The Impeachment Thread

[Jaguar]

Lt. Col. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert at the National Security Council, fired for telling the truth. What will Trump do to Fiona Hill for telling the truth - rape her in a dressing room?

 

[Totenkindly]

Lt. Col. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert at the National Security Council, fired for telling the truth.

Along with Vindman's brother. Both walked out to the door.

Sondland just got canned too.

Black Friday, so to speak. Surprising? Nope. Just sickly predictable.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Surprising? Nope. Just sickly predictable.

Yeah.

Apparently Susan Collins - who voted to acquit, saying she believed Trump "learned his lesson" - has said she believes it was an "inappropriate" move. So I guess she was counting on a different lesson than "now you can do *whatever the fuck* you want." Somehow. He's never given any reason to believe he might walk away with a different lesson.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yeah.

Apparently Susan Collins - who voted to acquit, saying she believed Trump "learned his lesson" - has said she believes it was an "inappropriate" move. So I guess she was counting on a different lesson than "now you can do *whatever the fuck* you want." Somehow. He's never given any reason to believe he might walk away with a different lesson.

I'm ready for her to go too. At best, she's as dumb as a rock and gullible af. At best.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

A good start. More need to go.

 

[Jaguar]

Along with Vindman's brother. Both walked out to the door.

Sondland just got canned too.

Black Friday, so to speak. Surprising? Nope. Just sickly predictable.

I hope Lt. Vindman is watching the Democratic debate tonight because someone on that stage did exactly what I wanted done - got everyone in the entire auditorium to give Vindman a standing ovation. It was excellent. And he damn well deserved it. We don't have a Commander-in-chief, we have a piece of trash who turns his back on the men and women who serve this country and defiles what this country stands for every single day.

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

We have no silly impeachment process in Россия-матушка. You fail Россия-матушка, you go to gulag.

 

[Bush]

I have concerns about Susan Collins

I might go so far as to think about maybe being disappointed in her

https://twitter.com/i/status/1225901847745093632

 

[anticlimatic]

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/art...st_of_the_msms_anti-trump_crusade_111343.html

"In a report issued on December 12, the Pew Research Center finds that among all adults, 76 percent of Democrats, but only 30 percent of Republicans, have a great deal/fair amount of confidence that journalists will act in the best interests of the public.

One wonders if the MSM, in their rush to promote a transparently political impeachment, thought through the downside of acquainting large numbers of people with their resolute, not to say fanatical, political and cultural fixations? Did they contemplate the diminished respect for their own brands? Did they have any qualms about abandoning entirely the journalistic standard of objectivity in news and feature stories?"

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I read the link. It's pretty clearly meant to preach to its own choir. Though it might incite emotional agreement to people who already believe it, it just comes across as batshit fringe rambling to those who don't.

Ironies abound in this, but the biggest one is the seeming indifference of all such to the damage they’ve done to themselves. Despite having thrown everything but the kitchen sink at Trump and his supporters, the president has survived and even prospered in consequence.
​

Btw, just like pretty much every opinion I've seen from that side, until someone over there can cope with the possibility that Trump got impeached because of his own actions - at least enough to listen to the argument for impeachment and be able to provide rebuttal, instead of vomiting deflection and pettifogging (e.g. focusing 100% on attacking motivation to impeach) in lieu of actual rebuttal (which would include being able to effective list evidence to prove it was heard in the first place) - it's just echo chamber fodder.

Eta: Don't get me wrong, I'd love to find a logical explanation for the opinions in that piece so that it didn't simply look like emotionally charged echo chamber/groupthink fodder. But that's all simply stating a vastly different belief to someone without an explanation to bridge it will ever look like to the 'other' side. You people keep jumping over the evidence. It *seems* pretty clear "there is no evidence" has been chanted back and forth widely and so forcefully that you all feel comfortable 100% believing there wasn't any without feeling any urge to look into it yourselves. But there's no fucking way impeachment wouldn't have started sooner had Obama done the same things.

 

[Deprecator]

I think it's pretty obvious at this point that it didn't matter how perfect any of Trump's conversations were or which crimes he clearly did not commit; since day one the fanatical left were always going to look for any excuse -- literally any excuse at all -- to try and impeach Trump, and all regardless of the facts at hand. Democrats boasted an "iron clad" case for impeachment, and yet at the same time they could not convince a single House Republican of the merits of their arguments, and they also even failed to convince several members within their own party as well. Still, in a rather impressive feat of mental gymnastics, Democrat font runners like Biden still try and maintain that "this wasn't a partisan impeachment".

Regardless, I for one was sorely disappointed that witnesses weren't called for the Senate impeachment trial. I wanted Bolton to testify, I wanted Trump to testify, I wanted Biden to testify, Schiff, the whistle blower -- you name it. In my book I can very honestly say that the more witnesses that were called forth, the better. Of course, the Democrats were deathly afraid of any "witness trade" of any kind, and this refusal just happened to coincide with their "what is Trump so afraid of" mantra, which merely suggests that many Democrats simply don't understand the meaning of irony. The left had their anti-Trump blow horns within the thoroughly discredited media, their Mueller investigation and now they've also had their failed case for impeachment as well -- here we are today at the end of it all, and Trump has never been as popular as he is now.

