Shootist Jeff

An interesting take on the impact of the impeachment hearings

Recommended Posts

Again, from that Ultra-Conservative media outlet called PBS and from a NYT Op/Ed columnist.  

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/shields-and-brooks-on-impeachment-hearing-revelations-democratic-debate-takeaways

but for the lazy among you, here's the relevant transcript:

 

 

  •  

    Quote

     

    • Judy Woodruff:

      Is the case, Mark, now made stronger that the Democrats have been trying to make that they say is a slam dunk, that the president tried to get the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, in other words, to do the president a favor politically?

    • Mark Shields:

      Yes, I think it is.

      So, I just — I really think that the case is strong.

      What I have underestimated — and I think David was right — is the fear that David — that Donald Trump exercises over Republicans.

       

      Judy Woodruff:

      So, the case — is the case stronger, David, or does it even matter?

      David Brooks:

      Well, the case is legally stronger, but it's not politically stronger.

      We have had now a bunch of polls. Nate Silver's Web site, FiveThirtyEight, has an agglomeration of them. And it shows that the public support for impeachment has gone down very slightly over the last couple of weeks. It's now about 45-45. The nation is evenly divided.

      In swing states, it's gone — impeachment has become less popular. We don't have a lot of data. But, in Wisconsin, only 40 percent of voters support impeachment. Roughly 53 oppose it.

      And I think we have seen there's a Politico poll where they asked independent voters, what do you think? And independent voters don't like it at all, and by 61-23, they think that's the sort of thing that's more of interest to media people than it is to me.

      And so I don't think — I don't think — I think everybody knows he's guilty. They just don't think this is the issue that affects my life. And why are they talking about all this stuff?

       

      Judy Woodruff:

      How do you — I mean, Mark, the Republicans keep saying, as we heard yesterday, it's a show trial, the Democrats have been out to get President Trump from day one.

      Is that the argument that is winning people over?

      Mark Shields:

      It's an argument, Judy, but it's not a persuasive argument. I mean, just as a political calculus, it was not — it didn't make sense.

      I mean, there was no question, after the Mueller report was botched, or however you want to put it, or the — Attorney General Barr stepped on it, Donald Trump felt liberated, and liberated enough to make that phone call.

      And the reality is that there wasn't a Democrat who was not under indictment or detox who was thinking in terms of impeachment at that point. It wasn't until the news of this came out, and it became so obvious.

      I mean, not to act was an action itself that Democrats or anybody else in Congress or America would have to answer for. I mean, if this is modus operandi, acceptable for an American president to do this, to extort basically another country that is dependent upon us, to get information, unflattering, unhelpful, damaging information the president's political opponent, and that that is — that's, what, OK, acceptable, look the other way?

      I mean, you have got a lot to answer for if you don't address it.

      David Brooks:

      Yes, I think that's a strong argument. They had to do this just to uphold the standards of our country, and that I can't think of any president who has done anything as bad as this and didn't get impeached.

      And so, I mean, that's basically true. I think Democrats do have to acknowledge that it's not a political winner. And some of them walked into this sort of knowing that.

      Judy Woodruff:

      Why not? What do you mean, not a political winner?

      David Brooks:

      Well, I think if you're losing independents and you're losing swing states, and you're — it's very likely now that six of your Senate candidates will be sitting in Washington, D.C., through January during the Senate trial, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and the rest, then this is a kind of a disadvantage.

      Judy Woodruff:

      Right.

      And I think it is just — I think — my conversations with Trump supporters in red states, first of all, when I go out there, nobody talks about. It's just not on the subject. Then, if you ask, everyone I have spoken to says, yes, he did it, and he shouldn't have done, it was a stupid thing to do.

      But this is — we're in the context of a long political and cultural war in this country. And, finally, I have got a guy who hits back at the people who hate me. And so I'm not going to abandon him.

      And so they don't see it as a unique trial about one incident. They see it as part of the longer political battle we have in this country, and they're not going to abandon him. That's been my experience with people I have spoken with.

       

       

     

     

  • So this reinforces what I said in the other impeachment thread....  That YES he's guilty as fuck, but this (the UKR phone call) is not the outrage incident or issue that wins the public (and by extension the Senate) over.  Yes there are die hard trumpers who are not going to abandon shitstain, because they see him as a useful proxy in their culture war against the libbyruls (as steamers likes to say) and they are playing the long game.  But the fact that polls in swing states and among independent voters are also showing no real appetite for impeachment - means that the case has not been made convincingly to the American public.  Which is 100% what the previous week was all about. 
  • It was a weak case - although the Dems really had no choice to bring up impeachment for the very reason that I said early on....  that it was their constitutional duty to do so.  I have no qualms with Nancy's decision to commence hearings.  What I continue to say "I told you so" about is that every other charge should have been brought up together in the beginning as a package deal to show a pattern of corruption and moral and ethical fuckery to the American people.  The Muller report, emoluments, obstruction, the whole shebang should have all been done together.  Yes, Nancy and the Judiciary committee can always add them at any time.  But to do so now simply looks like a desperation move when it became obvious that the UKR thing was gaining no real traction.  I think Nance's tactics were ok, but she got out strategerized by the orange buffoon.  
  • Barring some major revelation / Oct surprise - I think she just handed trump another 4 years.  And that makes me verrrry angry.......d55eec1e64a2809b018cfedc8cdc609e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK there is literally NOTHING that will sway Republicans. Nancy could have video of Trump robbing 7-11s and having carnal knowledge of zoo animals and not a one of them will care. It is nothing to do with technique or strong vs. weak cases.

What would get him kicked out in 30 seconds is turning against guns or changing parties to Democrat. Other than that, not much.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not a weak case. It’s extremely strong. But red state voters don’t care how corrupt the govt is. At this point, fuck them. I’ll take my tax cuts, and my $0 co-pay healthcare and say fuck them. They want to pay more for education, have a shitty environment and lose all possibility of their kids having a better life, I can’t stop them. Why should I try?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kent_island_sailor said:

AFAIK there is literally NOTHING that will sway Republicans. Nancy could have video of Trump robbing 7-11s and having carnal knowledge of zoo animals and not a one of them will care. It is nothing to do with technique or strong vs. weak cases.

What would get him kicked out in 30 seconds is turning against guns or changing parties to Democrat. Other than that, not much.

Well, that would get him the democrat vote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the fight is over yet but the game is getting long.

