Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 2019-2020 Impeachment, Trial and Acquittal of Donald John Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The FISA Court is looking for Real answers:
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fis...r-page-warrant

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
      Politicians conducting a 'fair' trial ? is that even possible.
      Ain't no such thing but Pelosi wants you to believe it

      So what is she playing at

      The repubs will support their guy. Witnesses or not. Longer trial or not.

      She is hoping the people will see the repubs in doing so as dishonest.

      That is already the implication she is making by saying 'fair trial'

      hehe, these pols...
      Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Dec 19,, 03:20.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by astralis View Post
        ambidex,
        you're getting pretty close to straight trolling here.
        How close? Closer than the sundry list of accusation not relevant to the impeachment or the Russian collusion becoming the focal point since the concurrent case is not good enough to convince the conscience of ordinary Americans?

        Since you are flipping the rule book how about patronizing tone, Ad hominem, using expletives and Cap Locks?

        Are the rules will be now enforced by nitpicking my statements and ignoring context which I only invoked when a member called for considering the history of Trump? Why one prejudice (No conviction) can not negate the other prejudice (a Historic fact)?

        Isn't this a fact that Democrats are the party that owned slaves and reactivated Ku Klax Klan? Why the criminal history of Democrats is not relevant here when people who are using the same apriorism to Judge Trump? Let me guess Americans, in general, are not aware of these facts?
        Last edited by ambidex; 21 Dec 19,, 03:21.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
          Ain't no such thing but Pelosi wants you to believe it

          So what is she playing at

          The repubs will support their guy. Witnesses or not. Longer trial or not.

          She is hoping the people will see the repubs in doing so as dishonest.

          That is already the implication she is making by saying 'fair trial'

          hehe, these pols...
          She is betting on demoralizing the Republican support base by delaying it. Or there is a more sinister plan which will come out in due course of the time.

          On a side note: Since few of the members are trying to put you on defensive using their neutrality but behave in a predictable pattern. One has to stop treating Trump as an entity because this makes him an easy target. Since the whole GOP is standing behind him, the attack should be made on the whole lot now.
          Anyone not supporting Trump means he is supporting Democrats or has disenfranchised his right to vote in next elections. This distinction of neutrality has stopped working now.

          Comment


          • Isn't this a fact that Democrats are the party that owned slaves and reactivated Ku Klax Klan? Why the criminal history of Democrats is not relevant here when people who are using the same apriorism to Judge Trump? Let me guess Americans, in general, are not aware of these facts?
            i have no problem with you arguing about the rights and wrongs of impeachment. however, i tire of this type of trolling. this is your last warning.
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • DE,

              I don't know what to make of this because Trump in his letter said the impeachment process has been cheapened. This is exactly why there have been two impeachments inside two decades whereas it almost never happened earlier or so far back as to still make the point.
              "cheapened" in what sense? impeachment is -inherently- a political process versus a legal one, but the two recent cases are completely different. Newt Gingrich pursued impeachment because he thought it would be politically popular and thus beneficial to his members (a bad, bad miscalculation). Nancy Pelosi was essentially forced into it because she is well aware from the earlier case that impeachment would prove divisive and politically dangerous for her members.

              let's put it this way: if Pelosi had started impeachment because of, say, Stormy Daniels, then I'd agree that the process was cheapened. that's not the case.

              Why does a President have to leash any one ? what is your equivalent of a whip. i expect whips of both parties makes their members vote for the company
              Trump is unique in that he took over the GOP. his brand of populist conservatism is significantly different from Reaganite conservatism, and includes things like personal fealty. IE you can agree with Trump on all the policy matters-- that is not sufficient, as Jeff Sessions found out.

              party whips are much weakened from the past, because members these days can fund-raise from other sources than the party coffers. but this is an "operational" issue.

              the "strategic" issue is that there used to be countervailing points of power aside from the President (true with both parties). that was designed to constrain the superior powers of the Executive. these constraints have been weakening badly over time.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ambidex View Post
                Isn't this a fact that Democrats are the party that owned slaves and reactivated Ku Klax Klan? Why the criminal history of Democrats is not relevant here when people who are using the same apriorism to Judge Trump? Let me guess Americans, in general, are not aware of these facts?
                What an idiotic statement. I'm surprised you didn't go further back and claim that since Benedict Arnold was a traitor then ergo all current Democrats are also traitors. Why let 220 years spoil the connection.

