Impeaching Donald Trump

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

 

[Alan Klein]

I have not written that Mueller found Trump to be guilty, I meant that the report was a lot more nuanced, and therefore closer to initial reports than Republicans would have you believe.

But anyway, this isn’t relevant at this point.

Cheers,
Bernard

Yes it's relevant because it shows that Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump for three years.  That the witch hunt started long before Ukraine.   They're using Ukraine because they have nothing else and they're running out of time to impeach. So they're grabbing for straws.  It's all political.   

[LesPalenik]

Yes it's relevant because it shows that Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump for three years.  That the witch hunt started long before Ukraine.   They're using Ukraine because they have nothing else and they're running out of time to impeach. So they're grabbing for straws.  It's all political.

Quite correct. Some people would say - "use anything to get him out". And that's completely understandable.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Quite correct. Some people would say - "use anything to get him out". And that's completely understandable.

As is “use anything to have him stay.”

[Peter McLennan]

BTW, Trump's job approval is up to 50% in the latest polling.

An unsubstantiated assertion.  Like ill-described links here, in the interest of veracity they should be disallowed.

Unlike this one:
52% disapprove, 43% approve.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/



And, in this one, 47% of Americans support removing him from office
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/


.

[RSL]

As Wellington said, Peter, "If you believe that, you will believe anything." At the moment, polls are just as unreliable as they were before the 2016 election. They'll continue that way as long as our "media" are putting out fake news.

[BernardLanguillier]

No, Bernard, when that happens most reasonable people question the impartiality of the media. In this case the situation is so blatant you can't miss the partiality.

Right... that makes a lot of sense...

99% of the press thinks the leader of North Korea is a dictator.

That can only mean he is a great guy and that the press is crazy...

If you believe that you will believe anything!

What is blatantly clear is that you lack objectivity about Trump to such an extend that you would forgive anything he could do. And I mean anything. I am now certain of that. You would find a way to convince yourself that it isn’t true, that it’s the way it’s being reported,... Do you realize that your behaviour is that of a well trained puppet blindly following a great leader? You are only missing a little red book.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes it's relevant because it shows that Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump for three years.  That the witch hunt started long before Ukraine.   They're using Ukraine because they have nothing else and they're running out of time to impeach. So they're grabbing for straws.  It's all political.

I would be 100% in agreement if Ukraine were not real.

But it is real and we know this with 100% certainty. And those 100% would be 200% if the Republicans hadn’t illegally refused - and keep refusing - to have more key witnesses testify.

And it isn’t a mistake from Trump, it was a well planned attempt to destroy his main political rival. Just to stay in power at any cost.

And I am at a loss why apparently educated Republicans think this is fine. Because that’s a blatant threat to the core of democracy.

Which means that you guys are supportive of a dictatorship in the making.

I hope each and every of you is fully aware of your individual responsibility in the process. Because make no mistake, most dicators in history got in power on the ruins of a democracy, by securing support from people like you.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Bernard must work on his Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Bernard, Chill!

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard must work on his Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Bernard, Chill!

There is no anger in me, only a deep disappointment in watching a disaster unfold.

And once again no substantial answer from you Slobodan.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... watching a disaster unfold.

In a surprising twist, I fully agree with you and Karla Marx:

[RSL]

A disaster is unfolding all right, Bernard, but it's a disaster for the Democrats. Their presidential candidates are a bunch of clowns, and Nancy's impeachment Kabuki pretty much guarantees that Trump will be reelected and the House will go to the Republicans. Just keep watching. And watch your blood pressure. Election night could be the end.

[BernardLanguillier]

A disaster is unfolding all right, Bernard, but it's a disaster for the Democrats. Their presidential candidates are a bunch of clowns, and Nancy's impeachment Kabuki pretty much guarantees that Trump will be reelected and the House will go to the Republicans. Just keep watching. And watch your blood pressure. Election night could be the end.

And you support a team that despises the constitution of the country for which you risked your life.

Go figure...

If my blood pressure is high today it is due to the succession of telemark turns on heavy snow.

Russ, let me ask you two last questions to help me understand.
#1. Do you believe Trump did what he is being accused of?
#2.1 if yes, why do you think it’s ok to violate the constitution?
#2.2 if no, why don’t you believe he did what he is being accused of?

Thank you.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

I would be 100% in agreement if Ukraine were not real.

But it is real and we know this with 100% certainty. And those 100% would be 200% if the Republicans hadn’t illegally refused - and keep refusing - to have more key witnesses testify.

And it isn’t a mistake from Trump, it was a well planned attempt to destroy his main political rival. Just to stay in power at any cost.

And I am at a loss why apparently educated Republicans think this is fine. Because that’s a blatant threat to the core of democracy.

Which means that you guys are supportive of a dictatorship in the making.

I hope each and every of you is fully aware of your individual responsibility in the process. Because make no mistake, most dicators in history got in power on the ruins of a democracy, by securing support from people like you.

Cheers,
Bernard

We'll just have to disagree on this.   Of course I get to vote in 2020.

[RSL]

And you support a team that despises the constitution of the country for which you risked your life.

Go figure...

If my blood pressure is high today it is due to the succession of telemark turns on heavy snow.

Russ, let me ask you two last questions to help me understand.
#1. Do you believe Trump did what he is being accused of?
#2.1 if yes, why do you think it’s ok to violate the constitution?
#2.2 if no, why don’t you believe he did what he is being accused of?

Thank you.

Cheers,
Bernard

Hi Bernard,

To answer your question, which was broken into three parts, but which actually is one question: I haven’t the foggiest idea whether or not Trump did what he’s accused of doing. Testimony was all “I think that’s what happened,” and “I’m pretty sure he did that.” No actual facts were brought out; no real evidence. It was all “I hate Trump, so he MUST have done something bad.” Then, to boot, the Republicans weren’t allowed to put on their own witnesses to rebut the Democrat assumptions and feelings. These “hearings” certainly violated the Constitution.

But the question you didn’t ask, and which I’ll answer is this: Were any of the unproven and shaky accusations brought out in these “hearings” grounds for impeachment? Only the Senate can answer that question. But Nancy seems to be having second thoughts. Trump hasn’t been impeached until the House passes the stuff to the Senate. I’m wondering whether or not that’ll ever happen. Probably will, but it’s gonna be another catastrophe for the Dems.

Maybe best to stay off those skis until this is over and your blood pressure settles down.

[Peter McLennan]

Hi Bernard,
No actual facts were brought out; no real evidence. It was all “I hate Trump, so he MUST have done something bad.”

An interesting assertion, except for the unfortunate fact that the most damning factual evidence came under oath from someone who'd previously given Trump a million dollars.

[RSL]

An interesting assertion, except for the unfortunate fact that the most damning factual evidence came under oath from someone who'd previously given Trump a million dollars.

Depends on what you read, Peter. Fake news (and TV) will tell you that there was factual evidence and that it was damning. Real news will tell you the "evidence" was bullshit.

[faberryman]

Depends on what you read, Peter. Fake news (and TV) will tell you that there was factual evidence and that it was damning. Real news will tell you the "evidence" was bullshit.

What is the source of your "real" news? How did you determine that it was "real"?

[RSL]

What's the "source" of your fake news, Fab?

[faberryman]

What's the "source" of your fake news, Fab?

Apparently everything except whatever was real for you.