One thing I didn't anticipate - and I now think is becoming a reality - is a brokered Democratic convention.

It looks like there's going to be at least 3 major candidates (Sanders/Biden/Warren) that each hold 'regional appeal' and a couple of minor candidates (Buttigieg primarily) who could all have significant numbers of delegates.

I did think Biden was Trump's biggest threat but Biden has become more gaffe prone as he's aged - or they're reporting them more - and OMG are we going to get a load of Hunter-spam if Biden gets the not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OTOH Bidden, until the latest kerfuffle, seemed (seems?) to be an R favorite if they have to suffer a Democratic president. The local righty AM drivetime hosts constantly complain the "liberal media" is too hard on Bidden. I almost get the idea he could win a Republican primary if they had one :rolleyes:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without the 24/7 Trump propaganda wing (Fox), this would all look very different. Getting spoon fed a constant dose of alternate reality just keeps making the uninformed even less informed. Most of my GOP friends have reduced the Mueller/Ukraine issues to "witch hunt" or "deep state" bumper stickers or Doggy-Styled "whatevers."  Few have bothered to read anything other than the front-page of USA Today or listened to anything more in-depth that sports radio. As long as the economy is churning along, they couldn't give a flying fuck what Trump is doing. And some really enjoy the burn-this-bitch-down aspect of sticking it to the Man, all the while  forgetting they have kids, a mortgage, and 401K's that might evaporate along with a damaged planet. 

But I'm with Raz'r. If the fly-over states and the swamp people want to fuck themselves over, then by all means have at it. The fact is, most of us here are rich white guys that stand to lose the least if Trump obliterates our country. We may lose some stuff, but not nearly as much as everyone else down the economic food chain. I'm going full Warbird. Fuck minorities. Fuck women, Fuck everyone who isn't me. I'm building a man-cave and sniffing the varnish, because the true path to a fulfilling, meaningful life is to completely fuck over every other person on the planet as often and as hard as possible.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

It’s not a weak case. It’s extremely strong. But red state voters don’t care how corrupt the govt is. At this point, fuck them. I’ll take my tax cuts, and my $0 co-pay healthcare and say fuck them. They want to pay more for education, have a shitty environment and lose all possibility of their kids having a better life, I can’t stop them. Why should I try?

You like to point out that impeachment is a political process and to the extent that that's true Trump is not the only political entity on trial. Democrats and Republicans are also being judged by the electorate and while you can vilify Republicans if it makes you feel superior it doesn't explain the shift among independents. If the polls are correct this first phase of the process went against the Democrats and they had home field advantage. That can't be encouraging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Senate will not convict. The question is, what will the effect be on turnout? 

Whoever wins the turnout battle will win the election. I suspect Dems will be highly motivated, don't know about Republicans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everybody knows he's guilty. They just don't think this is the issue that affects my life. And why are they talking about all this stuff?

:blink:

Holy shit - "I don't care that the POTUS is corrupt and a lying crook because it has no direct impact on my day to day".

Has the USA really degenerated that much?

Has it actually reached the point of deserving the shitstain?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think @Shootist Jeff understood the latter half of Shields & Brooks discussion of the impeachment hearings.

Mark S made the point that calling Trump on his misbehavior and Republicans on their intransigence and failure to protect our country from corruption is the reason they had to consider articles. Brooks agreed, and said that was a valid and important reason to continue with the process despite the fact that it was unpopular.

What do you call taking unpopular but principled stances in order to protect your country from harm? I seem to remember a word for it that used to have meaning.

Patriotism is not fealty to a king nor loyalty to a party. Leadership is not taking the path of least resistance, quitting when forces are arrayed against you, or allowing the good men and women of government have careers ruined to suit the personal needs and whims of a tyrant.

The GOP needs to rediscover their fundamental principles. Dog is their poster child, and he’s become a punchline.

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dog said:

You like to point out that impeachment is a political process and to the extent that that's true Trump is not the only political entity on trial. Democrats and Republicans are also being judged by the electorate and while you can vilify Republicans if it makes you feel superior it doesn't explain the shift among independents. If the polls are correct this first phase of the process went against the Democrats and they had home field advantage. That can't be encouraging.

Fuck em. You guys can worship the Cheetolini, I’ll buy another headsail with my Trump dividend. 
 

and I still have my Dr, and it costs me nothing. I laugh at you dog and Warbird. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats and Republicans are also being judged by the electorate

The reality is that it's the electorate that is being judged by their reaction to this process.

And so far they aren't looking very good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nixon was more popular at this point in his investigation. I will say Jeff is the only guy who put up more than $20 on Trump winning again, so there is that.

There is a lot of money to be made by keeping Trump's future in doubt - otherwise it's game over and everyone can go home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

It’s not a weak case. It’s extremely strong. But red state voters don’t care how corrupt the govt is. At this point, fuck them. I’ll take my tax cuts, and my $0 co-pay healthcare and say fuck them. They want to pay more for education, have a shitty environment and lose all possibility of their kids having a better life, I can’t stop them. Why should I try?

I’d argue some of us ‘we’ are trying.  But face it, if we’re told to fuck off.....

It would be better if the red states would give up massive amounts of their wealth to <ahem> the other side in a way that conservative judges would enthusiastically endorse legally, but that's just a matter of finding the right legal representation, no?

If my state, Washington, would stop sending massive amounts of tax money to Eastern Washington, land of the Redoubt, I truely believe our standard of living would increase.  But the state still sends tax money to a place that sends virtually nothing the other way.  Sooner or later, you get tired of being given the finger.  And face it, that would be the Trumpian way.  Measuring things by wealth rather than morality does have consequences.

Happy Turkey Day all!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important to be serious about it. If we look the other way, a future democRAT President will be able to fix future elections, or otherwise operate with no oversight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raz'r said:

It’s not a weak case. It’s extremely strong. But red state voters don’t care how corrupt the govt is. At this point, fuck them. I’ll take my tax cuts, and my $0 co-pay healthcare and say fuck them. They want to pay more for education, have a shitty environment and lose all possibility of their kids having a better life, I can’t stop them. Why should I try?

Um what part of "swing-state and independent" voters that are not thrilled with impeachment and are giving it a big "meh" did you miss in the above segment?

I agree, it's a decently strong legal case.  But as you or Olsen said on numerous occasions that impeachment is a political process.  Politics is persuading the people to go along with you.  The dems have failed at making the public case.  IMHO, not because there was no case to be made - but because they hitched their wagon to the wrong horse.  