                Actually, come to think of it, Benedict Arnold was more like Trump, in that he had a self inflated sense of his worth also. Maybe they are related as both have zero integrity.

                Comment


                • Still looking for the GOPer — in or out of politics — who will defend what The Trumpet is accused of doing to our democracy. There is, at this point, no real discussion as to whether he tried to undermine our most sacred institutions. Just, “it isn’t impeachable” garbage.

                  Go ahead.
                  Say what he did was RIGHT.
                  I dare you.
                  Trust me?
                  I'm an economist!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                    What an idiotic statement. I'm surprised you didn't go further back and claim that since Benedict Arnold was a traitor then ergo all current Democrats are also traitors. Why let 220 years spoil the connection.

                    Actually, come to think of it, Benedict Arnold was more like Trump, in that he had a self-inflated sense of his worth also. Maybe they are related as both have zero integrity.
                    The one is who started using historicity to make a case against Trump's current Impeachment and that too not convicted by any US court. Taste of own medicine seems bitter eh?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      DE,



                      "cheapened" in what sense? impeachment is -inherently- a political process versus a legal one, but the two recent cases are completely different. Newt Gingrich pursued impeachment because he thought it would be politically popular and thus beneficial to his members (a bad, bad miscalculation). Nancy Pelosi was essentially forced into it because she is well aware from the earlier case that impeachment would prove divisive and politically dangerous for her members.

                      let's put it this way: if Pelosi had started impeachment because of, say, Stormy Daniels, then I'd agree that the process was cheapened. that's not the case.
                      Without getting into specifics, i mean the word gets thrown about liberally since Clinton. Can't unseat the President at the polls, impeach him !

                      The slightest slip up gets blown into potential impeachment. Bush & Obama escaped it.

                      We don't have such a term in a parliamentary system because the PM's tenure isn't a given like in a presidential system . PM stays so long as the party deems fit. Can be replaced at any time. This is an inbuilt safety valve.

                      In a presidential system the President gets the full term. The system is designed this way. Stability. A polarising president like Trump tests the system to the max.

                      It was not a problem earlier, people would say stability is a distinguishing feature. Since the last couple of decades there is less patience.

                      The only doubt i have with Trump is whether he can get a second term and this is because he is an outsider. Not from the system.

                      Since Reagan, Presidents have had two terms. HW is an exception. Three terms of the same party, some thing has to give.

                      Trump is unique in that he took over the GOP. his brand of populist conservatism is significantly different from Reaganite conservatism, and includes things like personal fealty. IE you can agree with Trump on all the policy matters-- that is not sufficient, as Jeff Sessions found out.

                      party whips are much weakened from the past, because members these days can fund-raise from other sources than the party coffers. but this is an "operational" issue.

                      the "strategic" issue is that there used to be countervailing points of power aside from the President (true with both parties). that was designed to constrain the superior powers of the Executive. these constraints have been weakening badly over time.
                      Difference in opinion is fine on non-critical matters. When they are critical unity is necessary. Trump wants to do things in a manner that is different to previous establishment types. He is hated for this very reason because he is like a loose cannon. Within limits but still threatening to the establishment power structure. He won't always follow orders.

                      This delights the people. I understand the appeal. He's an outsider. He's one of us. How rich he is does not matter. He is not from the establishment. If Trump were to say ' Change is coming to America' it is instantly more credible than if any of his predecessors said it.

                      As for whip being weakened, i'm coming from a system that sees reps defect. This introduces an extra unknown variable. We've had to enact anti-defection laws to control it but it isn't perfect. I've never heard of defection with American reps. Is that even possible ?

                      As for you last sentence, i've heard similar at different points in time. One branch of govt overstepping its remit. Thing is its more prominent some times and less at other times as opposed to some systemic trend. If a leader is weak then judicial over reach happens. If the leader is strong they say he is acting like a dictator. You seem to be saying this but in a different way.