The only explanation that the fanatical left has come up with for this phenomenon, is that his supporters must be idiots, and that the Republicans in congress must be simply cowering in fear (y'know, of the all-mighty Trump tweet and of the tyrannical commentators on Fox news) -- after all, that's what the never-Trumper Republicans who used to be in congress say, and that's also how Democrats have gone out of the way to characterize their Republican colleagues. Because y'know... God forbid that any of his followers are actually standing by Trump based on merit alone. Nope. The only explanation is that the guy below must be QUAKING with fear.

 

[anticlimatic]

I read the link. It's pretty clearly meant to preach to its own choir. Though it might incite emotional agreement to people who already believe it, it just comes across as batshit fringe rambling to those who don't.

Indeed. Welcome to my world anytime I accidentally watch anything the MSM puts out, or read most of the political threads on this forum.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to find a logical explanation for the opinions in that piece so that it didn't simply look like emotionally charged echo chamber/groupthink fodder. But that's all simply stating a vastly different belief to someone without an explanation to bridge it will ever look like to the 'other' side. You people keep jumping over the evidence.

Of the two things staring you in the face right now, I feel like you might be most likely to at least touch this one while you're leaping over it:

What Annoys You and What You Hate About Others is Your Own Reflection

“We see only that which we are. I like to think of it in terms of energy. Imagine having a hundred different electrical outlets on your chest. Each outlet represents a different quality. “The qualities we acknowledge and embrace have cover plates over them. They are safe; no electricity runs through them. “But the qualities that are not okay with us, which we have not yet owned, do have a charge. So when others come along who act out one of these qualities they plug right into us.”
The imperfections in other people that trigger us the most are the imperfections we loath in ourselves.

The only explanation is that the guy below must be QUAKING with fear.

Of course that's the explanation, the left lost its religion in 2016 wherein the prophecy spun by the MSM clergy that America was on the fast track to endless progressive expansion abruptly fell apart. Just like what would happen to christians if Jesus suddenly showed up and declared that there was no God, and he was just an alien who came to earth to fuck with people, an entire demographic has had their entire sense of faith and meaning flipped upside down and kicked to the wind. They're terrified. They're hatefully bigoted towards those they disagree with and feel are responsible. They're desperate to reclaim power over "those people." And they're only capable of citing these things, or seeing these things, in those they do not- and cannot- understand.

 

[Jaguar]

What Annoys You is Your Own Reflection

The words of a life coach. Deep.

 

[anticlimatic]

The words of a life coach. Deep.

Disagree?

 

[Jaguar]

Disagree?

Of course I disagree. It's a pathetic attempt at silencing dissent.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Of the two things staring you in the face right now, I feel like you might be most likely to at least touch this one while you're leaping over it:

What Annoys You and What You Hate About Others is Your Own Reflection

Yeah, if there's one thing the conservatives in this forum have proven, it's that it's completely available to avoid listening to what someone is trying to say by pointing out how they're only seeing a different point of view because there's something wrong with their perception. It's possible you're right, but it's an infinitely more effective approach to dialogue to (as I've said, I don't even know how many times now) actually address what's being said instead of deflecting with accusations about motivation.

If you ever feel like trying to provide a bridge explanation for why your beliefs are so utterly different - or you find some opinion piece that you think might adequately do the job - do let me know.

 

[Jaguar]

MSM.
MSM.
MSM.
MSM.
MSM.
MSM.
MSM.
MSM.
MSM.
MSM.
MSM.
MSM.
MSM.
MSM.

Millennials.
Millennials.
Millennials.
Millennials.
Millennials.
Millennials.


The left.
The left.
The left.
The left.
The left.


123.
123.
123.
123.
123.
123.
123.
123.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[anticlimatic]

Of course I disagree. It's a pathetic attempt at silencing dissent.

You think psychologists came to those realizations and determinations to... silence dissent, pathetically? Interesting take.


Three word contention with zero substance.
Three word contention with zero substance.
Three word contention with zero substance.
Three word contention with zero substance.
Three word contention with zero substance.
Three word contention with zero substance.
Three word contention with zero substance.

Three word outdated ad hominem attack.
Three word outdated ad hominem attack.
Three word outdated ad hominem attack.
Three word outdated ad hominem attack.
Three word outdated ad hominem attack.

Three word wounded ego chest thump.
Three word wounded ego chest thump.
Three word wounded ego chest thump.
Three word wounded ego chest thump.
Three word wounded ego chest thump.
Three word wounded ego chest thump.

123.
123.
123.
123.
123.
123.
123.
123.

Rinse, repeat.

 

[anticlimatic]

Yeah, if there's one thing the conservatives in this forum have proven, it's that it's completely available to avoid listening to what someone is trying to say by pointing out how they're only seeing a different point of view because there's something wrong with their perception. It's possible you're right, but it's an infinitely more effective approach to dialogue to (as I've said, I don't even know how many times now) actually address what's being said instead of deflecting with accusations about motivation. If you ever feel like trying to provide a bridge explanation for why your beliefs are so utterly different - or you find some opinion piece that you think might adequately do the job - do let me know.

We can get into the why, but it's important to first acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with people who think differently- I think that's what we have been working on so far. You're going to need to reciprocate my acknowledgment of that first.