 

 

 

 

 

**Standard disclaimer applies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

AFAIK there is literally NOTHING that will sway Republicans. Nancy could have video of Trump robbing 7-11s and having carnal knowledge of zoo animals and not a one of them will care. It is nothing to do with technique or strong vs. weak cases.

What would get him kicked out in 30 seconds is turning against guns or changing parties to Democrat. Other than that, not much.

I agree there is a sense of that.  Certainly among the hard core trumpers.  But as was pointed out by Brooks, they are only trumpers not because they necessarily love the man, but because they see him being used as a pawn in the cultural long game. 

But I think those types are still not the majority of voters.  How do you account for the swing state folks and independent voters basically giving this whole impeachment thing a big Meh?

I said from the beginning of this that the UKR issue would be seen as technically dirty tricks and possibly illegal, most of the people who don't breathlessly follow Rachel Maddow everyday would see this as usual political sausage making.  As in, that's how it always is - its just that trump wasn't subtle about it like past politicians usually are.  It doesn't make it any less wrong - but its not stirring the outrage needed to win over the public.  

Finally, I disagree with you that there is nothing he could do that would lose his support among the faithful.  He could do something to block anti-abortion stuff, he could be caught buggering another man, maybe have some satan worship stuff in his closet, I don't know.  But again, it is not the hardcore righties that this impeachment trial is targeted to.  It is the swing state and independent voters who make a difference in the General election but more importantly are the constituents of a lot of the GOP senators who are vulnerable in their next election.  It is those senators who would feel the pressure that would be likely to support convicting IF there was a big groundswell of support for impeachment from those more moderate voters.  But there's not, so there's no pressure to convict in the senate like there was for Nixon among GOP Senators back then.  AND THAT is what this whole public spectacle was all about last week.  And the D's missed their one and only chance at it.  Yes, Bitch McConnell is going to hold a trial - but he will also control the process.  And without that pressure from his caucus, we know how that will turn out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

OTOH Bidden, until the latest kerfuffle, seemed (seems?) to be an R favorite if they have to suffer a Democratic president. The local righty AM drivetime hosts constantly complain the "liberal media" is too hard on Bidden. I almost get the idea he could win a Republican primary if they had one :rolleyes:

Actually there is a LOT of that among moderate R's.  No one, myself included, could tolerate a Sanders/Warren presidency.  If I had to vote D because trump was still on the GOP ticket (and I would) - I would choose Biden over trump in a nanosecond.  If its Warren vs Trump - I would have to give it a long hard soul searching think.  If its Sanders v Trump - I'll stay home.  I couldn't pull the lever for either of them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, phillysailor said:

I don’t think @Shootist Jeff understood the latter half of Shields & Brooks discussion of the impeachment hearings.

Mark S made the point that calling Trump on his misbehavior and Republicans on their intransigence and failure to protect our country from corruption is the reason they had to consider articles. Brooks agreed, and said that was a valid and important reason to continue with the process despite the fact that it was unpopular.

 

WTF?  Really??  Then why did I say this in my OP?  I even said that same thing early on right after the Mueller report was released that the Dems should have started impeachment back then because it was the right thing to do and it was their constitutional duty.  DO I need to go fucking dig that post up for you?  

9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

It was a weak case - although the Dems really had no choice to bring up impeachment for the very reason that I said early on....  that it was their constitutional duty to do so.  I have no qualms with Nancy's decision to commence hearings.  What I continue to say "I told you so" about is that every other charge should have been brought up together in the beginning as a package deal to show a pattern of corruption and moral and ethical fuckery to the American people.  The Muller report, emoluments, obstruction, the whole shebang should have all been done together.  Yes, Nancy and the Judiciary committee can always add them at any time.  But to do so now simply looks like a desperation move when it became obvious that the UKR thing was gaining no real traction.  I think Nance's tactics were ok, but she got out strategerized by the orange buffoon.  

RIF!  :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I think it is important to be serious about it. If we look the other way, a future democRAT President will be able to fix future elections, or otherwise operate with no oversight. 

100% agree.  Its wrong no matter which "side" did it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
  • But the fact that polls in swing states and among independent voters are also showing no real appetite for impeachment - means that the case has not been made convincingly to the American public.  Which is 100% what the previous week was all about. 
  • It was a weak case - although the Dems really had no choice to bring up impeachment for the very reason that I said early on....  that it was their constitutional duty to do so

Jeff when I read this I hear you saying that the case wasn’t effectively made. I think the case was proven, unfortunately those afflicted with TDS (Trump Defense Syndrome) don’t care.

Its not the case that is weak, Republicans are. It doesn’t matter if, as you say, Democrats put all of Trumps past bad acts on display, once again. All those have been forgiven piecemeal over the years of his administration. They’d blame all previous investigations which “failed” on liberal haters, ignoring that it was Republicans who requested and led the Mueller investigation.

In retrospect I didn’t give you as much credit as I should’ve for your understanding the discussion, and for that I apologize.

I just am not sure that the Democrats have done anything wrong. I blame this failure to hold Trump accountable on Republicans and their white supremacist allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to witness the next phase of impeachment hearings by the judiciary committee.

Are the Democrats trying to have a bipartisan conversation on when is impeachment required? Are they trying to engage Republicans in a theoretical and legislatively constructive conversation devoid of Trump bombast? 

That would be interesting. One of my complaints regarding the impeachment hearings being held by the Intelligence Committee is that process politicized a portion of government that needs to be nonpartisan in order to operate effectively. Sure, Nunes destroyed that cooperation when he scurried to the WH with info that should have remained  secret, but two wrongs don’t make a right.

Once the conversation is started, and Republicans take some ownership of the weighty issues impeachment is tasked with correcting, perhaps then we can move forward with setting ground rules for investigating the president.

We don’t want investigations into our leaders derailing the orderly transfer of power and cooperation which defines a successful democracy. This is apparently the conversation the county needs and wants to have.

Talking about Trump is just too polarizing. Americans can’t do it over Thanksgiving dinner, neither can our politicians manage it in session.

But the nature of this debate will influence how it will happen the next time. Republicans owe it to themselves to become constructively involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Jeff when I read this I hear you saying that the case wasn’t effectively made. I think the case was proven, unfortunately those afflicted with TDS (Trump Defense Syndrome) don’t care.