                      Your courts seem to be working just fine. Whenever he wanted to do things that were questionable the courts have stepped in. The system has inbuilt protections that are working. Congress is there to tie his hands if he goes too far. System can handle Trump for the time he remains in office. System is healthy. System is working.
                      Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Dec 19,, 13:15.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ambidex View Post
                        How close? Closer than the sundry list of accusation not relevant to the impeachment or the Russian collusion becoming the focal point since the concurrent case is not good enough to convince the conscience of ordinary Americans?
                        As far as I understand it only the facts relating Trumpkins withholding aid (which he is not legally to do I believe) and asking for a personal favour - to announce an investigation into his political opponent - and his subsequent attempts to hide this 'quid pro quo' that he had no right to do by withholding all documents and witnesses from Congress - are what matter.


                        Originally posted by ambidex View Post
                        Isn't this a fact that Democrats are the party that owned slaves and reactivated Ku Klax Klan? Why the criminal history of Democrats is not relevant here when people who are using the same apriorism to Judge Trump? Let me guess Americans, in general, are not aware of these facts?
                        This is an example of what is NOT relevant. Get it?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          I've never heard of defection with American reps. Is that even possible ?
                          Yes it's very possible, and it's happened twice very recently:

                          Justin Amash changed from Republican to Independent in July
                          Jeff Van Drew changed from Democrat to Republican 2 days ago

                          The rest can be found here

                          For a list of Senators who have changed parties, see here
                          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                          Comment


                          • [QUOTE=snapper;1059393]As far as I understand it only the facts relating Trumpkins withholding aid (which he is not legally to do I believe) and asking for a personal favour - to announce an investigation into his political opponent - and his subsequent attempts to hide this 'quid pro quo' that he had no right to do by withholding all documents and witnesses from Congress - are what matter.




                            Obama= blankets?
                            Trump= Javelin Missiles!
                            Who does Ukraine love? Let us ponder?

                            Comment


                            • Here we go, this exactly what i'm talking about

                              Van Drew was the Democratic nominee in New Jersey's 2nd congressional district in the 2018 election. He was elected with 53% of the vote against Republican nominee Seth Grossman, who received 45% of the vote.

                              On December 19, 2019, Van Drew announced that he had joined the Republican Party.
                              He wins as a democrat and jumps ship only a year later that too at a critical time

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_..._United_States

                              Democrat congressman Jefferson H. Van Drew left the Democratic Party arguing that it was swinging too far toward a radical progressive political agenda that, in his view, did not reflect the will of most people of the United States, and that Trump and what Republican Party had accomplished during the Trump presidency better reflected their will.
                              What he says about the Democrat party with some of its more outspoken reps is exactly what happened to the Labour Party in the UK.

                              Should that continue people are predicting a similar outcome at the next US election

                              In commenting on his party switching and reflecting on the shifting political direction of the Democratic Party, Van Drew quoted former President Ronald Reagan as having once said "I didn't leave my party, my party left me."

                              Van Drew, who voted against the Democratic Party line in voting against impeaching Trump, claims that part of his decision to walk away from the Democrats was the alleged behaviour of at least one unnamed Democratic Party powerbroker who - in the days leading up to the House impeachment vote - had allegedly issued political threats towards him, threats that were alleged to be acted upon if he voted against impeachment, with following words to the effect "You will not get the line. You will not get the county. I will do everything to prevent that from happening and everything to destroy you."

                              These words were disputed as "hyperbole" by a person, Mike Suleiman, interviewed by NBC10 who was thought by NBC10 to be the unnamed figure who allegedly issued the alleged political threats to Van Drew.
                              That sounds like a pretty determined whip

                              This kind of threat will not work in India. If a party falls short of the half way mark they try to poach people from the other side to form govt. So an anti-defection law was put in place. It isn't perfect so vulnerable parties corral their reps, head off to a resort and hold them incommunicado until some arrangement can be sorted out : )
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Dec 19,, 19:47.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                                Obama= blankets?
                                Trump= Javelin Missiles!
                                Who does Ukraine love? Let us ponder?
                                Well first that is 'whataboutism' and irrelevant to the impeachment. Did Trumpkin hold up the support Congressed passed for Ukraine? Yes. Did he ask for a personal political favour in order to release it? Yes. Did he withhold documents and witnesses and claim 'absolute immunity'? Yes. Done; guilty.

                                Second the reason why he supplied Javelins was because his own Party forced him to.

                                Third I am Polish - just happen to have a Ukrainian passport because my family home is now in Ukraine instead of Poland so I am not Ukraine nor Ukrainian - though they are our slavic cousins. Also most Ukrainians that I know think your Orange orangutan is a joke.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X