democrats have made impeachment to be.

This is funny. Thanks, I needed a laugh.

 

[Jaguar]

Does it get any more juvenile than this:

Mitt Romney uninvited to right-wing CPAC conference after voting for a fair impeachment trial

Grow the fuck up, people.