Its not the case that is weak, Republicans are. It doesn’t matter if, as you say, Democrats put all of Trumps past bad acts on display, once again. All those have been forgiven piecemeal over the years of his administration. They’d blame all previous investigations which “failed” on liberal haters, ignoring that it was Republicans who requested and led the Mueller investigation.

In retrospect I didn’t give you as much credit as I should’ve for your understanding the discussion, and for that I apologize.

I just am not sure that the Democrats have done anything wrong. I blame this failure to hold Trump accountable on Republicans and their white supremacist allies.

Please.... the case is non-existent. The Democrats presented hearsay witnesses who would not even qualify to testify in a fair process and who then testified to things presumed. The only direct witness testified that Trump told him he wanted nothing from the Ukrainians and nothing is exactly what he got. The aid was delayed, not withheld, and nothing of value was provided in exchange. The Ukrainians didn't even know there was a quid pro quo, sorry bribe, sorry extortion or any focus group tested for political effect charge. The case most definitely has not been effectively made let alone proven. The Democrat's case has been reduced to trying to prove a thought crime.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dog said:

Please.... the case is non-existent. The Democrats presented hearsay witnesses who would not even qualify to testify in a fair process and who then testified to things presumed. The only direct witness testified that Trump told him he wanted nothing from the Ukrainians and nothing is exactly what he got. The aid was delayed, not withheld, and nothing of value was provided in exchange. The Ukrainians didn't even know there was a quid pro quo, sorry bribe, sorry extortion or any focus group tested for political effect charge. The case most definitely has not been effectively made let alone proven. The Democrat's case has been reduced to trying to prove a thought crime.


 

 

30543C04-050F-497B-A1B5-76CCACCE1B5C.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It bugs me no end that most of ya, esp. the Reich, 

prattle on endlessly about party loyalty, and almost never discuss (or even be aware of) 

what the parties actually DO. 

So you remain blissfully unaware that the Drumphist admin and the GOP are going WAY out of their way 

to screw over average folks 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/28/us/politics/student-loan-forgiveness.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

It bugs me no end that most of ya, esp. the Reich, 

prattle on endlessly about party loyalty, and almost never discuss (or even be aware of) 

what the parties actually DO. 

So you remain blissfully unaware that the Drumphist admin and the GOP are going WAY out of their way 

to screw over average folks 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/28/us/politics/student-loan-forgiveness.html

It’s easy to see, and since I’m their target demographic, I benefit. So if the reichtards like Warbird and dog want to give me more money, I’m tired of saying no. Bring it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dog said:

Please.... the case is non-existent. ...   ...
 

 

^ this ^ is a marker for blatant and unsupportable lies, when Dog begins a statement with "please."

Nice to see that he's trying to have some manners, but I've noticed this habit in the past so I thought I'd comment.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the Democrats had to try.   The stakes are high.   

Inviting foreign powers to intervene.    

Publicly inviting another power, currently the subject of a trade war, to intervene as well.   The Chinese economy would clearly benefit from a more favorable relationship with Trump.

The POTUS using the power of the federal government for opposition research.   He used direct control, circumventing normal procedures and personally intervening only once, for this investigation of the predicted opposition.   

He bypassed government apparatus and safeguards, and ordered high level officials to work directly with outside experts with financial ties to known criminals and foreign oligarchs.

The above are being done (proven facts, mostly by evidence provided by the President himself) by the candidate who's slogan the prior election was to lock up the opposition.

A large percent of the population choses to remain ignorant of any inconvenient facts and only believe lies that fit their world view.   The President's party has key members who care only about power, and other key members who appear to have personal involvement in this abnormal process.   The impeachment is doomed to failure.   If the actions are allowed to continue the result may well be the failure of democracy itself.   Within the limitations of the politicized Justice Department, this is the only legal remedy available.   It is unfortunate if it helps assure Trump's reelection and provides the Republicans with absolute power to bar opposition Iranian style.   The Democrats could, in good conscience, do nothing else.  Their very oaths to office demanded it.   If the people fail to wise up, this little experiment of ours may be going the way of countless other failed democracies.    

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lark said:

IMO the Democrats had to try.   The stakes are high.   

Inviting foreign powers to intervene.    

Publicly inviting another power, currently the subject of a trade war, to intervene as well.   The Chinese economy would clearly benefit from a more favorable relationship with Trump.

The POTUS using the power of the federal government for opposition research.   He used direct control, circumventing normal procedures and personally intervening only once, for this investigation of the predicted opposition.   

He bypassed government apparatus and safeguards, and ordered high level officials to work directly with outside experts with financial ties to known criminals and foreign oligarchs.

The above are being done (proven facts, mostly by evidence provided by the President himself) by the candidate who's slogan the prior election was to lock up the opposition.

A large percent of the population choses to remain ignorant of any inconvenient facts and only believe lies that fit their world view.   The President's party has key members who care only about power, and other key members who appear to have personal involvement in this abnormal process.   The impeachment is doomed to failure.   If the actions are allowed to continue the result may well be the failure of democracy itself.   Within the limitations of the politicized Justice Department, this is the only legal remedy available.   It is unfortunate if it helps assure Trump's reelection and provides the Republicans with absolute power to bar opposition Iranian style.   The Democrats could, in good conscience, do nothing else.  Their very oaths to office demanded it.   If the people fail to wise up, this little experiment of ours may be going the way of countless other failed democracies.    

 

 

 

 

If Trump wins again, the USA is fucked for the foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

I think everybody knows he's guilty. They just don't think this is the issue that affects my life. And why are they talking about all this stuff?

:blink:

Holy shit - "I don't care that the POTUS is corrupt and a lying crook because it has no direct impact on my day to day".

Has the USA really degenerated that much?

Has it actually reached the point of deserving the shitstain?

Duh! Where the heck have you been for the last 50years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, g7tunison said:

Duh! Where the heck have you been for the last 50years?

No shit, Jon, that's the prevailing wind in my yot club too. The brighter righties are making money. The dummies don't know what they don't know, and like assholes everywhere, they equate a louder voice with a stronger argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

^ this ^ is a marker for blatant and unsupportable lies, when Dog begins a statement with "please."

Nice to see that he's trying to have some manners, but I've noticed this habit in the past so I thought I'd comment.

- DSK

Out of curiosity, what is the lie or lies you're referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

If Trump wins again, the USA is fucked for the foreseeable future.

It's already fucked for the foreseeable future - decades if not generations.

If he gets another term the USA is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

^ this ^ is a marker for blatant and unsupportable lies, when Dog begins a statement with "please."

Nice to see that he's trying to have some manners, but I've noticed this habit in the past so I thought I'd comment.

 

Out of curiosity, what is the lie or lies you're referring to?

 

Pretty much everything you said in post #25, along with almost everything you say at any time. It's not even a fantasy castle in the sky any more, it's a completely different universe far far away with no point of contact to this one.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Pretty much everything you said in post #25, along with almost everything you say at any time. It's not even a fantasy castle in the sky any more, it's a completely different universe far far away with no point of contact to this one.

- DSK

Bullshit.... you call me a liar for disagreeing with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Bullshit.... you call me a liar for disagreeing with you.

No, I call you a liar for constantly lying.

- DSK

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

No, I call you a liar for constantly lying.

- DSK

No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, I call you a liar for constantly lying.

 

No

 

Like ^ this ^ for example.

Have you said ANYthing in the last month or so that is demonstrably, quantifiably true?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

It's already fucked for the foreseeable future - decades if not generations.

If he gets another term the USA is over.

Germany and Japan abandoned democracy in the years prior to WW II, but rebounded quite nicely.   Trump threatened Mexico earlier this week, they can substitute for Poland.    I noticed many Canadians speak French.    After a few invasions maybe we’ll rebuild and become civilized again.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lark said:

Germany and Japan abandoned democracy in the years prior to WW II, but rebounded quite nicely.  

After first being totally destroyed and then rebuilt - primarily by the USA.

Who will rebuild the USA?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who indeed.   If the city on the hill shines not from deed or even dream, but is engulfed in flames?    We can expect not a Marshal Plan, but the same looting we allowed Iraq.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently you haven't noticed that it's currently happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Apparently you haven't noticed that it's currently happening.

Honestly, what I see is a bunch of reality TV / Youtube nonsense meant to keep the twitterverse entertained while we punt the hard questions down the line yet again.

https://medium.com/@owillis/how-professional-wrestling-explains-american-politics-especially-donald-trump-5449df1db9de

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 more years of Trump.

Horrifying as it may seem, he hasn't actually achieved much in the USA in the last 3 and the Reps may well lose the senate in 2020. 4 year lame duck?

He may temporarily ruin your economy..but it will probably recover.

He may give the religious right even more latitude than they have now, but that might be a good thing in the long term.

5 more years might make things so DUMB in the USA that even the currently disengaged might actually start taking an interest,

I'm more concerned with the long term effects on the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

I'm more concerned with the long term effects on the rest of us.

That's actually very relevant.

There are some things that are not status quo - outside the US.

For example, unwinding of Bretton Woods will accelerate under a second Trump term.  The US pulled out years ago - the rest of the world is just starting to catch up to what that actually means.  Russia has 3600 miles of border to secure under the current geopolitical layout - if they take a few key locations, they cut that to 600 miles.  If you're a Balkan or a Baltic or a Caucus mountain state , you need to be finding a friend or cutting a deal.. NOW.  The commodity economies - like Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.  need energy equivalents to be $60-70 / barrel - not $55.  That puts a lot of pressure on them to secure more assets and if it causes the base price to go up, so much the better.  As the US pulls out of global trade deals and focuses on regional deals (bye bye TPP, hello Japan/So. Korea) , what happens to the trade ROUTES?  Imagine being a rogue state and seeing ALLLLLLL those sweet sweet cargo ships passing near by - maybe they should be paying you a fee to come so close or through YOUR waterways...  America will defend ITS trade corridors but not ALL trade corridors.  Aleppo/Syria was just the most obvious of many examples where the US is letting the locals deal with it.  Not our problem so to speak.  There's a reason the US NAVY is getting fully outfitted with new shiny carriers while the Army slowly ages.

Merkel recognized this last year ""We have to take on more responsibility," Merkel said Sunday in the interview with broadcaster ARD. "For Germany, that means placing out trust in Europe. We have the great duty and the big task of making this Europe a strong factor in the world, to ensure prosperity, peace and freedom." 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeffreaux with a bad faith hot shart take? How unsurprising.

Another 4 years of Trump is just more corrosive anti-institution nihilism, with a bunch of bullshit that the "glass half full" fuckwhits won't believe is true unless it makes the democrats look bad too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

That's actually very relevant.

There are some things that are not status quo - outside the US.

For example, unwinding of Bretton Woods will accelerate under a second Trump term.  The US pulled out years ago - the rest of the world is just starting to catch up to what that actually means.  Russia has 3600 miles of border to secure under the current geopolitical layout - if they take a few key locations, they cut that to 600 miles.  If you're a Balkan or a Baltic or a Caucus mountain state , you need to be finding a friend or cutting a deal.. NOW.  The commodity economies - like Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.  need energy equivalents to be $60-70 / barrel - not $55.  That puts a lot of pressure on them to secure more assets and if it causes the base price to go up, so much the better.  As the US pulls out of global trade deals and focuses on regional deals (bye bye TPP, hello Japan/So. Korea) , what happens to the trade ROUTES?  Imagine being a rogue state and seeing ALLLLLLL those sweet sweet cargo ships passing near by - maybe they should be paying you a fee to come so close or through YOUR waterways...  America will defend ITS trade corridors but not ALL trade corridors.  We've cut deals with Aleppo was just the first of many examples where the US is letting the locals deal with it.  Not our problem so to speak. 

Merkel recognized this last year ""We have to take on more responsibility," Merkel said Sunday in the interview with broadcaster ARD. "For Germany, that means placing out trust in Europe. We have the great duty and the big task of making this Europe a strong factor in the world, to ensure prosperity, peace and freedom."  

Excellent stuff here. A corollary is that MAGA-ism is "back to the good ol' days" which means a bunch of things, Jim Crow and cheap oil, and also the USA consuming 30+% of the world's resources. We don't have the outsized economy any more.

One option is to bomb everybody else back to the Stone Age, or maybe just back to the 1800s. Another option is to (as Trump has suggested) go into the protection racket with our oversized and (hopefully) technically superior military. Instead of smaller countries threatening trade routes,  we threaten them if they don't provide cheap way stationing and settle for scraps & leftovers.

Doesn't work if we're being held hostage to oil. Unfortunately the Trumptards... and even supposedly smart guys like Pompeo... don't see this.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Doesn't work if we're being held hostage to oil. Unfortunately the Trumptards... and even supposedly smart guys like Pompeo... don't see this.

- DSK

One of the MAJOR things that's changed -  The US is now a net exporter of energy.  And when combined with Canada / Mexico, North America is so energy rich it's stupid.

We CAN'T be held hostage by middle east oil anymore.  We don't use it much at all anymore.  Some of our ALLIES use it - like Japan.  But imagine is we were to build a whole bunch of natural gas terminals - like say those in Australia right now.. and said to Japan "why go so far for oil when you can get sweet sweet LNG and not have to worry about all that tussle in the Persian gulf?

From Wikipedia "The United States has had a massive shift in LNG terminal planning and construction starting in 2010-2011 due to rapid increase in domestic supply with the widespread adoption of hydraulic fracking. Many brand-new LNG import terminals are planning or have begun addition of liquefaction facilities to operate as export terminals. "

And what if that ally - Japan - had recently cut a deal with the US to guarantee cheep imports?

Like say.. this one?  https://www.state.gov/2019-japan-u-s-strategic-energy-partnership-statement-recent-major-developments/

"Japan announced in September 2019 that it intends to increase its public and private finance by another $10 billion and enhance capacity building trainings, which we believe will further promote joint and collaborative activities between the United States and Japan by facilitating financing for projects to supply LNG or build LNG infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific region. "

WHAT a coincidence...

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

One of the MAJOR things that's changed -  The US is now a net exporter of energy.  And when combined with Canada / Mexico, North America is so energy rich it's stupid.

We CAN'T be held hostage by middle east oil anymore.  We don't use it much at all anymore.  Some of our ALLIES use it - like Japan.  But imagine is we were to build a whole bunch of natural gas terminals - like say those in Australia right now.. and said to Japan "why go so far for oil when you can get sweet sweet LNG and not have to worry about all that tussle in the Persian gulf?

From Wikipedia "The United States has had a massive shift in LNG terminal planning and construction starting in 2010-2011 due to rapid increase in domestic supply with the widespread adoption of hydraulic fracking. Many brand-new LNG import terminals are planning or have begun addition of liquefaction facilities to operate as export terminals. "

And what if that ally - Japan - had recently cut a deal with the US to guarantee cheep imports?

Like say.. this one?  https://www.state.gov/2019-japan-u-s-strategic-energy-partnership-statement-recent-major-developments/

"Japan announced in September 2019 that it intends to increase its public and private finance by another $10 billion and enhance capacity building trainings, which we believe will further promote joint and collaborative activities between the United States and Japan by facilitating financing for projects to supply LNG or build LNG infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific region. "

WHAT a coincidence...

 

 

 

 

Until I see the number of tankers coming into the Gulf start to drop off, I am not buying into the "we don't need their oil any more" narrative.

The US has been flirting with being a NET energy exporter but that includes selling refined petro products and NG. Last time I saw stats, we weren't quite up to break even yet.

A very good trend, I hope it continues and I also hope the energy bidness in the US has the good sense to continue developing non-fossil-fuel resources. The country (or consortium) that goes fusion will rule the world.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Until I see the number of tankers coming into the Gulf start to drop off, I am not buying into the "we don't need their oil any more" narrative.

We don't need their oil, but we - or at least many in the US - do need cheap oil. Any substantial supply disruption around the global will raise oil prices here at home with attendant disruptions.

 

not really sure what the fuck cmilliken is talking about with the US defending "our trade routes", that sounds like stupid trumpist maga fantasy. Chinas naval and territorial claims & its exercises to establish those claims preclude the US being able to successfully defend trade routes to Korea and Japan - they can almost certainly claim the first island chain now. This is especially so if the US cedes bases in Japan and Korea, like Trump wants to do.

The US is giving this all away, for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Until I see the number of tankers coming into the Gulf start to drop off, I am not buying into the "we don't need their oil any more" narrative.

The US has been flirting with being a NET energy exporter but that includes selling refined petro products and NG. Last time I saw stats, we weren't quite up to break even yet.

A very good trend, I hope it continues and I also hope the energy bidness in the US has the good sense to continue developing non-fossil-fuel resources. The country (or consortium) that goes fusion will rule the world.

- DSK

I think that one country that is underestimating the withdraw is actually Israel.

What's going on is what I would call a 'victory lap'.  Hey Israel - want to move that capital?!  Sure.  We'll recognize it.  Want to keep your settlements?  Yea, why not.  Anything else?  We're behind you all the way!!  Oh shit, look at the time.. if you need anything, here's a P.O. Box you can use.   If you get any mail from the Kurds, just forward it.  We'll get around to it eventually.  Best wishes!  Donald.

We don't' care what they're doing because WE"RE NOT GOING TO BE ENFORCING IT ANYMORE.. THEY ARE.  Good luck with that!

But in truth, they do know - that's why Israel and the house of Saud has cut their deals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

I think that one country that is misunderstanding the withdraw is actually Israel.

What's going on is what I would call a 'victory lap'.  Hey Israel - want to move that capital?!  Sure.  We'll recognize it.  Want to keep your settlements?  Yea, why not.  Anything else?  We're behind you all the way!!  Oh shit, look at the time.. if you need anything, here's a P.O. Box you can use.   Best wishes!  Donald.

We don't' care what they're doing because WE"RE NOT GOING TO BE ENFORCING IT ANYMORE.. THEY ARE.  Good luck with that!

But in truth, they do know - that's why Israel and the house of Saud has cut their deals.

Yeah, the Donald's just going to abandon Israel.

JFC its isolationist fantasyland.

We haven't abandoned Israel. We've abandoned a commitment to working towards a solution. We are increasing the risk to us, not decreasing it.

Anyways - there is no Trump doctrine, there is no guiding foreign policy other than grift. It's just a bunch of grifting hogs using US power to line their own pockets in the very short term and nobody gives a fuck because they believe what the want to believe. Sondland wasn't the exception, he was the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Yeah, the Donald's just going to abandon Israel.

JFC its isolationist fantasyland.

Donald Trump is going to show loyalty .. to Israel.  The Nazi white supremacist Trump... Loyal to ISRAEL.

Serious?

DONALD TRUMP LOYAL.   Those three words.. in ONE sentence?

One of us is definitely nuts :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

Donald Trump is going to show loyalty .. to Israel.  The Nazi white supremacist Trump... Loyal to ISRAEL.

Serious?

DONALD TRUMP LOYAL.   Those three words.. in ONE sentence?

One of us is definitely nuts :)

 Yes, the Donald Trump who is the chosen party of the fervent lovers of Israel evangelical christians won't abandon Israel. Yes, the Donald Trump whom Sheldon Adelson has on speed dial will not abandon Israel. Neither will the US Congress.

Thinking corrosive destruction of institutions at home and abroad will result in anything more than a short term benefit followed by medium term chaos is insane, yes. But then I think libertarian contempt for every institution but the corporation is insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only the democRATS hadn’t nominated the only 2020 democRAT who could lose to the Pride of the GOP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the same Jeff who was saying that Democrats/Nancy should impeach his boy Shitstain? Note that he never said that his boy Shitstain should be removed from office sans proviso. He just said that Democrats should do this thing.

I never thought that Republicans would support impeachment/conviction, and I also knew that the big C and Federalist 65 made it clear that this was POLITICAL trial. So I never expected and still don't expect Republicans to abandon their boy Shitstain regardless of facts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, I call you a liar for constantly lying.

- DSK

It may be worse. Dog may well and truly believe his adopted positions are correct. Even though his Party has taken a 180 on many of its it traditional positions, well, it’s still his Party. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda think Dog is a nihilist. Stemming from his meaninglessness, he is indifferent whether his adopted positions are correct.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so.

I think he really IS that stupid.

Don't forget, Trumps election and continuing support says enough of the electorate is that stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Or just maybe he is a garden variety troll :rolleyes:

 

1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

I kinda think Dog is a nihilist. Stemming from his meaninglessness, he is indifferent whether his adopted positions are correct.

 

1 hour ago, Sean said:

It may be worse. Dog may well and truly believe his adopted positions are correct. Even though his Party has taken a 180 on many of its it traditional positions, well, it’s still his Party. 

Republican is much easier and encompasses all of them. It's a shitposition of states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

I kinda think Dog is a nihilist. Stemming from his meaninglessness, he is indifferent whether his adopted positions are correct.

Sounds exhausting. Zey believe in nussing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2019 at 2:09 PM, phillysailor said:

Mark S made the point that calling Trump on his misbehavior and Republicans on their intransigence and failure to protect our country from corruption is the reason they had to consider articles. Brooks agreed, and said that was a valid and important reason to continue with the process despite the fact that it was unpopular.

What do you call taking unpopular but principled stances in order to protect your country from harm? I seem to remember a word for it that used to have meaning.

Patriotism is not fealty to a king nor loyalty to a party. Leadership is not taking the path of least resistance, quitting when forces are arrayed against you, or allowing the good men and women of government have careers ruined to suit the personal needs and whims of a tyrant.

The GOP needs to rediscover their fundamental principles. Dog is their poster child, and he’s become a punchline.

 

THIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2019 at 9:54 AM, Dog said:

Please.... the case is non-existent. The Democrats presented hearsay witnesses who would not even qualify to testify in a fair process and who then testified to things presumed. The only direct witness testified that Trump told him he wanted nothing from the Ukrainians and nothing is exactly what he got. The aid was delayed, not withheld, and nothing of value was provided in exchange. The Ukrainians didn't even know there was a quid pro quo, sorry bribe, sorry extortion or any focus group tested for political effect charge. The case most definitely has not been effectively made let alone proven. The Democrat's case has been reduced to trying to prove a thought crime.

As part of an investigation, hearsay is expected to be acted upon, not ignored.  Cops rely on hearsay all the time.  Hearsay is used as a path to more reliable sources of information, often to witnesses that have first hand knowledge.  In this particular case, the accused has instructed those with first hand knowledge to ignore congressional subpoenas.  You criticize democrats relying only on hearsay, but do not mention that Trump has blocked their access to witnesses with first hand knowledge.  Do you not think that is relevant, or just not worthy of mention or some other reason?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes yes, conflate rules of court (while distorting them) with the impeachment process. Good play, bullshitters! That’ll fool em...if you repeat it enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once is probably lots for most of the morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, benwynn said:
On 11/29/2019 at 12:54 PM, Dog said:

Please.... the case is non-existent. The Democrats presented hearsay witnesses who would not even qualify to testify in a fair process and who then testified to things presumed. The only direct witness testified that Trump told him he wanted nothing from the Ukrainians and nothing is exactly what he got. The aid was delayed, not withheld, and nothing of value was provided in exchange. The Ukrainians didn't even know there was a quid pro quo, sorry bribe, sorry extortion or any focus group tested for political effect charge. The case most definitely has not been effectively made let alone proven. The Democrat's case has been reduced to trying to prove a thought crime.

As part of an investigation, hearsay is expected to be acted upon, not ignored.  Cops rely on hearsay all the time.  Hearsay is used as a path to more reliable sources of information, often to witnesses that have first hand knowledge.  In this particular case, the accused has instructed those with first hand knowledge to ignore congressional subpoenas.  You criticize democrats relying only on hearsay, but do not mention that Trump has blocked their access to witnesses with first hand knowledge.  Do you not think that is relevant, or just not worthy of mention or some other reason?

 The other point is that the bolded part above is flat-out fuckin' lie.

At least 2 of the witnesses HEARD Trump talking about withholding aid in exchange for either the "crowdstrike thing" (Democratic Party email server) or the announcement of a Biden investigation. The others testified to circumstances immediately relevant of which they had first hand knowledge.

Was some hearsay presented in testimony? Undoubtedly yes. Was it ALL hearsay? Well considering that one of the witnesses was a fuckin' ambassador who talked directly to Trump a dozen or so times and scrupulously kept him and Pompeo and Pence all "in the loop" with his emails.... take a fuckin' guess.

And Dog is apparently irked that I call him a liar.

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why.

He seems proud to be a complete liar - just like his messiah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

And Dog is apparently irked that I call him a liar.

Dog doesn't give a fuck. But he finds his protestations to be useful tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 The other point is that the bolded part above is flat-out fuckin' lie.

At least 2 of the witnesses HEARD Trump talking about withholding aid in exchange for either the "crowdstrike thing" (Democratic Party email server) or the announcement of a Biden investigation. The others testified to circumstances immediately relevant of which they had first hand knowledge.

Was some hearsay presented in testimony? Undoubtedly yes. Was it ALL hearsay? Well considering that one of the witnesses was a fuckin' ambassador who talked directly to Trump a dozen or so times and scrupulously kept him and Pompeo and Pence all "in the loop" with his emails.... take a fuckin' guess.

And Dog is apparently irked that I call him a liar.

- DSK

Dog's not irked, just in awe of your perspicacity.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2019 at 4:27 AM, Lark said:

I noticed many Canadians speak French.  

Not according to actual French people....  :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Is this the same Jeff who was saying that Democrats/Nancy should impeach his boy Shitstain? Note that he never said that his boy Shitstain should be removed from office sans proviso. He just said that Democrats should do this thing.

I never thought that Republicans would support impeachment/conviction, and I also knew that the big C and Federalist 65 made it clear that this was POLITICAL trial. So I never expected and still don't expect Republicans to abandon their boy Shitstain regardless of facts.

YOU LIE!  Yes, this same Jeff DID say he should be removed from office.  Numerous times.  And he still feels that way.  

Its just that the Dems fucked away their one and only chance to do so by putting all their eggs in the Ukraine phone call basket.  The intent of the public POLITICAL trial was to win over the public - particularly the independant and swing state voters who could then pressure their GOP senators into abandoning shitstain.  At the end of the day, the senate critters only really care about themselves - and had there been a groundswell of support for impeachment - the chances of them convicting shitstain in order to save their own skins goes up dramatically.  

Mueller handed Nancy an impeachment excuse on a silver fucking platter and she ignored it.  Having a foreign power/adversary meddle in our elections and coordinating with one of the candidates has far more outrage factor than a fucking phone call to one of our allies.  Sorry, but your girl blew it (So to speak). 

You keep talking about the diehard GOP is not going to abandon him - yeah duh.  But you keep deliberately ignoring the fact that independants and swing state voters (who likely do not watch FOX news) are also giving a big collective shrug about this.  This POLITICAL trial was aimed at them, and it went over like a fart in church.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Dog's not irked, just in awe of your perspicacity.    

What are you saying? The Mutt doesn't know what that word even means.

It's five syllables FFS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

What are you saying? The Mutt doesn't know what that word even means.

It's five syllables FFS.

Judging by the links he normally uses to back up his position, I'm going to agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

YOU LIE!  Yes, this same Jeff DID say he should be removed from office.  Numerous times.  And he still feels that way.  

Its just that the Dems fucked away their one and only chance to do so by putting all their eggs in the Ukraine phone call basket.  The intent of the public POLITICAL trial was to win over the public - particularly the independant and swing state voters who could then pressure their GOP senators into abandoning shitstain.  At the end of the day, the senate critters only really care about themselves - and had there been a groundswell of support for impeachment - the chances of them convicting shitstain in order to save their own skins goes up dramatically.  

Mueller handed Nancy an impeachment excuse on a silver fucking platter and she ignored it.  Having a foreign power/adversary meddle in our elections and coordinating with one of the candidates has far more outrage factor than a fucking phone call to one of our allies.  Sorry, but your girl blew it (So to speak). 

You keep talking about the diehard GOP is not going to abandon him - yeah duh.  But you keep deliberately ignoring the fact that independants and swing state voters (who likely do not watch FOX news) are also giving a big collective shrug about this.  This POLITICAL trial was aimed at them, and it went over like a fart in church.  

You keep assuming that the independents and swing voters are less opinionated and more aware than the rusted on voters.

Newsflash. They are just as arrogant and cocksure and as fixed in their positions as everybody else.

If breaking the law isn't enough to convince people, what is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

And Dog is apparently irked that I call him a liar.

- DSK

Jiblet is right in that I don't give a fuck what you think. You're not even embarrassed when you opt for convenient falsity over inconvenient truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

YOU LIE!  Yes, this same Jeff DID say he should be removed from office.  Numerous times.  And he still feels that way.  

Its just that the Dems fucked away their one and only chance to do so by putting all their eggs in the Ukraine phone call basket.  The intent of the public POLITICAL trial was to win over the public - particularly the independant and swing state voters who could then pressure their GOP senators into abandoning shitstain.  At the end of the day, the senate critters only really care about themselves - and had there been a groundswell of support for impeachment - the chances of them convicting shitstain in order to save their own skins goes up dramatically.  

Mueller handed Nancy an impeachment excuse on a silver fucking platter and she ignored it.  Having a foreign power/adversary meddle in our elections and coordinating with one of the candidates has far more outrage factor than a fucking phone call to one of our allies.  Sorry, but your girl blew it (So to speak). 

You keep talking about the diehard GOP is not going to abandon him - yeah duh.  But you keep deliberately ignoring the fact that independants and swing state voters (who likely do not watch FOX news) are also giving a big collective shrug about this.  This POLITICAL trial was aimed at them, and it went over like a fart in church.  

It remains to be seen what the Articles of Impeachment will look like. It makes some sense to focus on the one case of bribery in the preliminaries; after all, it's right there in the Constitution. I suspect that there might be another catch all Article(s), perhaps "Abuse of Power", where a myriad of offenses could be listed. 

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitution-says-bribery-impeachable-what-does-mean

Excerpt -

"In fact, the Founders had a broader conception of bribery than what’s in the criminal code. Their understanding was derived from English law, under which bribery was understood as an officeholder’s abuse of the power of an office to obtain a private benefit rather than for the public interest. This definition not only encompasses Trump’s conduct—it practically defines it."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But you keep deliberately ignoring the fact that independants and swing state voters (who likely do not watch FOX news) are also giving a big collective shrug about this.  This POLITICAL trial was aimed at them, and it went over like a fart in church.  

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/472044-independent-support-for-impeachment-inquiry-rises-following-public-hearings

now maybe over there in the Middle East, in between giving handjobs to dictators, you've got enough time to figure out what's really going on in the US. But I doubt that. I think you are just a dumboldfart that listens to other dumboldfarts in a cesspool of confirmation bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 The other point is that the bolded part above is flat-out fuckin' lie.

At least 2 of the witnesses HEARD Trump talking about withholding aid in exchange for either the "crowdstrike thing" (Democratic Party email server) or the announcement of a Biden investigation. The others testified to circumstances immediately relevant of which they had first hand knowledge.

Was some hearsay presented in testimony? Undoubtedly yes. Was it ALL hearsay? Well considering that one of the witnesses was a fuckin' ambassador who talked directly to Trump a dozen or so times and scrupulously kept him and Pompeo and Pence all "in the loop" with his emails.... take a fuckin' guess.